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 July 10 2015 07:27 farvacola wrote: In order for an executive order to develop any teeth, it needs a substantial amount of time to trickle down the system. In other words, once the order is issued, the relevant executive agencies must take notice and then look to their statutory authority in justifying their newly issued prerogative. If the executive and the legislature were working together as they have in the past, the legislature would take notice of the order and possibly get to work on new legislation that strengthens the presidential decree and gives it added statutory authority. This hasn't really happened at all during the Obama Administration, though.
I think the trends of current events is enough to find inventing justifications to be the easy part, the only question being the willingness of agency heads and their boss the President to issue the memoranda or orders. Look to the immigration orders (currently stayed) or EPA orders (regarding pollutants or cost considerations in regulation enforcement). Likewise, when executive and legislative aren't in agreement, lately that has been the justification for unilateral action (see any speech where Congressional inaction is blamed as the impetus). We have three legislatures at work, and again I wonder which will *ahem* hear the cry of the people and force employers into greater vacation allowances.
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
You obviously haven't seen Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. They're complete buffoons. At least Megyn Kelly can be reasonable and seems legitimately passionate about her sillier opinions.
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
While I would absolutely love if this was true as I'd be rolling in the money...he is trying to make it so people who earn LESS than 50K are required to receive overtime, not people who make more.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are reintroducing legislation to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, which would force big banks to split their investment and commercial banking practices.
Glass-Steagall was first passed in 1933 but repealed during the Clinton administration, leading many progressives to argue that it contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
Warren and McCain, along with their cosponsors, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said in a statement that the legislation would make big banks that are "too big to fail" smaller and safer and minimize the likelihood of a government bailout.
The bill, which they first introduced in the last Congress, would separate traditional banking with checking and savings accounts from financial institutions that offer services such as investment banking, which are riskier.
You know, McCain gets quoted for saying some pretty dumb stuff but as a legislator I have quite a bit of respect for him. Hopefully bringing back Glass Steagal will mean Glass Steagal in it's earlier forms, not the amended and tattered thing they put out of its misery at the end.
I don't know, overtime on people who make over 50K? First year out of undergrad, I'd be pulling 100K in non-investment banking. Speaking of which, IB is gonna get rekt by GS.
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
While I would absolutely love if this was true as I'd be rolling in the money...he is trying to make it so people who earn LESS than 50K are required to receive overtime, not people who make more.
The threshold that has been proposed is actually $50,440. So it will affect some people who earn more than 50k!
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
While I would absolutely love if this was true as I'd be rolling in the money...he is trying to make it so people who earn LESS than 50K are required to receive overtime, not people who make more.
The threshold that has been proposed is actually $50,440. So it will affect some people who earn more than 50k!
Ah, well, still not going to be impacting me lol.
I wonder how many people who are currently making in like the 47000 to 50439 range are going to be getting a raise to 50440 or 50441.
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
You obviously haven't seen Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. They're complete buffoons. At least Megyn Kelly can be reasonable and seems legitimately passionate about her sillier opinions.
I have and while I disagree with them on basically everything WAY more /abd from my, totally outside, point of view, they seem to be some kind of caricatures), i still think rachel is the more unlikeable person.
And thanks for making my point.. WHY does no one care about this?
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are reintroducing legislation to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, which would force big banks to split their investment and commercial banking practices.
Glass-Steagall was first passed in 1933 but repealed during the Clinton administration, leading many progressives to argue that it contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
Warren and McCain, along with their cosponsors, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said in a statement that the legislation would make big banks that are "too big to fail" smaller and safer and minimize the likelihood of a government bailout.
The bill, which they first introduced in the last Congress, would separate traditional banking with checking and savings accounts from financial institutions that offer services such as investment banking, which are riskier.
You know, McCain gets quoted for saying some pretty dumb stuff but as a legislator I have quite a bit of respect for him. Hopefully bringing back Glass Steagal will mean Glass Steagal in it's earlier forms, not the amended and tattered thing they put out of its misery at the end.
I don't know, overtime on people who make over 50K? First year out of undergrad, I'd be pulling 100K in non-investment banking. Speaking of which, IB is gonna get rekt by GS.
Omg, yes. Can we please have the laws back that made banks not massive bloated monsters that can't tell their ass from their mouth? And this comes from someone who works for them.
On July 10 2015 07:21 Velr wrote: While randomly browsing youtube (mostly daily show and last week tonight) i wandered about rachel madows show... Which i think is terrible and seriously, i haven't seen a person on tv I dislike more)(.. BUT she said that Obama declared an executive order (so its now law, right?) that people that earn over 5x'xxxx have to get overtime pay now and this would affect millions of americans.
Why wasn't this mentioned anywhere here?
You obviously haven't seen Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. They're complete buffoons. At least Megyn Kelly can be reasonable and seems legitimately passionate about her sillier opinions.
I have and while I disagree with them on basically everything WAY more /abd from my, totally outside, point of view, they seem to be some kind of caricatures), i still think rachel is the more unlikeable person.
And thanks for making my point.. WHY does no one care about this?
I saw a bunch of stories about it when it happened. People said everything from "massive powergrab" to "great for workers" but really its a "meh" story because it only affects salaried workers that earn under the threshold. Shouldn't ensnare that many people.
A charity event wants to pull out of their deal with Trump, but trump gets to keep their 7500$ deposit and is renting the venue to someone else for even more money. Everybody who takes a stand against trump just makes him more money. Stay the course...
On July 10 2015 10:35 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump is going full Idra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C89RAO_M0eY A charity event wants to pull out of their deal with Trump, but trump gets to keep their 7500$ deposit and is renting the venue to someone else for even more money. Everybody who takes a stand against trump just makes him more money. Stay the course...
I have no idea what it must be like to work for Trump. But I feel it might be something like this: + Show Spoiler +
He is the car wreck we will keep watching until burns up.
As Republicans face a withering blowback for embracing the display of Confederate flags on National Parks and federal cemeteries, Democrats are looking to capitalize on the misfire and draw attention to Republican reluctance to let go of the Confederate flag.
The procedural maneuvering is a little complicated, but the gist is this: Late Wednesday night Republicans introduced an amendment that would have reversed a previously passed Democratic amendment restricting the display of Confederate flags at federal cemeteries.
Democrats were quick to decry the sneak-attack reversal, carrying with them to the House floor poster boards bearing the Confederate flag. The backlash was so immediate and fierce that by Thursday morning the House GOP leadership was forced to cancel a vote on a major Interior appropriations bill that contained the flag provision.
GOP leaders said they would hold off on voting on the Interior bill until the Confederate flag question was sorted out.
"I think it's time for some adults here in Congress to sit down and have conversation about how to address this issue," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Boehner told reporters at his weekly press conference. "I do not want this to become some political football.
However, Democrats insisted they would wait to address the Confederate flag issue no longer. House Minority Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduced a resolution to remove from the U.S. Capitol state flags containing the Confederate flag, which a rowdy House by mostly party line voted to refer to committee. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) had introduced a similar measure two weeks ago, which was also referred to committee.
The controversy began late Wednesday night when Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced an amendment to the Interior bill that would scale back language offered by Democrats that would have prohibited the sale and display of the Confederate flag at National Parks and federal cemeteries. The Democratic amendments had previously passed by voice vote without opposition.
"Unfortunately, we are unable to speak with one voice on this issue today because of the faction within the Republican caucus that is frankly out of step with the times we live in, with where the country wants us to go on this issue, and with the values that I believe our country holds dear," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), one of the amendment sponsors, said at a press conference Thursday.
Democrats suggested that the GOP reversal was a last ditch effort to shore up Republican support on the larger Interior bill, which was already facing criticisms from conservative House members for not doing enough to dismantle environmental protections. A statement issued Thursday by the Republican amendment's sponsor as the measure fell apart seemed to support this account.
So China is looking at possibly nationalizing over $3Trillion in stock market losses by basically compelling its banks to form a Pseudo FDIC for stock prices.
As Republicans face a withering blowback for embracing the display of Confederate flags on National Parks and federal cemeteries, Democrats are looking to capitalize on the misfire and draw attention to Republican reluctance to let go of the Confederate flag.
The procedural maneuvering is a little complicated, but the gist is this: Late Wednesday night Republicans introduced an amendment that would have reversed a previously passed Democratic amendment restricting the display of Confederate flags at federal cemeteries.
Democrats were quick to decry the sneak-attack reversal, carrying with them to the House floor poster boards bearing the Confederate flag. The backlash was so immediate and fierce that by Thursday morning the House GOP leadership was forced to cancel a vote on a major Interior appropriations bill that contained the flag provision.
GOP leaders said they would hold off on voting on the Interior bill until the Confederate flag question was sorted out.
"I think it's time for some adults here in Congress to sit down and have conversation about how to address this issue," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Boehner told reporters at his weekly press conference. "I do not want this to become some political football.
However, Democrats insisted they would wait to address the Confederate flag issue no longer. House Minority Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduced a resolution to remove from the U.S. Capitol state flags containing the Confederate flag, which a rowdy House by mostly party line voted to refer to committee. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) had introduced a similar measure two weeks ago, which was also referred to committee.
The controversy began late Wednesday night when Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced an amendment to the Interior bill that would scale back language offered by Democrats that would have prohibited the sale and display of the Confederate flag at National Parks and federal cemeteries. The Democratic amendments had previously passed by voice vote without opposition.
"Unfortunately, we are unable to speak with one voice on this issue today because of the faction within the Republican caucus that is frankly out of step with the times we live in, with where the country wants us to go on this issue, and with the values that I believe our country holds dear," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), one of the amendment sponsors, said at a press conference Thursday.
Democrats suggested that the GOP reversal was a last ditch effort to shore up Republican support on the larger Interior bill, which was already facing criticisms from conservative House members for not doing enough to dismantle environmental protections. A statement issued Thursday by the Republican amendment's sponsor as the measure fell apart seemed to support this account.
Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
I'm not sure it's actually going to hurt him, simply because it's a "pull yourself by your bootstraps" answer and the main rebuttals are "out of touch" (too cliche and weak) or actually diving into the economics (too abstract for most Americans.)
I think he'll need to screw up a follow up answer for things to get out of hand.
And obviously his thought is terrible for a lot of reasons: 1. Labor force participation is low because of baby boomers dropping out of the work force and increasing % of young people going to college, two factors that didn't apply so heavily 20 years ago. The 90's were outside of the norm - we're likely never going to reach those levels again. 2. Labor force participation has little to do with working more hours. In fact, adding hours to currently employed workers could actually increase the number of discouraged workers / lower labor force participation. 3. Americans already work relatively long hours and get less vacation compared to everyone besides Koreans, Japanese, Greeks (yep, they work(ed) more hours than us) and Portuguese. And we're already pretty damn productive. I think Norway and Luxembourg are the only two countries that are more productive and Americans already work 300-400 (!) more hours per year than both of them. 4. It's hard to make a case for getting more hours when many large employers specifically only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits. 5. GDP is actually looking pretty decent right now. 6. Increasing worker hours is the stupidest goddamn fucking way to increase GDP. It's the most inefficient way of doing it. It's China's growth strategy in the 60's and 70's - throw man hours at the problem.
But like I said, this stuff won't matter cause he won't get called on it in a way that makes it approachable/offensive to the average American.
Depends on if his opponents decide to jump on it and use it as a focal point of attack, and how Bush would respond to such a hypothetical attack. Obama was able to hit Romney hard over issues such as the tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, and even his wife's Olympic horse. It was relatively successful because Romney reacted poorly to the attacks, but also because it solidified the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich guy who didn't understand the average American. Bush is in danger of this portrayal as well.
Yeah, but I think it was the Mother Jones Romney video that really sealed the deal on that one. I don't think Jeb is going to expose himself that much.
Even his clarification has nothing to do with workforce participation.
You know, McCain gets quoted for saying some pretty dumb stuff but as a legislator I have quite a bit of respect for him. Hopefully bringing back Glass Steagal will mean Glass Steagal in it's earlier forms, not the amended and tattered thing they put out of its misery at the end.
I don't know, overtime on people who make over 50K? First year out of undergrad, I'd be pulling 100K in non-investment banking. Speaking of which, IB is gonna get rekt by GS.
Yep, I also remember McCain trying to get Glass-Steagal reinstated before we ended up with the crap Obama signed. With McCain though, he'll go nice and left on an issue, then right back to some lunacy lol.
EPT![[image loading]](http://hellogiggles.hellogiggles.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/28/this-is-fine-meme-500x272c.jpg)
