• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:40
CEST 08:40
KST 15:40
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202562RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension5
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 706 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 377

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 375 376 377 378 379 10093 Next
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.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
August 09 2013 21:15 GMT
#7521
On August 10 2013 06:07 Sbrubbles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2013 06:00 DoubleReed wrote:
Here, Krugman explains better than I can:

Cowen can’t see why corporate hoarding is a problem. Like Riedl and Cochrane, he concedes that there might be some problem if corporations literally piled up stacks of green paper; but he argues that it’s completely different if they put the money in a bank, which will lend it out, or use it to buy securities, which can be used to finance someone else’s spending.

But of course there isn’t any difference. If you put money in a bank, the bank might just accumulate excess reserves. If you buy securities from someone else, the seller might put the cash in his mattress, or put it in a bank that just adds it to its reserves, etc., etc.. The point is that buying goods and services is one thing, adding directly to aggregate demand; buying assets isn’t at all the same thing, especially when we’re at the zero lower bound.

What’s depressing about all this is that Say’s Law is a primitive fallacy – so primitive that Keynes has been accused of attacking a straw man. Yet this primitive fallacy, decisively refuted three quarters of a century ago, continues to play a central role in distorting economic discussion and crippling our policy response to depression.


Source

Yes, I understand the role of investment, but there's no need to encourage it because there's no other choice of what to do with your extra money. You invest to make money of your own, after all.


Notice the context: he's talking about the crisis. He argues there's a mismatch in the american economy and it needs to be fixed, and I agree! But money hoarding is a problem when your economy is in the dumps, which is the exception, not the rule.


Unless you're saying that Say's Law is true when the economy is doing well, I don't see why this matters so much.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 09 2013 21:15 GMT
#7522
On August 10 2013 05:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2013 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:48 Sbrubbles wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:22 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:14 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:42 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
We already have a progressive tax code. Sales taxes and a progressive income tax are not mutually exclusive.

You can encourage consumption as part of a cyclical adjustment, but generally you want to encourage saving. For the most part, saving is just as much spending as consumption, the only difference is the structure of the spending and the goods and services bought.


Our tax code is not actually that progressive. State/local taxes often are flat or regressive (like sales tax!) so it actually ends up being pretty flat overall. Source.

Nah, inflation is way way better than deflation, and consumption is way better than savings (deflation encourages savings after all), at least from a macro perspective.

Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).

I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.


So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.

Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.

Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)

Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.


Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.


No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.br/search?q=income tax

Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.



Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...

Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.

I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.

We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?

By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.

One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.


Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.

No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
August 09 2013 21:29 GMT
#7523
On August 10 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2013 05:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:48 Sbrubbles wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:22 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:14 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:42 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]

Our tax code is not actually that progressive. State/local taxes often are flat or regressive (like sales tax!) so it actually ends up being pretty flat overall. Source.

Nah, inflation is way way better than deflation, and consumption is way better than savings (deflation encourages savings after all), at least from a macro perspective.

Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).

I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.


So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.

Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.

Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)

Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.


Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.


No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.br/search?q=income tax

Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.



Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...

Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.

I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.

We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?

By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.

One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.


Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.

No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.


Yea, but that's all taxes in general.

The point of taxes is to raise money for the government, and we should do that with less economic damage. As the rich have vast diminishing returns on the value of their money, taking money from them will do less economic damage.

Remember, I'm saying we should have more progressive taxation. That's all. As in, let's tax the middle class less and jack up the rates on the wealthy. The middle class are hurting right now. It's not a crazy thing to suggest. It's a normal thing to suggest. And unfortunately, it's also "class warfare." You seem to have a problem with class warfare, but class warfare is exactly what we want right now! Embrace it!
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 09 2013 22:05 GMT
#7524
On August 10 2013 06:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:52 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 05:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:48 Sbrubbles wrote:
On August 10 2013 04:22 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On August 10 2013 03:14 DoubleReed wrote:
On August 10 2013 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Could you point out where your source says that the tax code isn't that progressive? They didn't conveniently have a graph (the graph they had was taxes and spending).

I'm not sure why you're talking about inflation / deflation now. Without saving and investment all the demand in the world results in no real growth.


So now I have to admit that I just googled "how progressive is the us tax code?" and picked a link that looked legit. Thanks, Jonny. Jerk.

Investment implies spending so that's just confusing. I actually don't understand that second part at all. Your income is my spending. Recessions are caused by an inability or indesire to spend, so I get less income. Growth happens because you are spending more and therefore I'm making more income.

Hey man, I'm on the dark side, don't expect me to be nice (I'm guilty of the same thing constantly if it makes you feel better)

Basically I want moar spending on capital instead of consumer goods, if that makes more sense.


Yea but no one suggests that is why we should have a sales tax. That's incredibly weird.


No one? In economic circles it's not uncommon to argue the advantages of sales tax over income tax in order to incentivise savings. A little search in the Mankiw blog led me to this:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.br/search?q=income tax

Of course, you can make counter-arguments, like, for example, that savings decisions are largely inelastic to the offered returns and depend much more on cultural factors (hence why chinese saving rates are so high). But the argument itself is not unheard-of.



Yea, but his argument is even weirder than that. He's saying that sales tax is to encourage capital goods over consumer goods. I realize that's basically the same thing, but when phrased like that, my head is just going to tilt to one side. Simply put: why don't we like consumer goods? Seems like kind of a weird thing to want to discourage...

Like his clarification has made me all the more confused, and has only convinced me that the case for sales tax is even more nonsense than I originally thought.

I also just generally don't understand why you want to encourage savings. That's not what drives the economy. That's how economies shrink. I tighten my belt, so you are forced to tighten your belt. Because my spending is your income.

We want corporations to have low prices. We want corporations to spend lots of money on stuff to make stuff and grow. That's what investments actually lead to after all: money being spent on things. And sales tax is regressive. Why bother?

By "saving" I mean saving at the household sector and a corresponding increase in spending in the business sector. Hence the phrase "saving and investment". There is no net saving, no paradox of thrift.

One of the long term problems in the US economy is the persistent trade deficit. We consume more goods and services than we produce. To rectify that, we need to produce more. That means more capital goods. A consumption tax is a policy that helps get you there.


Uhh... of course there is net saving. Are you succumbing to Say's Law? It's an old idea that's been discredited. It sounds like you're saying that everything is money spent directly or indirectly. But that's not really true.

No, because I'm not assuming that the money saved by households will be spent on capital goods. I'm advocating public policy to encourage more household saving and encourage investment. I should also note that income taxes discourage spending as well by leaving households with less disposable income.


Yea, but that's all taxes in general.

The point of taxes is to raise money for the government, and we should do that with less economic damage. As the rich have vast diminishing returns on the value of their money, taking money from them will do less economic damage.

Remember, I'm saying we should have more progressive taxation. That's all. As in, let's tax the middle class less and jack up the rates on the wealthy. The middle class are hurting right now. It's not a crazy thing to suggest. It's a normal thing to suggest. And unfortunately, it's also "class warfare." You seem to have a problem with class warfare, but class warfare is exactly what we want right now! Embrace it!

Agree to disagree buddy, but I like where your heart is

And let me know if you hear about any Democrats who supports treating dividends like interest. I'd be pleasantly surprised to see them take up that position.
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-08-09 22:12:05
August 09 2013 22:11 GMT
#7525
On August 10 2013 06:15 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 10 2013 06:07 Sbrubbles wrote:
On August 10 2013 06:00 DoubleReed wrote:
Here, Krugman explains better than I can:

Cowen can’t see why corporate hoarding is a problem. Like Riedl and Cochrane, he concedes that there might be some problem if corporations literally piled up stacks of green paper; but he argues that it’s completely different if they put the money in a bank, which will lend it out, or use it to buy securities, which can be used to finance someone else’s spending.

But of course there isn’t any difference. If you put money in a bank, the bank might just accumulate excess reserves. If you buy securities from someone else, the seller might put the cash in his mattress, or put it in a bank that just adds it to its reserves, etc., etc.. The point is that buying goods and services is one thing, adding directly to aggregate demand; buying assets isn’t at all the same thing, especially when we’re at the zero lower bound.

What’s depressing about all this is that Say’s Law is a primitive fallacy – so primitive that Keynes has been accused of attacking a straw man. Yet this primitive fallacy, decisively refuted three quarters of a century ago, continues to play a central role in distorting economic discussion and crippling our policy response to depression.


Source

Yes, I understand the role of investment, but there's no need to encourage it because there's no other choice of what to do with your extra money. You invest to make money of your own, after all.


Notice the context: he's talking about the crisis. He argues there's a mismatch in the american economy and it needs to be fixed, and I agree! But money hoarding is a problem when your economy is in the dumps, which is the exception, not the rule.


Unless you're saying that Say's Law is true when the economy is doing well, I don't see why this matters so much.


Given the posts between you and jonny I thought you were talking in general terms about taxes and investment/consumption, so I responded in general terms. In general terms, it is better to have policies that encourage savings and not consumption. And yes, Say's law does hold at full employment, because at full emplotment hoarding is minimal (since there are profitable investment alternatives).

If you wanna talk about how encouraging savings is not something that should be done now because of the current economic downturn, fine, but that was not my point.
Bora Pain minha porra!
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
August 09 2013 22:12 GMT
#7526
Obama pledges spy programme transparency: US President vows to reform Patriot Act to increase transparency and restore public trust in surveillance by NSA.

Barack Obama has unveiled measures he says will increase transparency and build public trust in controversial US spying programmes - but there are no plans to stop collecting information.

"Given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives," the US president said on Friday.

He said that his administration would work with Congress to reform the Patriot Act and provide greater oversight and transparency. The reforms would target section 215 of the act, which allows the National Security Agency to collect data from millions of communications without a warrant.

He added that he planned to create an "adversary" position that would raise civil liberties concerns on cases which went to the secret Fisa court, which governs programmes run by the National Security Agency.

The court currently hears only from Justice Department officials who want the surveillance approved.

"All these steps are designed to ensure that the American people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values," Obama said.

"And to others around the world I want to make clear once again that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."

However, there was no intention to stop current spying programmes revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden which collect data from millions of internet and telephone conversations by foreigners and American citizens.

Obama said that Snowden, who has been granted asylum in Russia, was not a patriot but admitted that his disclosures prompted a faster and more passionate response than if Obama had just appointed a board to review the policies.

Obama added that Snowden's asylum status was not the only factor in a worsening of relations between the US and Russia. The president recently cancelled a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

Since the data-gathering programmes were revealed in June, Obama has repeatedly said he would encourage a national conversation about balancing the need for US surveillance with people's rights to privacy.

On July 25 the House of Representatives rejected a bid to cut funding for some NSA programmes by a surprisingly narrow 205-217 vote, with both conservatives and liberals worried about citizens' privacy.

Obama's reform plans came after he held a meeting on Thursday with representatives of civil liberties groups and executives from technology companies including AT&T, Apple and Google. The meeting was not on Obama's public schedule.


Source
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-08-09 22:20:25
August 09 2013 22:18 GMT
#7527
Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.

Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21667 Posts
August 09 2013 22:20 GMT
#7528
As much as I like Obama I'm not believing it until I see it actually happen.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
SnK-Arcbound
Profile Joined March 2005
United States4423 Posts
August 09 2013 23:39 GMT
#7529
I would expect all of Obama's efforts to lead to the same end. Here's him in Jan 22, 2010.

{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
August 10 2013 01:01 GMT
#7530
Two former JPMorgan Chase employees are expected to be arrested for their role in the so-called "London Whale" scandal that lost the bank roughly $6.2 billion last year, The New York Times reports. The arrest of the employees, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, will reportedly take place in London.

Not among those expected to be charged is the London Whale himself, one Bruno Iksil, who built up the massive positions in the derivatives market that eventually cost the bank billions, according to a Reuters report published Thursday. According to a later report, Iksil will have to play a key role in any arrests related to the scandal.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that JPMorgan, the largest bank in the country by assets, was close to a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the scandal in which the bank would admit fault, a relative rarity on Wall Street.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and federal prosecutors are separately investigating whether company employees underrepresented the scandal's potential fallout to investors in a 2012 meeting, according to a separate New York Times report.

The company's chief executive officer, Jamie Dimon, early on described the scandal as a "tempest in a teapot," an opinion he later described as "dead wrong," according to the Wall Street Journal. But Dimon has maintained that he did not purposefully deceive anyone with his initial comments. "There was no hiding, there was no lying, there was no bullshitting, period," he said of the scandal In June.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
August 10 2013 02:35 GMT
#7531
On August 10 2013 07:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.

Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.


I think he wants to assure that in the future the NSA does not do things he does not want them to do under the auspices of another administration.

That, and I'm not sure how much ability he has to force more transparency if the statutes he's enforcing currently do not allow that transparency does not allow for it. If the legislature mandates secret executive action I don't think the executive branch can technically disclose that secret action without legislative approval under the constitution.

Or he's just B.S.ing, I suppose.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
August 10 2013 06:29 GMT
#7532
On August 10 2013 07:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Isn't Obama the President of the United States? I'm pretty sure he's the President of the United States.

Am I the only one confused by his statement given this fact? Like isn't it his job to enforce the law? If he wants more transparency, then go ahead and give us more transparency. If he doesn't want the NSA to do something, tell the NSA not to do that.

Obama has proven himself capable of pledging to end things in a government he's the chief executive of well into his second term. He projects an image of a relentless crusader. His crusade is against injustice. The results of his policies are in no way connected to him, they're just more things to oppose vociferously. It's like he's still on the campaign trail years after election.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
August 10 2013 06:58 GMT
#7533
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.

The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”

The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.

WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.

Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-08-10 10:12:29
August 10 2013 10:11 GMT
#7534
On August 10 2013 15:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.

The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”

The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.

WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.

Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.


Source


I couldn't help but chuckle at the conflation of "fascist", "atheistic", "socialistic", "pro-genocide", and "pro-murder", particularly given that "fascist" and "socialistic" are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Forget about facts or logic; let's just call our enemies every single insult we know!
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
August 10 2013 18:17 GMT
#7535
2014 Senate Math Favors Republicans But Primary Battles Loom

Republican dreams of a U.S. Senate takeover have been shattered in recent elections by a collection of "unelectable" nominees — the term of art used by political pros to refer to not-ready-for-prime-time candidates whose extreme views doomed their chances with mainstream voters.

There was Delaware's Christine "I'm Not A Witch" O'Donnell, and Nevada's Sharron "Some Latinos Look More Asian To Me" Angle in 2010.

Last year's contests starred Indiana's Richard "Rape Pregnancies Are A Gift From God" Mourdock, and Missouri's Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin.

The very winnable general election races they bungled after capturing party primaries have left the GOP still in need of a half dozen more seats to wrest Senate control from Democrats.

Working in Republicans' favor during the 2014 election cycle? The math.

There are 20 Democratic and 15 Republican seats in play, and, at this point, the seats in danger of flipping are almost all Democratic.


A growing consensus is that the four most winnable-for-Republicans races include, for the moment, South Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia, where Democratic senators are retiring; and Arkansas, where Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor is the party's most vulnerable.

No Republican-held seat appears to be flippable yet, with the exception of New Jersey, which will likely revert to Democratic control in an October 2013 special election. A Republican appointee has briefly held the New Jersey seat left vacant by the death in June of Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. ...

Full article here.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
August 10 2013 23:26 GMT
#7536
So very interesting, Democrats having some fights looming for their seats. It would make my day to seize the Senate away from the Dems and boot Harry Reid out of there.

In other news, the woman half the country loves to hate, is being vindicated.
Sarah Palin Was Right—More Dems Ditch Death Panels

ObamaCare: Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?

Palin was mocked by liberals when at a Tea Party rally in Reno, Nev., in late 2010, shortly before the GOP retook the House of Representatives, she told attendees: "Don't be thinking that we've got victory for America in the bag yet. ... We can't party like it's 1773."

Leftist know-it-alls insisted that 1776 was the correct year, when in fact Palin was right: The Boston Tea Party she referred to — a protest of British oppressive taxation — happened on Dec. 16, 1773.

Palin was right as well, and also took a lot of heat, when she referred to ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as a death panel whose decisions would result in health care rationing.

(Under ObamaCare, IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)

Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Berwick also said: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"

In an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that Palin could have written, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and said he believes it will fail.

"The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," wrote Dean, who is also a physician. "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."

Indeed, a growing number of Democrats — many of whom face tough re-election bids next year — agree.

Over the past three months, 22 have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill. They include lawmakers such as Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., a longtime GOP target.

Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, R-Ark., is co-sponsoring the Senate repeal bill this year after spending the previous three defending IPAB. The Senate and House measures now have 32 and 192 co-sponsors, respectively.

IBD
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-08-11 01:27:14
August 10 2013 23:26 GMT
#7537
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Chocolate
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States2350 Posts
August 10 2013 23:36 GMT
#7538
On August 10 2013 15:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
In a rejection of complaints by creationists and climate change deniers, the Kentucky Board of Education approved new science standards on Thursday, moving forward on a plan that reinforces the teaching of evolution and climate science.

The move came after a lengthy period of public discussion that featured colorful backlash against the proposal. Opponents reportedly branded the standards as “fascist” and “atheistic” and said they promoted "socialistic" thinking that leads to “genocide” and “murder.”

The board apparently disagreed, arguing that the standards reflect a scientific consensus and are needed to ensure that Kentucky students are competitive as they prepare for college and careers.

WFPL reported that the board met Thursday, declaring the supposed controversy over evolution moot because it is already included in the current set of science standards. They also went beyond that, clarifying that evolution is the "fundamental, unifying theory that underlies all the life sciences," and that there is no "significant ongoing debate within the scientific community" about its legitimacy. Officials also rejected calls to include creationism as a competing item in the curriculum.

Members also voiced their support for keeping climate research and studies in the new standards.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country.


Source

This is really good. I'm a student in KY right now and outside of the major metropolitan areas- basically just Louisville and Lexington- you would not believe how backwards the state is. I've come across plenty of people who go silent when the topic of evolution comes up, and for whatever reason some people try to rationalize micro-evolution (influenza, small mutations) while denying macro-evolution (evolution of homo sapiens from other primates). Hopefully this will put us on the path towards not only being some uneducated state that just cares about college basketball.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
August 10 2013 23:44 GMT
#7539
President Obama’s environmental policies are likely to play a prominent role in defining his second term, even as the budget, immigration and health care still dominate the current political debate.

When Gina McCarthy first met with Obama in the Oval Office on Jan. 10 to discuss the prospect of heading the Environmental Protection Agency, she recalled, “the first words out of his mouth was the need for EPA to focus on climate.”

“He sees this as a necessary part of his legacy,” she said in a recent interview.

Cutting carbon emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change are the biggest environmental policies the president is pursuing, but they are not the only ones. His deputies are laying the groundwork to manage public lands across broad regions, drawing on high-tech mapping to balance energy interests against conservation needs. They also are preparing to weigh in on a controversial mining proposal in Alaska.

In the administration’s first term, it framed climate initiatives as ways to promote energy independence or cut consumer costs. It also made modest concessions to business interests — such as rejecting a controversial smog rule, which would have affected a broad swath of industries, and delaying other regulations.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-08-11 00:36:29
August 11 2013 00:35 GMT
#7540
On August 11 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote:
So very interesting, Democrats having some fights looming for their seats. It would make my day to seize the Senate away from the Dems and boot Harry Reid out of there.

In other news, the woman half the country loves to hate is being vindicated.
Show nested quote +
Sarah Palin Was Right—More Dems Ditch Death Panels

ObamaCare: Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?

Palin was mocked by liberals when at a Tea Party rally in Reno, Nev., in late 2010, shortly before the GOP retook the House of Representatives, she told attendees: "Don't be thinking that we've got victory for America in the bag yet. ... We can't party like it's 1773."

Leftist know-it-alls insisted that 1776 was the correct year, when in fact Palin was right: The Boston Tea Party she referred to — a protest of British oppressive taxation — happened on Dec. 16, 1773.

Palin was right as well, and also took a lot of heat, when she referred to ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as a death panel whose decisions would result in health care rationing.

(Under ObamaCare, IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)

Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Berwick also said: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"

In an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that Palin could have written, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and said he believes it will fail.

"The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," wrote Dean, who is also a physician. "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."

Indeed, a growing number of Democrats — many of whom face tough re-election bids next year — agree.

Over the past three months, 22 have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill. They include lawmakers such as Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., a longtime GOP target.

Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, R-Ark., is co-sponsoring the Senate repeal bill this year after spending the previous three defending IPAB. The Senate and House measures now have 32 and 192 co-sponsors, respectively.

IBD

That's not news. That's literally shit being smeared across my screen. Thanks for posting it twice.
Prev 1 375 376 377 378 379 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 20m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft726
Nina 244
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3942
firebathero 346
ggaemo 138
Zeus 83
Dewaltoss 39
Noble 33
Larva 15
League of Legends
JimRising 674
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor121
Other Games
summit1g5174
Fuzer 168
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick931
BasetradeTV47
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH256
• LUISG 4
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2124
League of Legends
• Doublelift3892
• Lourlo1113
Other Games
• Scarra1527
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
3h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
7h 20m
CSO Cup
9h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
11h 20m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 2h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 11h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.