As many Democrats voted for the bill to offset the Republicans that voted again the bill in the House.
And your idol was the one that blessed the bill.
As many Democrats voted for the bill to offset the Republicans that voted again the bill in the House.
And your idol was the one that blessed the bill.
Per Ballotpedia,
However, opinions vary from "you can't even though it's in the state constitution" to "we can't stop you from filing the paperwork."
Leverage. Remember that the money doesn't actually have to exist in a fractional reserve world.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Or spend their time doing the damn job, rather than mostly focusing on campaigning so that you can keep the pension, the healthcare plan, the insider trading, and the extraordinary income from bribes and public speaking.
And the scrapple in the cake was mostly made of week-old roadkill.
Last edited:
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Those links seem to deal with recalling state officials:
Uh, that's not what I gathered from that link.
All states have ruled they can't recall recall Congress emembers.
One state is listed as determining:
That looks to be a ruling about what the state could do upon receiving a petition. E.g., state law itself may not have a provision allowing for rejection. But that's different than ruling whether a state law can trump the Constitution.
I've never heard anyone claim that state law can override the Constitution.
Fern
The links pertain to recall. All states that have ruled, save Wisconsin. SCOTUS never ruled. Before the SCOTUS ruled on Wickard v. Fillburn the interstate commerce clause didn't apply to grain used on one farm because somewhere some time an interstate transaction may or may not have taken place.
I'm not arguing that state law can trump the Constitution. I'm saying that state constitutions include provisions for recall of federal officials even though it has never been done.
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
People should be listening to Elizabeth Warren and listening very closely.
She is absolutely on the mark.
Citybank has and actually did write law into this bill for their sole benefit, that absolutely greatly raises the risk for future bank catastrophe and tax payer bailouts to the tune of trillions of tax dollars.
And Warren is absolutely correct in saying that this alone proves banks like Citybank have such great power in American politics where they can actually cause the entire US government to shut down if the banks and wall street do not get their way.
What Warren is warning us about and the real threat to Americans with the banks having such power, is that if and should another tax payer bailout happen, that would have grave consequences for all Americans.
Much worse than the tax payer bailout in 2008. Much!
Any such bailout would result in far more greater damage than the 2008 tax payer funded bailout.
Next time with also wiping out millions of private as well as government retirement pensions, social security benefits, and eliminate most all of our social safety nets.
If this warning from Warren sounds bad, the reality would be much worse.
This is not a right wing vs left wing issue. It would involve the actual survival of a huge chunk of the American middle class, lower class, upper 1% class.
Throwing millions of senior citizens into poverty, creating millions of homeless, and causing unemployment to sky rocked beyond the 1929 crash, and massive business failure thus hitting that upper 1% just as hard as everyone else.
For anyone to simply write off this warning from Elizabeth Warren, or chalk it up to some far left liberal rant, is foolish, and as they say the "famous last words".
Such a crashing of the banking system from allowing Wall Street and banks like Citybank to again gamble with the American economy, would create a high likelihood for total US economic meltdown.
Forget about the anger from the American people over still another tax payer funded bank bailout. That anger would be nothing compared to the economy itself unable to withstand such a bailout.
The American society is very strong and resourceful. Able to bounce back from near devastation time after time. But how many hits like another trillion dollar tax payer bailout could the American economy take?
It's hard to imagine America falling into a third world classed society.
It's hard to imagine America not able to fund their military, their schools, their government. No longer to protect its people from outside threat.
But that could easily become reality.
This allowing of banks to once again take high risk, where the tax payer is on the hook if their gamble fails, this could bring down the entire American system of government.
Our economy, our protections, our very way of life itself.
No, this is not some liberal vs Conservative thing. This concerns all Americans.
And allowing another major hit to the American economy could bring down our entire system.
Hard to imagine the end of our America, but entirely possible if greed is allowed to prevail.
She is absolutely on the mark.
Citybank has and actually did write law into this bill for their sole benefit, that absolutely greatly raises the risk for future bank catastrophe and tax payer bailouts to the tune of trillions of tax dollars.
And Warren is absolutely correct in saying that this alone proves banks like Citybank have such great power in American politics where they can actually cause the entire US government to shut down if the banks and wall street do not get their way.
What Warren is warning us about and the real threat to Americans with the banks having such power, is that if and should another tax payer bailout happen, that would have grave consequences for all Americans.
Much worse than the tax payer bailout in 2008. Much!
Any such bailout would result in far more greater damage than the 2008 tax payer funded bailout.
Next time with also wiping out millions of private as well as government retirement pensions, social security benefits, and eliminate most all of our social safety nets.
If this warning from Warren sounds bad, the reality would be much worse.
This is not a right wing vs left wing issue. It would involve the actual survival of a huge chunk of the American middle class, lower class, upper 1% class.
Throwing millions of senior citizens into poverty, creating millions of homeless, and causing unemployment to sky rocked beyond the 1929 crash, and massive business failure thus hitting that upper 1% just as hard as everyone else.
For anyone to simply write off this warning from Elizabeth Warren, or chalk it up to some far left liberal rant, is foolish, and as they say the "famous last words".
Such a crashing of the banking system from allowing Wall Street and banks like Citybank to again gamble with the American economy, would create a high likelihood for total US economic meltdown.
Forget about the anger from the American people over still another tax payer funded bank bailout. That anger would be nothing compared to the economy itself unable to withstand such a bailout.
The American society is very strong and resourceful. Able to bounce back from near devastation time after time. But how many hits like another trillion dollar tax payer bailout could the American economy take?
It's hard to imagine America falling into a third world classed society.
It's hard to imagine America not able to fund their military, their schools, their government. No longer to protect its people from outside threat.
But that could easily become reality.
This allowing of banks to once again take high risk, where the tax payer is on the hook if their gamble fails, this could bring down the entire American system of government.
Our economy, our protections, our very way of life itself.
No, this is not some liberal vs Conservative thing. This concerns all Americans.
And allowing another major hit to the American economy could bring down our entire system.
Hard to imagine the end of our America, but entirely possible if greed is allowed to prevail.
Last edited:
DrDoug
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2014
- 3,580
- 1,629
- 136
The first provision is to ensure their jobs by keeping the money from wealthy benefactors coming in. It also ensures the state does better economically and that there are good paying jobs for the people of the state. The more good paying jobs there are means more economic activity and that translates into more votes they can get at election time. This isn't going to change because many of their constituents will be pissed if the bacon isn't coming home.
The second provision exists because of the need to put more money into the provision above. The wealthy and a good number of voters doing well are what brings out the money and votes for the politicians, not the poor and needy. Politicians are even able to take advantage of this provision among their voters to improve their electoral future by saying that the Democrats fought for it and the Republicans fought against it (or the reverse).
The third provision exists because the financial giants own most of our politicians. Most of us have not realized this is happening because we keep sending enough of the same people to Washington that this will never change. They don't even need to buy all of the politicians! All the banks (or any other moneyed entity) needs to do is buy enough politicians to get what they want. The wealthy can protect these politicians by paying for advertising and/or driving the news cycle to attack the ones they haven't bought out. Nothing drives out the voters like having an enemy. The nastier the enemy is perceived, the more the 'troops' rally for their leaders!
The real news here is that a large number of politicians have decided that they want more $$$$ from their wealthy benefactors. Talk about stating it loud and clear to their patrons...lol! I keep saying that this is going to keep happening as long as our politicians keep us at each others throats.
As long as we are doing that then we can't wrap them around theirs. Mission Accomplished!
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 16,096
- 8,687
- 136
Impeachment? LOL, the American people just reelected these guys and expanded their mandate to legalize corruption. To send Obama a message
Apparently, the folks that voted Repub are more than willing to take a financial hit in the wallet for the team, and more than happy that they can take everybody else down with them.
I don't see it any other way.
I really wish for the day when the middle class and the poor, who represent the vast majority of the nation, unify and take back what that small group of ultra wealthy elites took away from them: The United States of America.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
The sellers of the ACA did a pretty good job painting it to be something it was not as well. And the vast majority of employer sponsored plans are not ACA compliant which is why the employer mandate was pushed back yet again. It's one thing to lie to 10 million people getting kicked off their insurance, it's quite another to lie to 100 million.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,730
- 17,378
- 136
No, the mandate was pushed back because of administrative reasons including guidelines, tracking, and enforcement.
Your continued ignorance and or lying is quite annoying.
http://m.benefitspro.com/2014/08/29/irs-releases-employer-mandate-guidance
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,730
- 17,378
- 136
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Well I do have that whole common sense working for me, but you just keep on thinking people who question the word of a pathological lair live in a bubble.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,730
- 17,378
- 136
No, you don't even have common sense. You have gut feelings, that's why your accusations are never backed up by unbiased sources or real world facts. You don't question anything, you accuse. If you actually questioned things you wouldn't come off as just another righty conspiracy nut.
So what facts do you have that back up your claim? Opinion pieces?
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
I didn't figure you would understand common sense. The backlash towards Obama and the dems when millions got kicked off their insurance due to a lie would pale in comparison to the backlash when 100 million or so would get kicked off due to the business mandate. They saw the political damage it caused, and had the same thing x 10 looming on the horizon. Now we have "administrative reasons" 4 years after it was signed into law. At some point you are really going to have to be able to tell the difference between rain and someone pissing on your boot.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
I suppose this is what you are referring to. Even you can't be so naïve to think the millions kicked off of their plans didn't cause some political backlash.
Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
Sigh. As usual a right wing opinion piece relying on fanciful combinations of four year old numbers. Are you really so naive that you continue to be duped by the same people over and over again?
If plans are losing their grandfathered status it is because they are being changed. It is impossible to know from that number back in 2010 what percentage of plans would be 'canceled', not to mention the fact that your definition of being "kicked off your insurance" is insane. By your logic an employer that kept costs, coverage entity, and the entire plan the same but added coverage for say, birth control, would equate to every employee being "kicked off" their insurance. That's ridiculous.
I oppose the employer mandate because I think it's a dumb idea. I hope it is never implemented. I base my opinion on the economics of it though, not on some absurd opinion piece. Use your head.
FYI a right wing editorial piece is not analysis. Please use a credible research and policy analysis source.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,730
- 17,378
- 136
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
That's Obama post implementation. "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasnt changed since the law passed,"
Pants on fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-what-hed-said-was-you-could-keep/
They likely include all the leverage. If you invest $100 and leverage it 5:1 it only takes a 20% downward move to lose the entire $100 and technically you could end up -$500 (including the initial $100 invested). Usually that doesn't happen because they won't let you get that far, either you put up more cash to cover it or they force you to sell your position.
The big banks (and .gov) like to play accounting tricks and flat out break the law to hide their losses when those bad movements take place praying to get (or make) a move in the right direction.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,730
- 17,378
- 136
Guys guys, it's ok, they both love corruption! So why all the fighting?
:'
Honestly progressive dems and tea parties could easily come together on a few issues, especially when it comes to money and politics and government waste.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter