US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3546

On April 05 2016 22:46 oneofthem wrote:

i thought that was the point of internet arguments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp. lobbied in favor of the new Panama free trade pact

On April 05 2016 22:44 Jormundr wrote:

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)

On April 05 2016 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:

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.

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 22:11 Jormundr wrote:

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.

On April 05 2016 23:20 kwizach wrote:

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.

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.

On April 05 2016 23:40 corumjhaelen wrote:

Fixed. You're welcome

On April 05 2016 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:

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.

On April 05 2016 23:43 Lord Tolkien wrote:

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 23:43 Lord Tolkien wrote:

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?