US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

If i remember correctly, the expansion of executive power from FDR onward was a major theme in highschool US History.

Yes, it's a very well known-theme of US history. One could arguably go much further back than FDR though.
The paradox, as has been pointed out right here, is that Republicans are totally ok with the expansion of executive power in foreign affairs.

[Rippounet]

One of Trump's latest tweets:

Quote

The Democrats will make a deal with me on healthcare as soon as ObamaCare folds - not long. Do not worry, we are in very good shape!

 

[Fez]

13 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

If i remember correctly, the expansion of executive power from FDR onward was a major theme in highschool US History.

Not just the expansion of executive power, but of the Federal government in general. And the outliers of a more active Federal government that occurred prior to FDR were also the result of presidential action. The two generally go hand-in-hand.

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, it's a very well known-theme of US history. One could arguably go much further back than FDR though.
The paradox, as has been pointed out right here, is that Republicans are totally ok with the expansion of executive power in foreign affairs.

Well, yes. With a handful of unique exceptions, like, say 1865-1877, executive power has been expanding since the dawn of the US.

[DMC]

The reason FDR serves as the start of the "modern presidency" is its association with the rise of the administrative state with its huge bureaucracy to manage and attempt to control.  The executive branch did not even have a Budget Bureau until 1921, then came the New Deal and its alphabet soup with the centralization of policymaking authority - and expertise.  Congress responded to the massive increase in executive capacity with the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act which mandated committee staff designed to narrow the information gap between Congress and the executive.  So, yeah, it's fair to say FDR was an inflection point on expansion of executive power and the federal gov't in general.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 Congress responded to the massive increase in executive capacity with the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act which mandated committee staff designed to narrow the information gap between Congress and the executive.

And starting in 1995 with Gingrich, Congress has been steadily cutting its own budget and is now grossly uninformed on most issues; relying on think tanks and lobbyists, on both sides, to create legislation and form opinions. As well as following what the President says; assuming he's from their party.

[OldGimletEye]

http://voxeu.org/article/fed-s-price-stability-achievement

Quote

Over this same period, rather than interfering in monetary policy setting, Congress has been content to assess the broad outcomes of policy in terms of the Fed’s legally mandated objectives (price stability and employment), leaving both the strategic aspects of specifying quantitative targets and the tactical implementation of operational instruments to the central bank experts. It is probably no accident that this episode of legislative self-restraint largely coincided with the Great Moderation – the 20-plus-year period beginning in the mid-1980s –that was characterised by stable inflation, stable economic growth, and (aside from greatly increased transparency) little monetary policy experimentation.

As President Lacker’s remarks imply, it is important not to take these supportive political conditions for granted. Considering the Fed’s impressive price stability achievements over recent decades—in the face of extraordinary disturbances—a loss of Fed independence would be a tragedy not only for the US, but for the world.

Personally, I think the FED shouldn’t have raised rates in March. And it should hold off, at least, until the it seems clear what the Republican tax overhaul is actually going to be like and what the market reaction to that is.

But, I don’t think Yellen was or has been acting in bad faith, though it would seem many Republicans, think she was and is playin team Democrat.

Anyway, lots of Republicans were pretty salty about the FED over the last few years. It will be interesting if they remain so, now they control just about everything in the federal government. Plus, Trump will get to make a lot of appointments. So, will Trump try to compromise the FED’s independence? I don’t know. But, it is certainly something to watch, given Trump’s mercurial nature.

Quote

We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called ‘quantitative easing’) should be reconsidered and discontinued... The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment.” (Wall Street Journal 2010).

Over the past decade, critics of all stripes have assailed Federal Reserve monetary policy. At one end of the spectrum were those arguing that the Fed’s expansionary balance sheet policy risked currency debasement and high inflation. 

Now, how could I not take an opportunity to comment on that dumb letter back in 2010. Particularly, now that a couple of those guys now work for Trump.

So now, who was on the whose whose list of conservative clowns that wrote this letter? Just a few of them:

1. David Malpass (Now works in the Trump administration. Also was the chief economist of Bear Sterns before it failed)

2. Kevin Hastett (Now Chairman of Economic Advisors under Trump. Like Malpass back in 2008 he wrote an opinion back in 2008 that basically said “no worries, the economy is just doing fine”. He just had to keep on playin team Republican. Also, author of the infamous Dow 36,0000.)

3. Amity Shlaes (author of “The Forgotten Man”, though it should have been called, “Forgotten Libertarian Horseshit”. It basically was a nonsensical Liberty League retread. She also wrote a ridiculous article back in 2008 called “Phil Gramm Is Right”).

4. William Kristol (chickenhawk. Not sure what in the fuck his qualifications were).

5. Dan Senor (another chickenhawk. Again, not sure what in the fuck his qualifications were either).

6. Niall Feguson (Harvard Prof. Obama critic. And, generally, a clown. Seems to sit around mostly and pine away for the good old days of colonialism.)

7. Peter J. Wallison ( a conservative clown that tried to blame the whole crises on the CRA).

All these clowns turned out to be wrong. It would seem monetary policy was good enough for Ronnie, but not Obama. Also, plus make sure you use a severe crises to argue for tax cuts for the Rich. Can’t let a crises like that go to wast. And when you're a rich Republican, why gives a fuck about unemployed people anyway? So long as you “got yours”, it’s all good.

You know, it just seems to me, than when it comes to the big stuff, like healthcare,climate change, or financial crises, or foreign policy or whatever, conservatives and Republicans just have a way of really screwing up.

[IheartIheartTesla]

20 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hahaha! Thanks for my morning laugh!

There's no reason to be rude about it, I got my information from a colleague who works with crude and natural gas feedstocks for a living - I dont think he was dissembling, this is what he believes.

I would also disagree that the recession is entirely the cause of lowered emissions from the peak in 2007 - while these things are correlations and hard to infer causation, you can see an increase in natural gas consumption and a corresponding drop in coal over the same time period, meaning it is plausible the cheap nature of shale has something to do with the lowering of emissions.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I wonder how the rest of the world is reacting to the EPA changes. Trump's actions are a pretty clear indicator that the U.S. is going to back out of the Paris Agreement.

[Fragile Bird]

49 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There's no reason to be rude about it, I got my information from a colleague who works with crude and natural gas feedstocks for a living - I dont think he was dissembling, this is what he believes.

I would also disagree that the recession is entirely the cause of lowered emissions from the peak in 2007 - while these things are correlations and hard to infer causation, you can see an increase in natural gas consumption and a corresponding drop in coal over the same time period, meaning it is plausible the cheap nature of shale has something to do with the lowering of emissions.

Oh dear, you are being waaaaaaay too sensitive! Believe me, I literally laughed out loud when I read your comment! Context is everything though. While you guys in the States had a 'liberal' (in US terms) government trying to make Kyoto claims, we in Canada had a Conservative (upper and lower case) government doing the same, but not only did we have the economic collapse, we also had Ontario shut down its coal power plants. The Conservatives railed against the closures, particularly since the coal mines are out west, their power base, and told Ontario they would destroy their economy if they did it. But they feasted on the results, bragging that their government was the only one under which emissions had dropped. Bloody hypocrites!

If any state does something good for the environment, especially a Democratic controlled state, wait and see how quickly Trump takes credit!

And, frankly, switching back and forth between coal and natural gas depending on which one is cheaper at the time has been a fact of life in heavy industry for decades. As a mining executive explained to me back in the early 2000s, long before 2008/09.

[DMC]

56 minutes ago, Fez said:

And starting in 1995 with Gingrich, Congress has been steadily cutting its own budget and is now grossly uninformed on most issues; relying on think tanks and lobbyists, on both sides, to create legislation and form opinions. As well as following what the President says; assuming he's from their party.

Started before '95.  This is a great resource on declining congressional staff levels, an explanation for why (what you said), and advertisement for an upcoming book!

[Zorral]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, it's a very well known-theme of US history. One could arguably go much further back than FDR though.
The paradox, as has been pointed out right here, is that Republicans are totally ok with the expansion of executive power in foreign affairs.

You can go back as far as Thomas Jefferson -- fact is his purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional, as was stated in anger and opposition from many sectors at the time.  John Quincy Adams supported it though -- against his New England cohort, just as he supported the War of 1812 against his New England cohort.  Then, let us mention Andrew Jackson . . . .

When both Lincoln and Grant entered the White House, the conditions of the nation and what government needed to do had changed so much -- just as with FDR -- they too wielded executive powers more widely than their predecessors.  But each POTUS has done so, building on what happened with the previous administrations.

By these standards and precedents Obama's expansions were very small.

 

[aceluby]

17 hours ago, Mexal said:

House and Senate (all Republicans) voted to allow broadband providers to sell private activity data without permission. I hate these people.

This is really bad.  They really want that ad revenue.

They are also going to pass a bill to allow ISPs to throttle your speed as they see fit.  So if Comcast wants to come up with a netflix competitor, they can.... and then throttle Netflix so it's unusable.

Oh yeah.... and competition doesn't exist, so go fuck yourselves if you want options.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, Zorral said:

By these standards and precedents Obama's expansions were very small.

Eh, I don't know if I buy that. When one of those expansions includes killing U.S. citizens remotely with little oversight, I have to categorize that as being something more than small.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Sean Hannity to Ted Koppel Retort: I know you are, but what am I?

 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/28/sean-hannity-ted-koppel-and-cbs-are-bad-for-america-not-me.html?ICID=ref_fark

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wednesdays-campaign-round-32917

Quote

 Making America Great, a group Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Republican megadonor and Donald Trump supporter, is reportedly launching a new ad campaign targeting Democratic senators from states Trump won in 2016. Here’s the ad, launched as part of a $1.3 million effort.

Making America a plutocracy again!

Quote

* In Georgia’s congressional special election, Club for Growth Action is launching ads targeting the top Republican contender, former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, for not being conservative enough.

But, who can be?

Quote

* Corey Stewart, who served as the Trump campaign’s chairman in Virginia last year, is running an explicitly pro-Confederate gubernatorial campaign this year, including unfurling a Confederate battle flag at a recent event. “Folks, this is a symbol of heritage. It is not a symbol of racism. It is not a symbol of slavery,” Stewart declared. “I’m proud to be here with this flag.”

In fairness to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party might have dropped it's dixiecrats like a hot potato and put them on the Republican Party. Or maybe, the Republican Party was glad to get them. Whatever the case maybe, could ya do something about them Republican Party?

Also, I'm going to throw this out here, but it seems to me displaying the stars and bars is "identity politics".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's likely going to be undone by further legislation, but for a moment in time the elected officials of Arkansas thought it was a good idea to allow guns into sports stadiums, which might be the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/3/23/15036948/arkansas-football-stadiums-guns-law

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, I don't know if I buy that. When one of those expansions includes killing U.S. citizens remotely with little oversight, I have to categorize that as being something more than small.

Andrew Jackson's (and others') genocide? Relative numbers . . . .

 

[Zorral]

Hillary's got a new look, for better or worse (but it's still 100% Hillary) . . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-leather_us_58dbaf2ee4b0cb23e65d0848?htd0o9tgduslwhfr&

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Andrew Jackson's (and others') genocide? Relative numbers . . . .

That was bad too. Doesn't make Obama's decision any smaller in my estimation.