|
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. |
CHICAGO — Federal prosecutors on Friday for the first time provided details of sexual abuse allegations against J. Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the House, asserting that he molested at least four boys, as young as 14, when he worked as a high school wrestling coach decades ago.
Mr. Hastert, 74, is not charged with abuse because of statutes of limitation, prosecutors said, but he was accused last year of illegally structuring bank withdrawals to pay one of his victims in an effort to hide the abuse. He pleaded guilty in October to the banking violation, and suffered a stroke in November while awaiting sentencing, set for April 27.
In a court filing late Friday, making suggestions for a judge who will decide Mr. Hastert’s sentence, the prosecutors described specific, graphic incidents that they say occurred when Mr. Hastert was a popular, championship-winning coach in a small Illinois town in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. The “known acts,” the prosecutors said, consisted of “intentional touching of minors’ groin area and genitals or oral sex with a minor.”
“The actions at the core of this case took place not on the defendant’s national public stage but in his private one-on-one encounters in an empty locker room and a motel room with minors that violated the special trust between those young boys and their coach,” the prosecutors wrote.
A lawyer for Mr. Hastert did not reply to a request for comment on the prosecution claims. In a court filing earlier this week, Mr. Hastert, who has stayed largely out of view since the charges emerged nearly a year ago, requested probation and said he was “profoundly sorry” for past conduct, though he did not specify those actions. On Friday, Mr. Hastert also filed under a seal a response to the government’s pre-sentence investigation. A hearing is set for next week on whether his filing remains under seal.
According to the prosecutors, Mr. Hastert gave one boy, a 14-year-old freshman wrestler, a massage in the locker room, then performed an unspecified sex act on him. Another boy, Stephen Reinboldt, who died in 1995, was sexually abused by Mr. Hastert throughout high school in the late 1960s and early 1970s, his sister and others told the prosecutors. A third boy, who was 17 and remembered Mr. Hastert sitting in a recliner-type chair with a direct view of the locker room shower stalls, said Mr. Hastert had told him that one way to make his wrestling weight was to get a massage, then performed a sexual act. And prosecutors said Mr. Hastert had massaged another boy’s groin area after asking the boy to stay in his hotel room during a wrestling camp.
That incident became the center of the prosecution’s case. It was also the reason that the allegations, which were never exposed during Mr. Hastert’s eight years as the Republican speaker of the House, came to light. The boy, known in court documents as Individual A, confronted Mr. Hastert years later, around 2010, asked him why he had done what he did, and sought a settlement — beginning the payments that would be Mr. Hastert’s downfall.
Hastert Molested at Least Four Boys, Prosecutors Say
|
On April 09 2016 23:32 Acrofales wrote:A rather honest endorsement of Hillary, which is kinda why I would vote for her if I were a US citizen: http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021Show nested quote +
What’s more, I like Bernie Sanders. I like irascible New York Jewish liberals, and I would be one if one could choose such a thing. He’s the only candidate running for President this cycle that I would want to have a beer with.
But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.
...
Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.
That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives.
Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces.
And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.
The liberal dissimulation of being free of ideology and pretending to be the reasonable compromise is very easy to hate.
To confront radical left ideas (which Sanders doesn't even represent) with right wing and conservative ideas to then conclude that the "good" lies somewhere in the middle of it, is a rather old and tiresome strategy.
Naturally, the reasons are which prevent us from having good things are supposed to be the right wing zealots, which can all be fixed within the existing system. The question what the better system might be doesn't even get asked anymore.
|
Can't think of any country on Earth that would just let this slide without legislation or investigation etc. But don't worry who needs enemies when we have Congress that just sits around.
GALESBURG, Ill. (AP) — This railroad town promotes its ties to Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and the poet Carl Sandburg. But Galesburg's long history also shows in a hidden way: Aging pipes have been leaking lead into the drinking water for decades.
Blood tests show cause for concern. One in 20 children under the age of 6 in Knox County had lead levels exceeding the state standard for public health intervention, a rate six times higher than the Illinois average, in 2014.
Galesburg offers just one example of how the problem of lead-tainted drinking water goes far beyond Flint, Michigan, the former auto manufacturing center where the issue exploded into a public health emergency when the city's entire water system was declared unsafe.
An Associated Press analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data found that nearly 1,400 water systems serving 3.6 million Americans exceeded the federal lead standard at least once between Jan. 1, 2013, and Sept. 30, 2015. The affected systems are large and small, public and private, and include 278 systems that are owned and operated by schools and day care centers in 41 states.
Galesburg officials downplay the water's potential contribution to lead poisoning, which can affect children's mental development. But city councilor Peter Schwartzman called the AP's findings alarming.
"Most people in Galesburg are not really being told that there is a problem," said Schwartzman, an environmental scientist. "I'm very close to this and didn't know it. I feel ignorant."
The AP reviewed 25 years of sampling data reported by 75,000 drinking water systems that are subject to a federal lead rule that took effect in 1991. Details of the EPA data were first reported by USA Today.
While no amount of lead exposure is considered safe, the rule calls for water systems to keep levels below 15 parts per billion.
If more than 10 percent of sampled high-risk homes are above that level, water agencies must inform customers about the problem and take steps such as adding chemicals to control corrosion and prevent leaching of the lead.
Source
|
On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote: The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal.
Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons.
Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money.
What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much.
Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less?
So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused.
|
On April 09 2016 23:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 13:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Philadelphia's new mayor wants to do something few American cities have done: pass a tax on soda and other sugary drinks.
So far, Berkeley, Calif., has been the only U.S. city to approve such a tax. That measure was aimed at reducing soda consumption (and the negative health effects that go along with drinking too much of it).
But in Philly, the tax isn't being promoted as a scheme to bring down the city's high rates of obesity or diabetes. Mayor Jim Kenney says he wants to use the revenue for projects that benefit residents in a city with a 26 percent poverty rate, the highest of America's largest cities. He argues soda companies make big money and often market their products to low-income people.
"What we're looking to do is to take some of that profit, to put it back into the neighborhoods that have been their biggest customers, to improve the lives and opportunities for the people who live there," he said at a rally promoting the tax last month.
Kenney claims a tax of 3 cents per ounce of soda, iced-tea and other sugary drinks — levied on beverage distributors — would generate more than $400 million over the next five years. The money would help fund a plan for universal pre-K and community schools that offer services like health care, as well as major renovations to parks, recreation centers and libraries.
So far, no one is complaining about Kenney's intentions, but Daniel Grace, who heads up the local Teamsters Union, says there has to be a better way to raise money. The union represents about 2,000 people who work in bottling plants and drive delivery trucks. Source I love how so many people are against these type of taxes but don't want to do anything to actually pay for the cost of an unhealthy populaiton.
What? Its totally logically consistent to not want to pay those taxes and not pay for people's poor health as a result. The hypocrisy is when you want universal healthcare (or similar) but object to government meddling in every facet of thier life.
|
On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote: The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused.
This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing.
In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote.
|
On April 10 2016 00:53 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2016 23:32 Acrofales wrote:A rather honest endorsement of Hillary, which is kinda why I would vote for her if I were a US citizen: http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021
What’s more, I like Bernie Sanders. I like irascible New York Jewish liberals, and I would be one if one could choose such a thing. He’s the only candidate running for President this cycle that I would want to have a beer with.
But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.
...
Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.
That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives.
Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces.
And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.
The liberal dissimulation of being free of ideology and pretending to be the reasonable compromise is very easy to hate. To confront radical left ideas (which Sanders doesn't even represent) with right wing and conservative ideas to then conclude that the "good" lies somewhere in the middle of it, is a rather old and tiresome strategy. Naturally, the reasons are which prevent us from having good things are supposed to be the right wing zealots, which can all be fixed within the existing system. The question what the better system might be doesn't even get asked anymore.
Fairly certain that that is not what the article says, nor is it what I think, so stop projecting.
|
On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote: The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote.
I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I generally disagree with much of your characterization of the deal. I doubt we're going anywhere though at this point.
I'm fine disagreeing on it though.
Cruz still pushing in Colorado. Wyoming looks like another blowout for Bernie.
|
On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote: The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking.
I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.
|
If there were ever a facet of policy-making that is susceptible to reasonable disagreement beyond verifiable terms, it would be negotiated agreements. That said, it is for that very reason that negotiated agreements are a poor basis for critique, so in that sense I think Sanders is definitely open to criticism for focusing on such things so heavily.
|
On April 10 2016 04:31 farvacola wrote:
If there were ever a facet of policy-making that is susceptible to reasonable disagreement beyond verifiable terms, it would be negotiated agreements. That said, it is for that very reason that negotiated agreements are a poor basis for critique, so in that sense I think Sanders is definitely susceptible to criticism.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that.
It's not as if I didn't show why I don't think the deal was necessary, why we clearly had leverage, or why it's reasonable to be skeptical of an assertion that it had any impact on the scale or ease with which money was being stashed.
On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote: The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good.
Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.
|
Good riddance.
On a wintry night in 2010 a few months before 29 men were killed in the Upper Big Branch mine explosion, the coal boss, Don Blankenship – then one of the richest and most powerful men in West Virginia – squared up to Robert Kennedy Jr in a public debate about destructive mining practices and climate change.
The contest had been an epic smackdown and about 1,000 people turned out to see the scion of the liberal Kennedy clan take on the native son and champion of coal.
But Kennedy, despite his impressive command of facts, never really managed to land a punch, or cause a ripple in Blankenship’s impassive demeanor – let alone win over an audience stacked with miners from the coal baron’s Massey Energy Company.
“When you criticise what we do as an industry, you are criticising the people that are teaching your Sunday school, that are coaching your little league,” Blankenship told Kennedy. The line got the biggest applause all night.
Six years later, Blankenship and the coal industry he championed are both on the ropes. The former chief executive is headed to prison and some of the biggest coalmining companies in the world are in bankruptcy or possibly headed that way –knocked out of electricity markets by cheap natural gas and the environmental regulations Blankenship so vehemently opposed.
The former chief executive of Massey Energy was sentenced this week to a year in prison for willfully violating mine safety standards – the highest penalty available under the law. Blankenship was not accused of direct responsibility for the accident – the worst in 40 years in the US.
Next week Peabody Energy, the world’s largest publicly traded coal company, will come to the end of a 30-day grace period to repay its crushing debts or fall into bankruptcy.
The company’s share price has fallen by 98% since 2011.
Peabody missed two interest payments totaling $71m on its debt on 15 March. The company also laid off more than 250 workers at its Powder River Basin mine in Wyoming, billed as the biggest coalmine in the world.
Three other coal giants have declared bankruptcy within the last six months, Arch Coal, Patriot and Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha bought out Blankenship’s old firm nine months after the Big Branch Disaster.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol just lol gh you read the first paragraph of this fta and is suddenly the expert on the subject, all because sanders said some dumb shit
|
On April 10 2016 04:38 oneofthem wrote:
lol just lol gh you read the first paragraph of this fta and is suddenly the expert on the subject, all because sanders said some dumb shit
No I'm suggesting one doesn't have to be an expert to see what was being pointed out years ago when the deal was happening.
|
|
|
Wells Fargo & Co. admitted to deceiving the U.S. government into insuring thousands of risky mortgages, as it formally reached a record $1.2 billion settlement of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit.
The settlement with Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. mortgage lender and third-largest U.S. bank by assets, was filed on Friday in Manhattan federal court. It also resolves claims against Kurt Lofrano, a former Wells Fargo vice president.
According to the settlement, Wells Fargo "admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility" for having from 2001 to 2008 falsely certified that many of its home loans qualified for Federal Housing Administration insurance.
The San Francisco-based lender also admitted to having from 2002 to 2010 failed to file timely reports on several thousand loans that had material defects or were badly underwritten, a process that Lofrano was responsible for supervising.
According to the Justice Department, the shortfalls led to substantial losses for taxpayers when the FHA was forced to pay insurance claims as defective loans soured.
Source
|
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:31 farvacola wrote:
If there were ever a facet of policy-making that is susceptible to reasonable disagreement beyond verifiable terms, it would be negotiated agreements. That said, it is for that very reason that negotiated agreements are a poor basis for critique, so in that sense I think Sanders is definitely susceptible to criticism. It's not as if I didn't show why I don't think the deal was necessary, why we clearly had leverage, or why it's reasonable to be skeptical of an assertion that it had any impact on the scale or ease with which money was being stashed.
You didn't show anything of substance. You learned of the existence of the agreement a couple of days ago, you've read a few news items about it, and that's essentially the extent of your knowledge on the subject. You have no actual knowledge of how the negotiations proceeded, you seem to be completely oblivious of the fact that Panama did have some leverage itself (with regards to the kind of intelligence they could share with the U.S. in security-related matters), and you keep casually brushing aside that the leverage that the U.S. had was in fact used to achieve results in combating tax avoidance and getting more access to their financial sector. Your position amounts to "well we could have gotten a better deal", which doesn't change the reality that Sanders was wrong on the facts, and which is as substantiated as the Republican opposition to the Iran deal and as Trump's claims about free trade agreements in general.
|
On April 10 2016 05:39 Ghanburighan wrote:WY is voting but we don't seem to have reliable data on it. Here's something that Harry Enten and Cohn are bouncing between each other on Twitter: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/smUP3Ya.png) It's apparently incomplete: https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/718895213314498560Here's the AP version: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lrKBx7e.png) Reminder of the Sanders target: + Show Spoiler +538 (I can't be bothered to make a new picture quite yet, so you get the WI one): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JT37UW1.png) The other one from someone: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FwNivER.png) Edit: Ever needed that perfect photo to illustrate gerrymandering in US politics? + Show Spoiler +
I don't know why the US has to have congressional districts which don't have autonomy in any other sense. We should elect Congressmen from a pool at the state level.
|
On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:
The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote:
[quote] See my post before last. Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire.
I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.
|
On April 10 2016 06:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 10 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2016 04:10 kwizach wrote:On April 10 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 23:59 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
See my post before last.
Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering? No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea. In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices. I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out. I know that's what you're saying, and like I've told you repeatedly, you have nothing of substance to support that position. Just like Republicans have nothing of substance to argue that the U.S. could have gotten much more out of the Iran deal. Well first it's not like the Iran deal in that there was no pressure to make the deal whatsoever. If we walked away from it for them not taking terms on reducing their appeal as a tax haven they don't end up armed with nuclear weapons. Secondly I've told you that at best it's a wash, because as you haven't refuted, we don't have evidence (beyond a reduction in one particular type of shell corp) that the deal had any impact on the overall volume or ease with which people were able to stash their money. What we do know is that money is still being stashed there, that the exception allowed a loophole, and just one leak from one company exposed so much. Finally if the argument is this is the best the US could get, what evidence do we have that we asked for more but due to the need to make a deal we had to accept less? So no I don't take on faith that the deal was a good deal, particularly when the indication is that the activity it was intended to reduce seems to be humming along just fine up until the papers came out, but Panama had reduced the pressure it was getting from countries like the US to change their rules. So it looks like a great deal for Panama (corporate interests at least) but I see little/nothing to indicate why the US couldn't have demanded more and walked away if they refused. This entire posts boils down to this: you have nothing of substance to support the idea that the U.S. could easily have gotten a much better deal with regards to access to the financial system of Panama. You're now asking for evidence that they couldn't, when you're the one making the claim that they could. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and you have nothing. In any case, Sanders claimed that the FTA deal would worsen the situation with regards to those tax avoidance practices in Panama. It clearly appears that this was false. Sanders was wrong. He did not bring any new information to the table (everyone knew that tax avoidance practices were an issue), did not "predict" anything that wasn't already known, and made false claims with regards to the FTA. The net result of the trade agreement was in fact the opposite, namely that the U.S. managed to make another agreement with Panama on the financial system specifically, an agreement which, while not absolutely perfect (as virtually no international agreement ever is), still was an step forward in the fight against tax avoidance. If your objective is to fight against tax avoidance, in this case you should be thanking Obama and Clinton, and disapproving of Sanders' vote. I object to the assertion we had to take the deal. I'm saying there was nothing stopping us from getting more or walking. I'm gonna use this in the future. Not verifiable so pointless, but it sounds good. Just to be clear this doesn't work with something like the Iran deal because the differences in consequences to having a deal or not are much more dire. I'm curious what sort of deal you think is reasonable that we could have accomplished. Statements like we could have gotten a better deal are just blind idealism.
I've said it a variety of ways but I reject the assertion that basically any deal was better than no deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
