US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3623

On April 17 2016 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:


This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument.

Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Company plans to invest $3.6 billion in what would become the nation’s largest wind energy facility.

At 2,000 megawatts, the proposed Wind XI project would overshadow California’s 1,548-megawatt Alta Wind Energy Center — currently the largest wind facility in the U.S. and second largest in the world.

MidAmerican Energy, which serves 752,000 electric customers in four midwestern states, said Thursday that the massive investment would provide Iowa with a cleaner energy future and be a huge step toward the company’s 100 percent renewable energy goal.

“We have a bold vision for our energy future,” company CEO and president Bill Fehrman said in a statement. “We don’t know of another U.S. energy provider that has staked out this 100 percent position. Our customers want more renewable energy, and we couldn’t agree more.”

Fehrman added the project will bring the company “within striking distance” of its renewable vision.

On April 17 2016 12:21 oneofthem wrote:
big banks do get some extra implicit subsidy in the presumption of rescue leading to lower borrowing cost etc. it's not a precise measure though.

there's also the libor thing

Late last week, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation initiated legal action against 16 of the world’s largest banks for their roles in manipulating benchmark LIBOR rates. The FDIC filed the lawsuit on behalf of 38 banks which went bankrupt at the peak of the downturn in 2008, as a considerable part of the losses for these banks were incurred on interest-rate derivative products sold to them by the bigger banks. As the bigger banks were in a position to influence the benchmark rates in a manner suitable to them when the crisis hit, the losses on these products were exaggerated for the failed banks, including Washington Mutual and IndyMac. The lawsuit names U.S.-based banks Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, as well as other globally diversified banking groups as well as the British Bankers’ Association which oversaw the LIBOR fixing process at the time.

Republicans over the past seven years have come to view Barack Obama not just as an ideological enemy but as a “dictator”—an accusation hurled most recently by both Chris Christie and Glenn Beck—a president who has unconstitutionally abused his executive power with an array of unilateral actions.

But Republicans are hardly passive victims of an overweening executive; they are, in fact, paying for their own unilateral surrender of power. The GOP-dominated Congress has sought to weaken and undermine Obama and instead has achieved the opposite. Unable to pass significant legislation after the Affordable Care Act, the Obama White House filled the vacuum by creative use of executive authority, setting a potentially risky precedent for the future balance between the branches but spurred, ironically, by the very opponents who were trying to contain him.

Out of anti-Obama pique, Congress has also relinquished much of its primary tool, the power of the purse. Congress and the White House have not agreed on a budget since 2009, and only at the end of 2015 was an actual budget passed by the House. So while it is technically true that even the most controversial military programs of the Obama years have had de facto congressional support, Congress has failed to use its constitutional control of the budget as a check on executive action.

Some critics also currently speculate that the refusal by most Republican senators to even consider the new nominee for the Supreme Court could lead to an attempt to simply place an appointee on the court. Obama could use the novel interpretation that nothing in the Constitution says the Senate must actually confirm a nominee by vote and that failing to vote could be construed as a tacit and passive approval of a nominee. Were that to happen, it would surely be condemned by Republicans as a naked power grab, but it could also set another precedent for the current imbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Thus, the long-run effect of Obama enmity has been to enable this president to expand the power of the executive branch, perhaps permanently. Not only did Republicans fail to contain Obama, they have enabled him to become one of the most powerful presidents ever, and certainly the most powerful non-wartime president the country has ever known as well as the most active and consequential “lame duck” president in memory.

When it comes to the power game, whether or not Obama has been making good or bad decisions is beside the point. He has won, while the GOP has been scoring on its own goal for the past seven years.

On April 17 2016 13:58 Introvert wrote:


roflmao.

"Congress exerted some of its constitutional authority. Therefore Obama took executive action to new heights. It's all the Republicans' fault." Some seriously faulty logic.

On April 17 2016 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well if you know your opposition is irrational, incompetent, and dictatorial (as Republicans insist he is) they do share the responsibility of not recognizing that's what someone like that would do.

On April 17 2016 15:41 Introvert wrote:


That doesn't make sense. They are exercising (to a modest degree, considering their options) some congressional power. It's on Obama, not the GOP, to respect the separation of powers. Of course Obama has appointed oodles of judges now that will back most of his assertions. So we'll eventually get the point where Congress is irrelevant anyway. Such fun times.

Perhaps in a roundabout way you have a point. They should be more aggressive with reining him in.

On April 17 2016 16:26 Slaughter wrote:


Either way one branch would be suppressing the other, if Obama did nothing then congress would be holding him down through refusing to work with him. Obama didn't stay passive forever and you can tell he eventually got really pissed at congressional republicans over the years. Him pushing back against congress's willful inaction isn't a sign of a dictatorship. The courts are there also and his enemies have tried their best to use them to also stymie his efforts.

On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either.

On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:


Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it.

On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:


Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters.