zeke5123a
13d ago
The world has gotten in one part more complex but in another smaller. The Internet has homogenized the world turning foreign places into America lite.
Diversity may not be our strength but it added a richness (ie you could see how different people live). That is now lacking.
zeke5123a
13d ago
Or look at the Twitter - Biden laptop scandal. The IC spent months “prebunking” a story they knew was true so when it came out social media would take it down. We know because Musk bought Twitter.
zeke5123a
14d ago
Is this true in the real sense? How much of Obama’s deportations were at the border?
zeke5123a
15d ago
If one wanted to be catty like you, one could point out that we have an emotional absurd response asserting a position specifically refuted by OP.
zeke5123a
22d ago
I think you are making a bad distinction. What someone would be charged with is somewhat orthogonal to whether a person has reasonable fear of material harm to limb or life.
And honestly crim law is a mess in that the same action can result in wildly different outcomes (eg Persons A and B can shoot C and D respectively. C could live but D dies. It isn’t obvious that A deserves a lesser sentence compared to B). Why demand consistency between self defense claims and how someone would be charged?
zeke5123a
23d ago
No, the question for self defense is not whether you are perfectly proportional with your defense but whether you have a reasonable belief your attacker may seriously harm or potentially kill you. Once you do that, you ca. use lethal force while the threat remains.
zeke5123a
24d ago
And both were silly. Trump isn’t dumb but he also isn’t playing 5D chess.
zeke5123a
25d ago
Re MQD I wouldn’t phrase it that way. Instead, the rule is that Congress does not hide elephants in molehills. That is, there needs to be clear intent Congress was giving the president the power to do X; an open ended grant is generally not clear intent. ACB had a concurring opinion that explained it well.
zeke5123a
25d ago
But is he? Again some of your evidence for “increasing the power of the executive” is not passing a budget. That hasn’t happened in this century. If so, why do we think Trump is increasing the executive power?
zeke5123a
25d ago
Seems like a really shitty coup when the opponents can simply undercut the whole thing by voting with the majority to continue to fund government at pre-existing levels. Is your argument that Trump is tricking the Democrats? Maybe everything is going according to how Darth Trump has foreseen.
Or maybe your theory is wrong. I’m going with that one.
I would add some of your other arguments (eg recession) prove that Trump is in fact using Congress. Or your argument that failing to prepare a budget seems odious until you realize there hasn’t been a budget in the 21st century.
In short, I don’t think your argument holds water.
zeke5123a
26d ago
No—given that I gave a prime example of what I consider real insurance. It isn’t the only one (eg home insurance). I also explained the key difference
zeke5123a
26d ago
And Luigi would be confusing health insurance (a weird chimera) with real insurance. Take life insurance. Premiums aren’t that expensive. But they help protect a family from an unexpected death. That is, both the insured and insurer are better off. That is, the insured are trading off EV for downside protection (which makes sense giving diminishing marginal returns) while insurer is making the EV positive play and provided there isn’t system bias should come out ahead.
zeke5123a
26d ago
Yes you’ve distinguished insurance (ie something that makes economic sense for both the insured and the insurer) with a government subsidy (ie something that on net does not make economic sense).
If the social safety net story actually made people take more risky bets that on balance produced materially higher returns, why couldn’t private insurance cover it?
zeke5123a
27d ago
Well fed and state tax free. If you are in highest bracket basically double the yield
zeke5123a
27d ago
The fiscal multiplier is a highly controversial hard to prove theory.
But yes there is no one literally breaking glass. But the question is whether dollars are flowing to their highest and best use. Taking from people who’ve proven themselves to be generally productive and giving the money to people who appear unproductive argues that it is less likely the money is being spent on its highest and best use (and therefore likely regards economic growth). Moreover there is deadweight loss on tax and transfer.
Of course, maybe the distributive effect is worth the economic slowdown but that’s different from saying tax and transfer somehow accelerates economic growth.
zeke5123a
27d ago
Sure but the other poster was suggesting that the government was providing a subsidy equal to the value of government cost. That is not true.
zeke5123a
27d ago
Munis can be attractive since they are tax exempt. HNW individuals should probably have a small sum in Munis
zeke5123a
27d ago
It also assumes the cost to educate is actually 18k. Instead I imagine in a lot of cases the UFT or NEA have negotiated a sweet heart deal.
I’m not sure they believe the orders are illegal. They think they are getting political currency out of #resisting and this is another way to show they are #resisting.
More options
Context Copy link