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.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has revived a divisive debate over civil liberties and the president’s powers as commander in chief, voting that Americans citizens suspected of terrorism and seized on U.S. soil may not be held indefinitely.
A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans backed an amendment to a sweeping defense bill that said the government cannot detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident indefinitely without charge or trial even with the authorization to use military force or a declaration of war.
The 67-29 vote late Thursday was on a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The strong bipartisan approval sets up a fight with the House, which rejected efforts to bar indefinite detention when it passed its bill in May.
The $631 billion defense policy bill for next year authorizes money for weapons, ships, aircraft and a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. The total is $4 billion less than the House-passed bill, and House-Senate negotiators will have to work out the difference in the closing days of this year.
The Senate is expected to vote Friday on a new package of tough sanctions on Iran targeting the Islamic Republic’s domestic industries. If approved, it would mark the third time in less than a year that Congress has hit Iran with punitive measures designed to cripple its economy and thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., introduced the package of penalties that would designate Iran’s energy, port, shipping and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation and sanction transactions with these areas. The legislation also would penalize individuals selling or supplying commodities such as graphite, aluminum and steel to Iran, all products that are crucial to Tehran’s ship-building and nuclear operations.
On November 30 2012 12:08 TeCh)PsylO wrote: BluePanther, there are two things that I think are relevant, and a question I can pose to you. 1) People are not educated enough to make rational decisions about many government related issues. Something like ObamaCare for example will impact the markets in a way that virtually every voter isn't qualified to answer. 2) The sheer scale of the issues in itself requires a level of organization beyond something suitable for direct democracy. Examples such as Firefox and Wikipedia are not so open source that there is no central organization and people in charge. As for my question to you, how would you feel about our current government structure if you stripped away the corruption? The issues you note in your introduction are primarily issues of corruption and influence, not government structure. Your ideas are highly applicable to a local government, but at the state and federal level things get much more complicated.
1.) They can only be MORE educated under what I'm envisioning. Right now, Obamacare is controlled by who we put into office. Whether you like it or not, what the black/white mass opinion is on something is still relevant to politicians. Their only goal is usually to get re-elected. I understand the fear of mob rule, but the truth is that it exists in some form now and will likely exist in any system that implements a style of democracy regardless of the checks put on it.
2.) I'm not suggesting anarchy. At all. There is no doubt that there must be someone around to direct the conversation and such. But the role would definitely be different than the current elected, voting representative.
I don't think it's solvable within the current system. Single representative votes are influence-able and are rarely altruistic. This isn't because they are bad people, but representatives need to vote on issues to appease their constituents and not on a formulaic plan. It's a byproduct of re-election. As a rep, you want to be altruistic, but in reality you have to sacrifice some of these due to public pressure. What happens is that instead of solving the problem by fixing problems, you end up with an abomination compromises.
I believe that the problems of corruption and influence we don't want are inevitable when you have a representative system. As in, you CANNOT get rid of them, no matter what you do.
On December 02 2012 12:45 paralleluniverse wrote: I have an idea to avert the fiscal cliff: Let's close $5 trillion of tax loopholes. Romney said it was possible during the election.
lol yeah, I feel like if he doesn't reveal his secret plan now that's just unpatriotic
so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
Yeah hes acting like he won an election on this or something who is this guy?
But really thats exactly what he did when he won his first term and look where that got him. Would be real shitty if we're stuck in gridlock another 4 years beacuse of this.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
I don't think anyone should presume that Obama isn't okay with "going over the fiscal cliff" or letting the sequestration cuts go into effect.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
You realize that's what Obama and the Democrats have asked the Republicans to do, right? It's the Republicans who are refusing to pass a bill only extending the middle class tax cuts.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
Tell me, what's so ridiculous about it?
The offer basically involves $1.6 trillion in tax revenues by raising tax rates on the rich and capping deductions, $50 billion in stimulus, and $400 billion of Medicare cuts.
It's weighted towards tax increases on the rich, instead of spending cuts, because according to the CBO's recent report on the fiscal cliff, that's what's least contractionary to the economy per dollar of deficit reduction. It includes stimulus, because in the short run, spending cuts are contractionary (which is why we want to avoid the fiscal cliff). And it's been compared to Obama's old proposal. So what? Obama won the election, his proposal has been endorsed by the American electorate.
Also, extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class right away is Obama's plan. As he said, he has the pen to sign that into law right now.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
Just a thought: if you follow the pundit discussion of matters fiscal, you get the definite impression that some kinds of deficit reduction are considered “serious”, while others are not. In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.
On the other hand, the idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility gets very respectful treatment — now that’s serious.
So I thought I’d look at the dollars and cents — and even I am somewhat shocked. Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
So, the non-serious proposal would reduce the deficit 14 times as much as the serious proposal.
I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class.
By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
I don't think anyone should presume that Obama isn't okay with "going over the fiscal cliff" or letting the sequestration cuts go into effect.
I know he wants to go over the fiscal cliff, but that's not the point. if we force his hand in revealing that, we win big time on public opinion, and could probably start forcing some cave-ins from the Senate.
if he is telling the truth and wants to avoid sequestration and the fiscal cliff, then he'll have to let the tax-cuts go through, and then we have eliminated his number one threat, and won a small victory in public opinion. moving on from there would be something like Gingrich is calling for: a tightening of the purse strings, the creation of multiple oversight committees, and then run a public campaign the next two years. if we force the Democrats into being publicly obstructionist than we take away their biggest trump card, and can set the stage for a do-or-die Senate run for 2014.
either way, we don't gain anything by sitting around trying to look pretty. we need to decide what to do, and we need to decide now. we need to either take a step back and do nothing, try force our way through, or give up.I say we go for the second route.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
I don't think anyone should presume that Obama isn't okay with "going over the fiscal cliff" or letting the sequestration cuts go into effect.
I know he wants to go over the fiscal cliff, but that's not the point. if we force his hand in revealing that, we win big time on public opinion, and could probably start forcing some cave-ins from the Senate.
if he is telling the truth and wants to avoid sequestration and the fiscal cliff, then he'll have to let the tax-cuts go through, and then we have eliminated his number one threat, and won a small victory in public opinion. moving on from there would be something like Gingrich is calling for: a tightening of the purse strings, the creation of multiple oversight committees, and then run a public campaign the next two years. if we force the Democrats into being publicly obstructionist than we take away their biggest trump card, and can set the stage for a do-or-die Senate run for 2014.
either way, we don't gain anything by sitting around trying to look pretty. we need to decide what to do, and we need to decide now. we need to either take a step back and do nothing, try force our way through, or give up.I say we go for the second route.
i dont think anyone will ever associate "obstructionist" with democrats during the past few election cycles lmao
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
The idea comes from a most unlikely source: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who proposed in July 2011 to permit the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling unless Congress affirmatively voted to stop him. And even if Congress did vote to stop him, the president could veto, and then Congress would need to overturn his veto.
that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard suggested, in my life, from a United States President. I don't care if the idea did come from Mitch McConnell (even though his version was wildly different), it's still the stupidest thing I've ever seen. yeah, we'll just turn over the constitutional power of the Congress to the President real quick. good idea.
it's so offensive I'm not surprised you didn't include it in your description.
It's weighted towards tax increases on the rich, instead of spending cuts, because according to the CBO's recent report on the fiscal cliff, that's what's least contractionary to the economy per dollar of deficit reduction. It includes stimulus, because in the short run, spending cuts are contractionary (which is why we want to avoid the fiscal cliff). And it's been compared to Obama's old proposal. So what? Obama won the election, his proposal has been endorsed by the American electorate.
it spends more money when we already spend too much, it extends tax hikes to the American people when we have a problem with growth, and it really shines where it "cuts" a fraction of what we need to cut. the best part? it's political suicide for a Republican to even come close to thinking about touching it. the thing is so toxic that we would be better served in flying right off the cliff.
Also, extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class right away is Obama's plan. As he said, he has the pen to sign that into law right now.
awesome, the President and I finally agree on something. I pray to God that Republicans see the light and decide to see if he'll actually walk the walk, instead of just talking.
By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
I don't think anyone should presume that Obama isn't okay with "going over the fiscal cliff" or letting the sequestration cuts go into effect.
I know he wants to go over the fiscal cliff, but that's not the point. if we force his hand in revealing that, we win big time on public opinion, and could probably start forcing some cave-ins from the Senate.
if he is telling the truth and wants to avoid sequestration and the fiscal cliff, then he'll have to let the tax-cuts go through, and then we have eliminated his number one threat, and won a small victory in public opinion. moving on from there would be something like Gingrich is calling for: a tightening of the purse strings, the creation of multiple oversight committees, and then run a public campaign the next two years. if we force the Democrats into being publicly obstructionist than we take away their biggest trump card, and can set the stage for a do-or-die Senate run for 2014.
either way, we don't gain anything by sitting around trying to look pretty. we need to decide what to do, and we need to decide now. we need to either take a step back and do nothing, try force our way through, or give up.I say we go for the second route.
6:13 to 7:30
The best part is at 7:10.
Also, Obama has never said that he's OK with going over the fiscal cliff.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
The idea comes from a most unlikely source: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who proposed in July 2011 to permit the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling unless Congress affirmatively voted to stop him. And even if Congress did vote to stop him, the president could veto, and then Congress would need to overturn his veto.
that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard suggested, in my life, from a United States President. I don't care if the idea did come from Mitch McConnell (even though his version was wildly different), it's still the stupidest thing I've ever seen. yeah, we'll just turn over the constitutional power of the Congress to the President real quick. good idea.
it's so offensive I'm not surprised you didn't include it in your description.
It's weighted towards tax increases on the rich, instead of spending cuts, because according to the CBO's recent report on the fiscal cliff, that's what's least contractionary to the economy per dollar of deficit reduction. It includes stimulus, because in the short run, spending cuts are contractionary (which is why we want to avoid the fiscal cliff). And it's been compared to Obama's old proposal. So what? Obama won the election, his proposal has been endorsed by the American electorate.
it spends more money when we already spend too much, it extends tax hikes to the American people when we have a problem with growth, and it really shines where it "cuts" a fraction of what we need to cut. the best part? it's political suicide for a Republican to even come close to thinking about touching it. the thing is so toxic that we would be better served in flying right off the cliff.
Also, extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class right away is Obama's plan. As he said, he has the pen to sign that into law right now.
awesome, the President and I finally agree on something. I pray to God that Republicans see the light and decide to see if he'll actually walk the walk, instead of just talking.
When did the right start quoting Ezra Klein?
The debt ceiling is a completely arbitrary and pointless limitation. The article you've quoted already gives heaps of reasons why it's economically bad. But here's a few more.
Firstly,while debt can decrease as a % of GDP, it will virtually always increase in nominal terms, so even if we are being fiscally responsible and shrinking debt to GDP, the debt ceiling will still need to be continuously raised. Secondly, removing the debt ceiling isn't taking away any powers from Congress, because Congress approves spending. So it makes no sense for Congress to simultaneously approve spending while threatening that the US will default because of the spending it already approved. Lastly, no other country that I'm aware of has this artificial limitation and no economic theory says that it is good policy to have a debt ceiling.
You say that Obama's proposal adds to much spending. But the spending it adds, which is for infrastructure, is a tiny fraction to the overall deficit reduction of the plan. For example, there's $50 billion in infrastructure spending, but compare this to extending the Bush tax cuts for families over 250K which will cost $1 trillion according to the CBO.
There's so much hypocrisy against increasing spending, when it's actually the cuts to spending through the fiscal cliff that's part of what's going to put the economy back into recession. Then there's the utter hypocrisy of extending $1 trillion of tax cuts to the rich, people who would likely save most of that money, while talking about the deficit as if it is apocalyptic for the economy.
You've dismissed raising taxes on the rich, because of it's growth effects in a weak economy. What about the growth effects of the proposed infrastructure spending? For some numbers, the CBO estimates that extending the middle class Bush cuts will add $0.5 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit over the next 2 years. Also extending them for the rich will add an additional $0.1 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Compare this to cuts on the spending side of the fiscal cliff: the defense spending as part of the sequester would add $1.2 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit, and the nondefense spending with the medicare cuts would add $0.9 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Extending unemployment benefits (which I believe is also in Obama's proposal) would add $1.1 to GDP per $1 increase in the deficit for 2013 according to this very recent report.
On December 02 2012 14:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: so how do ya'll feel about Obama's ridiculous (IMO) proposal to the Republicans?
personally, I think we should just pass the middle class tax cuts, with nothing else in the bill, and force Obama and the Senate to pass it (or vote against tax cuts for the middle class) and then keep doing stuff like that until they break.
any way you look at it, Obama straight-up screwed the pooch with that stunt.
The idea comes from a most unlikely source: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), who proposed in July 2011 to permit the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling unless Congress affirmatively voted to stop him. And even if Congress did vote to stop him, the president could veto, and then Congress would need to overturn his veto.
that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard suggested, in my life, from a United States President. I don't care if the idea did come from Mitch McConnell (even though his version was wildly different), it's still the stupidest thing I've ever seen. yeah, we'll just turn over the constitutional power of the Congress to the President real quick. good idea.
it's so offensive I'm not surprised you didn't include it in your description.
It's weighted towards tax increases on the rich, instead of spending cuts, because according to the CBO's recent report on the fiscal cliff, that's what's least contractionary to the economy per dollar of deficit reduction. It includes stimulus, because in the short run, spending cuts are contractionary (which is why we want to avoid the fiscal cliff). And it's been compared to Obama's old proposal. So what? Obama won the election, his proposal has been endorsed by the American electorate.
it spends more money when we already spend too much, it extends tax hikes to the American people when we have a problem with growth, and it really shines where it "cuts" a fraction of what we need to cut. the best part? it's political suicide for a Republican to even come close to thinking about touching it. the thing is so toxic that we would be better served in flying right off the cliff.
Also, extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class right away is Obama's plan. As he said, he has the pen to sign that into law right now.
awesome, the President and I finally agree on something. I pray to God that Republicans see the light and decide to see if he'll actually walk the walk, instead of just talking.
When did the right start quoting Ezra Klein?
The debt ceiling is a completely arbitrary and pointless limitation. The article you've quoted already gives heaps of reasons why it's economically bad. But here's a few more.
Firstly,while debt can decrease as a % of GDP, it will virtually always increase in nominal terms, so even if we are being fiscally responsible and shrinking debt to GDP, the debt ceiling will still need to be continuously raised. Secondly, removing the debt ceiling isn't taking away any powers from Congress, because Congress approves spending. So it makes no sense for Congress to simultaneously approve spending while threatening that the US will default because of the spending it already approved. Lastly, no other country that I'm aware of has this artificial limitation and no economic theory says that it is good policy to have a debt ceiling.
You say that Obama's proposal adds to much spending. But the spending it adds, which is for infrastructure, is a tiny fraction to the overall deficit reduction of the plan. For example, there's $50 billion in infrastructure spending, but compare this to extending the Bush tax cuts for families over 250K which will cost $1 trillion according to the CBO.
There's so much hypocrisy against increasing spending, when it's actually the cuts to spending through the fiscal cliff that's part of what's going to put the economy back into recession. Then there's the utter hypocrisy of extending $1 trillion of tax cuts to the rich, people who would likely save most of that money, while talking about the deficit as if it is apocalyptic for the economy.
You've dismissed raising taxes on the rich, because of it's growth effects in a weak economy. What about the growth effects of the proposed infrastructure spending? For some numbers, the CBO estimates that extending the middle class Bush cuts will add $0.5 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit over the next 2 years. Also extending them for the rich will add an additional $0.1 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Compare this to cuts on the spending side of the fiscal cliff: the defense spending as part of the sequester would add $1.2 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit, and the nondefense spending with the medicare cuts would add $0.9 to GDP per $1 increase to the deficit. Extending unemployment benefits (which I believe is also in Obama's proposal) would add $1.1 to GDP per $1 increase in the deficit for 2013 according to this very recent report.
Haven't the government spending modifiers recently been EXTREMELY conservative in the analysis? I seem to recall the EU figuring stagnation instead of contraction with the austerity, meaning they expected the modifiers to be slightly less than 1. Instead, they have extreme contraction that suggests the modifiers are much greater than 1, maybe even 2 or 3 in some cases.
mainstream analysis does not take into account private money contraction/expansions. if the private sector is trying to pay down their debts at the same time as the government doing the same (or at least reducing spending) then whatever modifier you calculate isn't going to be meaningful since it does not account for the other part of the economy.
but yea, government spending in the present juncture is extremely effective, because government is the only player that can spend, besides the extreme rich anyway. (speculative spending is not spending in the real economy)
EPT
