|
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. |
Senate confirms Jerome Powell as Fed chairman
The Senate on Tuesday voted to confirm Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell as the next chairman of the central bank by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.
The vote on Powell’s confirmation quickly cleared the simple majority of senators necessary to confirm him to replace Fed Chair Janet Yellen on Feb. 3. The final count stood at 85 to 12, one of the widest margins of confirmation for a Trump nominee.
Nearly all Republicans and a vast majority of Democrats supported Powell's confirmation. Those opposed included conservative GOP Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Mike Lee (Utah), and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The Senate voted earlier on Tuesday afternoon to end debate on Powell’s nomination in an 84 to 12 vote.
Trump nominated Powell to replace Yellen as chair in November. Powell had served on the Fed board since his appointment by former President Obama in 2012. The Senate Banking Committee approved Powell's nomination by a near-unanimous vote in December, with only Warren opposing him.
Powell supported every decision Yellen made regarding monetary policy, wooing Democrats who praised the current chair's steady hand. While many Democrats said they wished Trump renominated Yellen, they were reassured by Powell's almost identical views on regulation and monetary policy.
Republicans pressed Powell on making broader changes to Dodd-Frank, but posed little opposition to his closeness to Yellen on monetary policy.
Powell supports a slew of moderate fixes to the Dodd-Frank Act backed by several regulators across the ideological spectrum. He's advocated for reducing the number of banks forced to comply with the Volcker Rule and lowering the threshold at which a bank is considered big enough to warrant signficant [nice mistake] federal oversight. Powell has also supported reducing the frequency of federal stress tests and revealing more about the way the Fed judges the riskiness of big banks.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/370329-senate-confirms-jerome-powell-as-fed-chairman
Some big name senators opposed on each side of the aisle, but it doesn't seem like major changes will be occurring. Might be worth noting a decrease in regulations Powell champions, from what I'm reading.
|
On January 24 2018 08:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
As Trump announces tariffs, Trudeau unveils Canada’s new trade deal with Asia
DAVOS, Switzerland — Hours after the Trump administration announced its first major tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, Canadadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a global audience that his country had just reached a historic trade deal with 10 Asia-Pacific countries. The symbolism from Canada was clear: When it comes to trade, the rest of the world is ready to move forward without President Trump.
“Today is a great day for Canada but it is also a great day for progressive trade around the world,” Trudeau said Tuesday at an annual gathering of business and political elites in Davos, Switzerland.
Trudeau called the new deal the CPTPP, which stands for the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. The name was a reminder that Canada and other nations went forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after Trump pulled out a year ago. The withdrawal from TPP was one of Trump's first acts as president. At the time, experts warned that leaving TPP probably would mean the United States would be outflanked on trade.
"In pulling out of TPP a year ago, the United States relinquished one of the most powerful tools at our disposal to shape the global trading environment," says Matthew Rooney, director of economic growth at the George W. Bush Institute.
CPTPP drops tariffs on many goods flowing between the countries and sets up new rules for labor rights and environmental standards. The agreement involves Canada, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Mexico and six other nations that border the Pacific Ocean. China is not part of the deal, which was originally conceived as a way to counter China's growing economic power.
Trump, who has called TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of American workers, is scheduled to speak Friday on the same stage at Davos where Trudeau announced his new trade agreement.
Anticipation is high in Davos that Trump will announce further trade measures in 2018 — and there is concern about the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
“What we want is fair trade,” Trump has said repeatedly. “We're gonna treat countries fairly, but they have to treat us fairly.”
American, Canadian and Mexican officials are meeting in Montreal this week for a sixth round of talks aimed at renegotiating NAFTA. Trump has said the trade agreement, in effect since 1994, hurts U.S. manufacturing and workers.
But numerous business leaders say NAFTA has created many jobs and they point out that there's no trade deficit between the United States and Canada. In fact, the United States ran a small trade surplus with Canada in 2016.
“We’re working hard to make sure our neighbor to the south understands the benefits of NAFTA,” Trudeau said with a smile to the Davos crowd.
But even in Davos, which is favored by champions of globalization, there is vocal opposition to trade from critics who say it has benefited the elites at the expense of the middle class in many parts of the world.
“The model of globalization has failed working people,” said Sharan Burrow, head of the International Trade Union Confederation, a global labor organization. “Eighty-five percent of people in our polls say they want to rewrite the rules of global trade.”
Burrow is calling for a “new social contract” in which governments and businesses give more protections to workers, including the ability to unionize. Her solution differs greatly from Trump's push to scale back regulations on businesses.
Many chief executives at Davos say they don't view Trump's recent tariffs as the start of a global trade war. They think that the U.S. president is looking to score political points with his base, but that he won't want to upset the stock market record highs and the faster economic growth by putting up too many trade barriers, a move that probably would spook businesses and investors.
“Trump is coming [to Davos] to show he's not the ogre he's been portrayed as,” said David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, a top private equity firm.
Rubenstein has close ties to some Trump staff members, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Rubenstein predicted that Trump's message Friday will be: “I want to work with you, but you have to work on my terms.”
SourceThe tariff on solar panels is impressive because it seemed to make everyone unhappy all at once. No one is going to make solar panels in the US because of that tariff.
Remember, Trump will bring the coal jobs back. The US aint gonne need no fancy solar panels
/s.
|
Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing.
1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes.
2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic.
3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional.
But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice.
|
I looked at the nominations and it took me a really long time before I found anyone with a movie I had actualy watched that wasn't star wars.
|
United States41989 Posts
Ben's just overexcited because it's very rare for his side to be depicted winning in cinema.
|
Well played Kwark, well played. Personally, I'm over the baby bomber treatment of WW2, celebrating the rise and heroism, while skipping over the complacency and indifference that lead up to it and the struggle to build a world that came after. It doesn't shock me that that Ben Shapiro is a big fan of part with the explosions.
|
On January 24 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/955818745829605376Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing. 1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes. 2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic. 3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional. But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice.
well, that became even more blatantly obvious when lala land was nominated and won a bunch of stuff last year. that was just hollywood jerking themselves off.
to be fair, there are some pretty ridiculous movie critics. take rex reed for example, who could very well be called the ben shapiro of movie reviews. dude goes out of his way to be insulting, doesn't get his facts straight (doesn't watch the movies he reviews) and throws in plenty of casual racism, etc.
On January 24 2018 08:35 KwarK wrote:
Ben's just overexcited because it's very rare for his side to be depicted winning in cinema.
lmfao.
|
United States41989 Posts
But seriously, my super conservative super racist Breitbart reading NRA life member in-laws didn't like Dunkirk one bit because it didn't have a story. It was all cinematography.
I went to see it in IMAX but it was unbearably loud so I left a minute or so in. You actually needed ear protection to watch it.
|
On January 24 2018 08:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/955818745829605376Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing. 1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes. 2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic. 3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional. But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice. well, that became even more blatantly obvious when lala land was nominated and won a bunch of stuff last year. that was just hollywood jerking themselves off. to be fair, there are some pretty ridiculous movie critics. take rex reed for example, who could very well be called the ben shapiro of movie reviews. dude goes out of his way to be insulting, doesn't get his facts straight (doesn't watch the movies he reviews) and throws in plenty of casual racism, etc. Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 08:35 KwarK wrote:
Ben's just overexcited because it's very rare for his side to be depicted winning in cinema. lmfao.
It has always been a party Hollywood throws for itself. It doesn’t make them bad or the movies not with celebrating. But it is not a contest of merit or in any way objective.
|
On January 24 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/955818745829605376Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing. 1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes. 2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic. 3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional. But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice.
I mean, it's a provocative conservative instigator talking about ... the movies. This is like his schtick on twitter. The Oscars award title "Best Picture" is beating the dead horse for comedy, but whatever. He goes after low-hanging fruit all the time.
Just for an example of the reverse: This perspective is then the mainstream conservative response to the shutdown. Reasoned, fair amount of barbs, but fills out one take on the recent shutdown. He compares favorably to pundits that call NRA=terrorists and accuse Republican figures of white supremacy. He fills a role. It isn't the conciliatory, meet-at-the-middle one that uses muted tones. It turns out the liberals also have those outlets, posted here frequently by StealthBlue and others. Pick your level of incisive commentary and willingness to sound off on entertainment topics (and as long as you can agree they're judged by preening morons, I'll forgive you if you dislike the SJW catch-all term).
|
On January 24 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/955818745829605376Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing. 1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes. 2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic. 3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional. But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice. I mean, it's a provocative conservative instigator talking about ... the movies. This is like his schtick on twitter. The Oscars award title "Best Picture" is beating the dead horse for comedy, but whatever. He goes after low-hanging fruit all the time. https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/955797192538804225Just for an example of the reverse: This perspective is then the mainstream conservative response to the shutdown. Reasoned, fair amount of barbs, but fills out one take on the recent shutdown. He compares favorably to pundits that call NRA=terrorists and accuse Republican figures of white supremacy. He fills a role. It isn't the conciliatory, meet-at-the-middle one that uses muted tones. It turns out the liberals also have those outlets, posted here frequently by StealthBlue and others. Pick your level of incisive commentary and willingness to sound off on entertainment topics (and as long as you can agree they're judged by preening morons, I'll forgive you if you dislike the SJW catch-all term).
That quote doesn't look very incisive to me.
|
United States41989 Posts
Btw Plansix Britain in the 20s and 30s wasn't complacent, it was deeply pacifistic. The scars of The Great War are difficult to really explain. In the entire twenty years of the Vietnam War there were 58,220 American military deaths, according to Google. On the very first day of the Battle of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties. And the US population during Vietnam was five times that of the British during the Somme.
Consider all the pain and anguish of the Vietnam War.
Now cram all of that into a country one fifth of the size.
That's just July 1st 1916. One day. For three miles of churned up ground taken.
The explanation of "appeasement and complacency" isn't true. It ignores the collective political and social consciousness of the people of Britain, from whom so much had been taken. You also need to get into class identity and so forth to really get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate
edit: Also before the Somme we were doing what were called "Pals Battalions" where you volunteer with your friends/brothers and you won't get separated so you can serve alongside them. The Somme didn't take its toll randomly, it took entire schools, church congregations, streets, families. That bit in Saving Private Ryan where the mother loses three of her four sons on a single day, it's that except it's all four sons, plus her brother, and it's not just her, every mother on her street is hit the same way. They stopped doing Pals Battalions after the Somme.
|
|
|
The Republican congressman who's fending off allegations that he harassed a female staffer claims that while he did not harass her, she is his soulmate lol
|
KwarK: pacifism and complicity walk hand and hand to each other in this historical moment. I don’t blame Britain. WW2 might as well be called WW1, the sequel. The Nazis could not have done what they did if WW1 had not ravaged an entire generation. I only bring it up because WW2 is slowly going the route of the civil war, where we obsess over the battles and not the failures and lessons.
I worry about this as I live in a war weary nation with dysfunctional government and a media figure seen by millions calling for the arrest of justice department officials based on nothing. And that was just last night.
|
If you really think comparisons of post WW1 Germany and current day USA are legitimate in any way you really need to reevaluate your way of thinking.
|
Of couse not, it’s just an observation. I’m sure whatever terrible event take place I’ll be well outside my ability to predict. But if it comes tomorrow, I am sure we will drop the ball.
|
A hyperbolic and dangerously cynical observation that you should feel bad for making. Communists aren't a threat of seizing the means of production and the military isn't holding the nation together through an iron fist.
When we are paying massive indemnities to foreign governments and are suppose to take the blame for a world war then you can make the observation that the nazies might come to power.
|
Sorry, I’ve lived under a Republican lead Congress for nearly 20 years. Each legislative session becoming less productive than the last until we reached today. The only time of legislative action was a brief moment after 2008, which quickly ended a wash of cynicism and demonizing responsible governance. If the the Great Depression 2.0 hits tomorrow, it is difficult to see the current crop of politicians and public servants doing anything failing until they are voted out of office.
It is hard to watch shit like this, congress do nothing and any level of faith.
|
On January 24 2018 09:07 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 08:23 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/955818745829605376Please file this under reason 287 why no one would listen to Ben Shapiro because understands nothing. 1: The Oscars are not a meritocracy. They are about how Hollywood feels about itself, because Hollywood hands out the awards. It is literally a party Hollywood throws for itself and then hands out prizes. 2: You're a political talking head with a podcast, not a move critic. 3: non-ironic use of SJW, which disqualifies anyone from being treated like a professional. But really, reason 1 is enough. I knew that the Oscars were not perfect metric of quality or the "best" when I was a teenager. That is why they have best director, so they can give the "Best" award out twice. I mean, it's a provocative conservative instigator talking about ... the movies. This is like his schtick on twitter. The Oscars award title "Best Picture" is beating the dead horse for comedy, but whatever. He goes after low-hanging fruit all the time. https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/955797192538804225Just for an example of the reverse: This perspective is then the mainstream conservative response to the shutdown. Reasoned, fair amount of barbs, but fills out one take on the recent shutdown. He compares favorably to pundits that call NRA=terrorists and accuse Republican figures of white supremacy. He fills a role. It isn't the conciliatory, meet-at-the-middle one that uses muted tones. It turns out the liberals also have those outlets, posted here frequently by StealthBlue and others. Pick your level of incisive commentary and willingness to sound off on entertainment topics (and as long as you can agree they're judged by preening morons, I'll forgive you if you dislike the SJW catch-all term). That quote doesn't look very incisive to me.
The quote isn't about politics. He's just bullshitting about entertainment. I hear the late night comedy shows like talking politics these days. Jimmy Kimmel anyone?
On January 24 2018 10:15 Plansix wrote:Sorry, I’ve lived under a Republican lead Congress for nearly 20 years. Each legislative session becoming less productive than the last until we reached today. The only time of legislative action was a brief moment after 2008, which quickly ended a wash of cynicism and demonizing responsible governance. If the the Great Depression 2.0 hits tomorrow, it is difficult to see the current crop of politicians and public servants doing anything failing until they are voted out of office. https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/955918914952843264It is hard to watch shit like this, congress do nothing and any level of faith.
Interesting use of both "Republican lead" and "for nearly 20 years."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
