|
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 December 03 2013 07:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 03 2013 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:On December 03 2013 01:39 Acrofales wrote:
The scientific method isn't founded on experiments, it is founded on falsifiable hypotheses. And even that is only part of the equation. I suggest everybody here starts reading up on the philosophy of science before spouting pseudoscientific drivel here.
Sorry but this is just outright delusional. The "Method of Falsification" a la Popper you are proposing here is not the standard scientific approach. In medicine you are not trying to prove that a drug isn't working, you are trying to prove that it is. At CERN physicists are not trying to prove that the Higg's Boson doesn't exist, they're collecting enough data so they can be pretty sure it does. Experiments and empirical verification are the core idea of every "hard science". Please show me a scientific field where that is not the case.(You made your point pretty clear, so please prove me wrong and don't expect me to provide any evidence here for my statements  ) Germany is not an example of supply side again, Germany is one of the most hypocritical country ever. They actually invested a lot in their economy, their debt GDP ratio before the crisis was bigger than most EU countries, they had (have) a big investment program in green energy and in the reconstruction of Berlin. Not to mention the euro was greatly helping them (low inflation rate in other european countries, with high inflation in Germany, an euro underevaluated for them and overevaluated for the rest of the euro, there is a piece on Krugman blog about that http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/germanys-lack-of-reciprocity/). If you want to find supply side economy, find someone who make tax cut and deregulation in a period of growth, like Bush, and see the result. Sorry but the part about German investments is just outright wrong. Our rates of investment were constantly 4-5% below OECD average for the last decade. And the Euro helping us or being in a recession hasn't really anything to do with supply side economics. If you lower taxes and deregulate your markets during a recession it's still supply-side policy and doesn't magically become the opposite. (Or please show me a definition of said policy where it says:"It only is supply side economics if you do it while your economy is booming and your currency sucks". Although i slowly get the impression that your personal definition seems to be "It can't be supply side economics if it works") I'm just saying you argue that Germany has done supply side economics and it worked, while what made German policy work is : the euro and its impacts, and the global hypocrisy of the german economy. It's not a proof that "supply side economy works" it is just a proof that being hypocritical and having a big advantage thanks to a currency that destroy southern countries is good for your economy, period. Now if you want to know if supply side works, you need an economic context that is more or less "normal" so that you can really assess the impact of the said economic policy without interferences : and that is the bush administration. You must be trolling...
And explain me how can you consider that Reagan policies were supply side or demand side ? Explain please.
|
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday dismissed the idea that this Congress is the least productive in history and said the House has done its job this year.
"The House has continued to listen to the American people and to focus on their concerns," Boehner told reporters. "Whether it's the economy, whether it's jobs, whether it's protecting the American people from Obamacare -- we've done our work."
Boehner said if anyone's to blame for congressional inaction, it's the Senate. He cited the fact that the House has passed more than half of the annual appropriations bills and the Senate hasn't passed any of them.
"The House continues to do its job," he said. "It's time for the Senate to get serious about doing theirs."
Appropriations bills always originate in the House and they require both chambers to work on them to get them signed into law. Beyond that, the House won't take up several major bills that have cleared the Senate, including immigration reform and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The 113th Congress has passed 55 bills into law this year, seven fewer at this point than the 112th Congress, making it, at least for now, the least productive Congress in history. The handful of key bills that have passed the House, such as reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy victims, were accompanied by intense partisanship.
Source
|
Lol, Boehner. Don't let facts get in the way of your spindoctoring.
|
how did he protect the people from obamacare if it was passed? oops...classic misdirection and putting the responsibility on someone else.
|
Boehner should be removed from office and imprisoned; sadly there isn't a law against what he's done.
But people like him are a great threat to a democracy; one of the common paths to tyranny is well-meaning people trying to get things done when the politicians refuse to.
|
On December 04 2013 04:08 zlefin wrote:
Boehner should be removed from office and imprisoned; sadly there isn't a law against what he's done.
But people like him are a great threat to a democracy; one of the common paths to tyranny is well-meaning people trying to get things done when the politicians refuse to.
I'm not a fan of Boehner's policy, but making him out to be some kind of tyrant is silly. He weilds relatively little real power, and the reason things can't get done is because the republican party is split and can't decide what they want to do. The idea that he should be somehow imprisoned as a "threat to democracy" is ludicrous.
|
You misunderstand; the two statements are separate. I never said he was a tyrant. But despots sometimes take over to make things actually run when the legislature fails to accomplish anything. The point being that the risk of executive power growth increases when the legislature is more dysfunctional.
The imprisonment is simply for hurting the country generally and dereliction of duty, but is not related to the democracy threat point.
|
On December 04 2013 05:28 zlefin wrote:
You misunderstand; the two statements are separate. I never said he was a tyrant. But despots sometimes take over to make things actually run when the legislature fails to accomplish anything. The point being that the risk of executive power growth increases when the legislature is more dysfunctional.
The imprisonment is simply for hurting the country generally and dereliction of duty, but is not related to the democracy threat point.
This is still a ridiculous jump. You can't argue that someone ought to be forcibly ousted from a public position simply because you don't like how they are doing their job (and you certainly can't impeach them for it). That's what elections are for, and if they actually break the law in some way then they can be impeached.
|
On December 04 2013 02:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 03 2013 07:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 03 2013 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:On December 03 2013 01:39 Acrofales wrote:
The scientific method isn't founded on experiments, it is founded on falsifiable hypotheses. And even that is only part of the equation. I suggest everybody here starts reading up on the philosophy of science before spouting pseudoscientific drivel here.
Sorry but this is just outright delusional. The "Method of Falsification" a la Popper you are proposing here is not the standard scientific approach. In medicine you are not trying to prove that a drug isn't working, you are trying to prove that it is. At CERN physicists are not trying to prove that the Higg's Boson doesn't exist, they're collecting enough data so they can be pretty sure it does. Experiments and empirical verification are the core idea of every "hard science". Please show me a scientific field where that is not the case.(You made your point pretty clear, so please prove me wrong and don't expect me to provide any evidence here for my statements ) Germany is not an example of supply side again, Germany is one of the most hypocritical country ever. They actually invested a lot in their economy, their debt GDP ratio before the crisis was bigger than most EU countries, they had (have) a big investment program in green energy and in the reconstruction of Berlin. Not to mention the euro was greatly helping them (low inflation rate in other european countries, with high inflation in Germany, an euro underevaluated for them and overevaluated for the rest of the euro, there is a piece on Krugman blog about that http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/germanys-lack-of-reciprocity/). If you want to find supply side economy, find someone who make tax cut and deregulation in a period of growth, like Bush, and see the result. Sorry but the part about German investments is just outright wrong. Our rates of investment were constantly 4-5% below OECD average for the last decade. And the Euro helping us or being in a recession hasn't really anything to do with supply side economics. If you lower taxes and deregulate your markets during a recession it's still supply-side policy and doesn't magically become the opposite. (Or please show me a definition of said policy where it says:"It only is supply side economics if you do it while your economy is booming and your currency sucks". Although i slowly get the impression that your personal definition seems to be "It can't be supply side economics if it works") I'm just saying you argue that Germany has done supply side economics and it worked, while what made German policy work is : the euro and its impacts, and the global hypocrisy of the german economy. It's not a proof that "supply side economy works" it is just a proof that being hypocritical and having a big advantage thanks to a currency that destroy southern countries is good for your economy, period. Now if you want to know if supply side works, you need an economic context that is more or less "normal" so that you can really assess the impact of the said economic policy without interferences : and that is the bush administration. You must be trolling... And explain me how can you consider that Reagan policies were supply side or demand side ? Explain please.
Well, if a policy fits the definition... there you go.
|
On December 04 2013 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday dismissed the idea that this Congress is the least productive in history and said the House has done its job this year. "The House has continued to listen to the American people and to focus on their concerns," Boehner told reporters. "Whether it's the economy, whether it's jobs, whether it's protecting the American people from Obamacare -- we've done our work." Boehner said if anyone's to blame for congressional inaction, it's the Senate. He cited the fact that the House has passed more than half of the annual appropriations bills and the Senate hasn't passed any of them. "The House continues to do its job," he said. "It's time for the Senate to get serious about doing theirs." Appropriations bills always originate in the House and they require both chambers to work on them to get them signed into law. Beyond that, the House won't take up several major bills that have cleared the Senate, including immigration reform and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.The 113th Congress has passed 55 bills into law this year, seven fewer at this point than the 112th Congress, making it, at least for now, the least productive Congress in history. The handful of key bills that have passed the House, such as reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy victims, were accompanied by intense partisanship. Source
How ever will our republic survive if these important bills aren't taken up rapidly! From what I've seen from current immigration reform (amnesty now, kick can down the road on border enforcement just like 1986 all over again), we'll be better off leaving it in a dusty corner somewhere. We all know these rampant discrimination occurring everywhere that have hitherto never been addressed. Hah! If that's the HuffPo definition of major bills, I'd like to see what they consider minor ones.
This thought that you just have to march on more laws, more spending, more regulations. It must be done! What a thought! There's a new regulation penned to the Federal Register every two hours and 33 minutes these days. I wish jaws would drop whenever it was written that Congress was "least productive in history" and "congressional inaction," and intended with negative connotations! And what is this government producing. They're using language like Boeing is lowering production of 747s for a body that has grown to reject securing liberty for its population and spends above its means. Productive and inaction? It's been far too productive and active for my tastes. Ship me off to wherever they take the Tea Party loonies because articles like these make me sick.
|
packrat do not lie so blatantly; disliking the job someone is doing and dereliction of duty are two very different standards. attempting to conflate the two is poor form.
Danglars: you're wrong.
A productive republican congress would be passing piles of laws that REPEAL the excess legislation and regulations that is out there, rather than accomplishing nothing at all.
|
Eliminating excess regulation is always a nice idea but it very rarely holds up when you reach the details. Regulation is something that usually has to be gotten rid of on a case by case basis because blanket deregulation typically only ends badly and since as you noted there is SO much regulation its probably very hard for the actual congressmen to go thru each and every one and decide which should be gotten rid of and you cant really ask the industry because they would clearly favor being allowed to do whatever damn the consequences.
|
On December 04 2013 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2013 02:09 WhiteDog wrote:On December 03 2013 07:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 03 2013 07:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 03 2013 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:On December 03 2013 01:39 Acrofales wrote:
The scientific method isn't founded on experiments, it is founded on falsifiable hypotheses. And even that is only part of the equation. I suggest everybody here starts reading up on the philosophy of science before spouting pseudoscientific drivel here.
Sorry but this is just outright delusional. The "Method of Falsification" a la Popper you are proposing here is not the standard scientific approach. In medicine you are not trying to prove that a drug isn't working, you are trying to prove that it is. At CERN physicists are not trying to prove that the Higg's Boson doesn't exist, they're collecting enough data so they can be pretty sure it does. Experiments and empirical verification are the core idea of every "hard science". Please show me a scientific field where that is not the case.(You made your point pretty clear, so please prove me wrong and don't expect me to provide any evidence here for my statements ) Germany is not an example of supply side again, Germany is one of the most hypocritical country ever. They actually invested a lot in their economy, their debt GDP ratio before the crisis was bigger than most EU countries, they had (have) a big investment program in green energy and in the reconstruction of Berlin. Not to mention the euro was greatly helping them (low inflation rate in other european countries, with high inflation in Germany, an euro underevaluated for them and overevaluated for the rest of the euro, there is a piece on Krugman blog about that http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/germanys-lack-of-reciprocity/). If you want to find supply side economy, find someone who make tax cut and deregulation in a period of growth, like Bush, and see the result. Sorry but the part about German investments is just outright wrong. Our rates of investment were constantly 4-5% below OECD average for the last decade. And the Euro helping us or being in a recession hasn't really anything to do with supply side economics. If you lower taxes and deregulate your markets during a recession it's still supply-side policy and doesn't magically become the opposite. (Or please show me a definition of said policy where it says:"It only is supply side economics if you do it while your economy is booming and your currency sucks". Although i slowly get the impression that your personal definition seems to be "It can't be supply side economics if it works") I'm just saying you argue that Germany has done supply side economics and it worked, while what made German policy work is : the euro and its impacts, and the global hypocrisy of the german economy. It's not a proof that "supply side economy works" it is just a proof that being hypocritical and having a big advantage thanks to a currency that destroy southern countries is good for your economy, period. Now if you want to know if supply side works, you need an economic context that is more or less "normal" so that you can really assess the impact of the said economic policy without interferences : and that is the bush administration. You must be trolling... And explain me how can you consider that Reagan policies were supply side or demand side ? Explain please. Well, if a policy fits the definition... there you go.
Oh my god, you're such a sad mind.
And a man is a "featherless biped" right ?
|
On December 04 2013 14:38 zlefin wrote:
packrat do not lie so blatantly; disliking the job someone is doing and dereliction of duty are two very different standards. attempting to conflate the two is poor form.
Danglars: you're wrong.
A productive republican congress would be passing piles of laws that REPEAL the excess legislation and regulations that is out there, rather than accomplishing nothing at all.
I have yet to see what you describe as a productive republican congress that isn't busy increasing deficit spending. It's the culture of pork that is part of the career politician's DNA. Just look at what was accomplished during the Bush years, particularly the ones where he had clear congressional majorities. The heart and soul of the party is still its conservative wing prevalent outside the beltway, but the current leadership and majorities in both houses of Congress are RINO to the core.
|
|
|
Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.
Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.
After website woes, President pushes benefits of Obamacare
In the charged atmosphere surrounding Obamacare, Reid's decision only gives Republicans more ammo to attack Democrats already suffering politically from the law's botched rollout.
In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that." source
Oops.
|
WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - About 29,000 people signed up for health insurance through the troubled HealthCare.gov website on Sunday and Monday, a number that is higher than the site's first month of operation in October, sources familiar with the numbers said on Wednesday.
In October, only about 26,000 signed up through the glitch-prone website, and intensive efforts are being conducted to work out the problems with HealthCare.gov.
The information is being reviewed, but it looks like the total will be 29,000 for enrollment in the federal exchange for the first two days of the site's relaunch from midnight Sunday to midnight Monday, the sources said.
Source
|
Looks like we have finally found out what it takes to be fired over at MSNBC other than having abysmal ratings. You gotta say that someone should shit in Palin's mouth.
EDIT: And even then, Bashir wasn't "fired." He resigned more than two weeks after making the comment. What a turd of a network.
|
United States43282 Posts
You have such bizarre television.
|
Simple decency, unfortunately, has become underrated in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
