Your reaction is perfect. You get the tossing aside part exactly backward, get caught in the error, and then bothsides it. You sure you dont work in the media?
WTF are you even talking about? If the DNC and Clinton camps want to have an intramural firefight, I'm not going to get in the way. I only thought the DB revelation was interesting. You can draw whatever conclusions make you feel better. And I guess "bothsidesdoit" even applies when it is the same side. SMH. Have a great week.
You know, the last Venezuela topic thread is from 2006, so I will just post here. How about you combine the worse things about socialism (inept governments bent on staying in power) and the worst of Capitalism. What is one of the things you get? How about government bonds that pay sky high interest? I mean Venezuela will have to default on its debts eventually, so who ever is left holding the bag will lose out, then will sell the bonds to speculators cents to the dollar and those speculators will squeeze future governments of Venezuela like they did Argentina. Viva el Chavizmo! https://www.economist.com/news/amer...has-been-star-sovereign-bond-markets-how-long
No liberal economic idea fail thread, so this will do. Rent control, the global warming denialism of the left. Lucky Chicago voters in #ILPrimary get to vote YES to lift the ban on rent control! Get to vote YES to ending gentrification & venture capitalist speculation. This is how the #LiftTheBan question will appear on ballots pic.twitter.com/IHK1RQ3ZMh— Metropolitan Tenants Organization (@TenantsRights) March 19, 2018 To be fair it is only up for vote on a few (1?) District in Chicago.
You think this one was bad, check this one out. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/populism-the-new-normal.2037549/
The rent control got 77% of the vote. So American brumie do we keep letting them vote? They did vote to allow for legal weed, so not all bad.
If framed the right way, I think boosting IRS funding is a win-win-win for Democrats. 1. It attacks a GOP stronghold, the mega rich. 2. My cutting down on tax evasion, it boosts revenue to pay for Democratic spending priorities. 3. If framed the right way, it’s very populist.
I'm doing my part for the agenda of the left. I'm leaving this forum to watch the Mexico/Iceland match!
Kirsten Gillibrand is killing it. She is proposing a bill forcing ICE to document all of its stops. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rsten-gillibrand-immigration-border-stop-bill A couple of the blogs I follow are pretty much obsessed with publicizing instances of ICE overreach, and some of the examples are truly awful and appalling. ICE needs to be reined in because they're acting like the ********ing Gestapo, and I barely exaggerate. In addition, this bill gives Latinos a reason to turn out and to become loyal Democrats. It's good policy and good politics.
She is also proposing legislation to "wipe out" the predatory practices of pay day loans. She is suggesting legislation that is over 220 years over due. The Postal Banking Act proposes to establish small, non-profit banks at all post offices. This should have been decades ago. It could have avoided the proliferation of "currency exchanges" in major cities, avoid pay day loans and their ridiculous fees and, now, could save the Post Office. Text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2755/text?r=50 I am waiting for the banking industry and the pay day loan lobby go apesh*t over this one. The Pay Day Loan industry is one of the most racist, ageist, evil segments of American business and finance*. *I have fought against pay day loans, frankly without great success, for a decade. The highest interest rate I have witnessed was 1,114% APR. The "average" is 300-500% APR.
Why non-profit? Let the post office make some profits off those banks to help fund their pension fund (that they are forced to by law).
That was what I meant, hence my statement that it would help "save" the Postal Service. First, any capitalization costs would have be repaid. Second, (f) Any net profits from services provided under this section that are not greater than the amount of initial capitalization— “(1) shall be reported separately from mail service and delivery; “(2) in the case of any amount appropriated, shall be returned to the general fund of the Treasury not later than 9 years after the date of enactment of this subsection; and “(3) may be repaid to the offering organization or organizations if the Postmaster General determines that the services provided in this subsection are not reduced as a result.”. That still would be non-profit, as it would not have shareholders to which the bank would be beholden. It does sound like there could be Postal Service/private partnerships, as well.
ICE has been out of control since before their name change from C&BP. This includes both flavors of vanilla. Good for Gillibrand, though. I do wonder, though, how she thought of things when Obama's DHS was deporting the shit out of everything. It IS excellent policy, but then again, I tend toward almost completely open borders.
That was a different policy than the one she is taking on here. It seems like you're painting with a broad brush here. I'm trying to get it back on track to the specifics of this bill.
This is about stops within 100 miles of the border, or similar, no? That's been going on since PATRIOT. It seemed to - if not actually did - increase under Obama.
I realize I talked about Obama's deportation-fest, but when I thought about it a second, I remembered the "stops" thing, thus the incongruity you mention. My bad. Anyway, I checked your link after making that realization and that's what it looks like. The ACLU identified this at least as far back as 2015 and sued based on it. There are further anecdotal stories going way back that spurred them to investigate.
The places I go for "underground" news are pretty adamant that under Trump, the more fascist elements of ICE have felt very, very empowered. But I'm fully aware that the places i go for that kind of news are going to say that regardless. I'm not vouching for the truth of it. The core of Gillibrand's (and others') bill is that ICE has to say why they're stopping the people they stop. The perception is out there that they just willy-nilly pick on brown people. (For the record, I fully believe that this perception is backed by reality, but I can't prove it.) This bill will hold ICE accountable. I'm becoming more and more convinced that if the Dems can get control in 2020, the correct approach will NOT be prioritizing a return to normalcy. The correct approach will be a very vigorous counterattack. Virtual annihilation is a worthy objective. Trump weaponized ICE? Neuter them. GOPs played games with the judiciary? Pack them.
ICE has been a weapon since Bush, when it was still C&BP. The ACLU has been fighting this kind of shit for years. There are mounds of videos taken by citizens going back quite a way, and they came to my attention via Reason, naturally, dating back to the end of 43's reign. Again, I'm happy someone is trying to hold some feet to some sort of fire, but I can't help thinking "where ya been?" I mean, I haven't done a search, but this type of thing has been a cover story in Reason on at least a couple of occasions. It was palpable back when I was traveling to Tucson regularly from 2005-2011. Hell, I even saw La Migra running patrols in NE Ohio (yes, they used the Lake as a justification) up and down I-71 and even I-77. It's been a while since I've seen that, though. I'm dead serious when I say that I'd prefer ICE to be dissolved entirely. If Gillibrand helps that happen by burying them in paperwork, that would make me at least partially happy.