EPT![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/11/ScreenShot081-e1383312308434.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/11/ScreenShot082-e1383312870814.jpg)
Thats strange. Its as if an incredibly rich, incredibly powerful industry is working really hard to make it a much more complex and unwieldy law.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 595
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
Thats strange. Its as if an incredibly rich, incredibly powerful industry is working really hard to make it a much more complex and unwieldy law. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On November 02 2013 03:01 Sub40APM wrote: Thats strange. Its as if an incredibly rich, incredibly powerful industry is working really hard to make it a much more complex and unwieldy law. Yeah, I'm sure more complex and expensive compliance is what the banks are pulling for. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On November 02 2013 03:09 Yoav wrote: Yeah, I'm sure more complex and expensive compliance is what the banks are pulling for. It is precisely the complexity of our current tax scheme/financial market that allows big business and big bank to play financial sleight of hand. You're damn right they want complexity. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 01 2013 20:29 Danglars wrote: I admit and perhaps you see a human level, where some of Obama's merits are ignored by tea party members and supporters. In fact, Michelle Obama may mean the very best in combating obesity and may herself enjoy gardening as well. Your feelings aside (and if you're intellectually honest, I have no doubt that they'll follow and change), it is a community deeply concerned with government involvement in the ordinary citizen's life and what its intentions are for control and spending. Obama preached a new brand of government, new hope and change, and governed in a way that threw out the center and plunged leftward. The Tea Party sees what has been lost in the push for greater government responsibility as greater than what has been gained. The debate rages on. We do with the kooks what most everyone does. They're rejected and ignored. We deal with the far fetched insults the same way. The left plays make believe with their opponents, surely believing that anybody who knew the plight of the poor could disagree with them in any way. Balkanize if you want--blacks have been doing very poorly under Obama. Yet, disagree at your peril for you will soon be labeled an Uncle Tom (Clarence Thomas for one). Drag out more sorry lines from the 70s and before trying to stratify America as an uncaring rich class and a destitute one. Democratic control means just one thing for communities: an increase in poverty and crime and a decrease in overall wealth and prosperity. I think you misinterpreted me. Perhaps I should have said that the Tea Part is backwards, racist, and bigoted even though Obama is an unprincipled scumbag who murders people via the air by presidential fiat and signs off on a system that has abolished the last vestiges of privacy. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On November 02 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote: It precisely the complexity of our current tax scheme/financial market that allows big business and big bank to play financial sleight of hand. You're damn right they want complexity. Not to mention the regulators are under-staffed and under-paid compared to the industry it is policing. The more complex the laws, the more time it takes for regulators to dig through it. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2013 03:01 Sub40APM wrote: Thats strange. Its as if an incredibly rich, incredibly powerful industry is working really hard to make it a much more complex and unwieldy law. On November 02 2013 03:13 farvacola wrote: It precisely the complexity of our current tax scheme/financial market that allows big business and big bank to play financial sleight of hand. You're damn right they want complexity. It's a mixed bag. The complexity favors the big over the small, so big players, in a way, welcome the complexity on competitive grounds. It is a cost, however, so it's opposed on that ground by both the big and small. It's worth noting that Dodd-Frank doesn't need outside lobbying to be complex. It was complex from the start and everyone knew going in that the rule writing would be extremely complicated and time consuming. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 02 2013 10:08 xDaunt wrote: I'd like to personally thank Obama for destroying my awesome healthcare plan, which my wife's employer is being forced to eliminate as a consequence of Obamacare. The replacement is no where near as good. he doesn't read TL  | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8645 Posts
He doesn't, but those guys from this hip club that's in the news everywhere. I believe it's called the NSA. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to introduce a bill next week that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Washington Examiner. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which the House passed in June, would bar abortions several weeks before the fetus is viable based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses at that age can feel pain. The House version was amended at the last minute to include exceptions for rape and incest victims, after an all-male panel of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee had approved a bill with an exception only for the life of the mother. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he wanted to be the lead sponsor of the Senate companion bill earlier this year, but he hesitated when he and his colleagues could not come to a consensus on which part of the Constitution gave them the power to pass such a bill. Several states, including Texas, Nebraska and Arizona, have enacted their own bans on abortion after 20 weeks, and the city of Albuquerque, N.M., will put the measure on its November ballot. But the constitutionality of the law remains in question. Source | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idiotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 02 2013 10:08 xDaunt wrote: I'd like to personally thank Obama for destroying my awesome healthcare plan, which my wife's employer is being forced to eliminate as a consequence of Obamacare. The replacement is no where near as good. Clearly, your case is one of those that was incidental and unintended. All the professional studies say health plans will be fine. I'm getting tired of these true believers persisting in telling me that everything will be great once the website's fixed. | ||
|
Edlina
Denmark28 Posts
This graph is actually quite interesting in terms of the growth of inequality of the US. It quite clearly demonstrates how wealth has grown in Africa and big parts of Asia throughout 1988 - 2008, and how the top 1% (of the world) have also enjoyed wealth growth at a comparable rate. Meanwhile the middle class (or at least the lower middle class) and the poor citizens of the second world countries and the western world including the US have seen very limited growth of less than or around 1% annually (i.e. approximately 20% growth over 20 years). | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 02 2013 10:08 xDaunt wrote: I'd like to personally thank Obama for destroying my awesome healthcare plan, which my wife's employer is being forced to eliminate as a consequence of Obamacare. Is there a reason that particular healthcare plan is gone? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote: Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts. I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idiotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. Surely you can't be serious? | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote: Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts. I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idiotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote: I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. To be fair actual libertarians mostly support choice side of the debate. There is noone in republican party that can be called "real" libertarian. Maybe Ron Paul, but even that would be debatable. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Change-in-real-income-between-1988-and-2008-at-various-percentiles-of-global-income-distribution-calculated-in-2005-international-dollars-Branko-Milanovic.jpg)
