The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Gil Gunderson]

One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon.  I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.

Incidentially, I'm curious as to how Obama attacks his legislative agenda (as is most of the country).  While the economy is priority one, according to Emanuel, Obama'll have to work on a budget, as the US Government is currently working under another CR.  Most of the work on this document is currently being done by the Bush administration.  I'm curious to see what sections the Obama team is going to tell the Bush team to shelve until January 20th?

Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days?  By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?

[Thrillho]

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."

What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.

This is your experience?

Or just your axiom?

Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days?  By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?

Opinion, Gil?

Stew?

(For those of us whose bailiwick isn't labor law.)

[Thrillho]

DPD...

So what do Desipio, HJE and Hockee Night have to do to convert into bank holding companies?

A failure on the part of the Fed to act immediately to expedite this reorganization could prove disastrous in terms of these organizations' ability to extend future loans to Weebs.

[TJ]

One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon.  I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.

What a novel idea.  No one has ever thought of making the military more efficient.

I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less.  If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him.  However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.

[Thrillho]

For future reference:

http://hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com/

[Philberto]

For future reference:

http://hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com/

I expect this site to be updated within about 2 years and the big NO will be replaced with a big YES and "We were Morans!"


Green font there, for those who "can't tell if I'm being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative."

[Wheezer]

Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.

I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.

[5laky]

Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.

I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.

Don't be so surprised.

[Thrillho]

Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.

I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.

Don't be so surprised.

Let's leave the food and beverage reconquista to the Swedes...

[Gil Gunderson]

Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days?  By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?

Opinion, Gil?

Stew?

(For those of us whose bailiwick isn't labor law.)
[/quote]

I have no problem with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act.  I long ago came to the conclusion that sexual preference was within the parameters of the definition of "suspect class" to qualify for strict scrutiny.  As it stands, I think it's impact upon the business community would be minimal.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a different bag altogether.  Stew and I have shared some thoughts on this, but I am opposed to EFCA as it is currently written.  I support increasing the penalties and putting some teeth in the NLRA, but forcing arbitration for first-time contracts and converting over to a card-check only system for recognition, rather than an NLRB election is something that requires more study and revision.

Stew and I differ on this though.  As best as I can recall, Stew is ambivalent at best toward the Board (if I may characterize his opinion).  As a former employee (and probable future one), I support modifying the Board's processes and working within the current regulatory framework.

[GNM]

One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon.  I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.

What a novel idea.  No one has ever thought of making the military more efficient.

I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less.  If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him.  However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.

Be careful here.  Sure, the DoD has become well-fed in the aftermath of 9-11, but one must not be too knee jerk in bringing it back down to earth.  Remember, Carter's cuts in military and intelligence budget not only prolonged the Cold War, but also left the nation woefully unprepared to deal with the threat of Islamic-fascism.  Look at the nation's piss poor response to the Beirut Barracks, USS Cole, and Kenyan embassy attacks.  A smaller military and lack of intelligence really hurt the ability of the US to respond effectively. 

The issue with the military is over-deployment.  If they re-focus on defense and intelligence instead of Nation Building and the Bush Doctrine, they can operate within a reduced budget while successfully protecting the nation.  Large scale downsizing could be disastrous, though. 

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

[Wheezer]

Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.

I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.

Don't be so surprised.

Let's leave the food and beverage reconquista to the Swedes...

The "clams" aren't going to last forever.

[CubFaninHydePark]

Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days?  By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?

Opinion, Gil?

Stew?

(For those of us whose bailiwick isn't labor law.)

I have no problem with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act.  I long ago came to the conclusion that sexual preference was within the parameters of the definition of "suspect class" to qualify for strict scrutiny.  As it stands, I think it's impact upon the business community would be minimal.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a different bag altogether.  Stew and I have shared some thoughts on this, but I am opposed to EFCA as it is currently written.  I support increasing the penalties and putting some teeth in the NLRA, but forcing arbitration for first-time contracts and converting over to a card-check only system for recognition, rather than an NLRB election is something that requires more study and revision.

Stew and I differ on this though.  As best as I can recall, Stew is ambivalent at best toward the Board (if I may characterize his opinion).  As a former employee (and probable future one), I support modifying the Board's processes and working within the current regulatory framework.

1. As a Dem, I will be at the front of the line saying card check is retarded.  The only bad thing about Obama winning is that UAW won't be getting their medicine in Detroit.  While the corporate elite have done more than their fair share to fuck all this up, UAW, teachers unions and public transit unions (especially like the Port Authority in Pittsburgh) have been more than egregious in harming the economy and bleeding unnecessary billions from taxpayers.

Teachers unions may yet cost this nation its wealth and position in the world.  Their obstinacy to merit pay and teacher accountability, not a Caesar, may lay Rome low.

Unionizing Wal-Mart is a quicker route to depression than progress.  Add in the baseball players union and you'll find me hard, if not impossibly pressed, to find a union that I actually like.  Local Bonghitters 420, perhaps?

2. Non-discrimination?  Sign me up.  Another cause of action for employees means another thing future clients have to defend against, which means more work for...you guessed it...lawyers.

[Bonk]

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."

What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.

This is your experience?

Or just your axiom?

Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.

They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

[Eli]

Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.

They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.

When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile.  If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?