EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2378
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4886 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4886 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:33 cLutZ wrote: Also not true, the debt ceiling replaced an old system where Congress had to specifically authorize each bond issuance. Your explanation is 100% at odds with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The default referred to by the treasury is failure to pay Federal employees, medicaid reimbursement, etc. Ah, that lsst part makes more sense. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:29 cLutZ wrote: Fundamentally untrue. Not only is there a constitutional provision that (under its most logical reading) mandates that interest and principal on the debt be prioritized for spending purposes, there is plenty of revenue to the treasury to do that from taxes (plus another 80% of the government), and prioritizing debt payments is also the most logical and sound path. Failure to raise the debt ceiling means spending in some areas of the federal government will cease. There are some bills that inform the executive branch where spending is to be prioritized, but the President has significant discretion on this issue. The conservative spin on this issue is so disingenuous. When the President de-prioritizes a bill (to federal contractor, to social security, to medicaid) and elects not to pay it, that is a default. You are playing a no-true-scotsman word game by defining default to only include an election not to pay interest on federal debt. Default means more than that. When the government doesn't make good on some bills, it will rightly be seen as a default and the creditworthiness of the government will be forever damaged, even if it pays the interest bill. EX: Try not paying your mortgage bill but paying off the interest on your credit card debt. It will count as a default in the eyes of the credit agencies. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:29 cLutZ wrote: Fundamentally untrue. Not only is there a constitutional provision that (under its most logical reading) mandates that interest and principal on the debt be prioritized for spending purposes, there is plenty of revenue to the treasury to do that from taxes (plus another 80% of the government), and prioritizing debt payments is also the most logical and sound path. Failure to raise the debt ceiling means spending in some areas of the federal government will cease. There are some bills that inform the executive branch where spending is to be prioritized, but the President has significant discretion on this issue. lol, it must be nice to be able to pretend that there is a clear line between pre-existing financial obligations (and their accrual of interest) under executory contracts and pre-existing debt. Edit: Cannons gets it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4886 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote: The conservative spin on this issue is so disingenuous. When the President de-prioritizes a bill (to federal contractor, to social security, to medicaid) and elects not to pay it, that is a default. You are playing a no-true-scotsman word game by defining default to only include an election not to pay interest on federal debt. Default means more than that. When the government doesn't make good on some bills, it will rightly be seen as a default and the creditworthiness of the government will be forever damaged, even if it pays the interest bill. EX: Try not paying your mortgage bill but paying off the interest on your credit card debt. It will count as a default in the eyes of the credit agencies. When the media talks about this they almost always mean (and most of the time, explicitly state) that they mean a default on the federal debt. Even in those articles that claim to explain the debt crisis. They mention things like entitlements separately. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:39 farvacola wrote: lol, it must be nice to be able to pretend that there is a clear line between pre-existing financial obligations (and their accrual of interest) under executory contracts and pre-existing debt. Edit: Cannons gets it. No he doesn't, because almost all these contracts will have such provisions written in, plus it is still up to the executive whether to prioritize paying out on contacts, it can also cease paying social security at any time (per Scotus in 1930s) which is an ongoing, voluntary, financial expenditure. Moreover, the reason that it always gets to this point is because the Democrats are so pleased with the status quo, and assume the media will support them during a debt crisis, that they refuse to negotiate without one. Even without the silly Planned Parenthood situation, this would still be the Democratic tactic. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told the National Review that the House Republican conference may "have to hit rock bottom" before the chamber fully functions again. National Review's Rich Lowry asked McCarthy if the House was governable. "I don’t know. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom," McCarthy responded. McCarthy told National Review that he had been considering dropping out of the speaker's race for the last week after his comment about the political success of the Benghazi committee, but decided to "push through." He had originally planned on waiting for the Thursday vote with the House Republican conference to test whether he would remain in the race until the final vote on the House floor, but he ultimately decided to pull the plug on his bid. Hoe told National Review's Rich Lowry that the House Freedom Caucus, who endorsed Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) for speaker, went into "lockdown" and "wanted things I couldn't deliver." "I wouldn’t have enjoyed being Speaker this way," he told National Review. McCarthy added that some members were getting complaints about him from their constituents. "I didn’t want to put them through a tough vote," he told the National Review. He said that he would support Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for speaker, but Ryan has repeatedly declined to run for a top leadership spot. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:43 Introvert wrote: When the media talks about this they almost always mean (and most of the time, explicitly state) that they mean a default on the federal debt. Even in those articles that claim to explain the debt crisis. They mention things like entitlements separately. Yes, but they also collect money from the US people and owe a debt to us in the terms of services. The amusing part is that the way many conservatives talk about “default” on the debt involves everyone but the US citizens getting paid(via services). Its basically avoiding the issue that the shut down screws over the US people first and everyone else second. I can’t remember if congress still gets paid while the government is shut down, but I believe they do. On October 09 2015 04:49 cLutZ wrote: No he doesn't, because almost all these contracts will have such provisions written in, plus it is still up to the executive whether to prioritize paying out on contacts, it can also cease paying social security at any time (per Scotus in 1930s) which is an ongoing, voluntary, financial expenditure. Moreover, the reason that it always gets to this point is because the Democrats are so pleased with the status quo, and assume the media will support them during a debt crisis, that they refuse to negotiate without one. Even without the silly Planned Parenthood situation, this would still be the Democratic tactic. Plz, the GOP is the one that decided to weaponize a routine vote for raising the debt ceiling that we never discussed until 1995. We went almost 80 years without pulling this shit and now they want to hold the nation hostage every time the Democrats don't agree to defund the ACA or PP. Its like dealing with an abusive spouse who threatens to kill themselves every time you bring up the subject of therapy. And the Democrats are not pleased with eh status quo. But the Tea Party has been pulling this shit for so long that they have had to adjust their standards for success. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23602 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:51 Plansix wrote: Yes, but they also collect money from the US people and owe a debt to us in the terms of services. The amusing part is that the way many conservatives talk about “default” on the debt involves everyone but the US citizens getting paid(via services). Its basically avoiding the issue that the shut down screws over the US people first and everyone else second. I can’t remember if congress still gets paid while the government is shut down, but I believe they do. Yeah it's funny to see a conservative basically arguing: "We'll still be able to pay China, it's just average American citizens who count on that money, who won't be getting it... NBD". | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:43 Introvert wrote: When the media talks about this they almost always mean (and most of the time, explicitly state) that they mean a default on the federal debt. Even in those articles that claim to explain the debt crisis. They mention things like entitlements separately. So you agree that the government will default on at least a portion of its bills when the debt ceiling hits? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4886 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:56 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So you agree that the government will default on at least a portion of its bills when the debt ceiling hits? Well clearly they can't cover every item and thus must choose what to pay. And not defaulting on the federal debt is so important that it (and pensions IIRC) is prioritized. And yes congress gets paid, per the constitution. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Michael Horn, the CEO of Volkswagen's U.S. business, appeared before members of Congress on Thursday to answer questions about the German automaker's use of software in its diesel vehicles to fool emissions tests. VW has said some 11 million vehicles worldwide have the software. Horn testified on the same day German prosecutors raided offices at Volkswagen's headquarters in Wolfsburg and elsewhere, seizing documents and records as they investigate the emissions scandal. Volkswagen has "withdrawn the application for certification of our model year 2016 vehicles," Horn told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, adding that the company is still working with U.S. agencies on the certification process. "On behalf of our company, and my colleagues in Germany," Horn said, "I would like to offer a sincere apology for Volkswagen's use of a software program that served to defeat the regular emissions testing regime." Horn also acknowledged hearing of possible problems in spring of 2014 — but he said he didn't get confirmation of Volkswagen's use of an emissions "defeat device" until last month. U.S. lawmakers are looking for answers about a scandal that has resulted in the Environmental Protection Agency ordering a recall of 482,000 vehicles — and concerns that the cars have for years been putting out up to 40 times the legal limit of pollution. Source | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On October 09 2015 04:56 CannonsNCarriers wrote: So you agree that the government will default on at least a portion of its bills when the debt ceiling hits? Congress could budget spending to be $10 trillion, and even with an infinite debt ceiling (likely unconstitutional per A1S8) that would happen. It would also happen if people refused to buy US Treasury bills. These are inherent risks to running an imbalanced budget. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 09 2015 05:30 cLutZ wrote: It would also happen if people refused to buy US Treasury bills. of course, we are currently experiencing an unwind of the petrodollar AND of the "plastic-chinese-crap-dollar". So who's left to buy Tbills? Sorry, stupid question. The answer is Janet Yellen  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
PORTLAND, Ore. -- After just one week of recreational marijuana sales, Oregon dispensaries have raked in an estimated $11 million. That figure could mean the state's estimate is shockingly low for how much money it'll make when pot taxes kick in this January. At Nectar on Northeast Sandy Boulevard and 33rd Avenue, they're restocking the shelves a lot this week. "We're seeing about 500 people a day," said Nectar owner Jeff Johnson. Dispensary owners and customers are reporting Oregon's first week has gone very well. "It's exciting," said a customer named Peter. "It's just really weird, it feels like it's not even really happening to be honest, it's really bizarre." Another customer, Emily Szczech, was curious about the first day. "We just wanted to come in and check it out," she said. "We've never been able to go into one of the stores to see what it's like." The Oregon Retail Cannabis Association told KGW after tallying up sales from its members statewide and factoring in projections, they estimated there were $3.5 million in sales on the first day, October 1. One week in, Oregon is already far ahead of dollars spent on pot compared to Colorado's first week of legal recreational sales, at $5 million. Washington took a month to sell its first $2 million, according to Marijuana Business Daily. Source | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
On October 08 2015 11:57 ticklishmusic wrote: Reasonable accommodation vs undue burden, materially stopping the operations of your employer kinda counts as undue burden. It's an incredibly easy legal argument. Well this is a slightly dishonest portrayal of the situation by you. If she was granted her religious accommodation then the operations of the employer would continue without a hitch. As for the legal basis (this was posted earlier, but seemed to be ignored in favor of continuing to demonize her) http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf County judges/executive may perform marriage ceremonies. They may also authorize justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners in their respective counties to perform marriages (KRS 402.050). In the absence of the county clerk, the county judge/executive may issue a marriage license (KRS 402.240). (This is proof that there would be no "undue burden" in letting someone else sign the marriage licenses.) As for her constitutional right to an accomodation: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices. As I said before, you can hate her opinion and think that she is a filthy bigot all you want, but she does have the right to request a religious accommodation, and it will be very difficult for you or anyone else to suggest that simply authorizing another clerk to sign the licenses and removing her name from them would be an "undue burden". Especially since they already did authorize other clerks to issue licenses while she was in prison. Even moreso when the alternative was the prosecution and imprisonment of her, which quite obviously poses a greater cost and burden upon the state. Removing her name from the licenses (which would be quite simple, as you will see if you read the first link above) would solve the issue. The only other reason to deny her this accommodation is a desire to see her punished. Such a desire flies in the face of the "rule of law" argument that was being bandied about as defense for imprisoning her. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
On October 09 2015 03:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: And looked what happened a rabid Conservative wing of the Republican party surged the House but parts of the Senate as well. Then they shut down the government, nearly defaulted the US Government, and have managed to block Boehner in on all sides while getting nothing passed in almost 6 years. Now when Boehner tries to escape he can't even do that as the exact same hardliners have managed to oust the man that was supposed to succeed him. This is uncharted waters. While I understand how a person could think this (the bolded statement) is true, I do think a careful study of the Constitution will show you that it is quite impossible for the Congress to shut down the government. Congress does not have the power of enforcement (that is the executive, the President). Their only power is to pass the bills, it is President who must sign them. So while this could be said to be a semantics argument, the fact is that it was Obama who shut down the government by refusing to sign the budget. It was not as though the House had refused to pass a budget, just that Obama did not like the budget that they passed and decided to veto it. Similarly, it betrays a misunderstanding of the basic mechanisms of how the US government works to accuse Congress of being obstructionist. They are quite incapable of being "obstructionist" since they are the originator and do not have veto power. That is a power held exclusively by the President, the power to "say no". In a very real sense Congress has no power to say no to anything, or to obstruct. If they vote down a bill than it never saw the light of day and was never an issue to begin with, so could not have been said to be "obstructed". If they vote in a bill, but the President vetoes it, even if he is "justified" in vetoing the bill, it is a simple fact that he was the obstruction in the passage of the bill, and further, the obstruction to the process of governance. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 09 2015 08:20 Cowboy64 wrote: While I understand how a person could think this (the bolded statement) is true, I do think a careful study of the Constitution will show you that it is quite impossible for the Congress to shut down the government. Congress does not have the power of enforcement (that is the executive, the President). Their only power is to pass the bills, it is President who must sign them. So while this could be said to be a semantics argument, the fact is that it was Obama who shut down the government by refusing to sign the budget. It was not as though the House had refused to pass a budget, just that Obama did not like the budget that they passed and decided to veto it. Similarly, it betrays a misunderstanding of the basic mechanisms of how the US government works to accuse Congress of being obstructionist. They are quite incapable of being "obstructionist" since they are the originator and do not have veto power. That is a power held exclusively by the President, the power to "say no". In a very real sense Congress has no power to say no to anything, or to obstruct. If they vote down a bill than it never saw the light of day and was never an issue to begin with, so could not have been said to be "obstructed". If they vote in a bill, but the President vetoes it, even if he is "justified" in vetoing the bill, it is a simple fact that he was the obstruction in the passage of the bill, and further, the obstruction to the process of governance. In short, its always Obama's fault. Except when the GOP does good things, then its the Congress did good things. Except the GOP doesn't do things any more, they just shut down the government. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On October 09 2015 08:09 Cowboy64 wrote: Well this is a slightly dishonest portrayal of the situation by you. If she was granted her religious accommodation then the operations of the employer would continue without a hitch. As for the legal basis (this was posted earlier, but seemed to be ignored in favor of continuing to demonize her) http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf (This is proof that there would be no "undue burden" in letting someone else sign the marriage licenses.) As for her constitutional right to an accomodation: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm As I said before, you can hate her opinion and think that she is a filthy bigot all you want, but she does have the right to request a religious accommodation, and it will be very difficult for you or anyone else to suggest that simply authorizing another clerk to sign the licenses and removing her name from them would be an "undue burden". Especially since they already did authorize other clerks to issue licenses while she was in prison. Even moreso when the alternative was the prosecution and imprisonment of her, which quite obviously poses a greater cost and burden upon the state. Removing her name from the licenses (which would be quite simple, as you will see if you read the first link above) would solve the issue. The only other reason to deny her this accommodation is a desire to see her punished. Such a desire flies in the face of the "rule of law" argument that was being bandied about as defense for imprisoning her. She was a dick about it and tried to not only get her name removed (which is fine, no one gives a shit if she is accommodated in this way) but the main problem was she still tried to retain control sending out messages through her lawyers that licenses aren't valid without her stamp. She also simply could have used this power to designate other individuals to do this BUT SHE DID NOT DO THAT. She expressly shut down giving all licenses and didn't allow any of her deputys to give them out. She is trying to have it both ways to abuse her position to discriminate against homosexuals. Not to mention the groups working with her have been pretty shady as fuck trying to spin shit. Like that whole BS story about meeting the pope and getting his approval. If she had simply asked for the accommodation and hadn't made a huge fuss about it no one would have cared, she wouldn't have been sued and this isn't a story. Instead she used this situation to try to grand stand for her viewpoint. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
On October 09 2015 08:22 Plansix wrote: In short, its always Obama's fault. Except when the GOP does good things, then its the Congress did good things. Except the GOP doesn't do things any more, they just shut down the government. I suppose you prefer it always being the GOP's fault... somewhat disingenuous of an argument. Also disingenuous is the "Congress doesn't do anything anymore" argument that is bandied about quite often. A basic perusal of the Constitution will show that Congress is not the Executive branch and therefore has no power to "do things". | ||
| ||
