The important thing is that Obama's speech and vote had zero chance of preventing the increase from happening. Letting individual senators and reps take votes against things that need to pass, and are guaranteed to pass, in order to make political points, is one thing. Having the leadership and all the members of the majority party line up in such a way as to put passage at risk is another.
Specific issues aside, being able to prevent the passage of legislation is kind of the whole point of being the leadership of the majority party.
Specific issues aside
This appears to be doing a lot of work, particularly when the specific issue at hand amounts to a vote for utter catastrophe.
Yes, but the idea that the majority party shouldn't risk affecting the outcome of the legislative process struck me as funny in a general way.
What Happens If the Debt Ceiling Isn't Raised ...NYT, Catherine Rampell quoting Matthew E Zanes of Morgan Chase.
An argument against my coming argument. I'm sorry, but after the Clinton Impeachment, the Shutdown in Clinton years, the buildup to Iraq, the Financial Crisis, the end of the ACA process etc...I have become just a little suspicious and skeptical (and very tired) of claims that the world will end in fire and ice if x isn't done "immediately, our way." Is it serious? Yes, but the streets will not be filled with blood, rats, and starving urchins on day 2 after the vote not taken.
Like the ACA, yes the oligarchs do take hostages that will die if they don't get their way. This does not necessarily mean that there aren't alternatives that might appear catastrophic or radical (like nationalizing some banks during the Financial Crash) that might have fewer casualties or better outcomes.
All I'm saying is to try to recognize Shock Capitalism when they are using it on you. They (both sides of most issues) do play with real money for high stakes, but fear should not force you to buy into their framework.
Don't trust anybody. Yggles has been saying for months that all Obama has to do is call Boehner's bluff, and if Boehner does not raise the ceiling, Wall Street will hate Republican's forever and never give them a cent of campaign money. This is also obviously bullshit. Everybody is bullshitting.
Boehner, Obama, Wall Street and various Senators are playing us. Together.
Boehner, Obama, Wall Street and various Senators are playing us. Together.
Whenever I agree with bob, I worry about the state of the world.
Bernanke will probably say that a failure-to-raise will be just.so.fucking.dire. Everybody is playing us, for months leading up to the vote.
Boehner will play the villain. Obama will play the hero, who in sadness more than anger will give away another shelf in the store.
I am so fucking exhausted with this shit, especially since real lives and suffering are the chips these fuckers play with, and since 99% of the folks in the grandstands feel they have to root for one of the official teams on the field.
That article blew massive Broderesque chunks of faux centrism all over my computer screen as as befits the fuckwaddery that is the Wall Street Journal when it ventures into political writing. There is an interesting article to be written on the pattern of votes on the debt ceiling but this ain't it. Sorry. Here's a notable exception: In 2002 and 2007, when power was divided between the parties, some bipartisanship emerged, at least in the Senate. Fuck me in the ass gently with a meathook! Bipartisanship is the answer, who'd a thunk it? My new program is to do an amyl nitrate popper every time a pundit writes "bipartisanship". For my ailing heart.
One fundamental thing is that the debt ceiling shouldn't exist. Congress voted for our current spending and tax laws, and therefore has implicitly voted to borrow the difference between what we spend and what we take in -- if it were practical for the courts to decide it, I'd think there's a strong argument that the statutory debt ceiling is repealed by any spending bill authorizing the expenditure of moneys that wouldn't be available in the absence of borrowing beyond the debt ceiling.
And what Blandings said -- posturing in relation to a bill that has the votes to pass may be silly, but it's not irresponsible, and is very different from what the House Republicans are doing now.
And what bob said and Yggles has been saying. This isn't something to negotiate over, everyone agrees it's going to happen somehow. If Obama gives anything up on this fight, it's because he wanted to.
Oh, yeah, and what Stormcrow said about the hopeless stupidity of the WSJ article.
The important thing is that Obama's speech and vote had zero chance of preventing the increase from happening. Letting individual senators and reps take votes against things that need to pass, and are guaranteed to pass, in order to make political points, is one thing. Having the leadership and all the members of the majority party line up in such a way as to put passage at risk is another.
This is a bit misleading. The problem is both parties want the increase to pass with the maximum number of votes from the opposition party and the minimum number of votes from their party. It is tradition that the President's party suck it up and provide the votes for passage. But the House Republicans are understandable reluctant to pass an increase for Obama with zero Democratic votes and then have the Democrats run attack ads against them in 2012 for increasing the debt limit.
But the House Republicans are understandable reluctant to pass an increase for Obama with zero Democratic votes and then have the Democrats run attack ads against them in 2012 for increasing the debt limit.
I would restate this concern as that it limits the ability of the Republicans to demagogue on the debt if they vote for it.
But the House Republicans are understandable reluctant to pass an increase for Obama with zero Democratic votes and then have the Democrats run attack ads against them in 2012 for increasing the debt limit.
There's no prospect whatsoever of zero Democratic votes for the debt limit increase -- where are you getting that from? I've seen stories mentioning some right-wing Democrats threatening to join the Republican obstruction, but, for example, here's a letter from forty-six House Democrats asking for a clean debt limit bill to vote for.
I suppose Republicans could come up with an increase the debt-limit bill that Democrats wouldn't vote for, by attaching whatever cute-puppy-slaughtering provisions they're trying to ramrod through Congress to it, but that wouldn't be about a refusal to vote for an increase in the debt limit, that would be about a refusal to vote for puppy-slaughtering.
the House Republicans are understandable reluctant to pass an increase for Obama with zero Democratic votes
Why on earth are you assuming that no Democrats would vote for an increase? The D leadership has said very clearly that it would support an increase. The problem is that the Republicans - the majority party - are threatening to block it unless they can also get some contractionary cuts in spending on the poor and/or taxes on the rich. And even if every Democrat "sucks it up" and votes for an increase, that still won't be enough to get it through.
I am so fucking exhausted with this shit, especially since real lives and suffering are the chips these fuckers play with
Sigh. Yes.
16
There's no prospect whatsoever of zero Democratic votes for the debt limit increase -- where are you getting that from? ...
I am just saying that would be the Democrat's idea case just as most of the votes for passage coming from Democrats would be the Republican's idea case. As with any negotiation the actual result can be expected to fall somewhere in the middle.
I am just saying that would be the Democrat's idea case just as most of the votes for passage coming from Democrats would be the Republican's idea case.
Um, no. The ideal case for all Democrats would be stab the, whatever we-all may think of him still quite popular, Democratic president in the back and vote for something that would destabilize the financial system at a time when it's a real risk and not empty posturing? No, that wouldn't be politically advantageous for a Democratic representative unless they're trying to rely on a substantial group of Tea Party-type voters, which most of them aren't.
And more broadly, I don't understand what point 22 is intended to support, other than, perhaps, "Politicians. They all suck." Which, possibly true, but not interesting.
Was there a conclusion you were aiming toward which the "zero Democratic votes" claim, whatever its literal truth value, was meant as support for? Because I'm not following you.
||
NMM to the Birthers? Probably not.
|>
23
Um, no. The ideal case for all Democrats would be stab the, whatever we-all may think of him still quite popular, Democratic president in the back and vote for something that would destabilize the financial system at a time when it's a real risk and not empty posturing? No, that wouldn't be politically advantageous for a Democratic representative unless they're trying to rely on a substantial group of Tea Party-type voters, which most of them aren't.
You're not stabbing him in the back if the increase passes with Republican votes. And increasing the debt limit is politically unpopular which is why neither party likes to vote for it.
Eighty-three percent of Republicans oppose raising the limit, along with 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats. Support for raising the debt limit is just 36 percent among Democrats, and only 14 percent among Republicans.
25. What makes you raise the question?
25: He's just released his long-form birth certificate. Which I figured would happen, but which I hoped he'd do at a strategic moment later on in the campaign as a good ratfuck.
I'm sorry, but after the Clinton Impeachment, the Shutdown in Clinton years, the buildup to Iraq, the Financial Crisis, the end of the ACA process etc...I have become just a little suspicious and skeptical (and very tired) of claims that the world will end in fire and ice if x isn't done "immediately, our way."
Very rich coming from bob "the sky is falling" mcmanus.
But what are you arguing for? Most Democrats in the House are, in fact, going to vote for an increase in the debt limit, because (a) it's necessary and there's a risk it won't pass, (b) they're politically supporting the popular president of their own party who wants them to, (c) their own party leadership is telling them to, and (d) given that the Democratic party leadership is supporting the increase (because they're responsible, among other reasons) a Democrat couldn't make much political hay out of not voting for the increase unless they were going to distance themselves from the party generally.
You seem to be saying that it might be politically advantageous for Democrats to vote against the increase, which I think you're wrong about in practice, but even if it were true what follows from that?
Er, 27. In any case, I doubt it'll put the issue to rest, because the lunatics will call it a fraud anyway.
But the clown's spent three years telling the world you can't obtain a long form certificate from Hawaii...
It'll make no difference. If twenty Republican Senators and Governors sign an affidavit that they've seen it, they've just been suborned.
but which I hoped he'd do at a strategic moment later on in the campaign as a good ratfuck.
I think it's better to do it now. During a campaign it legitimizes their fears, and obviously they'd scream it was faked anyway.
Doing it in advance, you can later say "This has been settled for quite a while."
Really, I doubt any birthers will notice this, or change their minds based on it. But this minimizes this fanfare, at least, and possibly the press coverage later on.
32: Well, he was right (AFAIK) that there's no normal process for it -- I think this was something he could do because he's President, rather than because a citizen can get an official copy of their long-form certificate. Whether he should have pulled strings earlier or not? Eh, the whole thing's crazy enough that secondguessing tactics is hard.
JMM appears to be live blogging an aneurism over this.
Journal of Medical Microbiology?
Talking Points Memo -- Josh something with an M Marshall.
Meanwhile, lost in the storm of non-news, Leon Panetta is going to be the new Secretary of Defense and David Petraeus is going to the new CIA Chief.
live blogging an aneurism
Add this to the "new mouseover text" queue.
34: I am outraged that the President gets special treatment from a state just because he's President. Very uppity of him. What's next -- is he going to request the long form birth certificates of all tea party members?
[There's some corespondence released today between President Obama's personal lawyer -- not a government lawyer -- and a State official in Hawaii that confirms it is sort of special treatment, granted to stop the many requests Hawaii keeeps getting.]
I'm with 44. The president is not supposed to be above the law.
Meanwhile, David Cameron has produced his official certificate of being a dickhead, as issued by the National Institute of Arseholes, during parliamentary questions. He hoped that this would put an end to speculation that he was a nice chap really and actually quite charming.
It's like Scarborough Fair ("Tell her to wash it in yonder dry well, where ne'er water sprang, nor drop of rain fell"). He's supposed to prove his birth in the US by producing the original documents that ordinary citizens don't have access to, without abusing the powers of his office to produce them. And if he doesn't, that just shows how unreasonably out of touch he is.
Agree with 45.
David Petraeus is going to the new CIA Chief.
Gets him out of the way.
48: That was a fast flip from 32.
re: 46
I'd have thought the Bullingdon Club* thing was a lifelong-does-not-expire certificate of being a total cock.
* cunts of the highest water. I knew some of them at Oxenforde. If there were ever a bunch of people collectively in need of some firing squad action ...
Is it me or is there something weird about taking someone who's been a soldier all his life and making him run the CIA, and then taking the guy who's been running the CIA for the last few years and moving him to the Defense Department?
49. No. If he can't legally get this document without bribing the Governor of Hawaii or whatever he's done, he should have remained consistent in saying he couldn't produce it or he risks looking a fool when he changes his mind. Additionally, the fact that he appears to have abused his influence as President to suborn the Government of Hawaii is even more, and separately, discreditable.
51 was my thought too. It sounds like wacky hijinks.
or he risks looking a fool when he changes his mind.
No, he really doesn't. He looks like a tired, sane person who has been pushed too far and caved to shut them up.
51: Petraeus can't be Secretary of Defense until he's been retired from active duty at least seven years.
50: That now-iconic-ish picture of him and his Bullingdon mates makes me want to kick them all in the teeth. I couldn't actually kick anyone in the teeth, so you, ttaM, will have to do it for me if it ever comes up.
53. A yellowish mineral, transparent in thin sections, which was used to toughen the glass of car windscreens before WWII.
Hawaii should have published this a long time ago, in my opinion. They had an opportunity to shut everyone up without making Obama ask for special treatment.
52: Would it be better if the Hawaii state government had granted an exception to its regulations for its own convenience, to keep from being burdened with endless badgering about the stupid thing? Because I think there's a fair argument that that's part of what probably happened.
Also, it seems unfair calling it discreditable for him to use his influence to get something an ordinary citizen couldn't get. An ordinary citizen has no need for a long-form birth certificate: he got special treatment for being president because he has a special problem that only a president would have.
abused his influence as President to suborn the Government of Hawaii
This strikes me as overstating the case. More like two executive branches agreeing to bypass a bunch of red tape, with the consent of all affected parties, to resolve a weird outlier unintended consequences situation.
re: 57
I'd be very happy to do it.
Someone I used to know from college was a member. His 'amusing' story about the time they trashed an Indian restaurant, and then on the one year anniversary of trashing it booked it again and re-trashed it, was par for the course. In any right and just world they've have been taken out the back and beaten mostly to death. I'd be very surprised if they ever tried that shit in a place where they might get a fucking doing.
he has a special problem that only a non-white president would have
FTFY
56: ah. I was thinking of George Marshall, but I presume that law postdates him?
61: In that case, they didn't go far enough. They could have had it tattooed on a cow and delivered to Orly Taitz's law practice.
51.--Is it me or is there something weird about...
It all makes me rather nervous, actually.
to suborn the Government of Hawaii
Compared to 1893 and 1898, not such a big deal.
I don't understand the move at all. It's not going to do anything to persuade the true believers, and nobody else cares. They'll probably just say Hawaii's in on the conspiracy, as many of them already do, and I would not be at all surprised to see them turn this into another example of Obama's abuse of power. And now the birth certificate is going to be top story on every news outlet and talk show. What's the benefit?
Or hacked it into the side of Mount Rushmore. Obama's head, and then the entire form of words, followed by "You bet."
64: Actually, the law specified 10 years during Marshall's time, but Congress passed an exemption just for him.
What's the benefit?
The primary electoral strategy of the Democratic Party heading into 2012 is to paint the GOP as wild-eyed extremists. They don't want these people to go away; they want them on the news.
66: it does imply still more focus on the CIA's kinetic side, which has historically been dangerous to the USA, rather than its intelligence side, which has historically been merely pointless.
Could have been worse; could have been McChrystal.
From the President's press conference this morning: "We're not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, if we get distracted by a sideshow and carnival barkers," [Obama] continued.
Nice work there.
So is the point of this birth certificate stuff to put pressure on Trump to expose his financial dealings? Whatever.
Did we alert everyone to the fact that pleasuring oneself while thinking of Madame Nhu is now deprecated? Frankly, she was right up there on my personal "thought they were already dead" list. Good riddance to bad rubbish anyway.
73.--Yes, exactly. I prefer my CIA drones to be boffins and ladies in twinsets.
62: have you had a look at the list of well-known former members on wiki? The only non-kick-worthy people on it are Peter Fleming and Ludovic Kennedy. As for the rest of them, what a shower. Cecil Rhodes, Radislaw Sikorski, George Osborne, Curzon, and, bizarrely, Prince Felix Yusupov, the man who killed Rasputin.
51:FDL on Panetta and Petraeus
He's been CIA Director in the Obama Administration, which as I understand it now is basically the Secretary of Defense job, given all the covert operations. And then you have a military commander moving to the CIA. So the merging of the military and the intelligence community is complete. Within a few years it'll just be one big black op. The good news is they can cut the military budget then, and put everything into the secret, off-the-books intelligence budget so as not to raise suspicion.
We have to think about the new "Death from the Air" drone and cruise missile form of Imperialism. The Army and Armour aren't gonna like it.
I think the goal is to have someone like Qadaffi understand that he can be surrounded by a million soldiers and 100k tanks and get killed at will instantly with little collateral damage if he doesn't sign the oil contract. We aren't there yet, but getting closer. We will control the world without the occupations and casualties liberals dislike.
re: 78
I've not, but I'm not at all surprised that they were all -- barring a couple who slipped through the net -- a shower of cocks.
I'd like to organize a Bullingdon outing to, say, Glasgow. Or Methil, or some place like that.
The primary electoral strategy of the Democratic Party heading into 2012 is to paint the GOP as wild-eyed extremists. They don't want these people to go away; they want them on the news.
This would seem naturally to call for the tactic suggested in 28, rather than the tactic suggested in 33.
It's not just a case of the CIA doing more kinetic stuff either. The DoD is doing a lot more intelligence stuff, with equal competence to the CIA's wars; DoD intelligence reports were the tools Rumsfeld used to browbeat the CIA when the CIA said there weren't any nuclear weapons in Iraq.
One goal of neo-liberalism or managed democracy is to sustain the forms, appearance of democracy without really having any. This applies overseas too, where I think Suzerainty is a model. Since the appearance of independence or anti-colonialism is so useful for enthusiastic wage-slaves in emerging markets, covert control is essential.
This would seem naturally to call for the tactic suggested in 28, rather than the tactic suggested in 33.
Only if you think this will put the issue to rest.
I'd like to organize a Bullingdon outing to, say, Glasgow. Or Methil, or some place like that.
Hell, just send 'em to Blackbird Leys.
I'd like to organize a Bullingdon outing to, say, Glasgow. Or Methil, or some place like that.
Too far, they'd wreck the train before they got there. Would Blackbird Leys do?
Only if you think this will put the issue to rest.
That's not really what 33 says. Obama will be able to say "This has been settled already" and the press will hopefully be minimized when, inevitably, the birthers squawk about this during the campaign.
82: The DoD is doing a lot more intelligence stuff,
Hasn't this been the case for a long time though?
Supporting the work of the 16 main agencies, The Washington Post has reported that there are 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies in 10,000 locations in the United States that are working on counterterorrism, homeland security, and intelligence, and that the intelligence community as a whole includes 854,000 people who hold top-secret clearances[Wikipedia: Us intelligence community]
Perhaps this all makes sense in an abstract way, but practically it seems like there's been a gigantic amount of overlap, duplication of effort and obfuscation for a long time.
85, 86: Or a Tesco in Bristol.
Libya is actually a great test for the New Imperialism. Qaddaffi said:"Try to remove me from power and I will kill my own people" and the Alliance is trying to show that such hostage taking is no longer effective.
Obama's "no ground troops" is not about saving lives or money, it is about demonstrating a new greater form of military power.
"We don't need no stinking army." is a fascinating new step in Imperial Power.
91: This isn't anything new, is it? Isn't it more or less the same story as Afghanistan in 2001, or Serbia in 1999?
Wanting it isn't new, although it never seems to work terribly well.
89: yes, it has been going on for quite a while; sorry, I wasn't suggesting it was anything completely new.
And no, it doesn't make a lot of sense, even in an abstract way. It's empire-building pure and simple.
92: Skynet is a private finance initiative these days. Really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellite%29
93: This is kind of off-the-cuff compared to those. Afghanistan was in response to an actual attack on the U.S. and Serbia was after a long debate.
I suppose I should consider it on the merits, but it just kind of seemed like, "O HAI, We're bombing Libya. K THXS."
re: 97
Not especially. The list of US military operations since WWII is gigantic. There are dozens of minor bombings and police actions.
90 is inspired. It's like "turning evil to good ends". You bus them in, get them drunk, and then point them at the Tesco and say "Look at that, chaps. It's a Tesco. You know who shops at Tesco? Oiks shop at Tesco. Let's smash it up!"
99: I'd argue that police actions are different (boots on the ground). I can't recall another case where bombing started so quickly in an area where we hadn't already been involved militarily.
Who said it?
"I check in, every now and again, with The Awl, Espn.com and Crookedtimber.org but not much else."
I'm assuming the URL in 102's link is a misleading clue, so my guess is Dick Cheney.
Here's the correspondence between Obama's lawyer and the state of Hawaii. No armtwisting or bribery, he just asked the Health Department to waive its regulation for good reason in an unusual case. Chris Y -- still think he did something wrong?
I'm upset as anything about Obama's substantive actions -- I hate to see him taking heat for nonsense.
with respect to the original post, it is important to be clear about the difference between the appropriations bill (failure to pass leads to shutdown) and the debt ceiling (failure to extend does not have any immediate particular consequences other than being a gigantic pain in the ass for people who have to come up with workarounds to pay lip-service to it).
re: 101
Bombing of Libya (1986)? Various strikes in Pakistan (e.g. Chenagai, and Damadola). Sudan (Al-Shifa) and Afghanistan in 1998. Dhusamareb strike on Somalia in 2008. 2002 strike on Yemen. Also various special forces things in the Philippines, Syria, and the horn of Africa.
I'm sure there are more, that's just the ones that spring to mind.
The words "Dhusamareb" and "Damadola" actually sprung to your mind? I'm impressed.
102: I can understand why he checks our site and the Awl, but who is regularly calling Gladwell a pseud and knobber on espn.com?
106: Those still seem different. This is actually trying to change a government, not kill a specific target or slap somebody in retaliation. Unless we are actually trying to slap Qaddaffi in retaliation for Pan Am.
re: 107
I knew of the events, but had to google the names of the places.
108: Are you looking for volunteers?
106: Any other American get the feeling that ttaM is stalking us?
re: 110
You could argue in some cases the intent is different, but the basic idea of bombing some place without congressional say-so seems fairly established I'd have thought.
115: Without Congressional say-so is very, very well established. I was thinking about speed, not process.
the basic idea of bombing some place without congressional say-so seems fairly established I'd have thought
Indeed, this is the modal action of the US government. Much easier to pull off than something like the building of a railroad, which might be controversial.
The difference may be that building a railroad risks conferring benefit on people who don't deserve benefit. No such risk with bombing.
Are you about to give an hundred page speech on Objectivism?
(I know it wasn't really intended to be but it works unnervingly well).
It was kind of eerie, but I'm not one to think the reader need be bound by the writer's intent.
Have there been any psych tests done on whether people find undeserved punishment or unmerited gain more offensive, and whether this maps to political preference?
124: yes on one, pretty sure, not sure on two.
You don't deserve to have your clothes as clean as I can make them.
And why can't we have a nice HE washer, like my friend Tide gets.
|| is gmail out for everyone? or just me? |>
Worked for me 10 minutes ago. What's it doing to you?
129: "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage".
google reader is doing the same thing. (Although plain google search seems to work fine, as does everything else on the internet.)
Just you. Or at least it works for me.
Shit. I bet it's because I complained to a friend about google buzz.
Just logged in again OK in FF. I blame Bill.
Chris Y -- still think he did something wrong?
I suppose not in theory, but it looks a lot like the bad guys won again, and BHO rolled over as is his wont to let them.
Look urple, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here but I'm just not that into you. Take a hint already.
it looks a lot like the bad guys won again
What did they win? The GOP men-behind-the-curtain just want this stuff to go away so they can look like rational adults again, and now the only thing the cable networks are talking about is the lunatic GOP base that keeps right on doubling down.
The billboard in 136.1 is near my house, or identical to one near my house.
Donald Trump's hair piece was killed in Kenya.
To be President, you have to have received citizenship naturally. The only way to do that is to be born in the United States to parents who are both citizens. Obama's birth certificate states that his father is Kenyan. Therefore, Obama's allegience, at birth, is shared between two countries and he does not receive citizenship via the natural path... Obama is a statutory citizen, not a natural citizen. He is specifically excluded by the Constitution from being President.
His so-called birth certificate proves that he isn't actually the president. Take that, you pinkos!
And Trump, God love him, is not only doubling down but taking credit for the release. What a country!
I should have said his hair piece was born in Kenya and thus implied that it was still alive.
139: Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
In a just world, Orly Taitz and Trump would be taken to a remote penal colony where the long-form certificate would be inscribed into their flesh by an elaborate apparatus.
Afterbirthers demand to see Obama's placenta
"Orly" is just the best fucking name in politics.
I don't see how the long-form birth certificate settles anything. The consitution is clear: to be president, you must be a "natural born Citizen". The birth certficiate doesn't say anything about whether his mother recieved an epidural.
Orly is great, but so is Saxby.
"I'm a natural born citizen," said the president.
"O RLY?" said Orly.
Sure, it represents a fundamental disorder in our body politic, but I don't know what to do about that.
And Trump, God love him, is not only doubling down but taking credit for the release. What a country!
The finger has to be firmly pointed at the media here. If it wasn't made into news it wouldn't be. In real life the antics of a random tycoon in a symbiotic relationship with Cousin It would simply not interest anybody if they weren't forced to hear about it.
I am now about 50-50 that Trump is actually playing bagman for Obama, because God knows he's doing nothing but creating havoc for the GOP.
Whether or not there's some kind of collusion (which seems far-fetched to me), Obama and Trump certainly have a common interest in Trump making a strong showing for the Republican nomination for as long as possible.
152: That is silly. Trump's motivations are always simple, stupid, and selfish.
Except when he hosts a reality TV show. That makes the Republican party look serious-minded.
Teabaggers:"Okay, Obama, while standing on one foot, pat your head and rub your tummy for two minutes on national tv."
Liberals:"Look, Obama did it! He's amazing! Teabaggers are totes humiliated."
Teabaggers are actually trying to get you to come up with strained dialogue analogies. THEY'RE WINNING YOU!
The new RNC Chair (and hilariously named) Reince Priebus wins my vote for disconnected-from-reality reaction:
"Our economy is strained from out-of-control deficits, debt, and unsustainable entitlements," Priebus said. "The president ought to spend his time getting serious about repairing our economy, working with Republicans and focusing on the long-term sustainability of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."
Yeah! Where does the president get off focusing on this issue?!
Hey, the Supreme Court just killed off consumer class actions, likely forever, and it's not even on the front page of the NY Times! Totally understandable, since there's this important birther news to worry about.
Teabaggers are totes humiliated
No, they have no shame. Nobody's trying to humiliate them by exposing their lunacy; that would be like trying to embarrass a dog for not eating with a fork and knife. The goal is to have them as the face of the GOP, which they increasingly are.
159: I once got a check for 19 cents and I didn't even know I had been wronged.
In my view, about 50x more important, and 50x worse, than Citizens United.
For the sake of argument we'll pretend that Obama has now proved that he was actually born in the U.S.A.
Now he has to prove that he was a good enough student to be accepted into two Ivy League schools.
That will require releasing his SAT and LSAT scores
as well as all his report cards from kindergarten on.
After that he will need to prove that he is actually a Christian and not a Muslim. I'm thinking this will probably require a public baptism, as well as a declaration that he does not believe that Mohammed was a prophet.
This is really the media's fault for not properly vetting him in 2008.
160:It was sarcasm, apo.
The teabaggers won, and the President was the one humiliated. Ironic analogies are hard.
I am of course reminded of all the anti-Clinton shenanigans:"Admit it admit it release your records confess confess apologize to the nation" It is one of the dispiriting games they play. It accumulates power. It intimidates.
Oh for a President who could say:"Fuck You."
about 50x more important, and 50x worse, than Citizens United.
50x seems like an exaggeration, but this is indeed very bad.
Do people here still think that Citizens United hasn't made things that much worse? I suppose Halford clearly does. To me, it's a profound break towards the horrible side, even if there was plenty of money flowing before the decision.
Do people here still think that Citizens United hasn't made things that much worse?
Yes, absolutely, as I kept pointing out when we last talked about this all CU did was return to the rules that existed prior to McCain-Feingold, so it was bad but not that bad, and there's very little evidence that McCain Feingold was particularly effective.
But mostly I want to focus on the horribleness of today's decision. Until today there was one very effective deterrence-producign regulatory mechanism in the United States for companies trying to screw consumers out of smallish amounts of money: the class action. After today, unless you're wealthy enough to have been screwed out of a large amount of money, you're probably fucked. Today's case leaves a little room for distinctions, and maybe the implementation won't be that bad, but I'd be extremely pessimistic.
Maybe the congress will protect us.
Until today there was one very effective deterrence-producign regulatory mechanism
There's no way I believe it's been effective in the last few decades.
No, actually this was one of the things that the US was pretty good at -- companies really were scared about tacking on bullshit fees in ways that could screw a lot of people at once in small ways (the Superman III scam) because of fears of class action lawsuits. That fear is now gone. It will be interesting to see if the decision also kills off securities lawsuits -- it could!
How much do we have left to lose with one more winger Justice?
Somebody poiinted out at FDL that there are a lot of rich (and Republican) gays, so they will be protected. Rich women and rich blacks will have equal access to the trading desks and the professional jobs. That is one of the victories of neo-liberalism, to disconnect economic liberalism from liberation politics.
So after the dismantling of the welfare state, what is left for SCOTUS to take from the workers?
Tell me why to care about 2012.
Tell me why to care about 2012.
Because that's when Nibiru is going to collide with the Earth. Duh.
My wife did get real money from a class action suit and is supposed to get more. Apparently, price fixing for bar review courses gets a real penalty.
The house I grew up in was near a (since-closed) oil refinery that liked to blow up or something similar every couple of years. I just learned that settlement payments are going out for one of these blowings up, but apparently that particular explosion happened after we'd away. What foul luck!
I'm guessing she already cashed the first check.
The class action thing sounds bad, but at least the article Halford links to doesn't make it sound like a legally insane move. Sounds more like Congress dicked consumers over a while ago (specifically with the arbitration act) and the Supreme Court just got around to confirming that fact.
re: 176
Yeah, ditto. Although I don't remember any payouts to people who lived nearby. Hydrocracking towers do like to do an impression of a Saturn V every now and again, though.
Idyllic: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_05/004grangemouth_468x333.jpg
Not so much:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2354288722_9ab997cd97_z.jpg?zz=1
[although quite Bladerunnertastic]
Anyone wanna see my mirth certificate?! HA HA HA!
||
For Natilo? Richard Estes, anarchist, reviews Guzman's new documentary The Battle For Chile
"By doing so, Guzman reveals the collective liberatory possibilities embedded within the emergence of popular power, the fusion of political and economic power within communities, administered through increasingly anti-authoritarian forms of social organization"
"One suspects that Pinochet was more interested in the social dimension of the policies of the Chicago School, the potential for eliminating possible sources of collective resistance through atomization"
"Hidden within this nascent collective discourse is the sinister allure of leisure, one of the most significant creations of capitalism in the last 100 years. Working your shift, participating in the distribution of food during your off days and going to meetings at night is emotionally and physically exhausting."
Stuff like this
|>
Mirth? Crap, I meant girth. My girth certificate. It's certainly not a long form version, though.
I would not be surprised if the soon-to-be-released Jerome Corsi book Where's the Birth Certificate entered into the equation as well as the FoxNews/Trump re-awakening of the issue. There was no right time to release it or not release it or shit or go blind or what-have-you--it's like Clinton's "40 murders", insane nuts and mainstream media enablers.
181: Missed that one when it came through in the MSPIFF, as I was not in Mpls. at the time. Maybe I should check it out.
And back on the OP, part of what got my dander up is that we're treated in the press to a lot of what amounts to "Sausage-Making the Bad Parts". Incessant process and horse race stories, but nothing that really gives any insight as to how the politics actually work. So you get "I voted against before I voted against it" = flip-flopper type stuff--most of it just sub-literate narrative pablum for the corpse-fuckers in the mainstream media to bray about between bouts with the stiffs.
Not that I'm bitter.
185: This is what I was always trying to convince my fellow student journalists of: When you make political journalism consist of long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer outrage, you are doing a huge disservice to your readers, and to democratic principles.
But mostly they did not get it. Now that they have been professional journalists for awhile, the ones I'm still in contact with have mostly come around, but it is too late for them as they are pretty well bought in at this point.
"The class action thing sounds bad, but at least the article Halford links to doesn't make it sound like a legally insane move. Sounds more like Congress dicked consumers over a while ago (specifically with the arbitration act) and the Supreme Court just got around to confirming that fact."
The mediation class i had in law school was full of lets-all-get-along hippies. We had a guest speaker from Blackwater.
The Supreme Court decision today will probably unemploy about half my firm in a year or two, unless they can find another line of business. The consumer class actions are arguably not that critical to anyone other than the lawyers involved. the real issue is that will also end the employment-related class actions, including minimum wage, unpaid overtime, and sex/race/age/pregnancy etc. discrimination.
No effect on securities fraud cases, since there's usually no contract between the buyer of stock and the Company. Effect on antitrust cases unclear.
No effect on securities fraud cases, since there's usually no contract between the buyer of stock and the Company.
Not in the secondary market, but in the primary market there is (or, where there isn't, there could be, and, given today's decision, likely in the future will be).
And anyway can't you write a binding arbitration clause so as to bind transferees? Note the binding arbitration clause in your disclosure documents, and why wouldn't secondary buyers be bound by it as well? (And is there any reason why this won't happen?)
It is highly disturbing how little coverage this decision seems to be getting, btw.
David Dayen at FDL on the SCOTUS class-action decision
Update, for hope-springs-eternal types or those who seek any comfort :"Sens. Al Franken and Richard Blumenthal, along with Rep. Hank Johnson, have legislation that would deal with this. From their release:"
Visit FDL to see the Franken quote if you dare
I didn't even bother to mention the alliance the NAACP have made with Grover Norquist. I assumed I would be accused of racism, and Jane Hamsher would still be evvviiilll.
I should read it -- my snap reaction is that 178 is probably right, and that even though it's horrendous policy, and a huge change in the status quo, it's probably good law as an interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (which sucks). Congress's problem to fix, not that they're going to.
189 was what I was wondering about as well as far as the effect of the decision on securities claims. Companies in the primary market could include an arbitration clause with the initial offering and possibly bind secondary market purchasers. Alternately, perhaps companies could amend the corporate foundational documents (charter, bylaws) to require arbitration. I haven't thought in detail about that, or looked at the law, so there may well be problems in doing so that I'm not thinking of.
And of course we've got the upcoming decision that will ban effective public election financing. Fun times ahead! I expect more people will come around to my 'lotteries, not elections' platform after that.
I think 192 is probably wrong, or, at least, there's nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act that remotely compels the decision (it's not Bush v. Gore legally ridiculous, but it's effectively a policy decision, not a legal one). But it's too boring to argue that in detail.
195: I just scanned it quickly, and while this still isn't a meaningful opinion, I'd need to think some more, I'm flipping away from 192 -- it does look like a bad decision, and not one mandated by the FAA. The FAA still sucks, though.
Now would probably be a good time for me to once again complain at the fact that reasoning that would shame a high school senior grounds the law of the land, right?
I completely agree with 196. FAA sucks, but this decision is not in any way compelled by FAA. Nor does it pretend to be, unlike so many of the conservative-majority opinions--it's self-consciously a policy decision. And it's terrible policy.
All in the spirit of John Roberts' telling question during the Valdez arguments, "So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?"
It's my understanding that the concept of an "arbitrator" is something that can only really operate between institutions like corporations, governments and unions. In the real world, is there really such a thing as an "arbitrator" that operates in the way that the law assumes all of them operate, as a neutral, um, arbiter? Or is it guaranteed that an arbitrator operating between a corporation and a human being/customer will be an entity created by that same corporation to act on its behalf?
Or is it guaranteed that an arbitrator operating between a corporation and a human being/customer will be an entity created by that same corporation to act on its behalf?
More or less, although things aren't quite that bad. But the real problem with today's ruling isn't that arbitrators are bad, it's that it makes it effectively impossible, if you're a consumer or a worker, to sue for relatively small claims. Say you're a $20,000/year worker whose employer regularly screws peoplle out of 20 minutes of their lunch break. No lawyer is going to take individual cases to recover that money, because there's just not enough in potential recovery there, but that kind of case would make a lot of sense as a class action. Except that today's ruling says that as long as you put an arbitration clause into every employment agreement, you can no longer bring class action lawsuits. The almost inevitable result will be a big uptick in bad employment and consumer practicies by big companies.
200: you might select arbitrator with a fair process, maybe even pick them randomly from the general population.
Okay, so it's SCOTUS and not Congress doing the screwing; good to know.
Is there any reason I shouldn't think that arbitration should have its head stuck on a pike, and the body buried under a crossroads at midnight?
Is there any reason I shouldn't think that arbitration should have its head stuck on a pike, and the body buried under a crossroads at midnight?
Sometimes, when freely chosen among commercial parties of reasonably comparable bargaining strength, it can be useful. In all other cases your solution is best.
That's about right. I'd be minimally more enthusiastic about arbitration where the playing field is level. But not otherwise.
30
You seem to be saying that it might be politically advantageous for Democrats to vote against the increase, which I think you're wrong about in practice, but even if it were true what follows from that?
Well the last time (1996) we were in this situation 61 Democrats in the House voted no. So at least some Democrats thought it was politically advantageous to vote no. And even if you don't think yes votes hurt Democrats, yes votes on the debt ceiling will likely hurt Republicans (just as yes votes on TARP did) so it is to the Democrats advantage to force as many Republican yes votes as they can get away with.
And my more general point is that pretending just one party is playing politics with this is silly. These votes serve no useful purpose and would best be done away because there is always a chance of a trainwreck since it is to the advantage of individual Representatives to let someone else bell the cat.
Local labor arbitrators seem to do a fairly good job of giving back jobs to police officers who were fired for what seem like very good reasons if the paper is telling the whole story.
198: I completely agree with 196. FAA sucks, but this decision is not in any way compelled by FAA. Nor does it pretend to be, unlike so many of the conservative-majority opinions--it's self-consciously a policy decision. And it's terrible policy.
IA definitely NAL but this certainly seems to be the case from my reading. The "Take your $30.22 and STFU little people!" ruling.
The District Court found this scheme sufficient to provide incentive for the individual prosecution of meritorious claims that are not immediately settled, and the Ninth Circuit admitted that aggrieved customers who filed claims would be "essentially guarantee[d]" to be made whole, 584 F. 3d, at 856, n. 9. Indeed, the District Court concluded that the Concepcions were better off under their arbitration agreement with AT&T than they would have been as participants in a class action, which "could take months, if not years, and which may merely yield an opportunity to submit a claim for recovery of a small percentage of a few dollars." Laster , 2008 WL 5216255, at *12.The whole thing seems to consciously avoid acknowledging that there is any rationale whatsoever for class actions that even needs to be addressed. Of course, I may well be missing some narrow point of law. (And both cites are cherry-picked from lower court rulings for the plaintiffs in this case--so clever.)
Jury: nullification
Arbitrator: ? Over reaching (?)
"Orly" is just the best fucking name in politics.
She has a brother called Charles de Gaulle.
It took me a while to realize 'orly' wasn't a nom de plume like atrois
"And my more general point is that pretending just one party is playing politics with this is silly. These votes serve no useful purpose and would best be done away because there is always a chance of a trainwreck since it is to the advantage of individual Representatives to let someone else bell the cat."
So would you be in favor of the (not at all conservative or traditional) idea that the budget should be set on a permanent basis, like entitlement spending, and only altered from its nominal gdp adjusted base per new 'budget' being passed? thus eliminating this whole showdown thing entirely? so if you don't have a working majority, no changes are made.
I don't get the supposed securities fraud angle. In my experience the vast majority of such suits, especially the successful ones, are brought by individual (institutional) investors, not by shareholders of a company, though those tend to be more high profile. And regardless of whether or not you can bring a class action, it's still illegal to knowingly or recklessly make material mistatements or omissions in an offering document. The primary/secondary market distinction doesn't really come into it. A secondary market investor relies on the prospectus/financial statements just as much as the primary market one, regardless of whether there's a direct contract between issuer and investor.
Yes, absolutely, as I kept pointing out when we last talked about this all CU did was return to the rules that existed prior to McCain-Feingold, so it was bad but not that bad, and there's very little evidence that McCain Feingold was particularly effective.
This isn't quite true on two counts. One, pre-McCain-Feingold, but not post-CU, we could enact McCain-Feingold (or preferably something better). Two, pre-McCain-Feingold, winning an election cost, what, a fifth of what it does now?
212
So would you be in favor of the (not at all conservative or traditional) idea that the budget should be set on a permanent basis, like entitlement spending, and only altered from its nominal gdp adjusted base per new 'budget' being passed? thus eliminating this whole showdown thing entirely? so if you don't have a working majority, no changes are made
No, too much status quo bias. Although depending on details I would find some versions of this more objectionable than others.
This is another weirdness of the American system; in a parliamentary system like Westminster, you'd never be in a situation where the government of the day couldn't get its budget passed and had to shut down operations.
Most of the time the government would have a reliable parliamentary majority or it wouldn't be the government in the first place. If it didn't - if you had a minority-party government, or a coalition which was breaking apart, or a one-party-majority government that had suffered some sort of massive backbench revolt - not being able to get your budget passed is taken as, effectively, a vote of no confidence in the government and would trigger a general election.
The last time this sort of showdown happened in Westminster was probably over Ship Money. Though I must admit that that particular one could probably have been resolved rather better.
Destroying Nick Clegg's career is definitely achievable; the Lib Dems have a party structure that makes deposing their leader relatively easy.
No, it was over the Lloyd George budget in 1909. However at that time the obstruction was in the Lords, who are no longer allowed to obstruct Finance Bills in direct consequence of their shenanigans then.
217 was to 216.2. My computer doesn't always work right.
And my more general point is that pretending just one party is playing politics with this is silly. These votes serve no useful purpose and would best be done away ...
IIRC, in the 90s the Democrats did do them away, only to have the Republicans reintroduce them after retaking Congress.
On the class action/arbitration thing--I am still puzzled by the continuing silence of the folks (other than on this blog) I rely on to write about these things. No biggie? Distracted?
Well, LGM were a bit late to the party but Lemieux has two posts on it today.
221: Yep, see that. But although he points out its problems and how poorly it reflects on Scalia's so-called legal philosophy, he does not seem to be reading it as a broad assault on class action. Maybe everyone has outrage fatigue with regard to this Court. I did go back and look at some of the reports from when the oral arguments were made and they made it sound as if Scalia in particular was skeptical of AT&T's position.
Part of it is that it's not constitutional law. It's bad statutory interpretation, and it's very important bad policy, but it's not something where the Court is the last word -- Congress could fix this.
More seriously, the fact that Congress could fix it doesn't exactly inspire hope. Although it would inspire marginally more hope if there was some chance that people were going to raise a stink about it, which they're certainly not going to do if no news organizations even bother reporting the fucking story.
Yeah, it's not a reason that this isn't a problem, but it doesn't set off any of the big pre-existing debates about theories of con law, which makes it unsurprising that there wasn't a lot of coverage from con law types.
222: Well, it pretty much goes without saying that the current court is waging war on class actions. Everyone thinks the Walmart case is going to end badly for the plaintiffs because of the court's composition.
