Politics

[GoIrish41]

It's correlated but completely coincidental. The very rich and the very poor both live in cities. Cities have crime and all the other social ills he talked about. That's as deep as it goes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

What do suicide, divorce and teen pregnancy have to do with living in a city? I would suspect all these things happen at a similar rate no matter where one lives. Its easy to dismiss chicago's point as cooincidental, but I think that is a pretty short sited view.

 

[BobD]

 

[wizards8507]

What do suicide, divorce and teen pregnancy have to do with living in a city? I would suspect all these things happen at a similar rate no matter where one lives. Its easy to dismiss chicago's point as cooincidental, but I think that is a pretty short sited view.

They're all emblematic of very poor communities, and the largest population centers of the very poor are large cities. The rates of those things will naturally be higher where there is poverty, and the "richness" of the very rich around those communities has nothing to do with it. What I'm saying is that those things are driven by poverty, not income inequality. The apparent correlation to income inequality is a statistical glitch caused by the fact that the very rich ALSO live in large cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[GoIrish41]

They're all emblematic of very poor communities, and the largest population centers of the very poor are large cities. The rates of those things will naturally be higher where there is poverty, and the "richness" of the very rich around those communities has nothing to do with it. What I'm saying is that those things are driven by poverty, not income inequality. The apparent correlation to income inequality is a statistical glitch caused by the fact that the very rich ALSO live in large cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

If more people live in a place, then these things are likely to happen in that place more, but not at a higher rate per capita. That said, all of this doesn't have much to do with chicago's original point. You introduced where people live into the conversation, and my point is that it is irrelevant. With regard to suicide, teen pregnancy, I'll bet there isn't a bit of difference in the rates for these if you live in Mississippi or Manhattan.

 

[wizards8507]

If more people live in a place, then these things are likely to happen in that place more, but not at a higher rate per capita. That said, all of this doesn't have much to do with chicago's original point. You introduced where people live into the conversation, and my point is that it is irrelevant. With regard to suicide, teen pregnancy, I'll bet there isn't a bit of difference in the rates for these if you live in Mississippi or Manhattan.

HE pointed out a correlation between crime and income inequality. I assumed he was basing that on geography. He can correct me if I was mistaken.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[chicago51]

The fact of the matter for me is that we have large product. You can only automate so much of it (which was really done in the 80's and 90's for us) and then you have everything else. When we move production back to the US, jobs come with it. It might not be the same number of jobs that were around in 1970, but don't diminish the change either.

When? What makes you think we are actually move production back?

The only hope I have is the price of oil will be so high that it will be more profitable to make locally.

I think reforming the corporate tax code could help. I think a good compromise would taxing overseas earnings on US based companies in exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate.

I think the corporate tax need to be reduce, while at the same we need to increase high income capital gains to same level as regular income while keeping low capital gains at 5 percent. This would be an incentive keeping money within the corporations through higher wages, or expand their operations. As opposed to right now where the incentive is to take out giant stock options for themselves. I think how we tax is a bigger issuer than how much we tax.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

How many times will our imperial president change/ rewrite ACA without Congressional approval? And how long will his supporters ignore it?

 

[Buster Bluth]

How many times will our imperial president change/ rewrite ACA without Congressional approval? And how long will his supporters ignore it?

He has rewritten it, or made an executive decision to implement some parts before others (for political reasons)? Obama is a douche and the law sucks, but Imperial..?

 

[DillonHall]

How many times will our imperial president change/ rewrite ACA without Congressional approval? And how long will his supporters ignore it?

Often, the problem isn't that his supporters ignore the bullshit that he pulls, it's that many of them are ignorant of it...if you know what I'm saying.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He has rewritten it, or made an executive decision to implement some parts before others (for political reasons)? Obama is a douche and the law sucks, but Imperial..?

Given his vow to "go it alone" and "act if Congress won't" (even though it's illegal), yeah I'll say imperial. We have a wannabe king.

 

[connor_in]

Given his vow to "go it alone" and "act if Congress won't" (even though it's illegal), yeah I'll say imperial. We have a wannabe king.

I will only say this about that

When W was president, D's and the media attributed the kind of attitudes to him that Obama has explicitly stated and shown on multiple occasions...and W was derided as King George Chimpy_McBullshitter who was not going to leave willingly at the end of his duly elected term. What a difference a letter makes, huh? (D vs R, that is)

 

[GoIrish41]

Given his vow to "go it alone" and "act if Congress won't" (even though it's illegal), yeah I'll say imperial. We have a wannabe king.

Gotta give it to you Leppy. You are always willing to go so far that you unravel your own point. This statement is just soincredibly over the top that it is impossible to take seriously.

 

[BobD]

Given his vow to "go it alone" and "act if Congress won't" (even though it's illegal), yeah I'll say imperial. We have a wannabe king.

Gotta give it to you Leppy. You are always willing to go so far that you unravel your own point. This statement is just soincredibly over the top that it is impossible to take seriously.

He's just repeating what he's told on Fox news, which makes his opinions wrong most of the time.

Republicans say Obama’s use of executive power is ‘unprecedented.’ The data say otherwise.

 

[Ndaccountant]

He's just repeating what he's told on Fox news, which makes his opinions wrong most of the time.

Republicans say Obama’s use of executive power is ‘unprecedented.’ The data say otherwise.

I wasn't aware that opinions are either right or wrong.

 

[connor_in]

I wasn't aware that opinions are either right or wrong.

It all depends on what side the opinion represents[/I but not really]

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Gotta give it to you Leppy. You are always willing to go so far that you unravel your own point. This statement is just soincredibly over the top that it is impossible to take seriously.

Don't think I'm stretching too far here, buddy. Here, our president in his own words:

"I am constrained by the system our founders put in place." --- April 5, 2013

He could do so much more and achieve his goal of fundamental transformation if only everyone would get out of his way.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He's just repeating what he's told on Fox news, which makes his opinions wrong most of the time.

Republicans say Obama’s use of executive power is ‘unprecedented.’ The data say otherwise.

I didn't even know that article was out there until you posted it. Pretty sure you read more on Foxnews than I do. Doesn't matter who the president is. If he/ she is changing laws unilaterally via executive order and ignoring Congress, we might as well not have a Constitution.

As for repeating what he's told, every time you enter a discussion on here you regurgitate clippings from the White House website. If it were you vs me on a public stage without laptops, you wouldn't be talking that much.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Seems like a more appropriate place for this:

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/1229079-post11402.html

 

[Cackalacky]

I didn't even know that article was out there until you posted it. Pretty sure you read more on Foxnews than I do. Doesn't matter who the president is. If he/ she is changing laws unilaterally via executive order and ignoring Congress, we might as well not have a Constitution.

As for repeating what he's told, every time you enter a discussion on here you regurgitate clippings from the White House website. If it were you vs me on a public stage without laptops, you wouldn't be talking that much.

Executive orders can be reviewed by the courts and struck down if necessary. Virtually all presidents have used them. There are powers granted to the executive branch which allow these ways to instruct the federal government. Only 2 have ever been struck down. Obama has issued 167 executive orders (the lowest since Cleveland). The trend appears to be moving away from using them at all. The Emancipation proclamation was an executive order. Desegregation of the Armed Forces....popular opinion at the time would have never generated these.


When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker - Forbes

Also check this out. You can search all executive orders by president. You might be really surprised. Ronald Reagan had a busy 1st year:
Executive Orders Disposition Tables

 

[BobD]

I didn't even know that article was out there until you posted it. Pretty sure you read more on Foxnews than I do. Doesn't matter who the president is. If he/ she is changing laws unilaterally via executive order and ignoring Congress, we might as well not have a Constitution.

As for repeating what he's told, every time you enter a discussion on here you regurgitate clippings from the White House website. If it were you vs me on a public stage without laptops, you wouldn't be talking that much.

You should read the article and quit with the fantasy of meeting me.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Executive orders can be reviewed by the courts and struck down if necessary. Virtually all presidents have used them. There are powers granted to the executive branch which allow these ways to instruct the federal government. Only 2 have ever been struck down. Obama has issued 167 executive orders (the lowest since Cleveland). The trend appears to be moving away from using them at all. The Emancipation proclamation was an executive order. Desegregation of the Armed Forces....popular opinion at the time would have never generated these.


When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker - Forbes

Also check this out. You can search all executive orders by president. You might be really surprised. Ronald Reagan had a busy 1st year:
Executive Orders Disposition Tables

It's not the amount of EO's that Presidents' issue. It's the content that is within those orders that matter. The concern with our current President is that he has threatened to use the EO as a means to write law that neither party is in favor of. Hopefully he will not abuse this power to try to circumvent the legislative process. If so, the court will have to step in and has done so on a few occasions with past Presidents.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's not the amount of EO's that Presidents' issue. It's the content that is within those orders that matter. The concern with our current President is that he has threatened to use the EO as a means to write law that neither party is in favor of. Hopefully he will not abuse this power to try to circumvent the legislative process. If so, the court will have to step in and has done so on a few occasions with past Presidents.

Of course its about content but it is also about getting things done. Bush issued the enemy combatant rule through executive order. It has somehow remained a valid order. If he oversteps, it can be challenged in court. I don't know what the big deal is? Seriously, go and review the executive orders issued. You will be surprised how much "imperialism" was on display during much of the 1960s to 1990s. Obama is far from unprecedented LOL.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Of course its about content but it is also about getting things done. Bush issued the enemy combatant rule through executive order. It has somehow remained a valid order. If he oversteps, it can be challenged in court. I don't know what the big deal is? Seriously, go and review the executive orders issued. You will be surprised how much "imperialism" was on display during much of the 1960s to 1990s. Obama is far from unprecedented LOL.

I agree. Up to this point Obama has been pretty tame in his EOs. Probably his biggest criticism stems from a few he has issued dealing with Labor, Unions, etc. He is far removed from the conversation on abuses with them. But I would caution using them to "get things done." That is exactly why people are a little nervous with his pen and phone comment. Hopefully he shows restraint and doesn't try to achieve his fundamental transformation through his own will and not the will of the Legislative Branch. The last thing we need is for him to issue a bunch of idealogical EO's only to have them end up in the Judicial system. We should be more concerned with job creation, education, etc.

 

[BobD]

Of course its about content but it is also about getting things done. Bush issued the enemy combatant rule through executive order. It has somehow remained a valid order. If he oversteps, it can be challenged in court. I don't know what the big deal is? Seriously, go and review the executive orders issued. You will be surprised how much "imperialism" was on display during much of the 1960s to 1990s. Obama is far from unprecedented LOL.

As the first woman President everything Hillary does will technically be unprecedented. I hope she has a birth certificate. Will Bill be First Man, First Gentleman or do we have to go with tradition and stick with the First Lady title?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Of course its about content but it is also about getting things done. Bush issued the enemy combatant rule through executive order. It has somehow remained a valid order. If he oversteps, it can be challenged in court. I don't know what the big deal is? Seriously, go and review the executive orders issued. You will be surprised how much "imperialism" was on display during much of the 1960s to 1990s. Obama is far from unprecedented LOL.

But he was granted that authority by Congress through the AUMF.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

[GoIrish41]

Don't think I'm stretching too far here, buddy. Here, our president in his own words:

"I am constrained by the system our founders put in place." --- April 5, 2013

He could do so much more and achieve his goal of fundamental transformation if only everyone would get out of his way.

Because he acknowleges that he is must stay within in the sidelines, he an wannabe king? That is a huge leap to go from those comments to what you are saying.

 

[Cackalacky]

But he was granted that authority by Congress through the AUMF.

He issued this one later (regarding enemy combatants....)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-02-20/pdf/07-780.pdf

This one as well, in line with the AUMF propped up by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Geneva COnvention Interpretations):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-07-24/pdf/07-3656.pdf
Later determined by Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

He issued this one later (regarding enemy combatants....)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-02-20/pdf/07-780.pdf

This one as well, in line with the AUMF propped up by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Geneva COnvention Interpretations):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-07-24/pdf/07-3656.pdf
Later determined by Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

Right, that was my point...Congress authorized him to do that. As opposed to, say, changing the text of Obamacare, or playing around with the Employer Mandate, which was not authorized.

 

[T Town Tommy]

As the first woman President everything Hillary does will technically be unprecedented. I hope she has a birth certificate. Will Bill be First Man, First Gentleman or do we have to go with tradition and stick with the First Lady title?

Long time till 2016 Bob. And if the economy doesn't take off and jobs created by then, the country will be in no mood to continue with a Democrat as President. Those famous words may forever haunt the Clintons... "The economy, stupid." Thanks James Carvill - you may very well do your own buddies in the Clinton's in.

 

[Cackalacky]

Right, that was my point...Congress authorized him to do that. As opposed to, say, changing the text of Obamacare, or playing around with the Employer Mandate, which was not authorized.

So we are arguing semantics here. The Patriot Act and everything that followed from it pretty much demolished the Bill of Rights. Obama's EOs are tame particularly the specific ones you mention. Once again I recommend going and checking out other EOs I provided the link to. They have the text and everything (particularly Reagan and Bush Sr. Much more Imperialism in those). They are rife with de-regulation, union busting, giveaways, interpretations, etc. Right now people are looking for another reason to hate Obama. Its tiresome and petty.