I'd be living in Tidewater: http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/.
It's cool, but a stupid, roundabout way to solve issues with the EC.
Looks like New York is still New York for me. I can live with it.
I'd be living in Tidewater: http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/.
It's cool, but a stupid, roundabout way to solve issues with the EC.
The other point is that now's a great time in that because of the recession a lot of businesses have cut employment to the bone. Their labor is at minimum. A lot can't simply fire someone because they're forced to pay them more. If they did, then stuff just wouldn't get done.
I mean, raising minimum wage is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but isn't really a great idea policy wise. However, you sound like a real asshole if you come out against it. Obama is playing the GOP like a fiddle with this one.
Might there also be some hidden benefits to raising the minimum wage for jobs that can't easily be outsourced?
If a higher minimum wage means that McDonalds' across the country have to shut down because they can't afford to pay their staff that much, that's bad.
But it's not necessarily bad for them to have an incentive to look for less labor-intensive ways of doing the same jobs. Maybe they do cut back on the number of people employed at each location, but maybe they also invest in technology that lets that smaller number of people accomplish the same amount of work.
Lots of McDonalds' locations in France seem to have managed to substantially scale back on the number of people they keep around the main counter by putting in these nifty touch-screen consoles for ordering food. You punch in what you want, swipe your card, and take a ticket before you have any contact with the employees.
This sort of adjustment would surely be painful in the short-term - it's fewer jobs, after all - but encouraging productivity growth is typically always going to be a winner in the long-term
In the current relationship between the federal government and the states, yes absolutely. To be clear, in the scenario I was imagining, the equal division of the states implied an already far more centralized government, where the states were administrative divisions as opposed to self-governing entities.
That's still pretty impractical. You'd have to readjust the boundaries of every single state every ten years (or whenever the census would be), then you'd have to adjust the House seats within those new boundaries.
Fuck you Harry Reid, this is your doing you useless asshole.
Who could have possibly guessed this would happen? Oh right...Well that didn't take long to blow up in Reid's face.
There's always the nucular option, guys.
Won't happen.
Obama also won't go on prime time and roast GOP for blocking a Secretary of Defense from their own party only because Obama nominated him.
Won't happen.
Obama also won't go on prime time and roast GOP for blocking a Secretary of Defense from their own party only because Obama nominated him.
The GOP are so fucking stupid, this is unimportant stuff, they might just end up forcing Reid's hand (though it's to predict which will prevail - the GOP assholeness or Reid uselessness; it's a dead heat).Well that didn't take long to blow up in Reid's face.
The idea that the senate has to give their blessing on who a president chooses to run their cabinet is a fucking stupid idea to begin with.
He did kind of just do that on the Google+ chat a few minutes ago.
He did kind of just do that on the Google+ chat a few minutes ago.
He did kind of just do that on the Google+ chat a few minutes ago.
Honestly I don't entirely understand it either. I guess back then before background checks or whatever they did it to make sure they weren't a spy or whatever. These days it seems dumb.
Senator Reid,
I'd just like to congratulate you. After all, it was you who opted for a gentleman's agreement on filibuster reform - signed, no doubt, in the blood of demons smeared over spider-web filled senatorial rule books worshiped at altar like some false God - and so therefore you must certainly take pride in the result today in the failure of Chuck Hagel to receive the up/down vote he deserves.
The only possible explanation for your dry mouthed submission to a party who have for years now held the country back by refusing to do the job of governing is that you, too, didn't really have an interest in governing and you like things the way they are. And that's fine, but now you're an embarrassment and need removing from his position of authority. You've had your fun bowing down to your NRA donators as kids were gunned down in Newtown; you've had your luck squeaking out a win in your state to remain in your role. And for the briefest moment we thought maybe it would have woken you up to who your obligation truly is to.
But, of course, old Washington heads want to play old Washington games, and the cynic in me should never have expected any differently.
So, congrats, Harry Reid. Your lack of guts on fillibuster reform and your withering worm-like demeanor on subjects that matter to this country have provided us with an outcome that every person who isn't mentally handicapped knew would happen. And it only took a little over a single month!
The only thing that should be necessary is making sure the nominee has no ties to any terrorist or anti-American organizations or any serious criminal history. Nothing more beyond that should need the senate's approval.
Hell, all that stuff I mentioned doesn't even require the need for the senate either.
I missed this at work. What did he say?
Meh, want to see him on prime time today. The cable news media would carry him live anyway, then do a speech with all networks Sunday. Tell the nation that by blocking the Sec. of Defense that is a Republican who McCain wanted to be Sec. of Defense in his administration the GOP is emboldening our enemies. "They may have a beef with me, they may not like me, but they don't let that come in the way of our Nation's security"
Too afraid to do it on Facebook/Twitter?
No, he did it somewhere with useful features
IL Senate passes same sex marriage. That is all.
Happy Valentines Day!
Nobody?
Whatever, we had it for over a month, this is like when Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment.Nobody?
In her first hearing as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Massachusetts Senator and longtime Consumerist favorite Elizabeth Warren grilled a panel of regulators on their tendency to settle with law-breaking banks rather than go to trial.
We all understand why settlements are important, that trials are expensive and we cant dedicate huge resources to them, said the Senator during todays hearing on Wall Street reform and regulatory oversight. But we also understand that if a party is unwilling to go to trial either because theyre too timid or because they lack resources that the consequence is they have a lot less leverage in all the settlements that occur.
Sen. Warren explained her stance that if banks reap billions of profits while breaking the law, then later settle and pay that settlement money out of those same profits, they dont have much incentive to follow the law.
She also pointed out that when a trial is avoided, so is all the important, possibly revealing testimony that would have come out of that trial.
The witness panel at todays hearing included FDIC chairman Martin Gruenberg, CFPB director Richard Cordray, SEC chair Elisse Walter, and Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry.
The question I really wanna ask is about how tough you are, said Warren to this regulatory A-list. Tell me about the last few times you have taken one the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to trial anyone?
Her request was met by applause from people in the audience and tense silence from the panel.
Comptroller Curry attempted to explain that his office has issued a large number of consent orders that allowed allegations to be resolved without the need for a trial.
I appreciate you saying you didnt have to take them to trial, responded Sen. Warren. My question is when did you bring them to trial?
We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals, replied Curry, who looked like a kid who had been caught trying to hide a bad report card from his parents.
Warren poised the same question to SEC chair Walter, who explained that Among our remedies are penalties but the penalties we can get are limited and we have actually asked for additional authority to raise penalties We look at the distinction between what we could get if we go to trial and what we could get if we dont.
I appreciate that, said the Senator, who repeated her question: Im really asking is can you identify when you last took the Wall Street banks to trial?
Unable to provide an answer, Ms. Walter replied, I will have to get back to you with the specific information but we do litigate.
Senator Warren closed out the issue with a statement that sums up how a lot of American consumers feel about the way banks are treated by our justice system and federal regulators:
There are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens, on sometimes very thin ground, and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. Im really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial
Didn't Reid say that he was not going to honor any holds on Hagel? Perhaps he thus tricked them into asking for the holds and now he honored them (at least for now) such that the Dems will now get to go around and say "For the first time in history, the GOP has filibustered a cabinet nominee . . . and who was this crazy person they filibustered? A Republican from a red state who served our nation in the military in Vietnam."
Naww, I don't believe that either . . . Reid just got slapped down and he's an idiot.
Didn't Reid say that he was not going to honor any holds on Hagel? Perhaps he thus tricked them into asking for the holds and now he honored them (at least for now) such that the Dems will now get to go around and say "For the first time in history, the GOP has filibustered a cabinet nominee . . . and who was this crazy person they filibustered? A Republican from a red state who served our nation in the military in Vietnam."
Naww, I don't believe that either . . . Reid just got slapped down and he's an idiot.
I'm so aroused right now.
"Too big for trial"
I like that.
CNN is really covering the stupid cruse ship? And not hagel?