Politics

[GoIrish41]

It clearly demonstrates who has real power in this country. Personally I find the whole situation with that lack of enforcement against white collar crime disgusting. It's particularly troubling considering the sentences that were handed out in the 80's and 90's for selling even a minuscule amount of crack cocaine. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Elliot Spitzer's trysts with hookers were brought to light and used to drive him out of office once he started to aggressively go after white collar criminals in the financial sector. Maybe a "war" on financial fraud, embezzlement and money laundering is in order? If Obama had done this his first term he wouldn't have had to even campaign to get re-elected. Maybe he'll sack up this time around.

I could not agree more with this post.

 

[chicago51]

I get what you are saying about the plan advocated by some republicans (and I agree completely that it is a horrible idea). But to me the issue is gerrymandering. Politicians shouldn't be able to choose who their voters are, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to choose that their voters are more important than other voters that are opposed to them.

I agree with we need national gerymandering reform. My state which gerrymanders favorably Dems needs to be fixed. If your house results don't match up to reasonably to the house party popular vote then it should be investigated.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You definately need an idependent body to regulate elections, even then however problems can still come up

Like the UN?

Nothing is independent.

 

[Downinthebend]

Like the UN?

Nothing is independent.

Then let us flip 220-sided dice. Alternatively, we could just demand consistency and high moral values from our politicians and force them to act "right" even if abuses like gerrymandering may serve our and their purposes.

 

[chicago51]

Like the UN?

Nothing is independent.

They have had success with the courts. Nothing is perfect but court drawn states house of rep votes that tend to be proportional to how the state voted for a party as a whole.

 

[chicago51]

Interesting -- the current "recovery" is now worse than any other recession/depression "recovery" the US has ever had.

It's Official: Worst. Recovery. EVER | Zero Hedge

I can not understand why the Senate republicans filibustered the American Jobs Act?

 

[BobD]

I can not understand why the Senate republicans filibustered the American Jobs Act?

For the next four years they have to slow progress as much as possible. If the economy continues to recover, unemployment keeps shrinking and we aren't involved in any major conflicts, they won't have a chance against Hillary.

 

[Downinthebend]

For the next four years they have to slow progress as much as possible. If the economy continues to recover, unemployment keeps shrinking and we aren't involved in any major conflicts, they won't have a chance against Hillary.

Why does kicking the can forward have any effect on anything? The republicans should just run a sensible candidate that is socially liberal (with the exception of abortion), cares about immigration reform, fiscally conservative, and dislikes the military industrial complex while wanting to protect civil liberties.

But you're right, if the perception is that the economy is on an upward bend, and the republican party keeps running the candidates they have been, they have no chance to win against Hilary, or ____.

 

[DSully1995]

Like the UN?

Nothing is independent.

*non-partisan is the actual term i was looking for.

 

[chicago51]

Jobless benefits this week hit a 5 year low. It is back on the level it was the when recession first start.

We have had 34 straight months of job growth. We will see at the start of next month but looks like it could be 35 straight. At one point we were 700k jobs a month. Things are turning.

 

[chicago51]

Why does kicking the can forward have any effect on anything? The republicans should just run a sensible candidate that is socially liberal (with the exception of abortion), cares about immigration reform, fiscally conservative, and dislikes the military industrial complex while wanting to protect civil liberties.

But you're right, if the perception is that the economy is on an upward bend, and the republican party keeps running the candidates they have been, they have no chance to win against Hilary, or ____.

They got distance themselves from the Ryan budget. Vast majority of people don't want the privatization of social security or medicare over 80 percent oppose in almost every poll.

 

[Downinthebend]

They got distance themselves from the Ryan budget. Vast majority of people don't want the privatization of social security or medicare over 80 percent oppose in almost every poll.

I think adding an opt-out option to social security for those currently in it, and for those about to enter, would be an ideal first step.

 

[woolybug25]

I think adding an opt-out option to social security for those currently in it, and for those about to enter, would be an ideal first step.

and would also bankrupt the social security system.

 

[yankeehater]

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional
By SAM HANANEL | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago.. .



WASHINGTON (AP) — In a setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that could severely curtail the president's ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.

The court also ruled that the president could only make recess appointments if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the NLRB would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.

"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."

The Justice Department hinted that the administration would likely appeal the decision by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents to the U.S. Supreme Court. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.

The court's decision acknowledges that it conflicts with what other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.

The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case.

Carney insisted the court's ruling affected only one case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.

The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.

The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."

If the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged the NLRB to continue conducting business until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

"Today's circuit court decision is not only a radical departure from precedent, it ignores the fact that President Obama had no choice but to act," Harkin said. "Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act."

If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.

 

[woolybug25]

Anybody see this?

Some GOP-led states look at electoral vote changes - CNN.com

Essentially Virginia Republicans are so butthurt about losing their state to Obama that they want to change how their electoral votes are tallied. Essentially making votes in high density parts of the state worth less than the rural areas.

Ironically, this system would have given the state to Romney in the previous election.

 

[chicago51]

and would also bankrupt the social security system.

Yep you are right only way SS works is everyone has to pay the fica tax. In fact if we just raise the income gap.we can sustain SS forever. Cap the fica tax for income of up to 500k or 750k instead 110 k currently. You just soidfied SS and can even transfer some SS excess funds into medicare.

 

[Downinthebend]

and would also bankrupt the social security system.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Why should we force our young people to buy into a program where it is exceedingly doubtful that they will recover what they pay into it? Why don't we give them the choice to do that or not? If social security is an actually beneficial program, we shouldn't have to force people to buy into it.

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional
By SAM HANANEL | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago.. .

IMO, both parties are in the wrong. The republicans were schemeing to make a situation where the congress never went into recess (even though, de facto they pretty much were), and obama was schemeing and delaying for recess so that the legislature would be able to contest the appointments. I believe that the republicans are "closer" to the spirit of the constitution there, as the "recess appointments" was intended in times where congress could not be reached, like in the case of a sudden death in a position of need while congress was adjourned. This clearly was not the same spirit that Obama was using.

 

[yankeehater]

Are we all falling for the slight of hand trick?

We watch Government continue to play the blame game. They point fingers at each other. They promote class warfare with a Wall Street vs. Main Street theme. They demonize the wealthy in the private sector and promote a dislike for those who have made their money in business blaming the 1%'ers for all of our troubles. As the ever shrinking Middle Class continue to dwindle and people falling into poverty continues to grow at record pace. We watch this "show" intently and wonder who is at fault and why the Middle Class is not advancing. If they are not growing, then who is making the money and taking from the Middle Class and poor. Maybe we should look at our very Government.

Why are the 3 WEALTHIEST AND 7 OF THE TOP 10 WEALTHIST Counties all in the Washington DC area? Maybe there is a method to their madness and a purpose for all of their distractive behavior. Those in Government seem to be doing quite well for themselves in these tough times for most.

 

[woolybug25]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Why should we force our young people to buy into a program where it is exceedingly doubtful that they will recover what they pay into it? Why don't we give them the choice to do that or not? If social security is an actually beneficial program, we shouldn't have to force people to buy into it.

Then don't beat around the bush about it. Just say that you would prefer the system to go away. Saying that you "are ok with the system if there is an opt out" is just a pc way of saying that you want the system gone and are ok with millions of people getting screwed by dumping their money into a system without enough revenue to support it. How does that help the economy? To simply keep a program in place that, by letting people opt out, is absolutely doomed for failure? If you acknowledge that you understand that, but still want an opt out, then you are simply saying that you want to see millions of people pay into a doomed system while others can snake out of it.

That is exactly what is wrong with today's politics. People are too self consumed with their worn out ideals of what they (ie their preferred political rhetoric) believe is right, that they forget that the main goal is to help our country prosper. Willing to sacrifice the entire system in order to help their side say, "I told you so".

 

[RallySonsOfND]

My generation will never see Social Security checks, so why are we being forced to pay into the system? Look up the definition of a Ponzi Scheme and compare it to what Social Security is. Those who make lots of money, or come from lots of money don't need Social Security. My grandparents basically laugh at the fact they get this (to them) meaningless sum of money from the government. I understand some people live off of it, and for them it should still be there. We don't pay in, so we don't get it later.

I'd rather take that money I have to pay in and invest it, and get a better ROI.

 

[Downinthebend]

I think adding an opt-out option to social security for those currently in it, and for those about to enter, would be an ideal first step.

Then don't beat around the bush about it. Just say that you would prefer the system to go away. Saying that you "are ok with the system if there is an opt out" is just a pc way of saying that you want the system gone and are ok with millions of people getting screwed by dumping their money into a system without enough revenue to support it. How does that help the economy? To simply keep a program in place that, by letting people opt out, is absolutely doomed for failure? If you acknowledge that you understand that, but still want an opt out, then you are simply saying that you want to see millions of people pay into a doomed system while others can snake out of it.

That is exactly what is wrong with today's politics. People are too self consumed with their worn out ideals of what they (ie their preferred political rhetoric) believe is right, that they forget that the main goal is to help our country prosper. Willing to sacrifice the entire system in order to help their side say, "I told you so".

I don't believe SS is a beneficial or a solvent program, and if it was it would not require people to be forced on pain of violence to be a part of it. I do not believe it is right for any age group to take their check at the expense of screwing over their children or grand children. That is not a responsible action to take.

I dislike your characterization of those that might opt out as "snake-ish" almost as if those not paying into a ponzai scheme are somehow less patriotic than those that do. Seems rather collectivist to me.

I am consumed with the ideal of "right". That is the whole issue to me. We as individuals must act according to our sense of "right". Helping our country prosper is a laudable goal, but it should not come at the expense of violating one's conscience (and if it is, its probably a sign that one's means are bad.).

I do not believe it is right to take someone's money, waste it away, and give them a percentage back, all on pain of violence. There are not many issues, even regarding "making our country prosper" that would allow me to use violence to force others to agree with me.

 

[chicago51]

You can literally fix the long term solvency of social security in 10 minutes. Permitting no GOP oposition.

Right now a billionare pays the same fica payroll tax as some making 110k. Not the same rate literally the same $ amount. Raise the fica tax cap to say 500k. Bingo social security solved forver.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

You can literally fix the long term solvency of social security in 10 minutes.

Right now a billionare pays the same fica payroll tax as some making 110k. Not the same rate literally the same $ amount. Raise the fica tax cap to say 500k. Bingo social security solved forver.

So he pays in 5x the amount, but gets the same amount later? How about no...

 

[woolybug25]

I don't believe SS is a beneficial or a solvent program, and if it was it would not require people to be forced on pain of violence to be a part of it. I do not believe it is right for any age group to take their check at the expense of screwing over their children or grand children. That is not a responsible action to take.

I dislike your characterization of those that might opt out as "snake-ish" almost as if those not paying into a ponzai scheme are somehow less patriotic than those that do. Seems rather collectivist to me.

I am consumed with the ideal of "right". That is the whole issue to me. We as individuals must act according to our sense of "right". Helping our country prosper is a laudable goal, but it should not come at the expense of violating one's conscience (and if it is, its probably a sign that one's means are bad.).

I do not believe it is right to take someone's money, waste it away, and give them a percentage back, all on pain of violence. There are not many issues, even regarding "making our country prosper" that would allow me to use violence to force others to agree with me.

You're not getting what I am saying. If you think the system isn't recoverable, then say that you want it to be abolished. Don't say that you want the system to stay in place and let people opt out. That is the same thing as saying that you don't care if millions of people continue paying into a doomed system as long as others can choose to back out. That "backing out" would guarantee that the revenue wouldn't be supportive. So why act all moral high ground with it? It is what it is, everyone knows the system has been predicated on having the nation as a revenue stream since its very conception.

If you truly feel that it is bad for our country's fiscal health, then why advocate an option that you know would cause more economic damage than simply abolishing it?

 

[chicago51]

Anybody see this?

Some GOP-led states look at electoral vote changes - CNN.com

Essentially Virginia Republicans are so butthurt about losing their state to Obama that they want to change how their electoral votes are tallied. Essentially making votes in high density parts of the state worth less than the rural areas.

Ironically, this system would have given the state to Romney in the previous election.

Yea I posted this report earlier. Basically all the gerymandered battle ground states that Obama won want to do this.

The latest: Since liberal and now mainstream outlets have been on to this. A couple of VA gop state senators have backed off it does not have the votes now. Does not mean people can stop paying attention.

 

[chicago51]

So he pays in 5x the amount, but gets the same amount later? How about no...

Is this David Koch? It is time the wealthy start paying their fair share like what they did pre Reagan.

Btw tax breaks on the rich does not create jobs. Taxes on the wealthy don't hinder the economy. The stock market has soared since the obama tax hike on the wealthy. Dow just hit a five year high.

 

[BobD]

Flat tax. Problem solved.

 

[irishff1014]

Jobless benefits this week hit a 5 year low. It is back on the level it was the when recession first start.

We have had 34 straight months of job growth. We will see at the start of next month but looks like it could be 35 straight. At one point we were 700k jobs a month. Things are turning.

Or more people running out of time on unemployment.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is this David Koch? It is time the wealthy start paying their fair share like what they did pre Reagan.

Btw tax breaks on the rich does not create jobs. Taxes on the wealthy don't hinder the economy. The stock market has soared since the obama tax hike on the wealthy. Dow just hit a five year high.

Can you please define fair share?

We hear this all the time but yet the idea is abstract because nobody has come forward to say X percent payroll tax, X % income tax, X% surcharge, X% capital gains, X% dividends is fair.

Draw a line in the sand to let us know what is "fair".

BTW, if you think the market is soaring b/c of the tax deal, I have some things I would like to sell you. The increase we've seen since the turn of the year is clearly a momentum play. Investors are buying not because they're impressed with stock values, but because the world central bankers' "zero interest rate" policy—now extended indefinitely—is giving careless trading a base on balls.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Jobless benefits this week hit a 5 year low. It is back on the level it was the when recession first start.

We have had 34 straight months of job growth. We will see at the start of next month but looks like it could be 35 straight. At one point we were 700k jobs a month. Things are turning.

I think you need to read the fine print. I will let you look at the impact of seasonality adjustments and which states actually reported last week (versus a gov't estimate for those states). But, I feel compelled to pass along that the continuing unemployment claims figure excludes the unemployed who are receiving special benefits approved temporarily by the federal government.