|
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. |
He' still speaking as I type. At least he is doing an actual Filibuster.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties.
"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said.
Paul, an outspoken libertarian, pointed to what he called the abuses of executive power and civil liberties under Obama's administration. In particular, he objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil.
"Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?" he asked, referring to then-presidential candidate Obama's criticism of Bush-era violations of civil liberties. "If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators," he added. "Are we going to give up our rights to politicians?"
Paul had asked the Justice Department about the constitutionality of drone strikes and whether they could be used agains U.S. citizens. Holder responded in a letter that conceded the military could authorize a drone strike on U.S. soil.
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.
Paul elaborated on his concern Wednesday: "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil,' it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’ Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that?"
Source
|
If he goes 48 hours on his own I'll vote for him in 2016.
hes only 50 years old we'll see how long he can last.
|
On March 07 2013 06:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote:
Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come. Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing StartsOn March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor. Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor. The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud. I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely? Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy. Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty. I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
That is a good argument. Obviously it is latter, especially since wealth buys political power in the United States. Remember corporations are people, and people can give unlimited money to political campaigns... we wouldn't want to step on anyone's freedom of speech right?
Those corporations fund Republicans, who in turn protect the wealthy, attempt to deregulate the market, protect polluting companies by getting rid of environment regulations, ect...
I hate to break it down in such a partisan fashion, but it is the truth. Republicans get a lot of their money from the ultra-wealthy, while Democrats get a lot more small donations from the middle class. Look it up... 57% of Obama's donor donated less than $200, while only 24% of Romney's donors did. 39% of Romney's donors donated the $2,500 (the maximum), while only 11% of Obama's did.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Even worse, take a look at the independent spending (SuperPacs) of the top 10 independent organizations, 9 were Pro-Romney, 1 was Pro-Obama. They total $392,908,919 for Romney versus $66,482,084 for Obama. In fact, the #1 Pro-Romney SuperPac (Restore Our Future) easily outspent all Pro-Obama SuperPacs combined. And corporations can donate as much as they want to SuperPacs...
As of July 2012, Restore Our Future had raised more than $60 million, a large portion of which came from Wall Street contributors.
As of August 2011, the largest individual contributor to Restore Our Future was John Paulson, a billionaire and hedge fund manager who is, according to Politico, "famous for [having enriched] himself by betting on the collapse of the housing industry."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals
As for the greater tax burden... if the minimum wage increased as much as CEO pay from 1980, the minimum wage would be over $24.00 an hour. So obviously the tax burden is increasing on them, because that is where the growth is, as aksfjh pointed out.
Does the problem make sense now? The Republican party does not represent libertarians and conservatives, it represents oligarchs.
And that is why they can't close one tax loophole for the rich in order to pay down the deficit, and why Warren Buffet still has a lower tax rate than his secretary.
|
On March 07 2013 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:He' still speaking as I type. At least he is doing an actual Filibuster. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties.
"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said.
Paul, an outspoken libertarian, pointed to what he called the abuses of executive power and civil liberties under Obama's administration. In particular, he objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil.
"Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?" he asked, referring to then-presidential candidate Obama's criticism of Bush-era violations of civil liberties. "If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators," he added. "Are we going to give up our rights to politicians?"
Paul had asked the Justice Department about the constitutionality of drone strikes and whether they could be used agains U.S. citizens. Holder responded in a letter that conceded the military could authorize a drone strike on U.S. soil.
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.
Paul elaborated on his concern Wednesday: "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil,' it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’ Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that?" Source
I'm glad somebody is actually doing it. I still dislike Rand for a multitude of reasons, but he and his family is quite respectable.
|
Bipartisan gun control talks between Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) have ended without a deal, Politico reported Wednesday, marking a setback for Democrats' goal of passing a universal background check bill.
Schumer (D-N.Y.) will instead file a background checks bill he proposed before the Coburn talks began that does not incorporate any of the input from Coburn (R-Okla.), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). There will be no co-sponsors when the legislation is introduced for Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee markup…
A Schumer aide said Coburn and the group never could agree on whether to require private sellers of guns keep sales records, as is required of gun dealers.
Having a conservative Republican sign on to the legislation would have provided cover to other Republicans to back the legislation. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) will continue to look for another conservative Republican to bring on board for a version of the bill they had been working on with Coburn.
Source
|
On March 07 2013 06:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote:
Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come. Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing StartsOn March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor. Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor. The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud. I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely? Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy. Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty. I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well.
Why do I have to chose between those two stories? There are both good (technology/globalization) and bad (bailouts) reasons why the rich have gotten richer at a quickening rate. Generalizing as either good or bad doesn't really work. Same goes for the poor - sometimes social issues play a role (drugs/broken families) other times it's a government inflicted would (poverty traps/over incarceration/bad schools).
The general trend (growing inequality) isn't unique to the US either - it's happening across virtually the entire world.
But back to my original point - government taxes and transfers have greatly moderated the growing inequality. You can certainly argue that we should do more but let's not pretend that the government doesn't already play robin hood or that simply upping that game will somehow solve the underlying issues.
|
|
|
On March 07 2013 07:32 BronzeKnee wrote:
And that is why they can't close one tax loophole for the rich in order to pay down the deficit, and why Warren Buffet still has a lower tax rate than his secretary.
"tax loopholes" were limited (slightly) as part of the fiscal cliff tax deal. Republicans generally want to reduce them as part of tax reform.
And I doubt Buffet really pays a lower tax rate than his secretary if you get down to the real economics of it instead of using IRS definitions.
|
On March 07 2013 07:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 07:00 mordek wrote:On March 07 2013 06:30 aksfjh wrote:On March 07 2013 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 06 2013 21:07 paralleluniverse wrote:
Because of our serious fiscal discipline, the confidence fairy will surely come. Stockmarket is back to all time highs. If you want something more substantial look to the housing recovery. Housing StartsOn March 07 2013 01:57 BronzeKnee wrote:
Oh well. The good news is that Republicans will eventually agree to raising taxes on the rich again because the government's only role isn't to protect the rich, it also needs to protect the poor. Taxes and spending has already shifted over the past few decades to place a greater tax burden on the rich and give greater benefits to the poor. The "greater tax burden on the rich" is simply a misdirection to what has actually happened. Since most of the growth has gone to them, most of the increased revenue has come from them. At the same time, much of welfare has become means-tested and adjusted to prevent abuse and fraud. I mean, come on. Which story seems more likely? Rich people are more productive and the government wants to take that away so lazy people can be more lazy. Rich people have used their power and leverage to slowly take more of the wealth, pushing more and more people into relative poverty. I'll go ahead and tell you the latter is historically/logically consistent and fits human nature fairly well. Couldn't it be just as feasible that both are true? I guess your first statement is worded in a way that makes you have to say its false... the government doesn't take away for the purpose of enabling "lazy" people, but couldn't it be doing that unintentionally? Pretty sure that, if I wanted to, I could find the statistics that show that Americans are working more than they were 30 years ago for less than they were 30 years ago.
I'm sure you and aksfjh could do that. I merely speak from anecdotal experiences and skepticism at the presented dichotomy. Could it be both? Could it be something different all together? The two presented options are stated in a way where I wouldn't disagree but I'm also hesitant to accept both as the only two stories of which one is true.
|
On March 07 2013 07:02 oneofthem wrote:
stock market being high doesn't mean much for a large portion of the population.
No unfortunatly not, but it will dripple down to the rest of the population 
It must be harsh for the poor people in america to on one hand see bernanke create 85 billion $ a month, most of wich goes directly into the stockmarket wich benefits the rich,and then on the other hand see the government having to safe 85b a year wich will mostly hit the poor americans.
Think usa has passed the point of no return, they have become to dependant on the rich people because the middle class is killed, and now there is no way back.
|
On March 07 2013 08:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 07:32 BronzeKnee wrote:
And that is why they can't close one tax loophole for the rich in order to pay down the deficit, and why Warren Buffet still has a lower tax rate than his secretary. "tax loopholes" were limited (slightly) as part of the fiscal cliff tax deal. Republicans generally want to reduce them as part of tax reform. And I doubt Buffet really pays a lower tax rate than his secretary if you get down to the real economics of it instead of using IRS definitions.
It seems a bit like you are trying to force an elephant through the eye of a needle here. If Mr Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary, it is a pretty clear statement and shouldn't be that hard to proove. You can doubt that the money haven't been taxed beforehand, but these hypothetical money cannot appear in his tax filings and from his perspective they do not exist!
|
On March 07 2013 09:37 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 08:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2013 07:32 BronzeKnee wrote:
And that is why they can't close one tax loophole for the rich in order to pay down the deficit, and why Warren Buffet still has a lower tax rate than his secretary. "tax loopholes" were limited (slightly) as part of the fiscal cliff tax deal. Republicans generally want to reduce them as part of tax reform. And I doubt Buffet really pays a lower tax rate than his secretary if you get down to the real economics of it instead of using IRS definitions. It seems a bit like you are trying to force an elephant through the eye of a needle here. If Mr Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary, it is a pretty clear statement and shouldn't be that hard to proove. You can doubt that the money haven't been taxed beforehand, but these hypothetical money cannot appear in his tax filings and from his perspective they do not exist!
Not if you care about good public policy.
|
|
|
Fillibuster drinking game plz
|
He's filibustering because he doesn't like Holder's letter saying that Obama can possibly kill a US citizen by drone, on US soil in extraordinary circumstances, without due process.
This sounds scary.
But upon further thought, how is this any different from police power? If someone is going to set off a bomb, police can kill them. No due process.
|
On March 07 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:He's filibustering because he doesn't like Holder's letter saying that Obama can possibly kill a US citizen by drone, on US soil in extraordinary circumstances, without due process. This sounds scary. But upon further thought, how is this any different from police power? If someone is going to set off a bomb, police can kill them. No due process.
That's an interesting point, however the classic 3 branches of governement : legislative, executive and justice. Police fall under justice jurisdiction. So we could make an argument only powers that fall under judical review, or military should be allowed to kill, when they are present making a judgement call.
Not kill this man no matter what on sight like from what I understand is Obama power.
|
On March 07 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:He's filibustering because he doesn't like Holder's letter saying that Obama can possibly kill a US citizen by drone, on US soil in extraordinary circumstances, without due process. This sounds scary. But upon further thought, how is this any different from police power? If someone is going to set off a bomb, police can kill them. No due process.
Thinking about it, I would guess that holder communicated his intent wrong, or Paul didn't read it correctly.
I would say the president or any police officer has discretion to kill a person under various circumstances including imminent threat (guy pulls a gun on a cop, guy wants to fly a plane into the capitol). What I feel Paul was asking about was if the president could have had drones looking for someone like that rogue LA cop, and if they find him just blow him up without even trying to capture him.
|
Police don't fall under Justice they operate under orders from executive, by law given to them from justice, and with funding given to them by legislative.
Difference between a cop shooting a guy who reaches into his wasteband and the president ordering a drone strike on a citizen is that the cop doesn't have time to think about what hes doing and obama does. Please don't muddle clear differences in situations.
|
On March 07 2013 10:38 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:He's filibustering because he doesn't like Holder's letter saying that Obama can possibly kill a US citizen by drone, on US soil in extraordinary circumstances, without due process. This sounds scary. But upon further thought, how is this any different from police power? If someone is going to set off a bomb, police can kill them. No due process. That's an interesting point, however the classic 3 branches of governement : legislative, executive and justice. Police fall under justice jurisdiction. So we could make an argument only powers that fall under judical review, or military should be allowed to kill, when they are present making a judgement call. Not kill this man no matter what on sight like from what I understand is Obama power.
Police is part of the executive branch. Also, the possibility of a killing a citizen on a nation's soil is very different from police power. The police don't have a right to execute or assassinate people, though they may shoot to kill in a situation in which people's lives are in imediate danger and shooting is necessary (again, in imediate terms).
|
On March 07 2013 10:45 Sermokala wrote:
Police don't fall under Justice they operate under orders from executive, by law given to them from justice, and with funding given to them by legislative.
Difference between a cop shooting a guy who reaches into his wasteband and the president ordering a drone strike on a citizen is that the cop doesn't have time to think about what hes doing and obama does. Please don't muddle clear differences in situations.
Sorry, I always viewed Police as the enforcement of the law, where laws are made by the legislative and that the executive had nothing to do with it. But that is probably me not knowing much and confusing it with Canada a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
