|
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 June 28 2017 20:59 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 19:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 28 2017 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
'I disagree completely' jezus christ When playboy has to stand up for journalism it's a dark timeline. This fake news thing is getting pretty serious. It's leading people to a post factual society where the one who shouts loudest is deemed correct even if he is clearly wrong. The worst thing is Trump won't hold himself accountable to anything. No real domestic press conference for months now. When can they ask him about his brilliant 30 day IS defeating plan?+ Show Spoiler +I like how he keeps saying no help from the democrats when they wouldn't even share what bill they were creating with the democratic senators, so how can they help lol. Or the insinuation that Obama didn't want to get it right. The way you're phrasing the bit that I highlighted is possibly the result of dishonest media, or just you being dishonest. I'm not entirely 100% on this anymore, because I have also often heard the way you phrased it being repeated in various forms of media. Nonetheless, I'm going to say that I'm pretty sure Trump said he'd order the Pentagon make a plan to defeat ISIS, and that plan would be presented to him after 30 days. He (as far as I know) never explicitly stated that his administration would actually defeat ISIS as an entity in 30 days.
Well maybe my english phrasing is just mediocre I guess because I didn't mean defeat in 30 days.
|
MAGA!
On Tuesday the Department of Labor got closer to dismantling an Obama-era overtime regulation that has been in limbo for months and would make millions of Americans eligible for additional pay. The department sent a formal request for information on the rule to the Office of Management and Budget.
The rule was one of the Obama administration's labor policy cornerstones. It said anyone making less than $47,476 a year would be eligible for time-and-a-half pay for hours worked beyond a 40-hour work week, doubling the previous salary threshold.
"Our whole mission here is about strengthening and growing the middle class," Tom Perez, who was labor secretary then, told NPR's Scott Horsley. "In order to do that, we need to ensure that middle class jobs pay middle class wages."
But 21 states as well as business groups sued, saying the move amounted to federal overreach and would burden the public and private sector.
A federal judge ultimately agreed, blocking implementation of the policy about a week before it was supposed to go into effect on Dec. 1, 2016.
As Scott reported, "The rule was one of the administration's most far-reaching efforts to boost pay for workers at the lower end of the income ladder. It's one of many administrative actions that was already facing the threat of reversal from the incoming Trump administration."
After President Trump took office, his Labor Secretary signaled he would try to amend the rule, lowering the salary threshold. On Tuesday, the Labor Department moved toward that change by sending a Request for Information to the OMB.
"Once approved by OMB that request would ask the public to comment on a number of questions that would inform our thinking," Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.
Acosta was responding to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander from Tennessee who told him, "That was a bad rule." Alexander said the rapid increase in the salary threshold would be "just too high for many parts of the country." He added, "So I would urge you to show us how to write a good overtime regulation."
Acosta did not comment on his definition of a good overtime regulation.
But on the Obama regulation, Acosta testified at his confirmation hearing in March that expanding the workforce receiving overtime may "create a stress on the system." But he also said it was "unfortunate" the rule had not been updated in more than a decade because life has "become more expensive," as reported by The Washington Post.
Source
|
On June 28 2017 21:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 20:59 a_flayer wrote:On June 28 2017 19:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:'I disagree completely' jezus christ When playboy has to stand up for journalism it's a dark timeline. This fake news thing is getting pretty serious. It's leading people to a post factual society where the one who shouts loudest is deemed correct even if he is clearly wrong. The worst thing is Trump won't hold himself accountable to anything. No real domestic press conference for months now. When can they ask him about his brilliant 30 day IS defeating plan?+ Show Spoiler +I like how he keeps saying no help from the democrats when they wouldn't even share what bill they were creating with the democratic senators, so how can they help lol. Or the insinuation that Obama didn't want to get it right. The way you're phrasing the bit that I highlighted is possibly the result of dishonest media, or just you being dishonest. I'm not entirely 100% on this anymore, because I have also often heard the way you phrased it being repeated in various forms of media. Nonetheless, I'm going to say that I'm pretty sure Trump said he'd order the Pentagon make a plan to defeat ISIS, and that plan would be presented to him after 30 days. He (as far as I know) never explicitly stated that his administration would actually defeat ISIS as an entity in 30 days. Well maybe my english phrasing is just mediocre I guess because I didn't mean defeat in 30 days.
I’m still waiting for the secret plan to beat ISIS. I expect it to arrive with the secret plan to end Vietnam.
|
All this talk of fake news, but Trump sure loves fake magazine covers to indulge his ego. He's appeared on the covers of dozens of other magazines, but for some reason he really wants to be recognized by Time.
On June 28 2017 19:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:'I disagree completely' jezus christ When playboy has to stand up for journalism it's a dark timeline. This fake news thing is getting pretty serious. It's leading people to a post factual society where the one who shouts loudest is deemed correct even if he is clearly wrong. The worst thing is Trump won't hold himself accountable to anything. No real domestic press conference for months now. When can they ask him about his brilliant made-in-30-days IS defeating plan? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/879827411008974852https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/879828637733793793I like how he keeps saying no help from the democrats when they wouldn't even share what bill they were creating with the democratic senators, so how can they help lol. Or the insinuation that Obama didn't want to get it right.
There is the old "I read it for the articles" joke about Playboy, but it does have a basis in fact. The magazine has produced some great articles over the years written by some of the best journalists and fiction writers, so a principled voice coming from Playboy isn't absurd.
|
On June 28 2017 21:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 20:59 a_flayer wrote:On June 28 2017 19:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:'I disagree completely' jezus christ When playboy has to stand up for journalism it's a dark timeline. This fake news thing is getting pretty serious. It's leading people to a post factual society where the one who shouts loudest is deemed correct even if he is clearly wrong. The worst thing is Trump won't hold himself accountable to anything. No real domestic press conference for months now. When can they ask him about his brilliant 30 day IS defeating plan?+ Show Spoiler +I like how he keeps saying no help from the democrats when they wouldn't even share what bill they were creating with the democratic senators, so how can they help lol. Or the insinuation that Obama didn't want to get it right. The way you're phrasing the bit that I highlighted is possibly the result of dishonest media, or just you being dishonest. I'm not entirely 100% on this anymore, because I have also often heard the way you phrased it being repeated in various forms of media. Nonetheless, I'm going to say that I'm pretty sure Trump said he'd order the Pentagon make a plan to defeat ISIS, and that plan would be presented to him after 30 days. He (as far as I know) never explicitly stated that his administration would actually defeat ISIS as an entity in 30 days. Well maybe my english phrasing is just mediocre I guess because I didn't mean defeat in 30 days.
For Reference
"We are going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction," Trump said on Sept. 6, "They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."
On Jan. 28, 2017, Trump made good with a presidential memorandum. The key line was,"within 30 days, a preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS shall be submitted to the president by the secretary of defense."
The Pentagon sent Trump a preliminary framework Feb. 27. Defense Secretary James Mattis and other military planners met with the president the same day to discuss options to move decisively against ISIS.
Tump discussed the plan during an address to Congress on Feb. 28:
"As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS, a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians and men, and women and children of all faiths and all beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet."
So Trump said he would ask for a plan, and he did. He said the plan would be one for "soundly and quickly defeating ISIS." Whether the plan actually leads to the defeat of ISIS is another matter. For now, we rate this promise In the Works.
source
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On June 28 2017 13:47 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 28 2017 13:44 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 13:22 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2017 12:56 IgnE wrote:That paper you linked suggests that GDP is a cap and that equity returns sometimes (often) dip below it. What does that suggest about the last ten years? Not at all. Look at the graphs. They clearly show instances of equity returns exceeding GDP growth. GDP growth is a national measure, equity returns is not. According to the data in that paper only three of the countries studied (Sweden, Denmark Switzerland, and the Check Republic) have had equity growth > gdp growth over the long term. They also conjecture (but using japan as an example..) that this can only happen when future gdp growth is priced into the stock and that if something happens that dampens long term investor optimism equity will stop growing and remain flat until gdp catches up. They dont really supply much data or analysis in favor of this thesis though. But yeah, I dont think the paper supports the notion that long term gdp growth may be slower than long term equity growth in general.. the counter examples are small and insignificant economies, whos major companies most likely make most of their profits outside of the country. More relevantly the S&P500 annualized (real) returns over the last 90 years (using this data set http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data ) are 2.55% . which is significantly lower than the 4-5% you demanded of the pension manager. That doesn't include dividends as far as I can tell. Returns not including dividends is not returns. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WR0tNgJ.png) https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/Reinvesting internally rather than issuing dividends is actually a very recent trend. For most of America's history businesses were required to make consistent and substantial dividends to reward their stockholders. Rewarding through increased value of equity, which is what you are measuring, is measuring the wrong thing.
re: the dividends piece iirc it's because instead of selling equity, companies used to "go public" to access the capital markets by issuing debt, and most loans simply paid a dividend, ie what was effectively interest or a coupon on a periodic basis. the shift to selling equity rather than debt was pretty huge as it gave investors the opportunity to participate in the upside/ downside of a company they owned a piece of.
|
|
|
Zurich15364 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xbCPg98.png)
That commentor nails it.
|
I am sure his base will be very happy with him attacking the press. However, they seem to be the only ones that support him at this point. Long term, I don’t think this is a winning plan, attacking US companies for being critical of elected officials.
|
Lazy 30 somethings who live and die by their Amazon Prime accounts are suddenly hotly political!
|
On June 28 2017 23:32 farvacola wrote:
Lazy 30 somethings who live and die by their Amazon Prime accounts are suddenly hotly political!
I feel personally attacked by this post.
|
On June 28 2017 21:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:MAGA! Show nested quote +On Tuesday the Department of Labor got closer to dismantling an Obama-era overtime regulation that has been in limbo for months and would make millions of Americans eligible for additional pay. The department sent a formal request for information on the rule to the Office of Management and Budget.
The rule was one of the Obama administration's labor policy cornerstones. It said anyone making less than $47,476 a year would be eligible for time-and-a-half pay for hours worked beyond a 40-hour work week, doubling the previous salary threshold.
"Our whole mission here is about strengthening and growing the middle class," Tom Perez, who was labor secretary then, told NPR's Scott Horsley. "In order to do that, we need to ensure that middle class jobs pay middle class wages."
But 21 states as well as business groups sued, saying the move amounted to federal overreach and would burden the public and private sector.
A federal judge ultimately agreed, blocking implementation of the policy about a week before it was supposed to go into effect on Dec. 1, 2016.
As Scott reported, "The rule was one of the administration's most far-reaching efforts to boost pay for workers at the lower end of the income ladder. It's one of many administrative actions that was already facing the threat of reversal from the incoming Trump administration."
After President Trump took office, his Labor Secretary signaled he would try to amend the rule, lowering the salary threshold. On Tuesday, the Labor Department moved toward that change by sending a Request for Information to the OMB.
"Once approved by OMB that request would ask the public to comment on a number of questions that would inform our thinking," Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.
Acosta was responding to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander from Tennessee who told him, "That was a bad rule." Alexander said the rapid increase in the salary threshold would be "just too high for many parts of the country." He added, "So I would urge you to show us how to write a good overtime regulation."
Acosta did not comment on his definition of a good overtime regulation.
But on the Obama regulation, Acosta testified at his confirmation hearing in March that expanding the workforce receiving overtime may "create a stress on the system." But he also said it was "unfortunate" the rule had not been updated in more than a decade because life has "become more expensive," as reported by The Washington Post. Source
Here we have a pretty straightforward case that Congress would need to act to change the applicable statute, rather than the executive/administrative state rewriting it by changed application rules.
|
On June 28 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 23:32 farvacola wrote:
Lazy 30 somethings who live and die by their Amazon Prime accounts are suddenly hotly political! I feel personally attacked by this post.
You post way too much in this thread to qualify as politically lazy, but yeah, I love my prime account too 
|
The funny thing is that Trump's tweets are only from the sidelines. They don't even make sense, and he suggests things that aren't even possible and everyone knows it lol. He's mostly a spectacle, really.
|
I bet TL is dodging internet taxes too #AMAZONTL
On a serious note besides non existing internet taxes what is he even referring to?
|
On June 28 2017 23:27 zatic wrote:That commentor nails it.
I like that middle bit. "WaPo ... [loses plot] ... is FAKE NEWS." Had to put in some jab of corruption or conflict of interest to mix it up, I suppose.
|
On June 28 2017 23:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2017 23:32 farvacola wrote:
Lazy 30 somethings who live and die by their Amazon Prime accounts are suddenly hotly political! I feel personally attacked by this post. You post way too much in this thread to qualify as politically lazy, but yeah, I love my prime account too
I wish they would offer an upgrade where they would take all the shipping materials to the recycling center. It would save me some hassle with my garbage collector.
On June 28 2017 23:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I bet TL is dodging internet taxes too #AMAZONTL
On a serious note besides non existing internet taxes what is he even referring to?
I have to assume he didn’t get the memo that Amazon now charges sales tax per state. They were not for a while. Then the states all started to gear up to come after them and Amazon came to Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://goo.gl/images/zyicGW)
