|
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 October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get.
Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently.
Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had?
Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it.
B.
First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session.
Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there.
It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/
btw, how do you make a word a link?
|
The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression (most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions.
The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific.
Also there was a massive spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html
(if you want to see some conservative economic thoughts on debt and the current situation follow the links to reinhart-roganoff's papers and responses to criticism)
|
United States42006 Posts
There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button.
|
On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link?
Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again.
Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked.
|
On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html
Fair enough.
I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem.
As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here.
I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on.
I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least.
|
On October 05 2013 13:57 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link? Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again. Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked.
Of course I'm aware that that's "the way it works." So what? That doesn't mean I sit here and just throw my hands in the air. We can of course pass laws that deal with these things, but both parties like to exploit this BS. What people in this thread don't seem to understand is that doing something a lot doesn't make it legal, constitutionally. But I can also tell that most people in this thread view the Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper, so maybe I shouldn't even waste my time.
Now, let's not be silly. There are different types of breaks. What the founders meant (a thing I place above precedent, which doesn't even exist in this case) was that the president was to fill vacancies for needed postilions until Congress came back and dealt with it. It wasn't for 2 day weekends. And it certainly was NOT meant as tool to avoid the Senate's approval procedures. And for the kicker, the president is nowhere given the authority to make a unilateral declaration of recess.
The language is clear. They are removed from their position at the end of the next session. There is no qualifier there, it says "shall expire." Shall. No if, ands or buts. It's at the end, I'm sure, to give time to Congress so they don't have to address the matter immediately upon returning to the capitol. but the wording is "Shall." Very clear.
But as I said, we'll see what Pretzel and Mr. Moderate decree, when that day comes. Then we will all be forced to live with it, good or bad.
Go read up on this case again. What Obama did is unique, unless you can find me some other examples?
There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button.
Thank you!
|
On October 05 2013 14:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 13:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link? Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again. Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked. Of course I'm aware that that's "the way it works." So what? That doesn't mean I sit here and just throw my hands in the air. We can of course pass laws that deal with these things, but both parties like to exploit this BS. What people in this thread don't seem to understand is that doing something a lot doesn't make it legal, constitutionally. But I can also tell that most people in this thread view the Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper, so maybe I shouldn't even waste my time. Now, let's not be silly. There are different types of breaks. What the founders meant (a thing I place above precedent, which doesn't even exist in this case) was that the president was to fill vacancies for needed postilions until Congress came back and dealt with it. It wasn't for 2 day weekends. And it certainly was NOT meant as tool to avoid the Senate's approval procedures. And for the kicker, the president is nowhere given the authority to make a unilateral declaration of recess. The language is clear. They are removed from their position at the end of the next session. There is no qualifier there, it says "shall expire." Shall. No if, ands or buts. It's at the end, I'm sure, to give time to Congress so they don't have to address the matter immediately upon returning to the capitol. but the wording is "Shall." Very clear. Go read up on this case again. What Obama did is unique, unless you can find me some other examples? Show nested quote +There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button. Thank you!
Introvert until you can accept the notion of legal precedent its basically impossible to have a conversation about this. This isn't just the way things work in the sense that we accept an imperfect system. A system of precedent is the only way that you can have predictably applied laws. Because no legal document could ever specify every single case that it will be necessary to decide, its necessary to have a judiciary to interpret the law. Without the notion of precedent those interpretations would be constantly changing, and a law that was settled one way last week could be settled the other way the next.
Btw, I'm all for the constitution, but until you accept that laws are and always will be interpreted you're just going to be really frustrated for no good reason.
|
On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least.
I would honestly say the largest influences on my economic thought are from Nate Silver and some obscure left-anarchist figures like Emma Goldman or Kropotkin. Most of my current info probably is from Silver or links/tweets he posted. My life got really hectic so I haven't really followed the political scene closely from June til now (also, the politics were boring).
I actually prefer this article regarding the 90% thing to Krugman's op-ed on it but couldn't find it rapidly - (basically it's Amherst economic professors v Harvard ones on the topic). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/debt-and-growth-a-response-to-reinhart-and-rogoff.html
I actually think Krugman lucked out and is just a very cynical person who happened to be proclaiming doom loudly from a position where he would be recognized for it (many many others saw this coming, Nate Silver's book outlines just how obvious it was quite well, and despite Silver's liberal leanings it's mostly a fairly politics-neutral book). Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here) and is guilty of some of the stuff he gripes about others for (it's at best wild speculation to say that Reinhart-roganoff made Greece's situation worse - what, do Greek politicians really read Harvard economic papers?). I mostly actually read reactions to his stuff, or when he brings something I find interesting like the 90% study to popular attention.
I'll admit economics isn't my strong suit but I do like to read at least some theorists and listen to those who have studied it. I think the Austrian or Chicago school of economics would be more what is in line with your thinking. Probably not Milton Friedman far, but he's a key figure (he is one of the main people who argue that government intervention hurt the economy during the 30s). He's the only Chicago school who has a work that I've personally read in detail. The chicago school is obviously the most heavily debated in America but the Austrian one is rather influential and attracts more vitriol from someone like Krugman (it's also been around a lot longer). The efficient-market theory is probably the largest link between the two and the most heavily criticized.
They're really more complex than the wikipedia articles make them out to be but the wikipedia articles are decent enough and it would be silly to make a list when there's one right there. Also the Austrian school just has too damn many to list -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics (At least two of their prominent figures won nobel prizes in the 90s and Friedman won one in the 70s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
|
On October 05 2013 14:18 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 14:12 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link? Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again. Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked. Of course I'm aware that that's "the way it works." So what? That doesn't mean I sit here and just throw my hands in the air. We can of course pass laws that deal with these things, but both parties like to exploit this BS. What people in this thread don't seem to understand is that doing something a lot doesn't make it legal, constitutionally. But I can also tell that most people in this thread view the Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper, so maybe I shouldn't even waste my time. Now, let's not be silly. There are different types of breaks. What the founders meant (a thing I place above precedent, which doesn't even exist in this case) was that the president was to fill vacancies for needed postilions until Congress came back and dealt with it. It wasn't for 2 day weekends. And it certainly was NOT meant as tool to avoid the Senate's approval procedures. And for the kicker, the president is nowhere given the authority to make a unilateral declaration of recess. The language is clear. They are removed from their position at the end of the next session. There is no qualifier there, it says "shall expire." Shall. No if, ands or buts. It's at the end, I'm sure, to give time to Congress so they don't have to address the matter immediately upon returning to the capitol. but the wording is "Shall." Very clear. Go read up on this case again. What Obama did is unique, unless you can find me some other examples? There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button. Thank you! Introvert until you can accept the notion of legal precedent its basically impossible to have a conversation about this. This isn't just the way things work in the sense that we accept an imperfect system. A system of precedent is the only way that you can have predictably applied laws. Because no legal document could ever specify every single case that it will be necessary to decide, its necessary to have a judiciary to interpret the law. Without the notion of precedent those interpretations would be constantly changing, and a law that was settled one way last week could be settled the other way the next. Btw, I'm all for the constitution, but until you accept that laws are and always will be interpreted you're just going to be really frustrated for no good reason.
I never denied that there is such a thing as precedent. What I deny is that it is unchangeable. But in this case, the precedent, good or bad, is about to be set anyway.
There is no precedent for what he did. Unless you can find it for me.
Why don't you address the rest of what I said, as well. The second point. I think I'm making a good case that the law IS clear on this. A clear, well known understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is what I'm talking about. Not every thing has a simple solution, true, but this one really is clear cut.
Again, I refuse to just give up, of course. Bad or incorrect decisions need to be changed. I hate this idea that a law or Court ruling is supreme. The court grabbed that power, and it won't give it up. None of the government will! So you discuss and inform and stay informed. You don't just give up. Hell, the progressives have been at it for 100 years, and look how far they've come, and how many things they've undone. If you really are for the Constitution, you need to actually defend it, not give up on it.
|
I mean, the Supreme Court having a bunch of powers is really something that it did just declare in a ruling well after the constitution was written. Introvert isn't wrong on that...
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-cases.aspx
edit - this goes both ways, of course. Corporations being people has been attributed to someone mishearing what a Justice said in the late 1800s and writing it down. I'm sure liberals would love for that to go away as much as conservatives would the ACA (actually probably more)
|
On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. I would honestly say the largest influences on my economic thought are from Nate Silver and some obscure left-anarchist figures like Emma Goldman or Kropotkin. Most of my current info probably is from Silver or links/tweets he posted. My life got really hectic so I haven't really followed the political scene closely from June til now (also, the politics were boring). I actually prefer this article regarding the 90% thing to Krugman's op-ed on it but couldn't find it rapidly - (basically it's Amherst economic professors v Harvard ones on the topic). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/debt-and-growth-a-response-to-reinhart-and-rogoff.htmlI actually think Krugman lucked out and is just a very cynical person who happened to be proclaiming doom loudly from a position where he would be recognized for it (many many others saw this coming, Nate Silver's book outlines just how obvious it was quite well, and despite Silver's liberal leanings it's mostly a fairly politics-neutral book). Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here) and is guilty of some of the stuff he gripes about others for (it's at best wild speculation to say that Reinhart-roganoff made Greece's situation worse - what, do Greek politicians really read Harvard economic papers?). I mostly actually read reactions to his stuff, or when he brings something I find interesting like the 90% study to popular attention. I'll admit economics isn't my strong suit but I do like to read at least some theorists and listen to those who have studied it. I think the Austrian or Chicago school of economics would be more what is in line with your thinking. Probably not Milton Friedman far, but he's a key figure. He's the only Chicago school who has a work that I've personally read in detail. The chicago school is obviously the most heavily debated in America but the Austrian one is rather influential and attracts more vitriol from someone like Krugman (it's also been around a lot longer). The efficient-market theory is probably the largest link between the two and the most heavily criticized. They're really more complex than the wikipedia articles make them out to be but the wikipedia articles are decent enough and it would be silly to make a list when there's one right there. Also the Austrian school just has too damn many to list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics (At least two of their prominent figures won nobel prizes in the 90s and Friedman won one in the 70s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
ok, I know a little more than that lol. I know of Friedman, as well as general principles of Austrian and Chicago thought. But I find the particulars of economics boring, and politics interesting 
Nate Silver knows his stats, I'll give him that. I just don't have time to read all the things on my list of stuff to get to. Specifically right now, with so much going on in America, it's hard to really go back to history while keeping up with current events.
At least you openly admitted to politics in economics, which seems like more than many would do. Edit: as did sub40.
I'll be bookmarking this for later, thank you.
|
On October 05 2013 14:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 14:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 14:12 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link? Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again. Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked. Of course I'm aware that that's "the way it works." So what? That doesn't mean I sit here and just throw my hands in the air. We can of course pass laws that deal with these things, but both parties like to exploit this BS. What people in this thread don't seem to understand is that doing something a lot doesn't make it legal, constitutionally. But I can also tell that most people in this thread view the Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper, so maybe I shouldn't even waste my time. Now, let's not be silly. There are different types of breaks. What the founders meant (a thing I place above precedent, which doesn't even exist in this case) was that the president was to fill vacancies for needed postilions until Congress came back and dealt with it. It wasn't for 2 day weekends. And it certainly was NOT meant as tool to avoid the Senate's approval procedures. And for the kicker, the president is nowhere given the authority to make a unilateral declaration of recess. The language is clear. They are removed from their position at the end of the next session. There is no qualifier there, it says "shall expire." Shall. No if, ands or buts. It's at the end, I'm sure, to give time to Congress so they don't have to address the matter immediately upon returning to the capitol. but the wording is "Shall." Very clear. Go read up on this case again. What Obama did is unique, unless you can find me some other examples? There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button. Thank you! Introvert until you can accept the notion of legal precedent its basically impossible to have a conversation about this. This isn't just the way things work in the sense that we accept an imperfect system. A system of precedent is the only way that you can have predictably applied laws. Because no legal document could ever specify every single case that it will be necessary to decide, its necessary to have a judiciary to interpret the law. Without the notion of precedent those interpretations would be constantly changing, and a law that was settled one way last week could be settled the other way the next. Btw, I'm all for the constitution, but until you accept that laws are and always will be interpreted you're just going to be really frustrated for no good reason. I never denied that there is such a thing as precedent. What I deny is that it is unchangeable. But in this case, the precedent, good or bad, is about to be set anyway. There is no precedent for what he did. Unless you can find it for me. Why don't you address the rest of what I said, as well. The second point. I think I'm making a good case that the law IS clear on this. A clear, well known understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is what I'm talking about. Not every thing has a simple solution, true, but this one really is clear cut. Again, I refuse to just give up, of course. Bad or incorrect decisions need to be changed. I hate this idea that a law or Court ruling is supreme. The court grabbed that power, and it won't give it up. None of the government will! So you discuss and inform and stay informed. You don't just give up. Hell, the progressives have been at it for 100 years, and look how far they've come, and how many things they've undone. If you really are for the Constitution, you need to actually defend it, not give up on it.
It appears that I am in fact incorrect on the issue of presidential appointments. Sorry about that.
However I guess I want to stick around because of your idea that precedent is just sort of an annoyance that you have to live with. I will repeat something that I don't think that you got which is that law is always interpreted. You need to have precedents so as there can be a predictable notion of what the current intepretation is. Nobody has said that precedent is set in stone, but it needs to be hard to repeal or you don't get the standard of predictability. As it is now, only a higher court can overrule a lower court precedent. The only only exception to this is that the Supreme Court can overrule itself.
Instead of looking at this as some sort of strange power grab you need to understand that a notion of precedent is the only way to manage conflicting interpretations of the law. Since the law can never be 100% clear in all cases its completely necessary to have that.
|
On October 05 2013 14:36 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 14:28 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 14:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 14:12 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 13:42 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 12:55 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. I wanted to respond to this bit in particular. A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get. Ok, here we get into my area of interest. However, I must warn you, I'm kind of loopy today, prepare to see caps frequently. Please show me the legal precedent for being able to defy statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. And now, I don't care if Bush delayed the EPA. (I actually read that someone is suing the gov for this delay in the employer mandate, we'll see how it works out.) Obama didn't delay some part of the law that was vague. The law set a date, he changed it. On a whim. Just like he ignores the immigration law, or workfare. Our poor Constitution has been so abused, and the left points to it and says "see, all these OTHER presidents did this! I guess it's ok!" They trample over it and then call it "precedent." Shall I list all the bad precedents we have had? Being precedent hardly makes it legal, it just means you won't get into trouble for it. B. First, the text: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." So, he can appoint them UNTIL the next session ends. It's a stop gap, since at the time of ratification, the Congress was out of session more months than it was in session. Second, Obama DECLARED the congress in recess when it said it was NOT IN RECESS. The president does NOT have this power. Let me make this crystal clear: Nowhere is the president given the authority to declare congress in recess. This case has actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and is due to be heard this next session. So far almost EVERY court has invalidated Obama's move. In fact, it may actually be every court. of course, that didn't matter to Obama, he kept them there. It seems really obvious, but when it comes to John "pretzel" Roberts or Anthony "moderate" Kennedy, it's maddeningly difficult to tell. Seriously, look this case up (or I guess I can find the cites)...but there is no precedent for what Obama did. A break during a holiday is NOT the same type of recess. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/btw, how do you make a word a link? Couple things. You seem upset by the idea that "other people did this before therefore its ok". Sorry, but thats sort of how legal precedent works. If it worked before the idea is that it can work again. Also, there is a good legal precedent (theres that word again) for counting those small breaks as recesses. They're on holiday. Its the exact intent of the law which is to prevent these seats from sitting vacant while congress isn't doing anything. And the thing about them lasting til the next session basically means that congress has the ability to remove them on return, which they would never do because they're gridlocked. Of course I'm aware that that's "the way it works." So what? That doesn't mean I sit here and just throw my hands in the air. We can of course pass laws that deal with these things, but both parties like to exploit this BS. What people in this thread don't seem to understand is that doing something a lot doesn't make it legal, constitutionally. But I can also tell that most people in this thread view the Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper, so maybe I shouldn't even waste my time. Now, let's not be silly. There are different types of breaks. What the founders meant (a thing I place above precedent, which doesn't even exist in this case) was that the president was to fill vacancies for needed postilions until Congress came back and dealt with it. It wasn't for 2 day weekends. And it certainly was NOT meant as tool to avoid the Senate's approval procedures. And for the kicker, the president is nowhere given the authority to make a unilateral declaration of recess. The language is clear. They are removed from their position at the end of the next session. There is no qualifier there, it says "shall expire." Shall. No if, ands or buts. It's at the end, I'm sure, to give time to Congress so they don't have to address the matter immediately upon returning to the capitol. but the wording is "Shall." Very clear. Go read up on this case again. What Obama did is unique, unless you can find me some other examples? There is a button right about the window where you enter your post that says link. You click that button. Thank you! Introvert until you can accept the notion of legal precedent its basically impossible to have a conversation about this. This isn't just the way things work in the sense that we accept an imperfect system. A system of precedent is the only way that you can have predictably applied laws. Because no legal document could ever specify every single case that it will be necessary to decide, its necessary to have a judiciary to interpret the law. Without the notion of precedent those interpretations would be constantly changing, and a law that was settled one way last week could be settled the other way the next. Btw, I'm all for the constitution, but until you accept that laws are and always will be interpreted you're just going to be really frustrated for no good reason. I never denied that there is such a thing as precedent. What I deny is that it is unchangeable. But in this case, the precedent, good or bad, is about to be set anyway. There is no precedent for what he did. Unless you can find it for me. Why don't you address the rest of what I said, as well. The second point. I think I'm making a good case that the law IS clear on this. A clear, well known understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is what I'm talking about. Not every thing has a simple solution, true, but this one really is clear cut. Again, I refuse to just give up, of course. Bad or incorrect decisions need to be changed. I hate this idea that a law or Court ruling is supreme. The court grabbed that power, and it won't give it up. None of the government will! So you discuss and inform and stay informed. You don't just give up. Hell, the progressives have been at it for 100 years, and look how far they've come, and how many things they've undone. If you really are for the Constitution, you need to actually defend it, not give up on it. It appears that I am in fact incorrect on the issue of presidential appointments. Sorry about that. However I guess I want to stick around because of your idea that precedent is just sort of an annoyance that you have to live with. I will repeat something that I don't think that you got which is that law is always interpreted. You need to have precedents so as there can be a predictable notion of what the current intepretation is. Nobody has said that precedent is set in stone, but it needs to be hard to repeal or you don't get the standard of predictability. As it is now, only a higher court can overrule a lower court precedent. The only only exception to this is that the Supreme Court can overrule itself. Instead of looking at this as some sort of strange power grab you need to understand that a notion of precedent is the only way to manage conflicting interpretations of the law. Since the law can never be 100% clear in all cases its completely necessary to have that.
Cool, I was almost afraid there was a case I wasn't aware of! Phew.
Again, I think precedence is fine, it's just not the end all be all. And it is certainly open to changing, via statute, in most cases. But some of them are flat out wrong. We all know this. I respect precedent, obviously. But neither am I blindly accepting of it. That's my point. And as I said, the founding precedent for this case is relatively clear, as I hope the Court shows. But who knows. All is in the hands of (yep!) Pretzel and MM. Such a scary thought.
|
On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here are you serious? You realize that Krugman the blogger and Krugman the economist are two very different people, and that Krugman the economist has made a pretty serious contribution to the study of economists, his impact on the study of economists.
|
On October 05 2013 13:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 12:31 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 11:46 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 11:25 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 11:11 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 10:44 aksfjh wrote:On October 05 2013 10:28 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 09:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. Source Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece. Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum. When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face. I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments. Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada. What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back? We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait... On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs. my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite. I honestly think it would help you understand modern economic more if you understood what national debt actually is. No, its not like your household spending, and your ability to repay your personal debts are not a relevant example of how a modern economy should treat debts no matter how hard conservatives try to spin it. Everyone agrees that the debt and the deficit has to be addressed at some point, but as liberals rightly pointed out addressing the debt in 2010 was foolish, and the stated conservative reason for why it had to be addressed then -- because it is unsustainable *now* and would lead to a financial collapse *now* -- was flat out wrong. It was a convenient political weapon to attack Obama on in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Even the basic economic underpinning for it -- the Rogoff/Reinhart paper that claimed that debt/gdp at 90% means something horrible will happen to the economy was proven to be at best partially derived from a simple mistake in their excel calculations and at the very worst an outright intellectual fraud. And the conservative 'solution' to too much debt-- of gutting the state and slashing taxes -- is not the answer, it will simply reproduce the same problems that we see in the PIGS. massive un employment + rising debt. I am aware it is different. I am also aware that, in the end, it is money that should be repaid. See, this is fundamentally wrong. The British government has issued debt since the 18th century, it has never paid it off. Government debt is someone else's investment/saving, and having somewhere that is viewed as nearly risk free as a place to park your cash into is a valuable commodity. We know this because at the height of the financial crisis the demand for US government debt from everyone, Americans, American corporations AND foreigners, all plowed into US government debt which is why interest rates collapsed.
The government is allowed to go into debt, that's not the issue. The issue is how much, and what are we getting for it. We are spending billions and getting nothing.
What are you talking about? You get things like highways, a big military, a safety net, the elderly dont just die in poverty and misery. The idea that the government doesnt provide you with nothing is just wrong. As to claims of "now." I don't know of a single conservative that said "if we don't reduce it by X amount before October 2013, we are going to die!" (maybe Paul Ryan said that?) John Cochrane of the University of Chicago, Craig Mankiw and Nial Ferguson of Harvard, the Hoover Center at Stanford, and a host of economists and other academics from more obscure universities. Problems will eventually arise, but it's not clear when. That's the issue. I certainly haven't said we are in danger in any particular time frame. But right now, [i]the 10+ year outlook is nothing but more debt, with no solution in sight As long as debt grows at the same rate as the economy then you can in fact go on forever.
Interestingly enough, I still don't see any proposed solution. most of the people here seem to be under the impression that it can continue on and on and they don't even want to worry about it all. "oh, it won't be a problem in the future." Well, economists agree that's not true. The basic argument is that we have to spend now to help now and figure the rest out later, essentially. It is NOT possible to spend into infinity. The left just has no idea when to stop. They don't WANT to stop.
Again, this is wrong. You can keep spending as long as the rate of growth is maintained. Most people are not under the impression you claim, liberal economists are simply saying: go into debt as a counter cyclical response to the worst recession since the 1930s and in the good times pay down the debt. But let me explain it another way, if we reach a point of unsustainable the bond market will let us know by raising interest rates on American debt.
Please show me what research says debt will no be a problem for us. What makes us that special? I'd lvoe to see some sources, btw. I fully admit that, when it comes to government, I've spent more time studying the Constitution, etc than strict economics.
What makes America special is that all its debt is denominated in American dollars and its a large modern economy. Japan had debt/gdp at over 100% for almost 20 years now. Germany debt/gdp reach 90%+ during its mid 2000s recessions, after world war 2 both the UK and the US had debt/gdp higher thEan it currently is. Again, the argument is, fix the economy now, deal with the debt later. Instead of trying to 'fix' the debt now by doing things that will make the recession and the debt both worse off. Again, not my area, so I'm trying to learn something. But so far I'm not convinced that when everyone says we have a problem to address, that we don't have a problem.
Everyone says we have several problems to address, what is undecided is (a) when the problem will be too big to deal with (b) when is it a good time to address it. The conservative response is to address a problem that is not a real issue yet, and may not be ever, and in a way that will not resolve the issue
Also in the 18th century, the English had such bad debt they increased taxes on Americans and were in a risky financial shape. But they pulled through. And the money is repaid, just at a manageable rate, while newer debts are taken on. Do they have large debts that they owe to someone from the 17th century?
huh? No. They re-roll the debts. Just like when someone who wanted to save in 1950, and bought a 30 year US bond, the bond was paid in full in 1980. The make up of who wants to borrow money and who wants to lend money, that is who wants consume and who wants to save always changes
We have entitlements that the government itself says are going to go under. We will not be able to spend enough to keep up, that IS the problem. When I mentioned getting nothing, I was referring to the stimulus. it's done jack all.
What are you talking about? The stimulus didnt do jack, it get millions more people at work. The fact that Lawrence Summers and Barrack Obama were bad at explaining Christina Romer's argument for a larger stimulus is an issue of communication, not an issue of economics. About a trillion dollars of consumer finance was taken out of the economy in 07-08 and only about 800 billion, much of it in tax cuts that in a financial crisis of the kind the US was facing are not as effective as direct fiscal transfers, was used to replace it.
At some point the Fed is going to have to raise interests rates. It seems that many economists (when do read such things), say interest rates will have to go up, at some point.
Yes. That point will happen when inflation starts picking up. And it will happen whether the Fed wants it or not. However, inflation has not picked up
And the system has already shown it doesn't like that idea.
If by the system you mean the bond market, you are correct
We are taking on more debt then we can keep up with.
This is factually wrong.
I'm sure it looks better because the government is using much of the money it's printing, which, while increasing the debt, also increases the size of the economy, but it's not the result of something actually happening, it's the result of large injections into the system. It's money from nowhere, and it's going to have to come back in and be done away with.
This is fundamentally wrong. Prior to the financial crisis many people believed that certain assets that they had were as good as government debt, and they treated those assets as such. The financial crisis came about because many of those assets proved not to be as good as government debt, causing many entities to suddenly find themselves with a lot less savings than they thought they did. This in turn caused them to stop consuming/start selling other assets to get up to the level of savings they thought they were at. The printing of money is basically allowing them to do that in a fashion that is least destructive to the wider economy.
ok, why do so many economists seem alarmed by the debt and deficit? if it's all hunky dory why even talk about it at all?
Because the ones who are alarmed by the debt and the deficit are usually Republicans, and they wanted to score points against Obama. Some of them, for example Rogoff, admit that their expectations of a horrible disaster once debt/GDP reached a certain level were false. Others admitted the hyper inflation they thought was going to hit America in 2012 as a response to Fed printing money were also wrong.
Also, I'm not seeing the result of this increased spending. Jobs are flat, incomes are flat, etc. We are getting precious little from this it appears.
There are more jobs now than there were in 2008. There are more jobs now than there would have been had the government started a harsh period of austerity as well. That we dont have is a full recovery, and partially that has been caused by an inadequate stimulus, partially by structural issues in the economy and partially by Obama's own decision to pursue policies that focus more on stability over full employment
Also, why did the 80s recession not require massive spending on this scale (or in "stimulus")? The economy came back just a few years after the rate hike.
That was a completely different crisis. If you are talking about Volkner's disinflation, the rate hike, he did it in an economy that was at full employment and with inflation in double digits. The US economy in 08 was not at full employment and in deflation. Had the Fed raised interest rates in 2010 like some conservatives wanted, America would have had the same economic response as Greece or Spain. A bracing deflation and a deep recession
Are these same economists embracing this spending now the same ones that yelled at Reagan for the debt he helped rack up?
Since Reagan and Bush II racked up debts *while the economy was growing* while the current debts are responses to a crisis I dont see how the comparisons are valid. In fact, if you are asking "when should the debt issue be resolved" the answer from a liberal economist would be 'once we have sustained economic growth', in other words the time to pay own debt is akin to the second Clinton presidency and less so to the first FDR presidency.
Thing is, this is very clearly divided around ideological lines. So, both sides have failures. The stimulus is a failure,
The stimulus was not a failure, it was oversold as a panecea and underfunded but the fact that the system didnt crash is a sign that it isnt a failure
The liberal economist's "pay it back later" is never slated to happen! (if you look at CBO estimates).
The recent CBO estimates clearly show that debt will start declining as percentage of GDP.
And the last liberal president who was running a strong economy actually was paying down the national debt.
So yes, fix it now, get it over with. Because getting it back is going to hurt.
This doesnt make sense, since a decent portion of the current budget deficit is caused by the collapse in tax recipies caused by the collapse of the economy. Cutting while in a recession at best prolongs the recession.
|
On October 05 2013 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here are you serious? You realize that Krugman the blogger and Krugman the economist are two very different people, and that Krugman the economist has made a pretty serious contribution to the study of economists, his impact on the study of economists.
I think he's overrated. The two people I compared him to were/are (in the case of Chomsky) on a different level entirely from him due to the interdisciplinary influence of their works. (Buckley was unfair, I'll admit). I'm not saying Krugman is an idiot or that he has made 0 significant contributions to economics- he has. Krugman is just sometimes elevated to a status that he doesn't deserve, in my personal opinion, and people holding him up this way makes it easy for him to be dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with him. My opinion is that he's being treated as the spokesperson for anti-austerity economics when there are really far too many positions for there to be a single spokesperson. My issue with Krugman isn't Krugman so much as the way he's been treated by the media.
Discussing why I don't love Krugman really isn't a political discussion though. I'm sure I would much rather read his economic works than his blog, but his blog has never much inspired me to pick up one of his economic works and has instead made me more likely to read the work of someone he's writing about. As I said - economics is not a personal strong point of mine. I think microeconomics bored me to tears.
|
On October 05 2013 16:25 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here are you serious? You realize that Krugman the blogger and Krugman the economist are two very different people, and that Krugman the economist has made a pretty serious contribution to the study of economists, his impact on the study of economists. I think he's overrated. The two people I compared him to were/are (in the case of Chomsky) on a different level entirely from him due to the interdisciplinary influence of their works. (Buckley was unfair, I'll admit). I'm not saying Krugman is an idiot or that he has made 0 significant contributions to economics- he has. Krugman is just sometimes elevated to a status that he doesn't deserve, in my personal opinion, and people holding him up this way makes it easy for him to be dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with him. My opinion is that he's being treated as the spokesperson for anti-austerity economics when there are really far too many positions for there to be a single spokesperson. My issue with Krugman isn't Krugman so much as the way he's been treated by the media. Discussing why I don't love Krugman really isn't a political discussion though. I'm sure I would much rather read his economic works than his blog, but his blog has never much inspired me to pick up one of his economic works and has instead made me more likely to read the work of someone he's writing about. As I said - economics is not a personal strong point of mine. I think microeconomics bored me to tears.
See, when I read a response like that I find it frustrating. Your response is akin to me saying "Chomsky is a fraud because he praised pol pot" and is overrated by all the communists that praise him as their god. How can you possibly dismiss someone who has a vast academic contribution to a subject in such a way? He isnt even a microeconomist!
|
On October 05 2013 16:32 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:25 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here are you serious? You realize that Krugman the blogger and Krugman the economist are two very different people, and that Krugman the economist has made a pretty serious contribution to the study of economists, his impact on the study of economists. I think he's overrated. The two people I compared him to were/are (in the case of Chomsky) on a different level entirely from him due to the interdisciplinary influence of their works. (Buckley was unfair, I'll admit). I'm not saying Krugman is an idiot or that he has made 0 significant contributions to economics- he has. Krugman is just sometimes elevated to a status that he doesn't deserve, in my personal opinion, and people holding him up this way makes it easy for him to be dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with him. My opinion is that he's being treated as the spokesperson for anti-austerity economics when there are really far too many positions for there to be a single spokesperson. My issue with Krugman isn't Krugman so much as the way he's been treated by the media. Discussing why I don't love Krugman really isn't a political discussion though. I'm sure I would much rather read his economic works than his blog, but his blog has never much inspired me to pick up one of his economic works and has instead made me more likely to read the work of someone he's writing about. As I said - economics is not a personal strong point of mine. I think microeconomics bored me to tears. See, when I read a response like that I find it frustrating. Your response is akin to me saying "Chomsky is a fraud because he praised pol pot" and is overrated by all the communists that praise him as their god. How can you possibly dismiss someone who has a vast academic contribution to a subject in such a way? He isnt even a microeconomist!
I know he's not a microeconomist. I was saying I find economics boring, but I never took a macroeconomics course so I went with micro which is what I did have the displeasure of sitting through (I've heard the two classes are taught wildly differently but it's probably whoever is teaching you as with most subjects, and intellectually I know they are vastly different but eh). You might find linguistics boring. I don't dismiss him personally. I'm saying his arguments are being dismissed by others merely for coming from him. Reading his blog doesn't disgust me.
I've never felt a personal urge to read his economic works and I did the vast majority of my political studying before the austerity movement was in full force (2007-first half of 2010). I don't mind being enlightened, but I personally don't have the time or money to set aside to read a subject that I don't find naturally compelling.
Also, Chomsky isn't a communist.... Do they really hold him up as an idol? (I've never met a communist. Plenty of Marxists and Anarchists though).
Anyways, you've obviously done far more study of economics than I have, I'm perfectly content to say my knowledge is insufficient on the topic to make sweeping judgement or arguments.
edit - My apologies for lacking sufficient understanding of Krugman's economic contributions - as I feel like I may be deeply lacking in them.
|
On October 05 2013 16:48 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:32 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 16:25 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 14:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2013 13:58 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2013 13:51 Nevuk wrote:The 80s recession was nothing on the scale of the current one... the current one is dubbed the Great Recession as the most recent economic event that was comparable was the Great Depression ( most economists agree that without the government intervention and stimulus of Bush/Obama we would be in another depression. Same as most economists don't think that cutting back spending during the great depression helped anything (but there are some who do think that- this isn't like the global warming or evolution debates, there's actual evidence for both sides to argue about rather than one just being laughed out of the room). The 80s one was probably smaller than the dotcom bust. Unless you meant the 1880s recessions. The economist most well-known popularly currently is Paul Krugman who is a polarizing figure to say the least, but quite prolific. Also there was a massive lie/spreadsheet mistake in a very influential paper about deficit and GDP ratios that was discovered fairly recently (not discovered by Krugman - it was accidentally figured out by an MIT econ student) - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html Fair enough. I know there is debate about the 30s. My area of interest is the Constitution. I was always more interested in the legality of what FDR did then the economics of what he did. But I did know it was debated. if I stick around the thread I'd be ok with sticking to Constitutional topics, for the most part. But when everyone says you have a problem... it prompts me to believe we have a problem. As to Paul Krugman... I kind of had a feeling this is where you got most of your info. I'd say polarizing is certainly the the nicest you could be about it. And he is quite far left. Do you read any right leaning economists? I'm trying to get a mix here. I've only heard of that 90% study once, but that's not what I was basing my statements on. I still think the rest of what I've said seems reasonable, at the very least. Krugman is a good rhetorician but he's not exactly an intellectual heavyweight of the likes of Chomsky or Foucault (hell I would even throw in Buckley for a conservative voice here are you serious? You realize that Krugman the blogger and Krugman the economist are two very different people, and that Krugman the economist has made a pretty serious contribution to the study of economists, his impact on the study of economists. I think he's overrated. The two people I compared him to were/are (in the case of Chomsky) on a different level entirely from him due to the interdisciplinary influence of their works. (Buckley was unfair, I'll admit). I'm not saying Krugman is an idiot or that he has made 0 significant contributions to economics- he has. Krugman is just sometimes elevated to a status that he doesn't deserve, in my personal opinion, and people holding him up this way makes it easy for him to be dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with him. My opinion is that he's being treated as the spokesperson for anti-austerity economics when there are really far too many positions for there to be a single spokesperson. My issue with Krugman isn't Krugman so much as the way he's been treated by the media. Discussing why I don't love Krugman really isn't a political discussion though. I'm sure I would much rather read his economic works than his blog, but his blog has never much inspired me to pick up one of his economic works and has instead made me more likely to read the work of someone he's writing about. As I said - economics is not a personal strong point of mine. I think microeconomics bored me to tears. See, when I read a response like that I find it frustrating. Your response is akin to me saying "Chomsky is a fraud because he praised pol pot" and is overrated by all the communists that praise him as their god. How can you possibly dismiss someone who has a vast academic contribution to a subject in such a way? He isnt even a microeconomist! I know he's not a microeconomist. I was saying I find economics boring, but I never took a macroeconomics course so I went with micro which is what I did have the displeasure of sitting through (I've heard the two classes are taught wildly differently but it's probably whoever is teaching you as with most subjects, and intellectually I know they are vastly different but eh). You might find linguistics boring. I don't dismiss him personally. I'm saying his arguments are being dismissed by others merely for coming from him. Reading his blog doesn't disgust me. I've never felt a personal urge to read his economic works and I did the vast majority of my political studying before the austerity movement was in full force (2007-first half of 2010). I don't mind being enlightened, but I personally don't have the time or money to set aside to read a subject that I don't find naturally compelling. Also, Chomsky isn't a communist.... Do they really hold him up as an idol? (I've never met a communist. Plenty of Marxists and Anarchists though). Anyways, you've obviously done far more study of economics than I have, I'm perfectly content to say my knowledge is insufficient on the topic to make sweeping judgement or arguments. edit - My apologies for lacking sufficient understanding of Krugman's economic contributions - as I feel like I may be deeply lacking in them.
He basically revolutioned the study of international trade and his contribution to economic geography is one of the most brilliant macroeconomic work I've read. He pissed some people with his political stand but I've never really heard any teacher in economy say anything bad about his work.
To be fair, from my point of view, he is one of the very few economists who actually "deserve" his nobel price.
|
On October 04 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:36 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 09:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:58 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans). Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process. That would certainly be better than what's going on now. I find it hard to not be mad at both parties for not doing that instead. Ok, so we agree that it would be better. Do you also agree that, like I said, the destruction of the baseline is not "normal" in a negotiation process? Also, you are again blaming "both parties", while the party which is putting the baseline into the negotiation as "what the Democrats want" is the Republican party. What's more, Senate Democrats were already asking for a conference to discuss and resolve budget issues six months ago and Republicans blocked it. Are you now willing to admit the Republicans are more to blame for the current crisis than Democrats? The destruction of the baseline isn't normal, but it's been pretty common in the past few years to have 11th hour negotiations. The tax hikes went that way and the sequester talks went, and failed, at the 11th hour. This time the 11th hour negotiations went up against a government shutdown and failed again. This shit shouldn't be going to the 11th hour in the first place for sure.
If you agree that the destruction of the baseline being the result of negotiation failure isn't normal, then you agree that the current situation is not a normal negotiation process, contrary to your earlier statement.
On October 04 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for who's more to blame for not negotiating, I'd need to look into that. Right now there's a lot of BS floating around about who is / isn't negotiating. I know Reps have made some crazy demands around the ACA, but as your link reminded me Dems have been pretty rough when it has come to taxes.
It's not simply a matter of who's to blame for not negotiating. It's a matter of who's to blame for the current crisis situation. The answer to this is that the Republican party is to blame (I'm not going to go into the specific details of the influence of the Tea Party wing within it). The reasons are (at least) twofold:
1. It is the Republican party which adopted the strategy of making the destruction of the baseline (the government shutdown and, possibly, the failure to raise the debt limit and what comes with it) the result of negotiation failure. This, alone, means - as you agreed yourself - that we are not in a normal negotiation process. As I explained earlier, in a normal negotiation process, each party is supposed to gain something it wants in exchange for letting the other one gain something it wants. In the present case, Republicans want to gain something (the defunding of the ACA) while presenting the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA) as the Democrats' "gain", when it isn't an actual gain at all. An actual gain for Democrats would, for example, be the repeal of the sequester. Republicans are therefore clearly to blame here.
(let's also remark that by making this their general strategy, Republicans have in fact forced Democrats to refuse to accede to their demands, otherwise this would mean Republicans could simply use the same strategy over and over again without Democrats ever gaining anything from acceding to Republican demands)
2. It is the Republican party which has refused to engage in actual negotiations over the budget, and in fact even to enter a conference with Democrats to do just that six months ago. They have not shown themselves to be interested in letting the Democrats gain something in exchange for Republican gains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
