Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 18, 2014, 09:19:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 780
1  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Eight Million, With 35% Under Age 35 on: Today at 09:12:28 AM
The thing is working. At least as far as we can see now.

BUT real issue here is its not an "AFFORDABLE" care act. 
2  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Eight Million, With 35% Under Age 35 on: Today at 08:20:07 AM
Oh yeah......

-  People got there policies cancelled yet they were told they wouldn't by the POTUS

-  Rates went up for most

-  Some got theirs subsidized costing tax payer money

-  The effects of the other mandates haven't hit yet.

-  Smaller clinics are closing due to cost as a result of ACA

But, because some Joe Smo, used ACA to get treatment.......when he prolly could still have got it otherwise under the old system....  ACA is a success!
3  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 07:59:47 PM
Thanks.  So when people smoke a joint, they don't smoke the whole thing at once like a cigarette? 

Not typically.  Plus now a days people smoke a bowl more often then a joint.   Still the same thing though, take few hits, get high, it lasts 1-2 hours until it fully wears off. 
4  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 05:46:22 PM
I'm trying to use your context.  You said smoking a joint a day is like being drunk all day.  What I'm asking is whether you think the effects of smoking a joint in a day are the same as someone being drunk?  

No, but if you drank lets say a case and a half thought he course of a 12 hour day, you would prolly be buzzed most of the day.  If you took 2-3 hits from a joint and smoked it every 1-2 hours during a 12 hour day you would be high all that time too.  That being said, high and drunk are 2 different things, but they are both forms of being intoxicated. 
5  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 02:42:24 PM
Are you saying being high impairs someone in the same way as being drunk?

Depends on the context of what you are comparing it to.

An alcohol buzz is different than being high.
6  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 02:09:16 PM
Six was only the median, so some smoked less and some smoked more. 

Why do you think a joint a day is excessive? 

I already explained that smoking a joint in a day is like being drunk all day
7  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 01:07:24 PM
That's a joint a day.  I have no idea if that is excessive or "occasional," but six joints a week was the median for those who smoked. 

6 joints a week is excessive.

A better way to gauge use would be to record how many times a day does a person get high. 

Getting high once a day can be compared to a 2-4 beers in an hour.
8  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question on: April 17, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
6 Joints a week is excessive not occasional.  

If you smoke 6 joints a week you are a pot head.

Basically, you can get high on 1-3 hits.  Joints prolly give you 10-30 hits.  This would mean you got "high" 60 to 150 times if you smoked 6 joints a week.  or 9 -25 times a day. lol.

that's like being drunk all day.
9  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / MOVED: Re: Biden joins Instagram on: April 17, 2014, 10:52:23 AM
This topic has been moved to V Board - General Random Threads.
10  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / MOVED: Re: Biden joins Instagram on: April 17, 2014, 10:51:46 AM
This topic has been moved to V Board - General Random Threads.
11  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Fox’s Eric Bolling suggests ditching minimum wage and labor laws because China.. on: April 17, 2014, 08:15:02 AM

Fox’s Eric Bolling suggests ditching minimum wage and labor laws because China works hard

Fox News host Eric Bolling and most of his colleagues on The Five dismissed seemingly the whole idea of a balance between life and work on Tuesday, with Bolling suggesting that the U.S. look to China, and not Europe, for inspiration.

“Some of the economies that are starting to kick our butt, those people work hard,” Bolling said. “There aren’t labor laws, there aren’t minimum wages, they’re working harder than we are.”

That’s what we should have — no labor law and no minimum wage,” co-host Bob Beckel countered. “They work for a dollar a week.”

Certainly hold them to a maximum of hours per week, for sure,” Bolling clarified, not mentioning that such a limit would constitute a labor law.

The group’s debate was sparked by reports that Sweden’s second-largest city, Gothenburg, would be cutting the work week for public sector employees to 30 hours per week without reducing their pay, an experiment city officials said would last for a year.

“Why does America always want to adopt the policies of the people we beat?” co-host Greg Grunfeld said, before misstating the details of the plan. “By the way, the Sweden thing? Those are politicians. Those are government guys that are actually getting their hours cut back — which I agree with. I would pay all government workers not to work.”

“But what if they took six hours and it turned out that they were getting more productivity and they were doing a better job?” Beckel asked, once again pushing back.

“It would be nice if we had that luxury,” co-host Dana Perino answered. “But the baby boomers have made sure we are going to be tied to our jobs for the rest of our lives and not benefit from Social Security and Medicare like they did.”

Beckel also alluded to Sweden’s economic development managing to rank atop the rest of the world, according to a study released this past February.

“Every time I hear these stories about European countries cutting back on work, I think we should rejoice,” co-host Andrea Tantaros told Beckel. “They’re basically announcing, ‘Guess what? We’re making it even harder for us to compete with you.”

Tantaros then criticized a new French labor agreement allowing for “autonomous employees” in the tech and consulting fields to disconnect from work communications after working 13-hour days.

“Who would hire someone that can shut off and [do] whatever they want after six o’clock?” she asked, not mentioning that that hour is not specified anywhere in the agreement.

12  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / TARP on: April 17, 2014, 08:01:29 AM

Back in 2008, I noted an obscure TARP provision:


Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program under this Act. In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt. (emphasis mine)

In response, I publicly offered the following bet:

If the Director of the OMB's 2013 report says that a shortfall exists, I win.  Otherwise, I lose.  The stakes: I will make up to five $100 bets at even odds.
The OMB's 2013 report is now in.  You can download all 510 pages here, then turn to page 39:

As of December 31, 2011, total repayments and income on TARP investments were approximately $318 billion, which is 77 percent of the $414 billion in total disbursements to date. The projected total lifetime deficit impact of TARP programmatic costs, reflecting recent activity and revised subsidy estimates based on market data as of November 30, 2011, is now estimated at $67.8 billion.


This is actually more pessimistic than the OMB's previous update, which also had me on track to win:

Compared to the 2012 MSR estimate of $46.8 billion, the estimated deficit impact of TARP increased by $21 billion. This increase was largely attributable to the lower valuation of the AIG and GM common stock held by Treasury.
If you don't wish to download a 510-page pdf, try the CBO's 8-page summary of the OMB report, combined with the CBO's slightly different (but still negative) estimates of TARP's budgetary costs. 

TARP was passed on October 3, 2008.  Since the CBO's report is dated May 23, 2013, you could argue that I am declaring victory a few months prematurely.  However, the CBO report also explains that this is the 2013 TARP report:

Originally, the law required OMB and CBO to submit semiannual reports. That provision was changed by Public Law 112-204 to an annual reporting requirement. OMB's most recent report on the TARP was submitted on April 10, 2013.

None of TARP's cheerleaders accepted my bet, even though their announced beliefs seemingly implied that betting me would be taking candy from a baby.  As far as I can tell, the only people who clearly accepted my bet were EconLog readers Michael K and Rick Stewart.  Steve Roth somewhat ambiguously accepted, so I leave payment to his conscience.

HT: Philip Wallach at Brookings for reminding me about the bet.
13  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles on: April 16, 2014, 04:42:38 PM
Of course this is not representative of most Christians, but funny as hell anyway...

Oklahoma Protesters Threaten to “Secdee” From Union if Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos is not Cancelled

Saddlebridge Township, Oklahoma – Furious parents and citizens of Oklahoma took to the streets early Thursday, protesting against Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos.  Protesters allege the show is blatantly promoting an anti-Creationist agenda and is ‘standing against the Judeo-Christian moors and values of the Saddleback Township community and others nationwide.”
The first protests against Cosmos in the community took place some two weeks ago, after a local paper claimed an airing of Cosmos in a school caused several children to experience ‘demonic possession’.  Parents cite one kid became completely enamored with the show during a terrifyingly supernatural event linked with Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s narrative explaining the “God of the Gaps” theory.

Several weeks ago, citizens accused Tyson of using his Cosmos program to forward other agendas, not limited to a ‘homogay’ agenda, wizardry/haroldry, astrology and other vehemently anti-Christian teachings.

Concerned parents have accused Neil DeGrasse Tyson of ‘Ra’ worship and iconography, going as far as saying the titular narrator may be involved in a Wiccan Sun occult.
Delores Simmons, whose child was involved in the prior airing of Cosmos that precipitated the anti-science scare in Oklahoma, claims petitions are already going about to elect pro-Creation candidates for upcoming elections.

“If we allow this Tyson to keep publicly airing his beliefs, God just may strike us down with a cosmic meteor this summer.  That would be ironic justice if you ask me, so we should just take this show off now before that happens.”

Other citizens in Oklahoma agree.  The latest Rasmussen polls on the subject show that over 64% people in Oklahoma feel Cosmos is dangerous and carries a strong anti-theist and Creation message.

SaddleBridge Township Petition to Remove Cosmos From Local Television Affiliates

Cosmos is a dangerous television program with strong ties to the Satanic Ra occult.  The show veils itself under the guise of ‘inspiration science’, but unveils its wolf teeth every time Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouts anti-Creationist rhetoric that possesses the minds of Oklahoma’s children.

The parents of the Saddlebridge Community continue to feel Cosmos is inappropriate material for television and therefore must be removed from all programming within the state.  Following are examples of the dangers presents by Cosmos:  A Space Journey.
14  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Rich people rule! on: April 16, 2014, 04:39:19 PM

Everyone thinks they know that money is important in American politics. But how important? The Supreme Court’s Gilded Age reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC has inspired a flurry of commentary regarding the potential corrosive influence of campaign contributions; but that commentary largely ignores the broader question of how economic power shapes American politics and policy. For decades, most political scientists have sidestepped that question, because it has not seemed amenable to rigorous (meaning quantitative) scientific investigation. Qualitative studies of the political role of economic elites have mostly been relegated to the margins of the field. But now, political scientists are belatedly turning more systematic attention to the political impact of wealth, and their findings should reshape how we think about American democracy.
A forthcoming article in Perspectives on Politics by (my former colleague) Martin Gilens and (my sometime collaborator) Benjamin Page marks a notable step in that process. Drawing on the same extensive evidence employed by Gilens in his landmark book “Affluence and Influence,” Gilens and Page analyze 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Average citizens have “little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process? This must be an overstatement of Gilens’s and Page’s findings, no?

Alas, no. In their primary statistical analysis, the collective preferences of ordinary citizens had only a negligible estimated effect on policy outcomes, while the collective preferences of “economic elites” (roughly proxied by citizens at the 90th percentile of the income distribution) were 15 times as important. “Mass-based interest groups” mattered, too, but only about half as much as business interest groups — and the preferences of those public interest groups were only weakly correlated (.12) with the preferences of the public as measured in opinion surveys.

Gilens and Page frame their study as a test of four broad theories of American politics: “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy,” “Majoritarian Pluralism,” “Economic Elite Domination” and “Biased Pluralism.” “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy,” with its emphasis on public opinion, elections and representation, provides the theoretical backbone of most contemporary political science (including mine). The training of most graduate students (including mine) is primarily couched in that framework. But Gilens’s and Page’s work makes that look like a bad scientific bet, wishfully ignoring most of what actually drives American policy-making.
The theory of “Majoritarian Pluralism” emphasizes the role of organized interests, but assumes that most ordinary citizens will be fairly well represented in the tug-of-war among interest groups. It flourished in the mid-20th century, perhaps most notably in the work of David Truman and the early Robert Dahl, but has been much less prominent in recent years. The “Economic Elite Domination” and “Biased Pluralism” perspectives have been even less prominent in mainstream political science, although they have been deployed selectively by E. E. Schattschneider and Charles Lindblom, and in a more sustained fashion by G. William Domhoff, Thomas Ferguson and others.
Gilens’s and Page’s analysis suggests that we need a lot more research on “Economic Elite Domination” and “Biased Pluralism.” Stronger empirical tests of the political influence of economic elites will require better evidence regarding the political preferences and activities of wealthy Americans. Page, Jason Seawright  and I have made a small start in that direction with a pilot survey of millionaires in the Chicago area. In a paper presented at last week’s meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Page and Seawright began to explore a different approach, trying to learn about the political views of Forbes 400 billionaires by web-scraping their public comments and contribution records.

We also need narrower studies of specific channels of political influence. Joshua Kalla and David Broockman’s recent field experiment focusing on access to members of Congress provides an elegant example of that sort of work. A political organization contacted 191 congressional offices requesting meetings to discuss a pending bill. The organization’s members were randomly identified either as constituents or as campaign donors. Of the people identified as donors, 19 percent got meetings with the member of Congress or a top staffer, but only 5 percent of those identified as constituents (not as donors) got similar access. Clearly, as Kalla and Broockman observe, “individuals can command greater attention from influential policymakers by contributing to campaigns.” While that finding in itself does not tell us whether “greater attention” actually translates into substantial policy influence, it does shed clear light on one piece of the much broader process of “Economic Elite Domination” stunningly documented by Gilens and Page.
15  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / WSJ Columnist: Nominate Rand Paul Because GOP Needs 'Another Humbling Landslide on: April 16, 2014, 04:34:16 PM

Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens revisited one of his favorite themes on Monday, arguing once again that what Republicans really need is another defeat in a national election.

According to Stephens, a Rand Paul presidential nomination in 2016 ought to do the trick. The columnist offered an endorsement of the Kentucky Senator that oozed with sarcasm.

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.
This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That's worked out well.
Stephens took aim at Paul's former staffer Jack Hunter, whose troubling past includes a defense of Abraham Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. The Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist also mocked Paul's suggestion in 2009 that Dick Cheney wanted a war in Iraq to deliver profits to Halliburton.

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.
And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.
This isn't new territory for Stephens. Anticipating President Obama's eventual re-election, Stephens wrote in early-2012 that "Republicans deserve to lose."

A week after the GOP's disappointing showing in the election that year, Stephens urged the party to "get a grip." He wrote that the GOP base should "demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates." He also called on Republicans to stop "demonizing Latin American immigrants" and "tone down the abortion extremism."

"Our republican experiment in self-government didn't die last week," Stephens wrote following the election. "But a useful message has been sent to a party that spent too much of the past four years listening intently to echoes of itself. Change the channel for a little while."
16  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / GOP seeks army of female volunteers to counter Democratic attacks on: April 16, 2014, 04:32:50 PM

In the Obama era, Democrats usually have had two major advantages: women and volunteers.  This year, Republicans are trying to change that, seeking to amass an army of young volunteer women who can carry the GOP message and counter the “war on women” rhetoric that has been so effective for Democrats.
Fresh off a week in which Democrats made clear that a key part of their midterm message will be equal pay, Republicans are set to begin their own efforts to woo women to the polls, focusing on counties that went blue in 2012 and could tip the balance in November.
In West Virginia on Monday morning, Sharon Day, co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, will launch “14 in ’14,” a program that will focus on younger women in suburban areas that lean blue.  The idea is to sign up women who will commit 30 minutes per week in the 14 weeks before the election, making calls, recruiting other women, identifying voters and getting people to the polls.
Republicans have been dogged by criticism that their party is out of touch with women. In a CNN poll in February, 55 percent of respondents said they didn’t understand women, a figure that jumps to 64 percent among women older than 50, a group that has traditionally been more Republican.
Day will announce the new effort in Charleston, W.Va., with Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, who is retiring.

“Women are a very important part of the electorate and the RNC is very serious about engaging,” Day said. “The Democrats have relied on desperate attacks and we are going to aggressively work to correct the record and build relationships with women voters.”
Democrats are more focused on single women, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently announced that it will use a national computer model that can predict voters’ marital status.
Last week, Republicans were on the offensive, introducing amendments and criticizing the White House for its own pay gap among West Wing staffers, as Democrats held a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which did not get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.
Monday’s efforts come as Republicans have expanded the Senate map, with competitive races not only in red states, but also in purple states such as Colorado,  Michigan, New Hampshire and Virginia. With this effort, the RNC is targeting 25 counties out 300 in 10 states with Senate, congressional and gubernatorial races.
Here is the list of the first round of targeted states and counties: Arkansas (Pulaski), Florida (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Leon, Pinellas), Georgia (Cobb, Gwinnett), Louisiana (East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, New Orleans), Michigan (Oakland, Wayne), Montana (Yellowstone), North Carolina (Mecklenberg, Wake), Ohio (Cuhahoga, Lake, Mahoning), Pennsylvania (Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery), West Virginia (Kanawha, Cabell).
17  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Senate clears path for corporate tax giveaways on: April 16, 2014, 04:30:00 PM

Congress isn’t great at getting things done. But when it comes to a host of tax breaks—ones that tend to benefit big businesses and wealthy individuals—it always manages to find a way.

When the Senate comes back after its April recess, it’s slated to take up legislation that would extend $85 billion in tax breaks that would benefit everyone from NASCAR track owners and Hollywood studios to corporate multinationals. The bill includes more than 50 provisions known as “tax extenders”—tax breaks that were originally intended to be temporary, but which Congress has extended annually. It’s poised to go through the motions again and pass yet another extenders bill with strong bipartisan support, without offsetting any of the cost.

Before its April recess, the Senate Finance Committee passed a two-year bill that revived nearly every tax extender that expired on December 31. The biggest items in the legislation include popular provisions like the $16 billion tax credit for research and experimentation, which both parties have supported for decades. Democrats also pushed to include provisions like the $13 billion credit for renewable energy production, one for energy-efficient commercial buildings, and a tax break for commuters who take mass transit—including bike-sharing programs—to work.

But this year, as always, the tax extenders bill also includes a slew of special-interest giveaways. There’s a $71 million tax break to help racecar track-builders; a $336 million excise tax on rum imported to the U.S. from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that goes back help their rum industries; and a $27 million film production credit for movie studios that make their films in the U.S. 

The legislation also benefits some of the biggest multinational corporations and individuals. It continues what’s known as the “active financing” exemption, which lets Wall Street firms and multinationals defer taxes on financial activities conducted overseas, at a cost of $10.4 billion over two years. Its biggest giveaway to individuals is a $6.5 billion deduction for state and local sales taxes that disproportionately benefits high-income taxpayers.

Tax day in America

“Because sales taxes are already highly regressive, the deduction makes them more so because federal income tax filers on the lower end of the income distribution do not itemize and hence cannot claim the benefit,” Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute explained in February. “Further, the provision (like all tax deductions) is worth more the higher a filer’s marginal tax rate, and this skews the benefits to high-income taxpayers.” In other words, high-income earners benefit more from the credit as they are more likely to itemize their taxes and the provision is worth more at higher marginal rates.

Howard Gleckman, a fellow at the Urban Institute, believes there’s little difference between the tax breaks and direct government handouts to, say, the unemployed. “Just as the unemployment program transfers cash to a specific group, so do the scores of tax credits and other subsidies that some are hot to renew. Only the beneficiaries are different,” Gleckman writes. “Instead of the long-term unemployed, they are Manhattan real estate developers, auto racetrack owners, movie studios, distillers of Puerto Rican rum, multinational corporations, makers of alternative fuel vehicles, etc.”

Congress has continued to preserve this grab bag of loopholes in part because such special-interest giveaways are lumped together with provisions that few in Congress oppose: The research and development tax credit, for instance, and a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax Credit to keep taxes from rising on millions of American households—one of the few tax extenders that was fixed permanently last year.

Tax extenders have also been thrown quietly into big pieces of legislation; the last package passed as part of the January 2013 fiscal cliff deal. And even those who hate some of the tax breaks have been willing to accept them to keep the parts they do like – whether it’s to let teachers write off school supplies they buy for their classrooms or prevent strapped homeowners from having to pay taxes on cancelled mortgage debt. An army of industry lobbyists have also pushed legislators to protect their parochial interests and claim getting rid of any number of them would be “job-killing.”

Finally, Congress has not traditionally offset the cost of the legislation, which allows legislators to avoid having to make the difficult decisions that have often fueled political gridlock on Capitol Hill. And Republicans aren’t insisting that they do so now, despite the $85 billion price tag of the legislation.

“Given that Congress is preventing a tax hike, tax extenders historically have not been offset,” says Julia Lawless, a spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking GOP member on the Finance Committee. “At times in the past, new policy, including expansions to currently expired or expiring provisions, have been offset. That precedent would most likely not be changed in this environment.”

An earlier version of the bill had actually axed a few more provisions than usual, leaving out the so-called “NASCAR loophole,” the film/TV production credit, and many of the energy-efficiency write-offs. “The mark we released earlier this week continued in that same fashion by further reducing the number of extended tax provisions. That is the direction I believe we should be moving,” Hatch said in early April. But all but two of the tax breaks—one for energy-efficient appliances and another for expensing certain refinery property—made their way back into the Senate bill during the amendment process for the legislation.

No one in Congress really likes doing things this way, agreeing that the better approach would be to evaluate each tax break on its merits, decide which would become a permanent part of the tax code, and junk the rest. That’s the basic logic behind comprehensive tax reform. But Congress has already given up on any hope of that any time soon. In fact, the major driving forces behind tax reform have already left Congress (former Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus) or are headed for the exits (retiring House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp).

The new Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden promises this will be the very last time that Congress goes through this exercise. “This is a bi-partisan product and the Chairman has made it clear this will be the final extension,” Wyden’s office said in a statement after the bill passed out of committee. “We need to create certainty now for business and families while we work on the bigger goal of comprehensive reform—which will include putting a spotlight on each provision before deciding which deserve a permanent spot in a modern tax code.”

But there’s anger on both left and right that Congress will inevitably find a way to continue these tax breaks, as it’s done so many times before, despite Congress’ seeming inability to get anything else done.

The Club for Growth has vowed to defeat the legislation, denouncing it as an “annual special-interest orgy” and lobbying lawmakers to vote it down. “Many tax extenders are government spending disguised as tax breaks, such as a three-year depreciation for racehorses,” the group’s president Chris Chocola wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Liberal activists are also angry about the giveaways. “It is also troubling how quickly senators appear to be able to work out a deal on tax extenders that are unpaid for and largely benefit corporations while spending months crafting an emergency unemployment benefits package that is paid for by cutting other spending,” Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness.
18  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Louisiana Lawmakers Refuse To Repeal State Law Banning Oral Sex on: April 16, 2014, 04:27:20 PM

The Louisiana House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly — 27–67 — to retain a law banning “crimes against nature,” including oral sex and all forms of same-sex sexual contact. The law has been unenforceable for over ten years, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws criminalizing consensual private sexual behavior are unconstitutional. The 67 lawmakers who opposed the repeal thus violated their oath of office, in which they swore to support the Constitution of the United States.
Repeal of the unconstitutional law was opposed by the Louisiana Family Forum, a state affiliate of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. In a letter to lawmakers, the group argued that “Louisiana’s anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral.” The Louisiana Family Forum also alleged that the law was essential to protect children from sodomy, even though several other laws account for such protections.
The group also claimed that the law was necessary for punishing crimes against nature in public places. The law, however, was still being used as of last year to entrap gay men who consented in public places to have sex in private places. The Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office sent undercover officers to Manchac Park, a well known “cruising” area, but arrested the men for simply agreeing to go somewhere else to have sex. The Sheriff’s office defended its sting operation by referring back to the unconstitutional law that is still on the books. Once the department was informed that the law was not valid, it apologized for its entrapment tactics. Incidentally, the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association refused to take a stance on the repeal.
As Joe.My.God. points out, though Louisiana’s unenforceable ban on oral sex and same-sex relations will remain on the books, necrophilia — sex with dead people — may remain legal there.
19  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: benghazi benghazi benghazi on: April 16, 2014, 11:03:46 AM
Repub, Dem, they are all politicians, issues to divide the masses into believing one side or the other is for them. In reality the "ruling class" is for itself and only pretends to care come election time.

so its basically this:

20  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: "GWB was harder on corporate crimes than Obama is" on: April 16, 2014, 09:39:36 AM
False - its GWB's fault Obama is not tougher.   Wink, its OB's fault OB is not tougher
21  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: "GWB was harder on corporate crimes than Obama is" on: April 16, 2014, 07:57:24 AM
Its Obama's fault GWB wasn't hard enough
22  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: benghazi benghazi benghazi on: April 16, 2014, 07:56:02 AM
Obama Admn smears itself by the cast of frauds thugs criminals leeches locusts etc that make it up 

This comment taken in the context of this discussion is creepy weird dude.
23  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: benghazi benghazi benghazi on: April 16, 2014, 07:55:10 AM
All they do is point the finger at someone else to divert attention from all the bullshit they are doing.

Congress: Hey look over there
Public: huh what I don't see anything
Congress: (Picks public's pocket) oh it was nothing

I completely agree.  But what i am saying is that isn't senseless to not smear the administration if you can if you are repub?  Wouldn't proving or ruling Bengazi as massive cover up by the OB admin be very very advantages for all repubs?  If so then, wouldn't they do and try at every opportunity in this Benghazi thing try and prove wrong doing?  And if a Repub on the investigative committee who is privy to more intel than anyone, doesn't see anything, chances are fairly certain that because he a repub there really isn't anything that can be proved?
24  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: benghazi benghazi benghazi on: April 16, 2014, 07:15:24 AM
What, because he's Republican I'm supposed to take his word? Rep, Dem they are all equally worthless.

are you saying republicans dont want to smear the Obama Administration?
25  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: USMC MARSOC vs US Army Special Forces Rap Battle on: April 15, 2014, 08:05:38 PM
Any thing negative about this is Obama's fault.   Cheesy
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 780
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!