U.S. Politics: How bout them apples?

[Jon Sprunk]

(quoted from last thread)

and due to the whip hand held by the union in the case of teachers, and other civil servant occupations like cops, the employer has no choice but to comply. Its almost beyond belief that a union could be so obsessed with allowing no exemptions to thou shalt not fire for any reason, that they go into bat for pedophiles but there you have it.
(end quote)

I can only surmise from this that you have never been in a public service union, because they do not work this way. I was, for about 13 years, and the "thou shalt not fire for any reason" accusation is ridiculous.

It's more like "thou shalt not fire without just cause," which some employers try to do all the time.

But you keep up your "unions are evil" ranting. It's entertaining, if nothing else.

[DanteGabriel]

Taking a break from Borsabil's tireless efforts to tie labor unions to child abuse...

A second member of Chris Christie's staff, involved in the George Washington Bridge shutdown, has resigned. Christie continues to maintain that nothing fishy was afoot with the unexplained closure of three lanes on the bridge, and that the resignation was already planned anyway.

Christie said the resignation was "nothing that I hadn’t planned already." The governor also denied political concerns played a role in the gridlock.

"Baroni said when he testified (during a recent hearing) that a mistake was made. They believe that the study needed to be done but they didn’t do it correctly within the protocols of the Port Authority," Christie said. "He’s taken responsibility for that, as well he should because he’s the lead person for New Jersey at the Port."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nj-official-tied-to-revenge-traffic-jame-reisgns

This is starting to acquire the distinctive odor of a scandal with legs.

[slayer420]

Am I the only one that finds it funny that DG who is allways talking about the use of "right wing talking points" posts a link from a site with Talking points in the title? LOL

[DanteGabriel]

Am I the only one that finds it funny that DG who is allways talking about the use of "right wing talking points" posts a link from a site with Talking points in the title? LOL

I actually did make an observation about how often I link to TPM back during that discussion when you were thrashing around to try and understand this simple concept. I forget exactly where we left that thread, but I recall you were supposed to come up with some good sources to support assertions you were making. Did you ever get around to that, or did you just get distracted by another outrage that Glenn Beck informed you of, and move on to the next topic?

I believe the site is named somewhat ironically, for what it's worth -- probably based on Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" that I, again, cited during the initial discussion about the definition of the term.

Oh, and there's this -- I used the link to basically report on an event that happened. I am not depending on their analysis to back my argument. It was simply a handy article that spoke about a political event I wanted to discuss.

I know these kinds of subtle distinctions are lost on you, slayer, because almost everything is, but I wouldn't want to spoil the moment of innocent joy you get out of a HUR HUR HUR HE SAID TALKING POINTS moment. So enjoy.

[Inigima]

There's no question TPM is left-leaning, but they are also factually accurate.

[Shryke]

Am I the only one that finds it funny that DG who is allways talking about the use of "right wing talking points" posts a link from a site with Talking points in the title? LOL

.... yes?

I fail to see the connection beyond using the same two words in the same order.

[Shryke]

Mudguard:

None of this says that austerity is bad and that you shouldn't do it. It just says that you should do it more intelligently. For example, if you are going to increase taxes to reduce the deficit, it makes sense to increase the taxes on the rich rather than the poor. This falls under austerity, and as far as I can tell, the tax increase on the wealthy in the US isn't going to significantly impact the US GDP in a negative manner.

That's exactly what it says. That's what:

Setting the right pace of consolidation is also important: if financing allows, a more gradual approach is preferable, since adjustment measures can be taken when the economy recovers and multipliers are lower.[...] The results indicate that delaying the consolidation effort until more normal economic conditions prevail would substantially lessen the size and duration of the fiscal adjustment’s impact on growth.

literally means.

You can also implement austerity measures with stimulus. They aren't mutually exclusive.

... Yes they are. You can't simultaneously increase and decrease overall spending.

[Ser Reptitious]

Am I the only one that finds it funny that DG who is allways talking about the use of "right wing talking points" posts a link from a site with Talking points in the title? LOL

:facepalm:

You know Slayer, you're really not helping yourself with posts like this. As DG points out, we recently (last week, I believe?) had a fairly lengthy discussion in one of the threads around here (based on remarks you made, IIRC) about the proper vs. improper usage of talking points. For you to come in here and post this remark (which I'm sure in your mind was a zinger) without any sort of acknowledgement or reference to that discussion only serves to discredit you. So the next time you get on that cross and complain about how you are personally attacked solely because of your political views, perhaps you might want to consider that your selective memory regarding the discussions that take place here (and in which you were obviously involved) may in fact play a much larger role in the contempt that you seem to encounter.

Which reminds me, btw: In the thread about Iran and the deal struck with the U.S. and the other permanent members of the UN, you and I had a fairly good discussion going, but at the end there were two questions that I posed to you at least twice (off the top of my head), but you never answered them and instead just disappeared from the thread.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if you are actually interested in getting some respect from posters with different points of view (such as me) then a good place to start would be to (1) respond to questions directly put to you in a thread and (2) stop ignoring obvious context (such as the discussion surrounding talking points) when posting, since most of us around here will remember said context. Just some friendly advice.

[ants]

Borsabil

That's easy to answer. Do you think there will come a point where the debt becomes so enormous that the capital markets will lose confidence? Or do you think that the debt can continue to expand on a theoretically infinite basis? If there is a limit then I'm not sure what you're arguing? I was responding to the statement that 'the deficit is a non issue'. If there comes a tipping point then yes the deficit surely is an issue.

Answering the direct question put to me.

I certainly think there is an unsustainable level of debt. I don't think the US is anywhere near it, and I think the bond market agrees. Captain Oblivious mentioned that there were issues in 2009, I'm not sure what he's talking about. The bond rate never went above 4% in 2009, whereas it did several times in 2008. Is there any real evidence that anyone in financial areas agrees with the assertion that the deficit is a problem? I mean people putting money where their mouth is, not people talking from the side lines. Those who have to actually make the call - where is the evidence that they have an issue? Hell, they didn't even react to the downgrading of the US credit rating. So yes, I do think high levels of debt can be a problem, but I don't think the US is near that level of concern.

You have yet to answer my question back to you, you just asked me a question. So can you actually answer the question. Namely:

If you agree that paying the debt is manageable, and not sensitive to the change in interest rate, what is causing people to suddenly think there will be a default? Because lets be clear, if there is a crisis in the interest rates due to public debt, similar to the examples you gave of Greece, then its a crisis of confidence in the ability of the government to repay - i.e. can they avoid a default.You have yet to say why this would occur. You agree an interest rate spike wouldn't cause a change in government outlays on interest (in the short term), and the government outlay is a small percentage of the budget. It has also been pointed out that since US debts are in US denominations, technically the government can print money.So where is this default crisis coming from? And if there is no fear of default, why is the US debt a problem?

i.e. how the debt is meant to be a problem if it is insensitive to short term changes in interest rates (which you have agreed is the case) and it would be economic suicide for foreign parties holding the debt to dump it? Or can you see some reason the US might default other than Republicans refusing to increase the debt limit?

[Sci-2]

Another Batch of Wall Street Villains Freed on Technicality

Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm were mid-level players who worked for GE Capital. They were involved in a wide-ranging scheme (one that also involved most of America's biggest banks, from Chase to BOA to Wachovia) to skim billions of dollars from America's cities and towns by rigging the auctions banks set up to help towns earn the highest returns on the management of municipal bond issues.

The case was over 10 years in the making and involved offenses that took place long before the 2008 crash. All three defendants were convicted in May 2012, with Goldberg ultimately getting four years and the other two getting three.

Now, they're all free. A New York federal judge last week ordered their convictions overturned in a quiet Thanksgiving-week transaction.

The GE Muni-riggers will now join such luminaries as the Gen Re defendants (executives from an insurance company who were convicted in 2008 of helping AIG conduct a fraudulent accounting transaction) and the KPMG defendants (executives of the U.S. arm of the Dutch accounting giant who were convicted in the 2000s of selling illegal tax shelters) in the ranks of Wall Street line-crossers who improbably made it all the way to guilty verdicts in criminal cases, only to be freed on technicalities later on.

As one antitrust lawyer I know put it: "Apparently, the government can't seem to get criminal trials involving financial executives (as opposed to, well, drug dealers) right. Go figure."

[slayer420]

Ser Reptitus I don't think that was a personal attack. I didn't say anything mean or anything like that about DG. Also on that tread I had as many as 6 questions at any one given time. I tied to answer all posters, but as soon as I would post one answer I would get 3 more. If I didn't answer your question. You can repost them there or IM the question and I will answer it there. Also yes we discussed talking points and I understand them. I just thought it was funny that he would post from a left wing sight that is called talking points. I guess it would be the same as if I posted from one of Bill's. Also I never bought what you guys were selling on talking points. I think it is just used here at least just to dismiss what people who some people disagree with are saying.

To discuss the article I really see no scandal. What is the problem. Doesn't look like a crime was commited. No one died. Also no proof they the Gov knew anything about it. Seems to me like a Left wing site trying to make something out of a non issue. Its not like he closed a open air park with baracades that cost more than just to leave it open to stop a bunch of vets from getting in or something like that to make a political point.

[Sci-2]

@Slayer420:

To discuss the article I really see no scandal. What is the problem.

Officials On George Washington Bridge Closures: There Was No Traffic Study

Foye testified that he had a conversation about the closures with Wildstein’s supervisor, Bill Baroni.

“I told him it was absolutely outrageous, unacceptable,” Foye said.

Bridge officials told the committee that Wildstein told them not to tell Fort Lee officials or Foye.

Some Democrats believe Wildstein was sending a message to the Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for not endorsing Gov. Chris Christie in his re-election bid.

And then followup:

Gov. Christie Put On The Defensive Over GWB ‘Traffic Study’ Scandal

As CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reported Friday, Gov. Chris Christie announced he accepted Port Authority of New York and New Jersey executive deputy director Bill Baroni’s resignation, effective immediately. Democrats had called for Baroni to step down over the scandal.

[slayer420]

I wish Obama did the same thing and fired his people when they were involved in a scandal. Also where is the proof that Christie did anything wrong. Where does it show he knew or ordered this done? Also where is the crime here? Also whats the diffence in Obama having those baracades put up around that park, seems like the same thing to me.

[TrueMetis]

Well except all the money traffic jams cost in wasted gas, wasted man hours, and shit just not getting there in time. How much does not going to a park cost?

[slayer420]

Well since most of the people involved flew there to see the park before they died I would say just about as much as the traffic jam. Also the people were fired that did the traffic jam. how many people were fired for the park thing. Also how many people have been fired for the web site scandal? I think that has been a lot worse than some traffic jam.

[Sci-2]

I don't think anyone knows [yet] if Christie was involved, but if he was then it's an abuse of power and not comparable to the other examples you gave:

1) Wasn't the park closed due to the government shutdown?

That isn't a scandal, that's just not picking and choosing what a shutdown is.

2) The website is just Obama fucking up royally, it's not an abuse of power just the misapplication of it.

[Inigima]

I wish Obama did the same thing and fired his people when they were involved in a scandal. Also where is the proof that Christie did anything wrong. Where does it show he knew or ordered this done? Also where is the crime here? Also whats the diffence in Obama having those baracades put up around that park, seems like the same thing to me.

Are we talking about the parks that were legally required to close?

[slayer420]

They were not legally required to close. can you post a link to prove your statement. sci-2, Also they made many choices of what was closed down and what wasn't. In all the other government shutdowns it was not closed. yes it was closed because of the shutdown but only to make a political point and make it look worse on the GOP. It actual cost more to close it because they had to but up barricades to stop people from seeing it(also not sure if this is true or not but it cost nothing to leave it open if IRC.). On your second point I agree. Only used it to make the point that the Gov fires people who fuck up Obama doesn't.

[all swedes are racist]

Its not like he closed a open air park with baracades that cost more than just to leave it open to stop a bunch of vets from getting in or something like that to make a political point.

Now that is a talking point!

[slayer420]

Its a talking point because you disagree with it and is a easy way to dismiss my argument.