US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1572

On January 12 2015 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does anyone not see the largest gap we have ever had reliable data for? No matter how one manipulates the numbers?

While some here may not be trying to deny the gaps existence, they are using the same rhetoric and graphs as the people who are trying to deny it's existence in order to make it seem less significant than "the largest gap in history".

On January 12 2015 09:02 coverpunch wrote:

But you understand "the largest gap in history" is a useless trophy label. It says nothing about quality of life or the effect on people.

On January 12 2015 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The gap's bigness is partially due to the numbers involved getting bigger. Also, the gap's existence and size cannot be strictly interpreted as bad with bigger equaling worse. It depends on how the components contribute. A growing gap due strictly to a greater share going to profit would be bad from a labor perspective, but a growing gap due strictly to greater depreciation would not be, since it would just represent a shift in how work is performed.

The reality is a mix of things. The impact of house price appreciation is a factor that could be addressed. Business profits could be as well, though that category isn't really out of historical norms, so I don't think there's too much mileage you can get out of that.

On January 12 2015 14:53 aksfjh wrote:

Divergent trends notes a structural change in the way both are derived. There was a decoupling of some variables. If it was a one time occurrence, we would see parallel trends.

The question nobody seems to be asking: Why does it seem to start in the early 70s? Supply side economic policies and tax changes didn't take place until the 80s. Do we attribute the 1970s portion to something else, or is it evidence of another factor?

Cuba has released all 53 prisoners it had promised to free, senior U.S. officials said, a major step toward détente with Washington.

The release of the remaining prisoners sets a positive tone for historic talks next week aimed at normalizing relations after decades of hostility, the officials said.

They described the Cuban government’s release over the weekend of the last detainees on the list as a milestone, but said they would keep pressing Havana to free more people the United States considers political prisoners.

The officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, did not say how many prisoners were released over the weekend or identify them. But the White House will provide the names of all 53 to Congress and expects lawmakers to make them public, the officials added.

There had been questions over whether Havana would release all 53 prisoners as part of the deal Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro announced on Dec. 17 to restore diplomatic ties that Washington severed more than 50 years ago.

Intense secrecy surrounding the 53, whose names have been withheld by both countries, had fueled skepticism over Cuba’s intentions and played to critics who said Washington has not pressured Havana enough on human rights in exchange for normalizing ties and loosening economic and travel restrictions.

Leading Cuban dissidents said that as of Sunday they had not received word that the prisoner release was complete and only knew of up to 39 people freed since Dec. 17, including a popular hip-hop artist.

On January 12 2015 14:53 aksfjh wrote:

Divergent trends notes a structural change in the way both are derived. There was a decoupling of some variables. If it was a one time occurrence, we would see parallel trends.

The question nobody seems to be asking: Why does it seem to start in the early 70s? Supply side economic policies and tax changes didn't take place until the 80s. Do we attribute the 1970s portion to something else, or is it evidence of another factor?

A judge ruled South Dakota's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier wrote that the plaintiffs in the case "have a fundamental right to marry."

"South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier wrote.

The decision is stayed pending a possible appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The new House Budget Committee chairman hinted Monday that he had big plans for Social Security reform in the next two years, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A week after the House voted on a rule that critics say could force a manufactured crisis in the disability program in late 2016, a potential leverage point for Republicans aiming for changes, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) told a conservative audience that he wanted his committee to tackle Social Security.

"What I’m hopeful is what the Budget Committee will be able do is to is begin to normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security. This is a program that right now on its current course will not be able to provide 75 or 80 percent of the benefits that individuals have paid into in a relatively short period of time," he said at a Heritage Action for America event in Washington, D.C., according to AJC. "That’s not a responsible position to say, ‘You don’t need to do anything to do it.’"

Price, whose predecessor Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) never put forward major reform proposals in his otherwise ambitious budgets, offered means-testing and increasing the eligibility age as possibilities. He also hinted at privatizing Social Security.

"All those things ought to be on the table and discussed," he said.

Democrats and others started sounding the alarm on Social Security after the House passed its rule last week. The rule prevented what had historically been a routine transfer of tax revenue between the retirement and disability programs to keep the latter solvent. Without it, benefits could be cut by 20 percent starting in late 2016.

On January 13 2015 08:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Both. Romney would be a third time loser, and as for Bush the conservatives have never liked powerful families let alone political dynasties. Not to mention say Bush wins the Primaries and during the acceptance speech and the balloons start falling, who joins him on stage which members of the family?

On January 13 2015 08:33 Introvert wrote:
They're both losers and I don't like either, so I haven't thought about any race between the two. We'll see how the primaries look by the time California's rolls around. I won't waste my time unless I have no other options.

Not that my vote would matter. If memory serves CA Republicans go moderate most of the time anyway.

NEW YORK -- In January 2008, a teenage high-school student in the Bronx had an argument with her principal. An NYPD officer assigned to the school quickly arrived to subdue the unruly student.

What happened next was caught on video: The officer put the student in a chokehold.

The NYPD's patrol guide expressly bans chokeholds. But the departmental prosecutor declined to seek internal discipline in the case. That decision was part of a larger pattern at the NYPD in the five years leading up to the July death of Staten Island man Eric Garner, according to a report from the department's new inspector general.

"Our targeted analysis revealed troubling deficiencies from the top-down that must be rectified," Philip Eure, the inspector general, wrote in a letter released Monday.

Time and again, Eure's investigators found, New York police officers resorted to chokeholds first -- often for the crime of merely questioning the officer's authority. And time and again, the NYPD ignored discipline recommendations from the independent agency that investigated civilians' chokehold complaints.

"NYPD bans on chokeholds and other practices are meaningless if officers aren't held accountable for continuing to use them," Priscilla Gonzalez, organizing director of the group Communities United for Police Reform, said in a statement. She applauded Eure's report and called on Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton to take immediate steps to impose sterner discipline.

The results of the inspector general report mirror those of an October report from the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the independent investigative agency. Both reports examined 10 substantiated chokehold cases, and both concluded that the NYPD imposed at most a loss of vacation days as a penalty.

On January 13 2015 08:51 oneofthem wrote:
depreciation rate did not rise in the 1970's because of more computers. the rise in capital investment started in the 1960's. there's a lapse between when you buy the machine and its depreciation, but the depreciation rule was changed in the 70's to allow for faster depreciation schedule instead of straight linear depreciation. from 70's on life cycle of capital equipment etc has become shorter, due to technological competition, but it was not the only effect. more depreciation was a kind of tax shield.

even so, profit share started to rise in the 1970's, and this is not depreciation related. it's just a more competitive and energized management approach which disrupted the comfortable truce between labor and capital in the 50's and 60's.

Consumption of fixed capital has grown as a share of GDI since the mid-1970s, largely as a result of the shift in investment spending toward assets with shorter service lives (especially computers, communications equipment, and software) and thus higher rates of depreciation.

On January 13 2015 09:21 Yoav wrote:
Ben Carson will have a moment before imploding, if he wants.