|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 13 2014 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2014 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2014 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2014 08:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Jack Blankenship was pinned facedown in the dirt, his neck, shoulder and back throbbing with pain.
He was alone on an errand, in a dark tunnel a mile underground at the Aracoma Alma coal mine in Logan County, W.Va., when a 300-pound slab of rock peeled away from the roof and slammed him to the ground. As his legs grew numb, he managed to free an arm and reach his radio. For two hours, he pressed the panic button that was supposed to bring help quickly.
"I couldn't hardly breathe," Blankenship remembered four years later. "I'd black out and come to. I was waiting to die. I'd already had my little talk with God."
Aracoma Alma and then-owner Massey Energy had a history of serious safety problems, including falling rock. In the two years before Blankenship's accident, the mine was cited by federal regulators more than 120 times for rock fall violations, according to records from federal regulators. That included inadequate roof support and deficient safety checks for loose rock.
Citations and the fines that go with them are key components of the federal law designed to protect miners. They are supposed to make violations expensive — costing hundreds of thousands of dollars for the most serious offenses — and create an incentive for mine owners to keep workers safe.
Yet on that December day in 2010, as Blankenship lay pinned and in pain, Aracoma Alma owed $200,000 in overdue mine safety fines, federal records show. The penalty system that is designed to discourage unsafe practices failed Blankenship, and his story is not unique.
A joint investigation by NPR and Mine Safety and Health News found that thousands of mine operators fail to pay safety penalties, even as they continue to manage dangerous — and sometimes deadly — mining operations. Most unpaid penalties are between two and 10 years overdue; some go back two decades. And federal regulators seem unable or unwilling to make mine owners pay. Source Mining has been getting safer for decades ( source). I have to give the Mine Safety and Health Administration the benefit of the doubt here, since what they do seems to be working. Despite staunch opposition from the usual suspects, and with the help of federal regulations. Imagine that? Sure kid. Did you learn that from Scooby Doo? Yes, yes I did.
and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids 
|
The Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages to go forward in Kansas, lifting a stay of an order that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage.
BuzzFeed first reported Wednesday evening on the order from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
A federal judge had declared Kansas's gay marriage ban unconstitutional last week, but Sotomayor temporarily halted same-sex marriages from proceeding Monday.
The new order Wednesday will now allow marriages to take place.
Source
|
On November 13 2014 08:02 farvacola wrote:
Just a friendly reminder: Congress had an 11% approval rating at the time of the recent elections, and 96.4% of the House was re-elected. :D
Yay us.
Everybody hates Congress and loves their local congressman.
Low primary turnout is a part of the problem, as is reflexive party voting (most liberals aren't voting for the Republican even if the Democrat is a crook, and visa versa), but a real part of it is that long-term congressmen get very ingrained and popular in their districts. They fight for your interests, show up on your airwaves, and read stories to your children.
On November 13 2014 03:11 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:Well no, because Germany isn't a national-socialist country any more. If someone says he's still a nationalist in this country I have a pretty hard time believing him that he isn't identifying with Nazi ideology at least to some degree. So in the same way if someone claims to be a socialist I have a pretty hard time believing that you can just say that isolated from what socialism has done in nearly every country it was implemented. You can play this game with every ideology. Every time something bad happens based on it you claim it isn't "true xy" and just shift the blame on something else. On November 13 2014 03:03 Doublemint wrote:
Yeah man. Look at that Jesus Christ guy. That sucker had it comin'.
Well some people have done some fucked up stuff in the name of Christianity, but overall the ideology probably has a better track record than some others. Christianity was and is a political vehicle. And - spoiler alert - Christianity is not necessarily the same than the teachings of Jesus Christ. Oh, how quickly did we forget when Jesus chased the gays, lesbians and pro choice people out of the temple for their sinful activity!
Uh, Christianity is defined as the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of Christian heresies and spinoffs, but Christianity is Jesus. If we found out tomorrow that Jesus had taught that vegetarianism was mandatory, that would be a part of "Christianity" without a single Christian person knowing or accepting it.
+ Show Spoiler +Probably off topic, so PMs best to discuss this, but: I've always thought the whole "political vehicle" thing was a little bizarre. Like, really, you're trying to come up with a good "political vehicle"/"opium of the masses" and you end up with this pacifist, revolutionary, anti-authority, pro-equality, anti-Roman Jewish rabbi? Like, really, were the other options for a cynical slave religion so bad?
|
On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote:
There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals. Get of your high horse and open your eyes!
'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it.
Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
|
President Barack Obama will take action on immigration reform as early as next week, Fox News reported on Wednesday. The decision, which Fox said may be announced as soon as Nov. 21, could prevent millions of deportations under a policy known as "deferred action."
Obama's plan would apply to both undocumented immigrants who came the U.S. as children and the undocumented parents of current U.S. citizens and residents.
The president had been set to take executive action months ago, but delayed the move until after the midterm elections. The day after the elections, Obama told reporters that he planned to make an announcement by the end of the year.
"What we can't do is just keep on waiting," he said. "There's a cost for waiting."
Democrats have urged the president in recent weeks to announce his plan soon. But House Speaker John Boehner has said that any hopes for immigration legislation would be crushed if Obama acted unilaterally.
Source
|
On November 13 2014 12:05 Yoav wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Probably off topic, so PMs best to discuss this, but: I've always thought the whole "political vehicle" thing was a little bizarre. Like, really, you're trying to come up with a good "political vehicle"/"opium of the masses" and you end up with this pacifist, revolutionary, anti-authority, pro-equality, anti-Roman Jewish rabbi? Like, really, were the other options for a cynical slave religion so bad?
It wasn't so much coopted into being a political vehicle until more than 300 years after Jesus. The fusion of neoplatonism, Judaism, and the secret knowledge cults of gnosticism made the budding religion attractive to slaves and peasants. But by the late Roman period entrenched institutions had robbed it of many of the qualities you mention.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2014 10:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 07:53 oneofthem wrote:
guy speaks like he's in school. not smart lol. I think you mean he's accessible. Maybe you are just an obscurantist elitist.
um, pretty much opposite of accessible because he just cites a lot of econ research concepts/journals by abbreviation. i like it though
|
On November 13 2014 12:17 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 08:29 Introvert wrote:
There are so many juicy bits from Gruber (not just this clip). But what is funny, yet sad, is "we wrote it to make sure it wasn't scored as a tax," then the administration argues to the court that it is a tax, and Roberts upholds it as a tax. lol. This also seems like yet another perfect example of leftists acting dishonestly "but hey, it's for the greater good!" They are far too willing to overstep or act without authority just because they like the results or need to "get things done." And this is why the Republicans should be wary when making deals. Get of your high horse and open your eyes! 'Doing shady for the greater good' is not a lefties trait, the right is just as guilty of it. Who started illegal wars, supplied weapons to terrorist and 'tortured some folks' again?
I'm not talking about sleazeball politicians, I'm talking about the average politically minded leftist. It shows up in thread often, as well. Just read the scorn anytime someone brings up "rule of law."
And watch what happens when Obama goes through with his amnesty by fiat. They'll be tripping over themselves to defend it, even after Obama basically admitted last year that he couldn't do it.
|
My guess : The executive amnesty is Obama's way of trying to leverage a continuing resolution out of Congress that lasts until October of next year.
That way it undercuts a whole year of the new House/Senate.
|
This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting.
The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said.
"How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal."
Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy.
Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy.
Source
How in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back?
Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?!
EDIT: Video that talks about what turned it into crime (Knowingly reselling crap [without telling their clients what they already knew])
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting. Show nested quote +The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said.
"How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal."
Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy.
Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy. SourceHow in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back? Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?!
From the quoted text somebody submitted an incorrect income statement. That person should thus be prosecuted according to you? Since in the text that was the only person committing fraud?
|
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
|
On November 14 2014 06:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting. The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said.
"How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal."
Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy.
Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy. SourceHow in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back? Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?! From the quoted text somebody submitted an incorrect income statement. That person should thus be prosecuted according to you? Since in the text that was the only person committing fraud?
No. My question is why pay the money if they did nothing wrong? Also, why is it tax deductible? Finally, why wouldn't they do it again?
|
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote:
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
Nothing, you just started to notice how legislative sausage gets made and elections are won. Americans were never particularly kind or noble with each other in the nitty-gritty of campaign politics.
|
On November 14 2014 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 06:29 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:This JP Morgan Settlement is just disgusting. The real sticking point, though, is that one year after the settlement, the Department of Justice has not brought forth any criminal charges linked to mortgage matters or otherwise, she said.
"How is it possible that you can have this much fraud and not a single person has done anything criminal."
Fleischmann is credited with providing evidence that helped result in JPMorgan's $13 billion settlement. In 2006, she joined the firm as a deal manager. A few months later, she felt uneasy when a new diligence manager came to JPM with "no email" policy.
Then, roughly half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool had overstated incomes, Fleischmann said. A manicurist, for example, claimed to make a six-figure salary, she recalled. She knew these kinds of loans would probably be at risk for default, putting the investors who bought these securities into jeopardy. SourceHow in the hell could you have to pay billions of dollars for what you did, yet you didn't break any laws while getting the billions you have to give back? Add to that $7 billion of it is tax deductible....?! From the quoted text somebody submitted an incorrect income statement. That person should thus be prosecuted according to you? Since in the text that was the only person committing fraud? No. My question is why pay the money if they did nothing wrong? Also, why is it tax deductible? Finally, why wouldn't they do it again?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that both parties will agree to a settlement either if they agree that the settlement is appropriate for the deed done, or if they agree that a trial will be difficult / uncertain and so the settlement is just seen a better outcome for everyone involved. Why the current justice department is more interested in fines than prosecutions is something you'd have to ask them. The top guys at Enron went to jail for fraud, as did the Madoff so why the bankers aren't is an open question. I'd speculate that criminal prosecutions would cast a pretty wide net (the loan officer, manicurist and real estate agent, along with bankers / executives) and the justice department wants to avoid that.
Not sure why it wouldn't be tax deductible. The tax is on income and fines reduce income. Deductible doesn't mean that the fines are meaningless either - a deduction is not a credit - so I'm not sure what the issue would be.
You wouldn't do it again because the fines make it prohibitive and the people on the other side (who have a lot of power) of the fraud will be on the look-out for it. Repeated actions also tend to be met with greater penalties.
Interestingly some real estate agents involved in similar fraud got off the hook by claiming that banks didn't care that incomes were being over-stated, and so the fraud was 'immaterial'. If the banks went to trial they could make the same argument, that the investors didn't really care either, and try to get off the hook that way.
|
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote:
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
Are you talking about the America where a Secretary of Treasury was murdered by a sitting Vice President? The country where a representative beat a senator to within an inch of his life on the floor of Congress? The country that had to amend the constitution to both make one group of people's votes a full vote from the 3/5ths it was initial assigned and then another amendment to give 50% of the citizens of the country the vote? A country that built concentration camps for groups of a certain minority and that only ended legal discrimination against a minority in the 1960s, and that required the deployment of federal troops against state resistance? That America?
|
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote:
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
That's why I enjoy state / local politics a lot more, although national angriness has been infecting lately 
|
On November 14 2014 07:11 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote:
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America? Are you talking about the America where a Secretary of Treasury was murdered by a sitting Vice President? The country where a representative beat a senator to within an inch of his life on the floor of Congress? The country that had to amend the constitution to both make one group of people's votes a full vote from the 3/5ths it was initial assigned and then another amendment to give 50% of the citizens of the country the vote? A country that built concentration camps for groups of a certain minority and that only ended legal discrimination against a minority in the 1960s, and that required the deployment of federal troops against state resistance? That America?
We should just settle disputes over nice relaxing games of Hearthstone. Not like anyone would flip a table over Warlock zoo BS (just did omg those fuckers).
|
On November 14 2014 06:29 ref4 wrote:
I hate how America is divided between two parties that act like 10-year-olds and instead of campaigning what positive changes they will bring they campaign on negatives (both real and unfound) the opposing party will bring. We can't even have mature discussion on issues without resorting to name-callings like leftards, republican'ts, racists (directed to conservatives by liberals) etc.
Seriously what the hell happened to America?
Two party system. It's really easy to just make the other guy look bad, don't need to look good yourself, just less bad than the other guy. Now imagine if you had these two kindergardener parties doing their shit, but you could actually elect someone else. Like in a reasonable system that has more than two parties and allows people to actually start a new party if the existing ones are shit. That means politicians would actually have to try to do something useful and look good and actively promote why you should vote for them as opposed to why you should prevent the other guy from winning.
|
On November 14 2014 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Video that talks about what turned it into crime (Knowingly reselling crap [without telling their clients what they already knew])
To that point, there's nothing wrong with selling 'crap' and you only need to disclose what you're required to disclose. These aren't consumer products. Selling a loan that is 'defective' is legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
