|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise).
It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible".
|
Australia8532 Posts
On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions. edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones.
I don't think the negative effects of overregulation in the labour market requires any form of 'charity'. Australia's labour market demonstrates how overregulation has dropped productivity in the economy almost 1% below the average over the last 50 years. The timing is almost entirely attributed to the introduction of stricter workplace arrangements under the 'Fair Work Australia' legislation.
|
On August 20 2013 13:17 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise). It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible".
To an extent. A shorter workweek would be more flexible too, if the need was there (part-time work, temp work, etc.).
Germany enacted some pretty successful reforms to liberalise their labor market in the mid 2000's, to give a modern example (see Agenda 2010).
|
On August 20 2013 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 13:17 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise). It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible". To an extent. A shorter workweek would be more flexible too, if the need was there (part-time work, temp work, etc.). Germany enacted some pretty successful reforms to liberalise their labor market in the mid 2000's, to give a modern example (see Agenda 2010). their reforms divided their labor market into two halves. People with good jobs and temp workers, and most of the youth is shuffled into the temp working environment.
|
On August 20 2013 14:26 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 13:17 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise). It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible". To an extent. A shorter workweek would be more flexible too, if the need was there (part-time work, temp work, etc.). Germany enacted some pretty successful reforms to liberalise their labor market in the mid 2000's, to give a modern example (see Agenda 2010). their reforms divided their labor market into two halves. People with good jobs and temp workers, and most of the youth is shuffled into the temp working environment.
Their labor market had been divided between those with jobs and those without jobs. This is an improvement, as some work is better than none.
|
You just can't make this up:
(CNN) – Lest any questions remain about Sen. Ted Cruz's national allegiance, the Texas Republican announced Monday he was renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, and over the weekend he released his birth certificate to put to rest any questions about his background. In an analysis, the Dallas Morning News speculated Cruz – considered a potential candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination – was a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.
"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter," Cruz wrote in his statement.
"Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship," he continued. "Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American."
As speculation ramps up about Cruz's political future, some have questioned his eligibility to become president. Most legal experts have said Cruz qualifies as a "natural born citizen," a requirement for the White House job, as stated in the Constitution.
In the Dallas Morning News Sunday, legal experts told the paper that Cruz is not only eligible for president in the United States, he's also technically a Canadian citizen and can even run for Parliament. Unless he renounces his citizenship there, he could also obtain a Canadian passport, according to the newspaper.
The senator's office, however, said Cruz has never embraced his legal rights in Canada.
Source
|
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said on Monday that he would support Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen as the board's next chair, making him the first Republican senator to publicly come out and back her.
Roberts made his comments in Wichita at the Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association annual meeting. According to the Wichita Eagle, "Roberts said he supports Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke when his term as chairman of the Federal Reserve expires at the end of January."
The conservative senator strongly criticized former chief White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who is reportedly one of the frontrunners for the nomination.
"I wouldn't want Larry Summers to mow my yard," Roberts said. "He's terribly controversial and brusque and I don't think he works well with either side of the aisle, quite frankly."
Roberts also said he had some reservations about Yellen, despite his support for her.
Source
|
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), an ardent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, is in talks with Obama administration officials to accept an estimated $100 million in care for the elderly and disabled through Obamacare, Politico reported Tuesday night.
Texas health officials are seeking to enroll in the so-called Community First Choice program available via the law's Medicaid expansion. Perry officially declined to enroll his state in the program, saying in April that expanding the program for the poor would make Texas “hostage” to the federal government.
“Long before Obamacare was forced on the American people, Texas was implementing policies to provide those with intellectual disabilities more community options to enable them to live more independent lives, at a lower cost to taxpayers,” a Perry spokesman explained to Politico in a statement. “The Texas Health and Human Services Commission will continue to move forward with these policies because they are right for our citizens and our state, regardless of whatever funding schemes may be found in Obamacare.”
Source
|
On August 20 2013 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 14:26 Sub40APM wrote:On August 20 2013 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 13:17 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise). It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible". To an extent. A shorter workweek would be more flexible too, if the need was there (part-time work, temp work, etc.). Germany enacted some pretty successful reforms to liberalise their labor market in the mid 2000's, to give a modern example (see Agenda 2010). their reforms divided their labor market into two halves. People with good jobs and temp workers, and most of the youth is shuffled into the temp working environment. Their labor market had been divided between those with jobs and those without jobs. This is an improvement, as some work is better than none.
Not really, creating a permanent caste of barley employed is just a great way to shuffle off dealing with the real issues of globalization for another generation, but in 10 years when the people in secure jobs are retired and those jobs are eliminated in favor of more temp works the issue will reappear.
|
Ouch. Replacing Bernanke is starting to look like a real facepalm moment for the white house.
White House wants pushover bubble-watching Fed chair who would be fun to have a beer with during a crisis
That’s our exaggerated (but not too much) reaction to reading Neil Irwin’s column on the reasons that White House insiders are uneasy with Janet Yellen as Fed chair.
Roughly, the reasons are that she has demonstrated an independent streak in her role as Fed vice chair, is big on preparation and prefers deliberate thinking to a “manic” problem-solving approach, and is more worried about unemployment right now than about fighting asset bubbles.
To reiterate, those are considered bad things. ...
Link
You can see Irwin's column here.
Felix Salmon has also reacted to Irwin's column:
The White House’s anti-Yellen sexism, cont.
...If the White House wanted to maximize the degree to which people would think the Obama administration to be clubby and sexist and insular and narrow-minded, it could hardly do better than it has done when whispering about Larry at the Fed. And by making it clear that no decision is going to be made for a while, the White House is only ensuring that the same story is going to get repeated ad nauseam for weeks to come.
The chairman of the Fed is a position which requires the trust of the public. Larry Summers does not have that trust: indeed, almost uniquely, he’s mistrusted by the left, by the right, and by Wall Street in equal measure. He is, however, trusted by the president of the United States. Is Obama really so arrogant as to privilege his idiosyncratic personal opinions so highly, when the obvious candidate is right in front of his face? I hope not. But I’m losing optimism.
|
On August 22 2013 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Ouch. Replacing Bernanke is starting to look like a real facepalm moment for the white house. Show nested quote +White House wants pushover bubble-watching Fed chair who would be fun to have a beer with during a crisis
That’s our exaggerated (but not too much) reaction to reading Neil Irwin’s column on the reasons that White House insiders are uneasy with Janet Yellen as Fed chair.
Roughly, the reasons are that she has demonstrated an independent streak in her role as Fed vice chair, is big on preparation and prefers deliberate thinking to a “manic” problem-solving approach, and is more worried about unemployment right now than about fighting asset bubbles.
To reiterate, those are considered bad things. ... LinkYou can see Irwin's column here. Felix Salmon has also reacted to Irwin's column: Show nested quote +The White House’s anti-Yellen sexism, cont.
...If the White House wanted to maximize the degree to which people would think the Obama administration to be clubby and sexist and insular and narrow-minded, it could hardly do better than it has done when whispering about Larry at the Fed. And by making it clear that no decision is going to be made for a while, the White House is only ensuring that the same story is going to get repeated ad nauseam for weeks to come.
The chairman of the Fed is a position which requires the trust of the public. Larry Summers does not have that trust: indeed, almost uniquely, he’s mistrusted by the left, by the right, and by Wall Street in equal measure. He is, however, trusted by the president of the United States. Is Obama really so arrogant as to privilege his idiosyncratic personal opinions so highly, when the obvious candidate is right in front of his face? I hope not. But I’m losing optimism.
It's interesting to watch (most of) the Left turn on Larry Summers. Dean Baker has been quite harsh. Personally, I don't think Summers is a bad choice. Yellen is much better and qualified though, and she's been right about the economy.
There's an intriguing covert war between the supporters of Summers and Yellen.
|
On August 22 2013 02:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2013 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Ouch. Replacing Bernanke is starting to look like a real facepalm moment for the white house. White House wants pushover bubble-watching Fed chair who would be fun to have a beer with during a crisis
That’s our exaggerated (but not too much) reaction to reading Neil Irwin’s column on the reasons that White House insiders are uneasy with Janet Yellen as Fed chair.
Roughly, the reasons are that she has demonstrated an independent streak in her role as Fed vice chair, is big on preparation and prefers deliberate thinking to a “manic” problem-solving approach, and is more worried about unemployment right now than about fighting asset bubbles.
To reiterate, those are considered bad things. ... LinkYou can see Irwin's column here. Felix Salmon has also reacted to Irwin's column: The White House’s anti-Yellen sexism, cont.
...If the White House wanted to maximize the degree to which people would think the Obama administration to be clubby and sexist and insular and narrow-minded, it could hardly do better than it has done when whispering about Larry at the Fed. And by making it clear that no decision is going to be made for a while, the White House is only ensuring that the same story is going to get repeated ad nauseam for weeks to come.
The chairman of the Fed is a position which requires the trust of the public. Larry Summers does not have that trust: indeed, almost uniquely, he’s mistrusted by the left, by the right, and by Wall Street in equal measure. He is, however, trusted by the president of the United States. Is Obama really so arrogant as to privilege his idiosyncratic personal opinions so highly, when the obvious candidate is right in front of his face? I hope not. But I’m losing optimism. It's interesting to watch (most of) the Left turn on Larry Summers. Dean Baker has been quite harsh. Personally, I don't think Summers is a bad choice. Yellen is much better and qualified though, and she's been right about the economy. There's an intriguing covert war between the supporters of Summers and Yellen.
I think most of the real debate about the two was over about a month ago, and it was decided that both would be great choices. Now we're onto superficial reasons, where the arguments all center around "Obama knows Summers better," with that sole description being a rallying cry both for and against him.
|
10 year keeps going up - Summers
10 year levels off - Yellen
|
On August 21 2013 11:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 14:26 Sub40APM wrote:On August 20 2013 14:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 13:17 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2013 12:37 HunterX11 wrote:On August 20 2013 12:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Can someone give me a concise, opinionated description of what 'neoliberalism' and 'liberalized labor markets' means in this context? I don't understand the terminology. Unregulated free markets, privatization, a reduction in worker protections, etc. Neoliberalism as the new dominant economic ideology is in some ways a backlash against Keynesianism. The latter asserts that government intervention can in many cases improve the economy, and the former essentially asserts that it can't. The details are more nuanced, but the actual policies that are advanced to promote neoliberalism tend to lack this nuance, so oversimplifying what it "means" is often accurate. Related to "liberalized labor markets" is my favorite euphemism "flexible labor market" i.e. poor working conditions.edit: to be charitable, there are real-world examples of labor markets being overregulated: for example, in response to the difficulty of firing permanent employees in France due to robust worker protections and a lack of at-will employment, French firms have responded by simply hiring more temporary employees, and fewer permanent ones. Liberalized labor markets has to do with the ease at which workers are hired and fired and not working conditions. And yes, by neoliberalism Noah means laissez-faire. I don't think there's much of anything in the post that runs counter to Keynesianism (neo or otherwise). It also refers to things such as regulations on the number of working hours and union protections: e.g. a longer workweek and right to work laws are "more flexible". To an extent. A shorter workweek would be more flexible too, if the need was there (part-time work, temp work, etc.). Germany enacted some pretty successful reforms to liberalise their labor market in the mid 2000's, to give a modern example (see Agenda 2010). their reforms divided their labor market into two halves. People with good jobs and temp workers, and most of the youth is shuffled into the temp working environment. Their labor market had been divided between those with jobs and those without jobs. This is an improvement, as some work is better than none. Not really, creating a permanent caste of barley employed is just a great way to shuffle off dealing with the real issues of globalization for another generation, but in 10 years when the people in secure jobs are retired and those jobs are eliminated in favor of more temp works the issue will reappear.
as Engels says, the bourgeoisie can never solve its problems, it can only move them around... 
|
:O :O :O :O :O
Welcome back!
On August 20 2013 13:03 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I've seen it all Jonny taking a stand against Neoliberalism. If only sam was still here...
!
|
The Internal Revenue Service was unable to suppress a lawsuit over its failure to audit thousand of churches that allegedly violated federal tax law by engaging in partisan advocacy.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.
“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.
But many churches have openly defied the ban without consequences. In an annual event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” pastors from more than 1,000 churches have challenged the regulation by preaching about political topics. Some pastors even record their overtly partisan sermons and send them to the IRS.
The FFRF, which is also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, said allowing churches to engage in politicking but not other nonprofits was unfair. The group alleged the IRS had a “policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions” when it came to churches and religious organizations.
Source
|
On August 22 2013 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Internal Revenue Service was unable to suppress a lawsuit over its failure to audit thousand of churches that allegedly violated federal tax law by engaging in partisan advocacy.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.
“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.
But many churches have openly defied the ban without consequences. In an annual event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” pastors from more than 1,000 churches have challenged the regulation by preaching about political topics. Some pastors even record their overtly partisan sermons and send them to the IRS.
The FFRF, which is also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, said allowing churches to engage in politicking but not other nonprofits was unfair. The group alleged the IRS had a “policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions” when it came to churches and religious organizations. Source
About time. If churches want to preach politics and support candidates, they should pay taxes like everyone else.
|
On August 22 2013 02:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2013 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Ouch. Replacing Bernanke is starting to look like a real facepalm moment for the white house. White House wants pushover bubble-watching Fed chair who would be fun to have a beer with during a crisis
That’s our exaggerated (but not too much) reaction to reading Neil Irwin’s column on the reasons that White House insiders are uneasy with Janet Yellen as Fed chair.
Roughly, the reasons are that she has demonstrated an independent streak in her role as Fed vice chair, is big on preparation and prefers deliberate thinking to a “manic” problem-solving approach, and is more worried about unemployment right now than about fighting asset bubbles.
To reiterate, those are considered bad things. ... LinkYou can see Irwin's column here. Felix Salmon has also reacted to Irwin's column: The White House’s anti-Yellen sexism, cont.
...If the White House wanted to maximize the degree to which people would think the Obama administration to be clubby and sexist and insular and narrow-minded, it could hardly do better than it has done when whispering about Larry at the Fed. And by making it clear that no decision is going to be made for a while, the White House is only ensuring that the same story is going to get repeated ad nauseam for weeks to come.
The chairman of the Fed is a position which requires the trust of the public. Larry Summers does not have that trust: indeed, almost uniquely, he’s mistrusted by the left, by the right, and by Wall Street in equal measure. He is, however, trusted by the president of the United States. Is Obama really so arrogant as to privilege his idiosyncratic personal opinions so highly, when the obvious candidate is right in front of his face? I hope not. But I’m losing optimism. It's interesting to watch (most of) the Left turn on Larry Summers. Dean Baker has been quite harsh. Personally, I don't think Summers is a bad choice. Yellen is much better and qualified though, and she's been right about the economy. There's an intriguing covert war between the supporters of Summers and Yellen.
It's hard to imagine someone proclaiming themselves to be "left-wing" and thinking Summers belongs in any sort of position of authority instead of in prison. Well, I guess I don't have to imagine since people really do believe this, so there's that!
|
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama does not support changes to the legal classification of marijuana, the White House said Wednesday, despite growing evidence of its medical benefits.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked for the second day in a row if CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta's recent reversal on medical marijuana use and apology for misleading the public had had any bearing on Obama's position on the issue.
Whereas Earnest declined to answer the question on Tuesday, he confirmed Wednesday that the president does not believe any changes should be made to medical marijuana laws "at this point."
Source
|
On August 22 2013 04:24 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2013 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Internal Revenue Service was unable to suppress a lawsuit over its failure to audit thousand of churches that allegedly violated federal tax law by engaging in partisan advocacy.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.
“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.
But many churches have openly defied the ban without consequences. In an annual event called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” pastors from more than 1,000 churches have challenged the regulation by preaching about political topics. Some pastors even record their overtly partisan sermons and send them to the IRS.
The FFRF, which is also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, said allowing churches to engage in politicking but not other nonprofits was unfair. The group alleged the IRS had a “policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions” when it came to churches and religious organizations. Source About time. If churches want to preach politics and support candidates, they should pay taxes like everyone else.
Let's see if any action is taken on 501(c)(3)'s like Media Matters. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
