|
Rigel posted:There would not be a cloture vote with a 60-vote minimum if Roe v Wade was such an immense game changing GOP bloodbath that we actually got to 60 Dem Senators. I think there would still be cloture votes. The GOP would probably hope to peel off the more conservative Dems to prevent them getting to 60 votes to end debate. But I could just be mistaken
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
One thing to also add onto the baby formula shortage is that Abbott's baby formula, the Similac line, is the go-to for parents with babies with delicate stomachs. We just finished formula with my son when the recall hit so we didn't get affected, but we know people who have kids who will literally poo poo blood if they don't get the correct formula, and a lot of the other formulas that will work for them require a prescription and are *very* expensive even by the already expensive formula prices. This isn't just a matter of spinning up a new factory to make rotgut formula, the product lines are necessary, and if corporate negligence causes this to go on for a while it is going to be a big problem.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I think there would still be cloture votes. The GOP would probably hope to peel off the more conservative Dems to prevent them getting to 60 votes to end debate. But I could just be mistaken Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. People are still often looking at the number 60 as a vote threshold we have to reach like with Obamacare. It isn't anymore, forget about 60. The new number is now 50 after subtracting idiots who still think we need the filibuster. We have 2, maybe 3 such idiots right now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:
You don't actually know how many there are because they won't force anyone to take potentially risky votes on filibuster reform. If there are 10 or more such idiots then cloture is the easier bar to clear. Yesterday you assured us there were only 2 maximum and you were wrong, your gut isn't any more reliable now than it was then. theCalamity posted:I think there would still be cloture votes. The GOP would probably hope to peel off the more conservative Dems to prevent them getting to 60 votes to end debate. But I could just be mistaken We already know Manchin opposes Roe so the minimum is 61 assuming you only elect new pro-Roe dems which is not assured since they would mostly have to come from red or purple states where Dem leadership prefers to support antichoice candidates because they are more electable
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Lol, spend the whole article saying how they've gotten more done by being an unapologetic fighter and then end it by interviewing people saying they should still do the meek "catch more with honey" poo poo Fetterman for president, imo. Best shot we’ve got at a new LBJ, gonna need someone willing to send the national guard in to keep abortion clinics open and protect climate refugees crossing the internal and external borders. Hopefully he’s looking at Tarzaning from this to president in ‘24.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if the Dems got rid of the filibuster if they have over 50 senators. Unfortunately, we in the public don't know who is for getting rid of it and who wants to keep it. We know for sure that Sinema, Manchin, and Durbin want to keep it, but we don't know if there are any other holdouts. Which sucks for us because then we as voters can't protest those Dems. Going forward, ending the filibuster would need to be litmus test. VitalSigns posted:We already know Manchin opposes Roe so the minimum is 61 assuming you only elect new pro-Roe dems which is not assured since they would mostly have to come from red or purple states where Dem leadership prefers to support antichoice candidates because they are more electable Isn't it wonderful that we not only have to fight the GOP, but also the anti-choice Dems in power?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
rscott posted:A lot of assets actually have a fixed value what are you talking about? Every single debt that someone has is someone else's asset. Same thing with bonds. I'm not even sure what you're talking about with the S&P, especially given your assumption that a historical rate of return is applicable to the future and its tenuous relationship to inflation. I think you've got a few fundamental mathematical and economic concepts confused. The purpose of the asset is the transfer/maintenance of value. The introduction of equities seems to have confused you a bit, so let's use a very basic example that has no dividends or rate of return to make it simple: - Person A has $10,000 worth of gold in 2020. - Person B has $10,000 worth of dollars in 2020. - Persons A and B both have the same amount of wealth ($10,000). - There is 10% inflation YoY for 10 years straight. If person A sells his gold for the exact same relative value in 2030, then which one of them will have more nominal currency in 2030? Did their relative spending power with their assets change in 2030 or were they still of equal value?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
If you really want to mess yourself up about the CPI data learn how they calculate rent. I can't link to it because it is a pdf. Just Google " How does the BLS calculate CPI rent?"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Your 50k mortgage doesn't increase to 55k when inflation is 10%. OK, but your ability to pay it decreases and your allotted budget for it is carved into when your monthly gas, food and utility costs increase so it may as well. Inflation certainly has an impact on your housing budget. Which I think is what people are arguing. No? What am I missing here? Also, a lot of people don't own homes/have a mortgage and pay rent, which is also going up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:OK, but your ability to pay it decreases and your allotted budget for it is carved into when your monthly gas, food and utility costs increase so it may as well. Inflation certainly has an impact on your housing budget. Which I think is what people are arguing. No? What am I missing here? Rent is going up insane amounts. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:OK, but your ability to pay it decreases and your allotted budget for it is carved into when your monthly gas, food and utility costs increase so it may as well. Inflation certainly has an impact on your housing budget. Which I think is what people are arguing. No? What am I missing here? Yes, that is the difference between a nominal and real change in value. In this example: - Inflation makes a fixed nominal debt burden go down (I owe $100k on my mortgage. If hyperinflation hits America and a loaf of bread costs $100k, then I have purchased a house for the cost of a loaf of bread, but I could sell it for far more than the $100k I initially paid for it because the real value far exceeds the nominal value of $100k that I paid for it). - Rent has a nominal value that changes year to year. If the nominal value of my rent changes along with inflation, then my overall value/spending power has not changed from inflation because my nominal costs are rising in proportion to the rate of inflation. If the nominal value of rent rises faster than inflation, then I am losing real value in terms of spending power. Similarly, if you had massive deflation, then anyone with a fixed amount of debt (mortgage) would be in a much worse position than someone who rents because your real debt on the house rises, but the nominal value falls.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. You have no idea how many would actually support ending the filibuster, you're just making an assumption because two Dem senators are particularly loud about their opposition
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. Two and a half senators today, goodness, that's an increase of 25% from what you said it was yesterday. At this rate, by the end of the month it'll be every Dem in the senate. We rarely get to see the rotating villain excuse for inaction demolished this quickly by events, though. Silver linings. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
The way we talk about housing in America is completely insane because property values are supposed to be a lucrative investment that beat inflation every year forever and must never go down, and also be affordable to everyone and those fundamentally cannot both be true.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The way we talk about housing in America is completely insane because property values are supposed to be a lucrative investment that beat inflation every year forever and must never go down, and also be affordable to everyone and those fundamentally cannot both be true. Property values were never a lucrative investment over a short period of time, they were about aligned with inflation, or a bit above, up until late 90's/2000s.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, to be more specific, the filibuster would likely have been eliminated well before the Dems ever got to the absurdly high number of 60. Eight Dem senators voted against a $15 minimum wage, with all the ghoulishness that implies. Do you think those same people are going to remove the filibuster if it means allowing that to pass? Plus Dick Durbin just showed his rear end on the filibuster today too. So that's 9. And I'd take a bet that there's at least a few more who'd pop out of the woodwork in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Property values were never a lucrative investment over a short period of time, they were about aligned with inflation, or a bit above, up until late 90's/2000s. I said supposed to be and I didn't say short period If property values are beating inflation over the long term they're going to be unaffordable that's just a fact especially if you're not allowed to do anything that lowers them ever like build affordable housing, but yeah it's gone especially insane recently.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I said supposed to be and I didn't say short period I mean they're not "supposed to be" but that's what people selling houses say they are. I agree we don't have affordable housing and aren't do anything to address that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I mean they're not "supposed to be" but that's what people selling houses say they are. Right so that's what people buying houses expect and that expectation drives various behaviors and perceptions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Right so that's what people buying houses expect and that expectation drives various behaviors and perceptions. Agreed, but I'm clarifying that it's the result of an effective sales pitch by the mortgage/investment industry that we have refused to do anything about. It wasn't the case in previous generations. You can look at the 90's and even California houses were more or less flat.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think you've got a few fundamental mathematical and economic concepts confused. The purpose of the asset is the transfer/maintenance of value. An asset that increases in nominal value at the same rate as inflation is going to be worth more money than stuffing a wad of cash under your bed for 10 years but I'm not sure how that is relevant to either of your prior claims (that business owners would have preferred higher inflation over higher interest rates in the late 70s, and that very few assets are fixed in terms of nominal value)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:One thing to also add onto the baby formula shortage is that Abbott's baby formula, the Similac line, is the go-to for parents with babies with delicate stomachs. We just finished formula with my son when the recall hit so we didn't get affected, but we know people who have kids who will literally poo poo blood if they don't get the correct formula, and a lot of the other formulas that will work for them require a prescription and are *very* expensive even by the already expensive formula prices. This isn't just a matter of spinning up a new factory to make rotgut formula, the product lines are necessary, and if corporate negligence causes this to go on for a while it is going to be a big problem. Similac is also the #1 formula used across hospitals in the US. We burn through cases of Similac Advance for the Post Partum dept. on a daily basis, it's the basic foundation for formula used (other Similac types are stocked for specialized needs). Now? Similac Advance is out of stock, no ETA on when we are getting restocked.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
I’m just in the midst of moving into a condo I bought and the talk of recession (both in here and relatively coded among economists) has me spooked to all hell.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:I’m just in the midst of moving into a condo I bought and the talk of recession (both in here and relatively coded among economists) has me spooked to all hell. Alcohol helps.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Similac is also the #1 formula used across hospitals in the US. Yeah, same for any doctor's office you go to. Need a sample or a recommendation? Similac. The common refrain from people all over, especially dudes, is "just breastfeed like the old days lmao". I heavily encourage those guys to wrap their mouths around their dicks and drink from the milk that flows freely because "in the old days" kids just went hungry when their mothers couldn't produce enough milk. These fuckers want use to "go back" to babies getting fed on rice water? It's truly astounding.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:You have no idea how many would actually support ending the filibuster, you're just making an assumption because two Dem senators are particularly loud about their opposition Bishyaler posted:Eight Dem senators voted against a $15 minimum wage, with all the ghoulishness that implies. Do you think those same people are going to remove the filibuster if it means allowing that to pass? Plus Dick Durbin just showed his rear end on the filibuster today too. So that's 9. And I'd take a bet that there's at least a few more who'd pop out of the woodwork in a pinch. We had a vote last year to eliminate the filibuster just for the civil rights bill, and it was 48-52.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:I’m just in the midst of moving into a condo I bought and the talk of recession (both in here and relatively coded among economists) has me spooked to all hell. I'm banking on a port backup twice as bad as last summer. Raw material lead times are already going back into 20-40wk range, from 10 earlier in the year. Take that for what its worth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:The common refrain from people all over, especially dudes, is "just breastfeed like the old days lmao". I heavily encourage those guys to wrap their mouths around their dicks and drink from the milk that flows freely because "in the old days" kids just went hungry when their mothers couldn't produce enough milk. These fuckers want use to "go back" to babies getting fed on rice water? It's truly astounding. Dude here. What's wrong with these people? Do they honestly think that there's people who are just not breastfeeding because they really, really want to spend a whole bunch of money on formula instead? I don't care if you don't know, you should be able to tell that "just breastfeed" is pure loving ignorant advice based on common sense.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Dude here. What's wrong with these people? Do they honestly think that there's people who are just not breastfeeding because they really, really want to spend a whole bunch of money on formula instead? I don't care if you don't know, you should be able to tell that "just breastfeed" is pure loving ignorant advice based on common sense. They don't care. Coincidentally this is usually the same people who are VERY CONCERNED about abortion and fetal personhood. See if you can figure out what the common denominator is.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We had a vote last year to eliminate the filibuster just for the civil rights bill, and it was 48-52. If a failed one-time carveout vote is indicative of support or opposition to filibuster abolition, why is Durbin changing his tune all of a sudden
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:I’m just in the midst of moving into a condo I bought and the talk of recession (both in here and relatively coded among economists) has me spooked to all hell. Q2 numbers have to confirm. You can decide to not worry about it for another 3 months.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
As expected https://twitter.com/dataprogress/status/1524486918033088512?s=21&t=4ahMz045vB_MxGLE_VOalw
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:As expected Who was the dem no vote? Manchin?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Only if the nominal value of an asset is fixed. Very few assets have fixed nominal prices. Inflation still eats away at that higher number in secret.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Who was the dem no vote? Manchin? Yup. But even if he voted for it, it's only the cloture. They still needed 60. Dude couldn't even vote to end debate on it
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Yup. But even if he voted for it, it's only the cloture. They still needed 60. Dude couldn't even vote to end debate on it Nor did the "pro choice" Republicans. Hint: It's because they're not pro-choice.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Hey Merrick Garland did a thing. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1524500068992180225?s=21&t=pMS56N3Ld219XdmVdXQRqw Oh.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Hey Merrick Garland did a thing. Why would they need security? Are protesters outside the houses of people with opinions on abortion a danger? Madsen vs Women's Health Center has assured me that's not the case.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Why would they need security? I assume they uncovered what they decided were credible threats to assassinate justices before the ruling can be released.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Rigel posted:I assume they uncovered what they decided were credible threats to assassinate justices before the ruling can be released. Why would you assume that?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 22:45
|
|