Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

I think it's true that most people mistakenly believe that crime is rising, but I'm not sure which side most benefits from that mistake.

My point was more about not really being able to make an assumption one way or another based in those numbers/graphs. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[WayneMorse]

Sherrod Brown will now be the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee when the new Congress convenes.

It would be nice the Dems actually kept control of the Senate and he was Chairman.

 

[Wilsongt]

The gift that keeps on giving:

he government funding bill colloquially called the CRomnibus that the House passed on Thursday night included a GOP-proposed change to an Obamacare program long loathed by Republicans.

A House aide confirmed to TPM that Republican staffers requested the change to the so-called risk corridor program, which is designed to keep premiums stable by making payments to insurers if they lose more money than expected in the law's first few years.

Some health policy wonks picked up on the language, but it received negligible attention compared to the campaign finance and Dodd-Frank provisions that nearly derailed the spending bill in the House on Thursday night.

The way the risk corridor program works: Insurers estimate in advance how their insurance pools will look and if in the end they're significantly better than estimated, they pay money into the program; if they're significantly worse than estimated, they are paid money by the program.

The CRomnibus, which funds most of the government through the next year, prohibits the Health and Human Services Department from transferring funds from other sources to fund the program. The practical impact, one policy expert told TPM, is that HHS can therefore only use money brought into the program to make payouts, effectively making it revenue neutral.

"As far as anyone can tell, that's what's going on," Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University who is supportive of the law, told TPM. In theory, if the program doesn't bring in enough money to make its payouts, that could mean insurers will have to -- at the very least -- wait a year before getting their money. In turn, that could have a negative impact on 2016 premiums if insurers have to take a loss in the meantime.

"I think it's important, but I don't think it's the end of the world," Jost said, explaining that major insurers should have the bandwidth to absorb any adverse effects. But smaller insurers might be relying on the risk corridor program, along with the law's reinsurance and risk adjustment programs that are also designed to keep prices stable in the law's early years, to remain solvent.

But any negative effects on insurance companies -- and then, by extension, Obamacare -- are a policy win for Republicans, who have derided risk corridors as a taxpayer-funded bailouts. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed a bill last year to repeal the program entirely.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobbying group, told TPM that they were aware of the change and had concerns about it. An official statement alluded to the potential negative effects on premiums.

"American budgets are already strained by health care costs, and this change will lead to higher premiums for consumers and make it more difficult to achieve affordability," Clare Krusing, an AHIP spokesperson, said. "Our focus should be on changes to the law that will lower costs -- like repealing the health insurance tax -- not those that drive premiums higher."

The Senate is expected to take up the CRomnibus, which is supported by the White House and Senate Democratic leadership, on Friday or Monday. The White House didn't immediately respond to TPM's request for comment about the risk corridor provision.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Scalia is such a good catholic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-torture-constitution

 

[thefro]

Scalia is such a good catholic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-torture-constitution

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/torture/torture-is-a-moral-issue.cfm

Good catch... would he group Catholic bishops in with the rest of his "self-righteous" liberals?

Seriously, the Catholic Church has been as clear on this as they've been about abortion.

 

[thepotatoman]

In other news, the Cromnibus bill is also blocking legalized Marijuana in Washington, D.C. after it passed with like 70% of the vote

Home rule is the best

At what point do we just make it our 51st state? It's already higher populated than Vermont and Wyoming.

Sucks how undemocratic it is to keep it run like it's still the 18th century.

 

[jamesinclair]

So the second contract for the HSR project in CA was awarded

The winning bid came out to $1,234,567,890

 

[FyreWulff]

So the second contract for the HSR project in CA was awarded

The winning bid came out to $1,234,567,890

"oh shit, that bid actually held"

 

[B-Dubs]

So the second contract for the HSR project in CA was awarded

The winning bid came out to $1,234,567,890

That's a lot of fucking commas...

 

[Metaphoreus]

Scalia is such a good catholic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalia-torture-constitution

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/torture/torture-is-a-moral-issue.cfm

Good catch... would he group Catholic bishops in with the rest of his "self-righteous" liberals?

Seriously, the Catholic Church has been as clear on this as they've been about abortion.

Wait, now we're hating on Scalia because he isn't imposing his morals on the nation?

And I wasn't aware the Church had adopted a position on whether torture violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wait, now we're hating on Scalia because he isn't imposing his morals on the nation?

And I wasn't aware the Church had adopted a position on whether torture violates the U.S. Constitution.

No I'm just mocking him for being a asshole. And torture is prohibited by the constitution. It even has its own amendment

 

[Metaphoreus]

No I'm just mocking him for being a asshole. And torture is prohibited by the constitution. It even has its own amendment

I hope this isn't about the Eighth Amendment.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I hope this isn't about the Eighth Amendment.

It is. Your argument is insane

 

[FyreWulff]

I hope this isn't about the Eighth Amendment.

It is punishment.

You can get a shorter sentence for time in jail already, so our legal system already recognizes that punishment can occur even before someone is officially sentenced.

It's very clear that the prisoner is being held, and being subjected to punishments for not cooperating (according to the belief of their captors). Also, nobody except those that only look at narrow definitions of words and not the intent would ever try to float an idea that the 8th amendment and basic decency doesn't apply.

 

[Poodlestrike]

At what point do we just make it our 51st state? It's already higher populated than Vermont and Wyoming.

Sucks how undemocratic it is to keep it run like it's still the 18th century.

Right after Puerto Rico, probably.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It is. Your argument is insane

My argument is correct.

It is punishment.

. . .

Also, nobody except those that only look at narrow definitions of words and not the intent would ever try to float an idea that the 8th amendment and basic decency doesn't apply.

It can be punishment. But when used to extract information, rather than to punish, it is no more "punishment" than repeating the question.

I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. The word "punishments," as used in the 8th Amendment, is not secretly hiding the phrase "and other shit" under its penumbra. You'd have to ignore the plain language of the Amendment to try to stretch it to cover non-punitive government conduct.

(And, like I point out in the linked thread, there's no need to do so. The Constitutional argument against torture-as-other-than-punishment is better founded in the Due Process Clause, the prohibition on compelled speech, or the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.)

 

[thepotatoman]

I hope this isn't about the Eighth Amendment.

Wow, you really think torture isn't a form of punishment, simply because there might be one advantage which isn't strictly related to whatever your definition of punishment is?

I mean, jail isn't just to punish, but also to prohibit people from continuing to do bad things. So can you incorporate lifelong sentences for something like shoplifting to ensure that that person can never shop lift again? I mean, that's not a punishment, just something the governments doing for the benefit of society and it would still satisfy due process and equal protection, right?

Punishments are a deterrence. Torture deters people from withholding information, in hopes that people will give information. Just like how jail deters people from stealing. Both of those are goals that aren't really about justice or revenge, but they're still clearly punishments. When you punish a child, are you doing it as a matter of justice, or to make sure they learn not to do that again?

The fact that the punishment of torture is given without due process is also a problem.

 

[B-Dubs]

My argument is correct.

Maybe if you're a crazy person. The whole point of torture is that it's a punishment for not cooperating that will continue until you do.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Wow, you really think torture isn't a form of punishment, simply because there might be one advantage which isn't strictly related to punishment?

No, I think torture-inflicted-for-a-purpose-other-than-punishment is not punishment. Torture-inflicted-at-least-in-part-as-punishment is punishment. It doesn't matter to me that there may be other purposes for a given instance of torture; what matters is only whether punishment is one of the purposes for that instance of torture. And I don't think you can say that torture is always inflicted at least in part as punishment. (And note that this argument is my own, not based on the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence. Under that jurisprudence, it becomes even more clear that all pre-conviction mistreatments by the government are outside the purview of the Eighth Amendment.)

 

[pigeon]

Let's just call it an unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[jamesinclair]

That's a lot of fucking commas...

It came way under expected, so that's good

 

[speculawyer]

In other news, the Cromnibus bill is also blocking legalized Marijuana in Washington, D.C. after it passed with like 70% of the vote

Home rule is the best

Yeah, that is the 'small government', 'less regulations', and 'local control' GOP for you. Stick to those principles.

 

[thepotatoman]

No, I think torture-inflicted-for-a-purpose-other-than-punishment is not punishment. Torture-inflicted-at-least-in-part-as-punishment is punishment. It doesn't matter to me that there may be other purposes for a given instance of torture; what matters is only whether punishment is one of those purposes. And I don't think you can say that torture is always inflicted at least in part as punishment. (And note that this argument is my own, not based on the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence. Under that jurisprudence, it becomes even more clear that all pre-conviction mistreatments by the government are outside the purview of the Eighth Amendment.)

Don't ignore the rest of my post.

I made it pretty freaking clear why torture to gain information is punishment. This is always the case. It is punishment for failing to give information in the same way jail is used as punishment for failing to pay taxes. The reasons why we have those punishments is solely to get people to pay their taxes.

Your definition of punishment can only work if punishment is a benefit in itself apart from any other benefit, but that does not fit with reality. I see punishment is only a tool to get benefits outside of the punishment itself and that's typically how and why laws are written.

If you want your argument to stand up in court, give me a reasonable test that allows punishment to be in effect when jailing someone for not paying taxes, but for it not to be in effect when you torture someone for not giving up information.

And don't deflect with a due process claim, because that's not the argument you're making when you're talking about the definition of punishment. We can talk about due process after this issue is finished.

 

[WayneMorse]

So with energy prices dropping like a stone and more money in people's pockets to spend on dumb shit do you think we'll see bigger drops in unemployment in 2015?

 

[HyperionX]

So with energy prices dropping like a stone and more money in people's pockets to spend on dumb shit do you think we'll see bigger drops in unemployment in 2015?

Economy has been growing like gangbusters these last 2 quarters. If this keeps up we my see legit full employment come end of next year.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Don't ignore the rest of my post.

I ignored the rest of your post because it's confused. That criminal punishments serve multiple penological interests doesn't transform every government action serving such interests into a criminal punishment. So, for instance, criminal punishments are imposed (at least in part) to deter future crimes; but this doesn't make DARE a criminal punishment because it serves the same purpose. And the fact that torturing someone to get information is not (necessarily) punishment for failing to earlier provide that information does not mean that a life sentence for theft is not a punishment for theft.

As I said in the other thread, an interrogator may skip straight to torture, believing it the best means available of obtaining information, and having no cause to inflict punishment on the person to be tortured. This is because, as I also said in the other thread, "torture" and "punishment" are not synonyms.

If you want a judicially manageable standard, I suggest we ignore my own thoughts on the 8th Amendment and discuss the standard that courts actually use: the 8th Amendment speaks exclusively to the treatment of those convicted of crimes, and to nothing else.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/w...to-sanctions-iran-awaits-a-business-boom.html

Just imagine we could have a serious economic and political ally in the Middle East if we struck the deal with Iran, and a flood of Western capital and businesses will surely cause the country to liberalize their laws on stuff like women's and gay rights.

This is something everyone should support but wait Congress wants nothing short of a full invasion so we're fucked.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I ignored the rest of your post because it's confused. That criminal punishments serve multiple penological interests doesn't transform every government action serving such interests into a criminal punishment. So, for instance, criminal punishments are imposed (at least in part) to deter future crimes; but this doesn't make DARE a criminal punishment because it serves the same purpose. And the fact that torturing someone to get information is not (necessarily) punishment for failing to earlier provide that information does not mean that a life sentence for theft is not a punishment for theft.

As I said in the other thread, an interrogator may skip straight to torture, believing it the best means available of obtaining information, and having no cause to inflict punishment on the person to be tortured. This is because, as I also said in the other thread, "torture" and "punishment" are not synonyms.

If you want a judicially manageable standard, I suggest we ignore my own thoughts on the 8th Amendment and discuss the standard that courts actually use: the 8th Amendment speaks exclusively to the treatment of those convicted of crimes, and to nothing else.

The courts are wrong. The 13th amendment has the

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

exemption. The 8th doesn't. The 8th also prohibits excessive bail, which is not for those convicted of crimes and those presumed innocent.

Torture of terrorists is unconstiutional, nevermind the prohibition against suspending habeus corpus and due process

 

[HylianTom]

So with energy prices dropping like a stone and more money in people's pockets to spend on dumb shit do you think we'll see bigger drops in unemployment in 2015?

We're going to see a cycle for the foreseeable future:
- oil prices drop, which means..
- economic activity increases, which means..
- demand for oil increases, which means..
- oil prices jump, which means..
- economic activity decreases, and so on..

I'm guessing that 2015 should be pretty good for many economic indicators.

This is one of my question marks for 2016: Bill Clinton saw the dot com bubble beginning to pop, George W saw the banking meltdown.. what will we see at the end of Obama's term?

 

[Metaphoreus]

[/B]
The courts are wrong. The 13th amendment has the
exemption. The 8th doesn't. The 8th also prohibits excessive bail, which is not for those convicted of crimes and those presumed innocent.

Torture of terrorists is unconstiutional, nevermind the prohibition against suspending habeus corpus and due process

Obviously the 8th Amendment doesn't include an exception akin to the one contained in the 13th. That exception would swallow the rule. As for the clause regarding excessive bail, the addition of that clause would be unnecessary if the "punishments" referred to in the 8th Amendment included pre-conviction treatment, don't you think?

Let me clarify, though, that I think Scalia is wrong to the extent he claims torture is constitutional. I think it's forbidden by one of the other clauses I've mentioned, and I hope he would come to agree with that view in an appropriate case. But I don't much trust conservative judges on matters of criminal law.

 

[Don Chalupa]

We're going to see a cycle for the foreseeable future:
- oil prices drop, which means..
- economic activity increases, which means..
- demand for oil increases, which means..
- oil prices jump, which means..
- economic activity decreases, and so on..

I'm guessing that 2015 should be pretty good for many economic indicators.

This is one of my question marks for 2016: Bill Clinton saw the dot com bubble beginning to pop, George W saw the banking meltdown.. what will we see at the end of Obama's term?

Errrrr... the opposite is actually happening due to the drop in oil prices, hence the markets are crashing at the worst rate in 3 years. A few hundred bucks extra per year in gas savings, versus the entire shale boom industry collapsing due to debt promoted by QE... and there goes the artificial sense of "recovery" we have had since 2009.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Errrrr... the opposite is actually happening due to the drop in oil prices, hence the markets are crashing at the worst rate in 3 years. A few hundred bucks extra per year in gas savings, versus the entire shale boom industry collapsing due to debt promoted by QE... and there goes the artificial sense of "recovery" we have had since 2009.

Good thing we doubled down on oil instead of making a giant aggressive push towards renewables. DRILL BABY DRILL

 

[East Lake]

Errrrr... the opposite is actually happening due to the drop in oil prices, hence the markets are crashing at the worst rate in 3 years. A few hundred bucks extra per year in gas savings, versus the entire shale boom industry collapsing due to debt promoted by QE... and there goes the artificial sense of "recovery" we have had since 2009.

I don't see the big problem to be honest. More money for everyone who doesn't have assets tied up in oil markets.

 

[HylianTom]

Errrrr... the opposite is actually happening due to the drop in oil prices, hence the markets are crashing at the worst rate in 3 years. A few hundred bucks extra per year in gas savings, versus the entire shale boom industry collapsing due to debt promoted by QE... and there goes the artificial sense of "recovery" we have had since 2009.

I've never bought that we've truly been recovering (consider me something of a permabull/doomer/etc), but consumer confidence appears to be temporarily moving in a positive direction, and it seems like we've learned nothing about risky lending practices (easy credit making a big comeback)(for now). The energy industry might hate the decrease in oil prices, but the average consumer is going to eat it up while it lasts.

What'll really suck is when oil demand increases and the energy industry has to play catch-up since this lull is decreasing pressure on them to continue pursuing marginal plays.

These cheap energy prices are going to give a false semblance that we're doing things correctly. When things do correct themselves and more/most people realize that this recovery is fake, it isn't going to be pretty. I won't envy the party in charge then.. but I wonder how long it'll take for that to happen.

 

[benjipwns]

Right after Puerto Rico, probably.

That's kinda on them to an extent.

I've never bought that we've truly been recovering (consider me something of a permabull/doomer/etc), but consumer confidence appears to be temporarily moving in a positive direction, and it seems like we've learned nothing about risky lending practices (easy credit making a big comeback)(for now).

It depends on how you define "recovering" I guess. We kinda just literally papered over debts.

We can't change on easy credit. The entire foundation of government and elite corporate policy since the 1920's has been based around it. Just roll it over, roll it over.

 

[benjipwns]

Life Imitates Al Gore

“I will put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox and protect them. . . . Under my plan I will put Medicare in an iron clad lockbox. . . .. I would be interested to see if [George W. Bush] would say this evening he’ll put Medicare in a lockbox. . . . I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. . . . I will keep Social Security in a lockbox. . . . I think it should stay in a lockbox.”—Al Gore, presidential debate, Oct. 3, 2000

“Most of us don’t save enough. When governments try to encourage saving, they usually enact big policies to increase the incentives. But, in Kenya, people were given a lockable metal box—a simple place to put their money. After one year, the people with metal boxes increased savings by so much that they had 66 percent more money available to pay for health emergencies. It would have taken a giant tax reform to produce a shift in behavior that large.”—David Brooks, New York Times, Dec. 12, 2014

heh

 

[East Lake]

*increased investment in preventative health products by 66% Mr. David Brooks.

 

[Chichikov]

heh

That lockbox was a dumb idea, people focus on how it was presented, but it was dumb policy and a prime example of liberals surrendering to a conservative point of view to try to gain small electoral advantages.
At least Clinton was good at playing that stupid game.

 

[Wilsongt]

Racism is totally dead, guys.

"Hang the lying Kenyan traitor!" one protester could be heard saying in the video.

"Plenty of trees in the front yard," another said. "Wouldn't be the first one hung on one of them trees."

"We've got rope," said another.

"Don't snap his neck, you pull him up watch him choke to death," someone else said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-partiers-protest-lynch-obama

 

[HylianTom]

Racism is totally dead, guys.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-partiers-protest-lynch-obama

And yet the big media outlets will stay totally fucking silent on it.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Racism is totally dead, guys.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-partiers-protest-lynch-obama

Holy shit.

Words fail me.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Racism is totally dead, guys.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-partiers-protest-lynch-obama

It's not about race!

Spoiler

It's about ethics in gaming journalism

 

[Lucky Forward]

Racism is totally dead, guys.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-partiers-protest-lynch-obama

Well, on a positive note...

The rally was reportedly only attended by about two dozen people, the site reported.

 

[Grexeno]

Well, on a positive note...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/conservatives-move-backfires-113556.html


Cruz helps dems lol

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/conservatives-move-backfires-113556.html


Cruz helps dems lol

GOP made their bed with the teapers

 

[Poodlestrike]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/conservatives-move-backfires-113556.html


Cruz helps dems lol

This is why I think that the GOP is going to crash and burn during the next 2 years. They just can't control the more radical members of their party, and stuff like this is going to keep happening to them; strategic missteps, forcing party leadership into unpopular positions, etc. The Cruz aide said that they want to make sure every senators position on executive amnesty (lol) is clear, but I really don't see that helping Republicans.

 

[FyreWulff]

Ignoring my personal opinion, it's shit poor political strategy.

He's thinking "if I can get Dems to vote on record supporting it, then my PAC buddies can run ads against them because now I made them vote on it!" and fire up their base to vote against them..

While forgetting that now he's going to make a bunch of Republicans be on record as anti-immigrant. If younger moderates want anything, they'll have to follow along.

The idiot forgot that there are some times you really should only grandstand. They're addicted to voting records to run back home with instead of actual action. The five billion Obamacare repeal votes never had a chance, their entire purpose was to grind anti-Obama vote EXP for new Republicans.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Really highlights the difference between Cruz and Warren. Cruz is just an extremist reactionary focused on stringing together a series if petty personal "victories" even if they hurt his side. Warren had gotten some praise on the right for holding firm against this shitty bill however she's not really making herself the focal point or pulling cheap stunts.

 

[speculawyer]

Errrrr... the opposite is actually happening due to the drop in oil prices, hence the markets are crashing at the worst rate in 3 years. A few hundred bucks extra per year in gas savings, versus the entire shale boom industry collapsing due to debt promoted by QE... and there goes the artificial sense of "recovery" we have had since 2009.

The major effect on the USA economy will be a good one. Cheaper gas means everyone has more money in their pocket to spend on other things. Despite all the propaganda over the past couple years, we still import close to half the oil that is run through our refineries . . . as an oil importing nation, this will benefit us overall despite the pain that will be felt in the oil fracking biz that only benefits a few states.

That said, there will be some interesting downsides that are going to play out. A lot of these frackers have been fueled by debt. So if/when some of these operations go bankrupt, they may also take down some banks & bonds funds with them. People might see some of this pain in their 401(k)s. This could hurt the 'wealth effect' wherein people tend to spend more when they see their retirement fund doing well.

Another aspect that will be very interesting will be in energy policy. All those people saying that investing in green energy is stupid and investing in fossil fuels is smart are not going to look so good now as share prices of coal companies, oil companies, oil service companies, etc. have all tumbled down. The private sector does not always win. Some players are gonna go bankrupt. The solar PV panels on my roof that I invested in are still producing healthy returns in the form of free electricity.