|
JT Jag posted:It's less "job creation" and more "job leeching." Or, if you wants to be polite about it, "employment osmosis." The clinical term is smokestack chasing.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Didn't see this posted here, thought it might be of interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?hp&_r=0 quote:BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:The prospect of being 34 in 2024 and having spent 26 of those years in either a Bush or Clinton presidency just makes me feel real uncomfortable whenever I think about it. I know surnames are not the end-all-be-all of what makes a politician, but it just really doesn't seem like a healthy thing for a republican form of government. Nessus fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Aren't there still a few senate or house seats where there's the grandson of a former holder in office, with some of them also having the father been in the same office?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Chelsea's baby will be eligible to run for President in 2052, in case anyone is curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It's less "job creation" and more "job leeching." Or, if you wants to be polite about it, "employment osmosis." Shale gas extraction has created a large number of trucking/drilling/crude related jobs. It's not all just leeching headquarters from other states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
It's more just a function of incumbency being powerful and the presidency having long terms. Unless you die in office or are horrendously unpopular you're probably getting a second term, and really after this run the number of people who have the same name as a former president and are politically likely to win are slim. Install Windows posted:Aren't there still a few senate or house seats where there's the grandson of a former holder in office, with some of them also having the father been in the same office? Yeah there was a recent special election in like Louisiana or Florida where the guy was replacing his father who was retiring and whose grandfather also held the same position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It's less "job creation" and more "job leeching." Or, if you wants to be polite about it, "employment osmosis." We humanoids have been calling it competition for a few eons now. So far today, Cali is -5300, Texas is +5300.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Colorado's jobs have been much better than average. Plus you don't need to live in a poo poo hole of a state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Aren't there still a few senate or house seats where there's the grandson of a former holder in office, with some of them also having the father been in the same office? There are currently 11 dynastic Senators: the Udalls (D-CO and D-NM), Begich (D-AK), Manchin (D-WV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Casey (R-PA), Pryor (D-AR), Paul (R-KY), Boozman (R-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), and Murkowski (R-AK), where "dynastic" is defined by relatives being elected to Congress, cabinet position, or high office in the state. It's interesting that this includes both Senators in AK, AR, and WV, though Rockefeller will be retiring after this year. Also interesting how many are Democrats who face tough re-elections. There were also no new dynastic Senators elected in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Chelsea's baby will be eligible to run for President in 2052, in case anyone is curious. Theoretically I could retire that year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:We humanoids have been calling it competition for a few eons now. So far today, Cali is -5300, Texas is +5300.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Dystram posted:2012 was ONLY about riling up the base, testing talking points and messaging for next time, etc. That's hugely wrong. The economy was poo poo. They had won the Obamacare messaging war. They truly believed the minority voter demographic boost in 2008 was a one off fluke. They had millionaires lining up to fund superpacs while the Democrats took the high road. This was their election to lose in their minds. Joementum posted:Chelsea's baby will be eligible to run for President in 2052, in case anyone is curious. Clearly the Clintons know the election of 2052 will have critical importance to the lizard people. SavageBastard fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
And I am reminded that Michelle Nunn will be the Democrats' Senate candidate in Georgia, another dynastic choice, though I did not know that Jason Carter was running for Governor there. George P. Bush is also on the ballot this year in Texas (Land Commissioner), the wife of John Dingell running for his family's seat (he took it over from this father) in Dearborn, MI, and Ted Kennedy Jr. in Connecticut (State Senate).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
On the other hand you have more and more left orientated gun organizations such as http://www.pinkpistols.org/ and http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/. Honestly reading this thread, there is a worrying us-vs-them attitude when it comes to politics. People can support the 2nd amendment while still being leftist. Likewise you can be a republican and disapprove of gun rights. Man Whore fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:On the other hand you have more and more left orientated gun organizations such as http://www.pinkpistols.org/ and http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/. Which is totally fine. There's nothing wrong with gun ownership.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:The prospect of being 34 in 2024 and having spent 26 of those years in either a Bush or Clinton presidency just makes me feel real uncomfortable whenever I think about it. I know surnames are not the end-all-be-all of what makes a politician, but it just really doesn't seem like a healthy thing for a republican form of government. Hey the Julian line isn't an oligarchy man. They're just the best our republic has to offer. The gods favor their service and valor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It's less "job creation" and more "job leeching." Or, if you wants to be polite about it, "employment osmosis." Whatever the term, "job creation" in a semantic sense carries an implication of a growing economy, with businesses expanding or coming into being. Moving 5000 jobs from one place to another doesn't "create" jobs, it just shifts them around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:That's hugely wrong. The economy was poo poo. They had won the Obamacare messaging war. They truly believed the minority voter demographic boost in 2008 was a one off fluke. They had millionaires lining up to fund superpacs while the Democrats took the high road. This was their election to lose in their minds. Until the fantastic spectacle of the GOP primary, there was a lot of speculation that you'd get a pretty hard R swing with the election. While yes they did pick up some seats, it actually went a lot worse for them than was anticipated. This was helped of course by the right fringe going a bit extra-wacky, but it was very close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
 Yeah Drudge, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
So....bring them down?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:So....bring them down? Pretty sure he's being facetious and racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Why is it that Land Comish is such a big deal in Texas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Pretty sure he's being facetious and racist. Curses. Almost got him!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why is it that Land Comish is such a big deal in Texas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Tons of things go against "federalism" that doesn't make them unconstitutional. This argument is kind of irrelevant, as that was just an unrealistic proposal I dismissed outright anyway, but the Supreme Court stated way back in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states." In cases determining whether certain state taxes are constitutional, the Supreme Court has cited this over and over again without showing any intention to overrule it. However, in digging for this quote I did find an interesting policy method that could be used to end such state-tax breaks, which is a prohibition on such taxes to the extent that they interfere with interstate commerce. I'm not sure this would be upheld by the current court, everything is up in the air with these guys and economic legislation, but it could be a workable solution. Interesting Harvard Law Review article on the subject: Saving the States from Themselves: Commerce Clause Constraints on State Tax Incentives for Business http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342149 Can't find a version of this not behind a paywall, so here is another article that is not behind one summing up and attacking the jurisprudence behind the idea: Location Incentives and the Negative Commerce Clause http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=mulr Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It was added as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, after the NLRA was upheld by SCOTUS. Good to know that was passed over Truman's veto because of lovely Red Scare stuff.  Guess that means Congress could ban right-to-work if it wanted to (  )
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:This argument is kind of irrelevant, as that was just an unrealistic proposal I dismissed outright anyway, but the Supreme Court stated way back in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states." In cases determining whether certain state taxes are constitutional, the Supreme Court has cited this over and over again without showing any intention to overrule it. However, in digging for this quote I did find an interesting policy method that could be used to end such state-tax breaks, which is a prohibition on such taxes to the extent that they interfere with interstate commerce. I'm not sure this would be upheld by the current court, everything is up in the air with these guys and economic legislation, but it could be a workable solution. Interesting Harvard Law Review article on the subject: And you noticed that the amendment text you cited comes from several decades after that court ruling, right? No one has ever tried to across the board eliminate all state taxes on things, and thus all ability to have state tax breaks, so there's no case law on the subject. This is what you'd need to do for that, by the way, and it would require first having federal tax increases or new federal taxes on all sorts of things in order to raise the necessary money for the states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And you noticed that the amendment text you cited comes from several decades after that court ruling, right? Which is why I referred to later cases citing this opinion. Dude, something doesn't have to be ruled unconstitutional specifically to be unconstitutional, if Congress passed "The Third Term for Obama Act" it would still be unconstitutional before a case or controversy arose. But like I said, that wasn't even a serious hypothetical policy proposal, it's the same as if I said "well how do we fix national politics, besides disenfranchising the Tea Party because that wouldn't be legal" Edit: which is not an invitation to a discussion about whether disenfranchising the Tea Party is legal or not. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Phone posted:Speaking of weirdos, that Xlyo kid is such a power tripping dick, going around like he's the judge, jury, and executioner. For the June thread: US Politics June: This Thread Will Derail. Luckily, skimming for content is a Valuable Life Skill
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why is it that Land Comish is such a big deal in Texas? Son lemmie tell you a little story about Texas. See, down here we don't want our governor having a ton of power, in fact we for some reason basically want them to have no power. Now in the practical sense I'm kinda ok with Governor For Life Rick Perry not having a lot of power, but in the grand scheme of politics it troubles me a bit. So we threw all the power that, say, should be centralized into one person to have authority over, so things run smoothly, and broke it into a bunch of pieces and scattered them through Austin like we were hiding the ancient shards of the doomblade or some fantasy bullshit. So basically in Texas these elections matter almost more than the governor race, because our assorted branches have a great deal of power compared to others, and while technically they answer to the governor they pretty much don't. Now, for land comish, think about how much land Texas has. Now think about how much people here hate the EPA. Now think about how much power oil and gas have. So yea, that position matters a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Texas Governors basically have no power because of Reconstruction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
effectual posted:Careful, Nixon lost his first bid but then... If President Romney resigns under similar circumstances I might be ok with this. The NRA's low spending is also due to ow effective they are with little to no expenditure. It doesn't cost the NRA very much to have someone call up Republican congressmen and tell them "if you vote for/against X we're going to bury you" at which point the congressman does as the NRA has ordered. If there was a massive nationwide push to reign in gun law insanity they'd be out in force, spending millions and fear-mongering more millions out of their members. Install Windows posted:It would not be unconstitutional to raise taxes nationally and eliminate state taxes, where did you get that idea? It would simply be extraordinarily unpopular and in about noone's political interest. The federal government couldn't just up and decide to get rid of a state's taxes. There's no way in hell the court would uphold that and it'd put state budgets entirely at the mercy of the feds. It'd get shot down by 7-9 of the justices, though likely for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The federal government couldn't just up and decide to get rid of a state's taxes. There's no way in hell the court would uphold that and it'd put state budgets entirely at the mercy of the feds. It'd get shot down by 7-9 of the justices, though likely for different reasons. John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
That's not what I'm talking about. You would first do it by creating and raising federal taxes on all relevant categories, and start delegating money from that out to states to fund various programs. Then, most states would quickly vote to eliminate x state level tax on that stuff because resulting combinations of federal and state level taxes would be very unpopular - and I don't expect any state level politicians would be able to hold the line on their state keeping doubled every tax on every category of taxes. The first step has to be done because otherwise there's no revenue stream to support any of the states - existing taxes definitely cannot handle it. The second step is the logical outcome of having enough support to achieve the first one, support that I don't think there could ever end up being.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If President Romney resigns under similar circumstances I might be ok with this. Re: NRA spending - I was quoting another person saying dumb things in another forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:There are currently 11 dynastic Senators: the Udalls (D-CO and D-NM), Begich (D-AK), Manchin (D-WV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Casey (R-PA), Pryor (D-AR), Paul (R-KY), Boozman (R-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), and Murkowski (R-AK), where "dynastic" is defined by relatives being elected to Congress, cabinet position, or high office in the state. It's interesting that this includes both Senators in AK, AR, and WV, though Rockefeller will be retiring after this year. Also interesting how many are Democrats who face tough re-elections. There were also no new dynastic Senators elected in 2012. Technically the Levins in Michigan also, though Carl is gone soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That's not what I'm talking about. You would first do it by creating and raising federal taxes on all relevant categories, and start delegating money from that out to states to fund various programs. Then, most states would quickly vote to eliminate x state level tax on that stuff because resulting combinations of federal and state level taxes would be very unpopular - and I don't expect any state level politicians would be able to hold the line on their state keeping doubled every tax on every category of taxes. Pretty sure the court would just find that unconstitutionally coercive, a violation of the necessary and proper clause, the Tenth Amendment, etc... Even if there was no jurisprudence at all on which to rely, the court would find some way to strike down something that completely eliminates federal separation of powers in such a way. I'm not even going FedSoc on you, it was supposed to be a ridiculous solution. I'm sorry I included that throwaway line, I did not in any way intend for it to be discussed with respect to fixing the race to the bottom problems, I was more curious about a workable solution that had a 50/50 chance at least of surviving judicial review.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:So anywaaaaay, looks like Texas has successfully stolen jobs from other, more prosperous states: Katrina is my favorite example because it's proximate and people can relate to it. After Katrina, Houston quietly stole pretty much the rest of the remaining businesses that were running out of Louisiana as well as a huge number of people. There was hemming and hawing publicly, but in business terms it's a huge win. You just got a bunch of new businesses and new workers and further weakened a competing port city. Who got the contracts to rebuild New Orleans? Texas companies. This latest push by Perry is only notable because he's taken it mainstream instead of doing it quietly, but my opinion after living in the developing world for nearly a decade now and reflecting back - and I'm like a 6th generation Texan here - is that Texas operates in the reality of America being the world's largest, most powerful developing country in much the way Singapore does. It's like a high functioning developing country, basically, surrounded by all these low functioning developing countries and it hoovers up everything it can, which is a lot. Raenir Salazar posted:What about Austin? Roosterteeth seems fine there.  Fried Chicken posted:Apparently it is the latter. I've got some stuff on it flagged for future reading though, so my skimming could be corrected by getting down to it. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Pretty sure the court would just find that unconstitutionally coercive, a violation of the necessary and proper clause, the Tenth Amendment, etc... Even if there was no jurisprudence at all on which to rely, the court would find some way to strike down something that completely eliminates federal separation of powers in such a way. I'm not even going FedSoc on you, it was supposed to be a ridiculous solution. I'm sorry I included that throwaway line, I did not in any way intend for it to be discussed with respect to fixing the race to the bottom problems, I was more curious about a workable solution that had a 50/50 chance at least of surviving judicial review. How would the court find it coercive to raise money and give it to the states? You'll really have to show your work there. Again, you'd need a massive level of popular support to implement this in the first place, which would mean a lack of people with standing to challenge it in court, and the court can't just make decisions without valid cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:10
|
|