|
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. |
On April 05 2016 22:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 22:43 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 22:36 oneofthem wrote:On April 05 2016 22:34 Jormundr wrote:I said I had a high school level grasp of the total level of fissile material at current usage rates circa 2008. I was off by 50 years so sue me. I could remember that pretty well from 8 years ago, you can't even think hard enough on what happened a couple days ago to talk down to me properly? I'm disappointed, you used to appear intelligent back when you put on airs and didn't actually engage in discussion. what's your grasp of financial structure and regulation then. if you are calling the bernie plan more effort than hillary's, it does not appear high The better question, what is the point of this post beyond being a huge jerk? Do you want him to admit he knows nothing and can’t talk about the topic anymore? Then will you declare victory and dance around the room after winning another argument on the internet? i thought that was the point of internet arguments. For some people, sure. They are right up there with people who text in the theater
|
Hooray!
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Oregon, California, the federal government and others have agreed to go forward with a plan to remove four hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest without approval from a reluctant Congress, a spokesman for dam owner PacifiCorp said Monday.
The dam removal is part of an announcement planned Wednesday in Klamath, California, by the governors of both states and U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
Tearing down the dams would be a major victory for tribes that have fought for years to restore the river for salmon they rely on for subsistence and ceremony.
The move also could breathe new life into a struggling effort to allocate more water for farmers and ranchers in the drought-stricken Klamath basin.
Under the deal, a nonprofit corporation recently formed in California would take ownership of the hydroelectric dams and assume liability for any damage that stems from their removal, said Bob Gravely, a spokesman for Portland-based PacifiCorp.
The plan, which aims to remove the dams in 2020, still needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Going through FERC avoids the need for congressional approval for dam removal, which was required in earlier Klamath plans but met opposition from Republican lawmakers concerned about setting a precedent.
A water settlement agreement expired at the end of 2015 when Congress failed to approve the dam removal. Going around Congress on dams could make it more politically palatable for lawmakers to back other elements of the water agreements.
Dams thwart salmon migration, degrade water quality, alter water flows, and contribute to fish diseases and algae bloom problems. Three tribes depend on the fish for subsistence and ceremonial needs, and a fourth hopes fish will return once the dams are removed.
One of the tribes already has obtained water rights through the courts, limiting water available for farmers and ranchers, and the others could pursue that process. Klamath Basin agriculture is valued at about $670 million annually.
Source
|
China has announced a series of sanctions against North Korea.
The country has restricted imports of North Korean coal and sales of jet fuel under UN sanctions.
The Security Council passed a resolution in March, which expanded UN sanctions aimed at withholding funds for the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. It came after Pyongyang conducted four tests in recent months.
Among the North Korean materials to be banned, some of which are fundamental to the country's revenue, is coal, iron, iron orse, gold, titanium and rare earths. Source
|
Sanders' interview with the editorial board of the NY Daily Times.
Daily News: We are very well aware of the broad themes of your campaign by now. So we'd like to hone in on some of the more particular issues to get a sense of how your presidency might evolve.
You’ve said that the greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation. So if we can get particular: For example, in corporate America, Apple happens to be celebrating, today, its 40th birthday. It's a company that grew from nothing to 115,000 permanent employees. And I'm wondering, is Apple destroying the fabric of America?
Bernie Sanders: No, Apple is not destroying the fabric of America. But I do wish they'd be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China. And I do wish that they would not be trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Daily News: Okay. Well, would you name, say, three American corporate giants that are destroying the national fabric?
Sanders: JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country. Let me be very clear, all right? I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.
Right now, there are still millions of people in this country who are suffering the results of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And when you have companies like Goldman Sachs and many other major banks reaching settlements with the United States government, as you're aware, for many billions of dollars, this is an implicit admission that they have engaged in illegal activity.
Daily News: I understand that. I wanted to draw a distinction, though. Because in your speech you mention the financial industry and you focused on corporate America, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America. So I wanted to get a sense of corporate America, as the agent of American destruction.
Sanders: General Electric, good example. General Electric was created in this country by American workers and American consumers. What we have seen over the many years is shutting down of many major plants in this country. Sending jobs to low-wage countries. And General Electric, doing a very good job avoiding the taxes. In fact, in a given year, they pay nothing in taxes. That's greed.
That is greed and that’s selfishness. That is lack of respect for the people of this country.
Continued in Source
+ Show Spoiler [obviously somewhat biased opinion] +
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
daily news > national media. sanders confirmed.
btw the funniest thing in taht interview is sanders trying to use a token to take the subway. lol just lol
|
I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know.
So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point.
I think we need to look at what was actually being said at the time
This gets us back to the “What did he say?” reaction to USTR Kirk’s comments on the Panama FTA. Talk about a double whammy: another job-killing Bush trade agreement, and with the country that a Government Accountability Office study identified as one of only eight countries — and the only current or prospective FTA partner — that was listed on all of the major U.S. and international tax-haven watchdog lists. Panama’s unwillingness to sign a tax information treaty with the U.S. is just the tip of the iceberg. The country’s industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries.
According to the State Department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign-registered companies. According to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, Citigroup Inc. has a whopping 17 Panamanian subsidiaries and it is not alone among recipients of TARP and other bailout funds. The New York Times just ran an exposé about how AIG is currently suing the U.S. government to get back taxes it claims it does not owe thanks to its use of one of its Panamanian corporate entities called Starr International Company Inc.
Source
Citi also happens to be Hillary's #2 donor over her career (along with several other companies/donors that had/have subsidiaries there).
Source
But that's just one another on the list of coincidences. Like this
Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp. lobbied in favor of the new Panama free trade pact
Source
The argument is even bigger than what's in that clip. Think about the practical nature of the trade deal and what possible motive we had to work that one out then as opposed to holding off for something of substance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you really need to distinguish between employee contribution, absolutely expected and normal for financial sector workers living in new york, and the active lobby. schumer is way more popular on wall street than hillary, especially right now.
i've talked about the differential between 2008 and now in terms of wall street worker donations to hillary. it is very striking that her support has absolutely cratered in investment banking. hedgefunds are another matter.
|
On April 05 2016 22:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 22:36 oneofthem wrote:On April 05 2016 22:34 Jormundr wrote:I said I had a high school level grasp of the total level of fissile material at current usage rates circa 2008. I was off by 50 years so sue me. I could remember that pretty well from 8 years ago, you can't even think hard enough on what happened a couple days ago to talk down to me properly? I'm disappointed, you used to appear intelligent back when you put on airs and didn't actually engage in discussion. what's your grasp of financial structure and regulation then. if you are calling the bernie plan more effort than hillary's, it does not appear high Hillary's plan? I'm gonna get wall street to invest heavily in long term low risk, low reward investments. *Cue laugh track* Other than that it's the ACA for finance. A whole lot of finger wagging and an "Aight fam you can keep raping the economy just don't go any further than you already have." PS She's already had 12 years in the white house. Why would I assume she's going to get anything new done with another 4 or another 8? How are we to believe that she will enact any of the reforms she proposed knowing that she only proposed them in order to attract the Bernie crowd? (I'm summoning oneofthem, her mystical shaman who knows which of her policy positions are trojan horses) Are you also going to criticize the butler for not having done financial reforms during his many years in the white house?
She was the first lady for 8 years, and while I'm sure Bill listened to her ideas (somewhat anyway) lets not pretend like she ran the country. At least as SoS she had a position of influence but even then your pushing it.
heck if we are going this route, Sanders has been a member of congress for 25 years, why should we give him the presidency? If he hasn't managed to get it done in the last 25 years why is he going to do it now?
|
On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know. So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point. What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech?
If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed (and what it would continue to look like without it). That's a perfectly valid starting point.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im actually not that opposed to some form of 'break up the banks', in the sense of firewalling offshore activity from u.s. entities. it's just that glass steagall is not even the right way to do this.
right now brits are effectively running our financial regulation and those boys know no rules
|
If he hasn't managed to get it done in the last 25 years why is he going to do it now?
I think that's actually a fairly reasonable argument. I think it highlights a difference in the campaigns. Hillayr basically says give me a bunch of establishment Democrats and I can get these things done. Bernie is saying, "that's bullshit. I've been telling these people for decades and they haven't not been doing it because they don't understand it's the right thing to do. They haven't done it because of a corrupt campaign finance system and an apathetic public who elects people who literally don't care about their opinion on most legislation.
|
On April 05 2016 22:11 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 20:39 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2016 20:23 kwizach wrote: The page on her website from which your image is taken features several links explaining the details of her proposals -- feel free to read them. I'm not sure how your post is supposed to establish that Hillary would have as much trouble explaining her own proposals as Sanders, though. Apparently we're not even talking about Sanders anymore -- the deflection is real. From the person who's totally ignoring the question about Hillary's role in pushing for the Panama Trade deal. If I had replied to your post by writing "BUT HOW IS BERNIE GOING TO FIX WORLD HUNGER", which is the equivalent of Jormundr's response, then you'd have been right in calling me out for ignoring the topic being discussed. I'm sorry the thread doesn't gravitate around your posts, GH -- if someone doesn't reply to you, it doesn't mean they're desperately dodging your contributions. With regards to the Panama Trade deal that Bush negotiated, that Obama pushed for (after a few revisions) along with the South Korea and Columbia trade deals, and that Hillary supported as well, feel free to ask a specific question. I purposefully chose campaign promises which she didn't have any actual concrete or even theoretical plans for. If that's an egregious affront for Bernie to not know in the middle of an interview, then you have to admit that Hillary is truly unelectable. I mean she's had what, 8 years and 3 previous presidential runs to iron this stuff out? Either that or maybe you're making a dumb argument about how politicians are supposed to be the stephen hawking of every single policy decision they propose. Given he is currently in a race with the effective political Stephen Hawkings of 2016 (given how widely praised Clinton is for her depth of issue familiarity by those who've worked with her), it's fairly reasonable for a politician to at least go somewhat in-depth about policy proposals they're focusing on.
I've long given up on Sanders elaborating on his foreign policy to a meaningful degree, but the criticism here by kwizach is valid: his campaign is based around overturning Wall Street, or something to that effect, and he should have at least some ideas as to his plans regarding the various banks he's proposes to break up.
The argument that the executive has "millions" of people beneath him to make those plans is, really, highly flawed. Exceptionally flawed.
|
On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know. So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point. What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech? Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed.
I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for.
As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
even if you want to talk about the team instead of the leader samders is similarly crushed.
hillary has gensler, bernie is probably outsourcing his choices to a few heterodox economists. not to say they are wrong but chasm in the level of experience involved is vast
|
Outside perhaps a few reasonable Austrians, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on heterodox economics: they're a heterodox for a reason.
There is a reason I was/am utterly adamant against both of the Pauls, and you can really sum it up in two words: gold standard.
|
On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome
|
On April 05 2016 23:40 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome  Pithy, and I suppose an accurate description of your issue knowledge.
What pray tell should our economic, fiscal, and monetary policies be based off of then? Wishful thinking?
|
On April 05 2016 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't think Bernie brought up any point which hadn't already been taken into consideration when they made the decision to proceed with the agreement. In addition, in light of oneofthem's comment, I would like to know how you feel the agreement worsened the previously existing situation with regards to tax evasion. I have not studied the issue and I therefore cannot pass judgment on the matter. Perhaps Bernie's criticism of the agreement could apply just as well, and even more so, to the situation before the agreement. I don't know. So when he pointed out that the job argument was obviously bullshit and then the next day she used it again that's because she had considered it and decided that somehow it wasn't. I think the baseline of any agreement on anything that can be framed as an improvement is better than no agreement is not a genuine starting point. What do you think Bernie brought to the table that had not already been taken into account by Obama, Clinton and the other people in the White House and State Department that worked on the agreement? What new information did Bernie provide them with, that you think they were unaware of before his speech? Of course it's a genuine starting point. If you want to evaluate the effects and the merits of the agreement, you have to take into account what the situation looked like before it passed. I seriously can't deal with the faux naivete anymore. Just know you all are destroying any hope of actually making any significant changes in campaign finance reform by defending Hillary on basically all of the standard things Democrats and left leaners (including Hillary) attack Republicans for. As an illustration, what are some examples in your mind of the kind of campaign finance shenanigans we need to get rid of that Republicans are using? You can start with their front runner and go from there. I'm sorry, I'm not too interested in dancing for you as you switch your line of attack every time you can no longer think of something to reply on a given issue. You were asking me to reply on the Panama trade agreement. Can you explain how the trade agreement worsened the existing situation, or can you not do that? I'm not familiar with the topic, which is why I admitted I was not in a position to pass judgment on the issue. That's not faux naïveté, that's being interested in learning about an issue before determining my position. In addition, I'll ask again: what do you think Bernie brought up in his speech that Obama, Clinton etc. were not aware of? If you don't think he brought up anything new, then they simply decided to support the agreement because they thought the positives outweighed the negatives, including what Sanders mentioned. You can disagree with their judgment, but then again I don't think it's too much to ask in what way the agreement was a step backwards (perhaps it was, again, I don't know), and how this compares to its potential positive impact.
|
On April 05 2016 23:43 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 23:40 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome  Pithy, and I suppose an accurate description of your issue knowledge. What pray tell should our economic, fiscal, and monetary policies be based off of then? Wishful thinking? Rational thought, as corum already proposed.
|
On April 05 2016 23:43 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 23:40 corumjhaelen wrote:On April 05 2016 23:36 Lord Tolkien wrote: Outside perhaps a few reasonable marxists, I'm not sure I would trust anyone who bases their economic policies on economics: they are economists for a reason.
Fixed. You're welcome  Pithy, and I suppose an accurate description of your issue knowledge. What pray tell should our economic, fiscal, and monetary policies be based off of then? Wishful thinking? Why not, it's already what most of economics is. PS : I have taken very "serious" orthodox economics courses. People like to mock political "science" because of its name, but at least the little course I took of that had a clear link to reality and history. Still, having Patrick Artus in front of me derivating lagrangians is one of the most important thing that make me a definitive leftist. Edit : I don't claim expertise, but I think I know quite enough to mock people who have faith in "orthodox" economics.
|
|
|
|