| 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. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
What crisis! Trillion dollar coins will safe the day. This idea is now beeing discussed even somewhat serious lol. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1 the article is a bit biased towards the democrats. It are not only the republicans who threathen with a usa default, obama himself has said that he would simply default if he could not get an agreement (read:his way) with the coming negotiations about the debt ceiling. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On January 08 2013 00:15 Rassy wrote: Crisis? What crisis! Trillion dollar coins will safe the day. This idea is now beeing discussed even somewhat serious lol. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1 the article is a bit biased towards the democrats. It are not only the republicans who threathen with a usa default, obama himself has said that he would simply default if he could not get an agreement (read:his way) with the coming negotiations about the debt ceiling. and a list of democrats have said that they won't tolerate a single cut to any entitlement ever. Its going to be a messy as hell process and I doubt we'll get any deal again for this next cliff. An interesting development I think is that republican higher ups are going to delay and ignore any current gun control legislation in favor of the budget battle and to wait for joe bidens task force to make its recommendations. anyone think that this is going to put a serious hamper on any new gun control legislation as peoples focus on it declines? Much like how the assault weapon ban was let to expire in the first place I think time is pro gun controls biggest enemy at this point. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 08 2013 00:35 Sermokala wrote: and a list of democrats have said that they won't tolerate a single cut to any entitlement ever. Its going to be a messy as hell process and I doubt we'll get any deal again for this next cliff. An interesting development I think is that republican higher ups are going to delay and ignore any current gun control legislation in favor of the budget battle and to wait for joe bidens task force to make its recommendations. anyone think that this is going to put a serious hamper on any new gun control legislation as peoples focus on it declines? Much like how the assault weapon ban was let to expire in the first place I think time is pro gun controls biggest enemy at this point. It would seem to depend on if a new shooting happens. In that case you will see a resourge of anti-gun media coverage even with Biden "working" on it. I am interested in the way the democrats promised not to cut any entitlement ever. Are there a cult contract around it, like pro guns and anti taxes? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On January 08 2013 00:50 radiatoren wrote: It would seem to depend on if a new shooting happens. In that case you will see a resourge of anti-gun media coverage even with Biden "working" on it. I am interested in the way the democrats promised not to cut any entitlement ever. Are there a cult contract around it, like pro guns and anti taxes? Pro gun and anti taxes arn't cult contracts they're just pledges that they campaigned on and should be held accountable to for better or for worse. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/250767-reid-majority-of-senate-dems-oppose-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal its only 29 senators but thats still a majority of their votes and republicans won't be happy going against their no tax pledge either. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 08 2013 00:50 radiatoren wrote: It would seem to depend on if a new shooting happens. In that case you will see a resourge of anti-gun media coverage even with Biden "working" on it. I am interested in the way the democrats promised not to cut any entitlement ever. Are there a cult contract around it, like pro guns and anti taxes? The contract around not cutting entitlements is closest to the few conservatives that say they won't raise taxes that didn't sign the Norquist pledge. You can bend it a fair bit without "breaking your word" because of the broadness of the promise and governmental accounting and because you aren't held accountable to some "higher authority" (that is also insane, incidentally) like Norquist. Take how Romney can campaign to be increasing tax revenue but not increasing taxes by eliminating loopholes and deductions: sure, in order to increase revenue some people would HAVE to be paying more money to the federal government, but he wouldn't have raised their tax rates (which is apparently "taxes"). The usual way around not breaking campaign promises re: entitlements while reducing their contribution to the deficit is delayed means testing, increasing rates of taxation on marginal income at certain levels, increasing premiums for optional portions of the programs, and I'm sure there's others I've missed. Grandma and grandpa still receive the same S.S. check in the mail each month and get free visits to their primary care practitioner, they just pay higher taxes on their portfolio returns or have to pay more to enroll in Medicare part C. This has been happening in dribs and drabs over the years. Unfortunately because the group that receives the lion's share of entitlements (the elderly or soon-to-be-elderly) is the most powerful constituency in most parts of the country it hasn't been happening very rapidly or as effectively as a large-scale change. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 07 2013 13:49 bkrow wrote: The only logical reasoning I can think of is that things were vastly different economically in 2005. Other than that I am at a loss In the full article it says that he voted against it because the bill wasn't paid for. Since figuring out how to pay for things is the big issue in Congress right now, that's not too unreasonable. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 03:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: In the full article it says that he voted against it because the bill wasn't paid for. Since figuring out how to pay for things is the big issue in Congress right now, that's not too unreasonable. Even then, it's not like his challenger is gonna hold him to the fire on this one. It's a politically safe move. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On January 08 2013 00:15 Rassy wrote: Crisis? What crisis! Trillion dollar coins will safe the day. This idea is now beeing discussed even somewhat serious lol. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1 the article is a bit biased towards the democrats. It are not only the republicans who threathen with a usa default, obama himself has said that he would simply default if he could not get an agreement (read:his way) with the coming negotiations about the debt ceiling. Obama has actually said that he won't negotiate over the debt ceiling full stop, i.e., he expects Congress simply to pass a clean bill on it, as they have ever time in history except the time they felt like dinging our credit rating (and turning down entitlement cuts offered up by Obama because they weren't radical enough for the Tea Partiers, who ironically saved us from Obama). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 08 2013 03:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: In the full article it says that he voted against it because the bill wasn't paid for. Since figuring out how to pay for things is the big issue in Congress right now, that's not too unreasonable. "Figuring out how to pay for things" is the new excuse for voting against something. It used to be that bills would be voted against for "wasted" spending in pork barrel legislation, but they added a bunch of restrictions in the House to severely limit pork. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 06:30 aksfjh wrote: "Figuring out how to pay for things" is the new excuse for voting against something. It used to be that bills would be voted against for "wasted" spending in pork barrel legislation, but they added a bunch of restrictions in the House to severely limit pork. I'm all for this excuse if it leads to structural payment requirements to legislation. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh, but we can't have the public option for healthcare, that'd be socialism. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 06:39 oneofthem wrote: republicans might want to look at the revenue side of things for a solution to the debt, if they are really serious about it. oh, but we can't have the public option for healthcare, that'd be socialism. The federal government doesn't have that power. It's a state power. It's not a complicated stance, nor is it contradictory or "anti-poor". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 08 2013 06:53 BluePanther wrote: The federal government doesn't have that power. It's a state power. It's not a complicated stance, nor is it contradictory or "anti-poor". this silly and slavish attachment to federalism is no excuse. beyond absurd | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry based upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis of class-relations within society and their application in the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. In the mid-to-late 19th century, the intellectual development of Marxism was pioneered by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxist analyses and methodologies have influenced multiple political ideologies and social movements throughout history. Marxism encompasses an economic theory, a sociological theory, a philosophical method and a revolutionary view of social change.[1] There is no one definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been applied to a variety of different subjects and has been modified during the course of its development so that there are multiple Marxist theories. Marxism We can see that the authors of the page are very careful to avoid the sort of pigeonholing that one might perform if they were to narrowly conceive of Marxism as explicitly the realm of Karl Marx's ideas. It simply makes more sense to go about things a bit more loosely, thinking along the lines of oneofthem when he astutely pointed out that economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are rather separate things united by a similarity in approach. Ultimately, to efficaciously define "Marxism" is to write an incredibly expansive and unprecedented work of synthesis that would shake the world of literary criticism to it's core; in the meantime, we'll simply have to do with something a bit less optimal  | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 06:39 oneofthem wrote: republicans might want to look at the revenue side of things for a solution to the debt, if they are really serious about it. oh, but we can't have the public option for healthcare, that'd be socialism. We just raised taxes a week ago... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a few % on the top bracket doesn't solve much though. the big loopholes and tax expenditures are still around. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
No, you mean going back to the rates of the clinton era. Not "raising taxes", especially considering the bush tax cuts were originally temporary, and completely useless. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 07:12 white_horse wrote: No, you mean going back to the rates of the clinton era. Not "raising taxes", especially considering the bush tax cuts were originally temporary, and completely useless. ACA taxes started kicking in too. And the Bush tax cuts were completely useless? I haven't heard anyone complain that taxes on the poor and middle classes are too low and should revert to the Clinton era... | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote: a few % on the top bracket doesn't solve much though. the big loopholes and tax expenditures are still around. They were mitigated a bit for those over $250K in the tax deal, but nothing major. | ||
| ||
FEL
Cracow 2025
Spirit vs GeraldLIVE!
Clem vs Krystianer
uThermal vs SKillous
Reynor vs MaNa
Lambo vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
