ClovingWestbrook
Banned
If it had passed in the Senate there would be much more pressure for the House to pass it and for Boehner to once again allow the Dems be the majority vote.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
If it had passed in the Senate there would be much more pressure for the House to pass it and for Boehner to once again allow the Dems be the majority vote.
jamesinclair
Banned
Someone had to know who's winning the job lottery. Fuck me if it's Austin
Aaron Strife
Banned
No it'll once again be too soon to debate anything according to the gun lobby and no one else, which will be enough for the politicians whose votes matter.
Well, I don't want that to happen. I would hope ignoring the wish of 9/10 of Americans would be enough to get them to lose their seats.
PhoenixDark
Banned
If it passed only due to the filibuster being nuked Boehner would have no reason to bring it to the floor. Republicans would raise hell, complain about an "unprecedented takeover" among other things...and table the bill. Now, if this bill had passed tonight with 60 votes than sure, I'd agree with you.
There would be far more political risk for him if he brought the bill to the floor (after a filibuster nuke) than if he didn't.
zero shift
Banned
So reading this if say Japan stands at 34%, this means that 34% of my income is determined by the income of my parent that is s primary income earner. So if I end up making $66,000, a little more than $22,000 of that is solely due to my primary income earning parent. Is this correct?
Aaron Strife
Banned
PD was right, Obama sure fumbled this one up. Thank goodness Reid was willing to drop the assault weapons ban, otherwise they wouldn't have passed anything!
Yes, the house every 2 years and the senate every 6.
We choose not to though, I'm sure we had good reasons.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wonder what percentage of people are watching this and thinking "so when are we going to see any passion about creating jobs?"
Angry Fork
Member
What do you think is the best kind of legislative system in the world? A proper mix of democracy + getting shit done. Obviously China and Saudi Arabia can get things done best but that isn't ideal if it's for bad goals.
I have no idea, but I was hoping the Arab spring will bring some new ideas instead of copy-pasting existing models (for the most part).
I really think we need some experimentations, these things are amazingly hard to get right.
I also have long terms hopes for China, I don't think it had reached its final form of goverment, and as long as they stick to their seek truth from fact creed, they'll continue to move in the right direction (and I think they have, I honestly don't know how anyone could look at what the CPC was able to achieved in China in the last 30 years and say that as a whole, a parlimentary system would've been better for the people of China, but I digress).
Edit: but to be less philosophical for a minute, I think public campaign finance will fix a whole mess of things in this country and it should definitely be our first priority.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
My brother just argued for the 60 vote rule because "I'd rather it stay like this because the government doesn't work"
I mean, come on.
I mean, come on.
We also need to fire HR and bring in someone else at that position.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I need to cool off in here for a bit. I'm getting pretty heated in the gun bill thread.
The other day, my mom's friend said that he supports a ban on assault weapons, but would vote against because he "doesn't want to give the government any power."
I've heard that argument before, my eyes rolled out of my head.
Just need to ask, did you lose another avatar bet?
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Same here and on Facebook. My brother also claimed the low everyman won with the bill getting defeated (and ignored the 90% support). Logout time.
My father and brother are like this and it is so hard to a) take them seriously and b) not call them fucking stupid for supporting the party that causes this.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Only 4% of the country believes guns/gun control are the most pressing issue facing the nation.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/f...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics
This isn't going to change until pro gun control people start voting based on which candidate's views on guns appeals to them. That's never been the case in this country, in fact it's been the exact opposite: hardcore gun rights advocates do indeed often vote entirely based on the gun views of candidates. So I wouldn't expect anything to pass anytime soon.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/f...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics
This isn't going to change until pro gun control people start voting based on which candidate's views on guns appeals to them. That's never been the case in this country, in fact it's been the exact opposite: hardcore gun rights advocates do indeed often vote entirely based on the gun views of candidates. So I wouldn't expect anything to pass anytime soon.
No Diablos gave it to me.
This is half true. Yeah, most people who are pro- gun control don't care very much about gun control, and that matters. But motivated voters on the other side of the issue are much less important than all the money on the other side of the issue (your 4% number includes the one-issue gun nuts). All the money on the other side of the issue is in part devoted to preventing the formation of a mass movement for gun control. And political ads funded with NRA money often have nothing to do with guns, but help elect pro-NRA politicians.
This is fundamentally a campaign finance issue. No one has a big financial interest in gun control, so nothing gets done.
perfectchaos007
Member
I saw some highlights of todays vote, and one republican senator voted "no" because he felt "This legislation would be the first step in the erosion of the 2nd amendment."
Just as I suspected, even though the majority may be in favor of background checks, they are more concerned about the potential of this being a slippery slope into eliminating guns altogether.
Just as I suspected, even though the majority may be in favor of background checks, they are more concerned about the potential of this being a slippery slope into eliminating guns altogether.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Reid voted against this bill.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Procedural.
Shoot me now, it should be easy since you don't need a background check to get a gun.
Come on man, that ain't funny.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Eh, can't really knock McConnell for gloating. Reid's a pussy and all of Congress knows it.
And this is coming from someone who hates McConnell.
And this is coming from someone who hates McConnell.
Man, fuck him. I want to make turtle soup.
zero shift
Banned
Nobody?
So reading this if say Japan stands at 34%, this means that 34% of my income is determined by the income of my parent that is s primary income earner. So if I end up making $66,000, a little more than $22,000 of that is solely due to my primary income earning parent. Is this correct?
Not sure if it's been mentioned but the vote that brought down the background checks, among other issues, wasn't a cloture vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-amendments-need-60-votes-to-pass-but-why/
Yes, semantics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gun-amendments-need-60-votes-to-pass-but-why/
Yes, semantics.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Remember, guns don't kill people, voting kills people.
Nobody?
Bearing in mind that I've never heard the term before and only googled it ten minutes ago, that's not quite true.
Intergenerational income/earnings elasticity is apparently "a statistical correlation between parent’s and children’s economic standings". You calculate it by saying that the income of a child (once grown) is a function of the income of their primary breadwinner parent and finding the best-fit parameters for ln(I_child) = A + B*ln(I_adult). B is the intergenerational income elasticity.
For example, for parental incomes of [1 2 3 4 5] and child incomes of [2 3 4 5 6], I get an elasticity of .68. If I flip that around so that the child incomes are lower than the parent incomes I get an elasticity of 1.46, so it doesn't even have to be between 0 and 1, which guarantees that this can't be interpreted as "what percentage of your income is due to your parents".
What that .68 means is that the percentage difference between two children is on average (for some sense of 'average') .68 times the percentage difference between their parents. So the second child makes 50% more than the first child while the second parent makes 100% more than the first parent (children's difference is .5 times parents' difference). The fifth child makes 20% more than the fourth child while the fifth parent makes 25% more than the fourth parent (children's difference is .8 times the parents' difference). This elasticity is a measure of how far apart children are relative to how far apart their parents were, all relative to the overall size of the economy that each was earning in. Put another way, it says "if my parents had made X% more money, I would on average be making B*X% more money".
So, to be clear, an elasticity of .5 means that, on average, if your dad made twice as much money as my dad, you ought to be making 50% more money than me.
It's also only as good as the model used to generate it (I've left out some corrections used to adjust for age differences, for example), and it's an on-average kind of statistic such that there will be lots of pairs of children who end up closer together or farther apart than their parents' positions would suggest. You can even see from my example that it could be wrong for particular income pairs even in an on-average sense - it's an average of average differences, kind of.
RoninChaos
Member
What did she do?
zero shift
Banned
Thanks. Im still a bt confused by it. not sure how much faith. Should put into it. Imreally want to find data on how likely is for a poor kid to rise to middle class and a middle class to rich and etc.
I'm not going to lie but learning further about how Vietnamese Americans and Korean Americans that were refugees who worked their way up to middle class (or more) has possibly made me more conservative.
Aaron Strife
Banned
She responded to someone saying "it would take the death of these senators' own children to make them consider gun control" with "I hope it's Meghan McCain"
RoninChaos
Member
So I just listened to Limbaugh and Rand Paul. That prop comment was really disgusting. REALLY disgusting.
I think that for that you're going to want something that isn't trying to measure an expectation value.
Something like this, although it's for the UK:
from: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/intergenerationalmobility.pdf
Also note that this will probably overestimate overall mobility since there's substantial noise in year-to-year earnings for some people.
zero shift
Banned
I found what I was looking for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all
That's odd.....well here's the link to the pic. Essentially the thin purplish line is America and the fate gray line is Denmark. Everything is divided amongst the five quintiles.
Wait, Ann Coulter is actually in favor of gun control and directed her vileness towards republicans? (not surprised by the vileness at all)
bodyofanamerican
Member
No, just her and Meghan McCain have had a bit of a public back and forth lately.
I will never understand people who say we must protect our gun rights! Look at violent video games and movies! Censor them!
Freedom of speech is infinitely more important than gun rights. I'd say gun rights is the least important clause since a gun is just a flippin object. Everyone has the right to own a Nintendo!
- Status