Litterally doing your analysis on Lottery winners is to look at NOT-U ... combine U and B and I have no idea how it isn't hoovered up by my Rentier friends as the new baseline for -not having income-
I have a handful of electric/battery tools for around the house, but I can't imagine the chainsaw tech is remotely useful for my 'property' needs... I could see it perhaps working for your suburban hedge cutter, but I can go through a full tank of gas bucking up one tree... and the power needed?
A four stroke chainsaw? Are there any? Would it have been better if there were before passing the law?
Are all the big ZT mowers exempted? I think my ZT is 4 stroke, but it's on the edge of being a small engine with separate gas/oil, so I'm not sure... but no way I'd just stop using it without a viable alternative.
The article is pretty sparse, but this law has to be loaded with exemptions, right? I mean, sure suburban homeowners could likely comply, but CA is a pretty Industrial Land-Use state.
I saved three papers from College (mostly for the professor's comments) and re-reading them is painful.
I'd say this is a solid college effort on three short texts... assume the prompt was something like, compare/contrast Nietzsche/Marx on Utopia? Myers is the wildcard... did you bring him in or was it part of the readings? (Are you channeling Myers?)
This reminds me of a MacIntyre paper where we had to show how/where Aristotle & Machiavelli differed with regards their conception of virtue.
Learned when I'd articulate in some detail (and rather colorfully -- I am a liberal arts major, after all) a business process that was not performing properly... and Management would forward up-the-chain. Not exactly getting thrown under the bus, more like being thrown on top of the bus... while Mgmt was comfortable *inside* the bus.
Now my emails read like a cryptogram "about that thing we discussed Weds, have you seen any movement from you know who or are we waiting for the other one to do the analysis of the project first?"
Oh, and always ended with "Please advise" to suggest that the other person is driving the bus.
Yes, I expect you're right... which is another reason I don't really think any of this is about 'defaulting.' Though I think #5 would be within a week or two, not a prolonged court case. I believe the court can spring into action on constitutional crises like that.
Fun thought for the day... my suspicion is that the court would rule that whichever action the president took was the constitutional one. Like a Schrodinger's SCOTUS ruling... there isn't a Constitutional position other than the one taken by the Executive at the moment the box is opened. No matter what, that is what the court would affirm.
I forget the early SCOTUS ruling that basically said it won't provide constitutional 'advice' absent a case? I think we had a write up here by Em or Burt.
Sure, they will say... we support giving you $XX in benefits... in fact if you'd vote for us we'll increase it to $XX+X in benefits becuase we won't waste on reducing bovine flatulence that the Dems put in the deal.
So vote for us and we'll give you more of what you want a less of what you don't want.
Now *that's* fiscal responsibility: spending smart money on my constituencies and not dumb money on their constituencies.
I take your point that the Republicans under Trump have demonstrated by (in-)action that they do not have a legislative agenda.
I don't mean to imply that McConnell setting them up for some sort of Grand Legislative sweep in the future. It's more simple:
The debt will be raised. Period.
1. Dems will do it via reconciliation and it impacts what that bill looks like.
*McConnell likes the trajectory on what the Debt forces Dems to do here.
2. Dems suspend filibuster, raise debt.
*McConnell pockets get-out-of-filibuster free card... gets what he wanted, which is raised debt ceiling, no default.
*Dems still have to negotiate with their caucus the size/nature of $3.5T reconciliation... no help to them on this front.
3. Dems offer something McConnell wants
*What does he want? I can't plumb the depths of his heart... but I assume he'd be happy if he forced Pelosi to hold the vote on the $1.5T infrastructure bill without the Reconciliation bill completed.
So consider that... in #3 he gets the bill he's already passed but is being held 'hostage' by the House... while simultaneously throwing the Dems into Disarray over the reconciliation package.
Because, as we all know, once Manchin/Sinema get the $1.5T infrastructure bill... the rest they are negotiating on full bellies.
Like all of us, I'm trying to keep up with the process (which I might have wrong) and guess at motives (which, at best, we only capture the surface motives) for what seems to be a pretty straight forward negotiation among multiple parties with multiple agendas and constituencies.
I understand why one team wants to turn the negotiation into a moral obligation not to default... but we aren't going to default. So multi-party negotiation it is. McConnell's going to get 'something' just not sure what Dem leadership wants to or can reasonably give.
Dem leadership would like to keep it separate, McConnell is disinclined to acquiesce.
It complicates things for the Dem agenda... which means Manchin/Sinema have more leverage and after them, McConnell... it's up to the Dem leadership *who* they'd like to grant the policy concession they will need to grant... I'd bet that going to go to Manchin/Sinema and as far as McConnell is concerned that's pulling in his direction... even if not a direct concession to his agenda.
Regarding the overton window... I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read people pointing out that Biden is executing Trump's agenda better than Trump.
Less snarky: the $1.5T is being spent in a way R's can run on... the $3.5T less so.
Now, if Trump were an actual Politician with any sort of Agenda other than aggrandizing Trump... there'd be a [Neo-]Republican plan on how to spend $3.5T. I don't think McConnell himself is a [Neo-]Republican... but my main point is that politically the [Neo-]Republican overton window is way past old notions of Republican concerns.
Sure, he understands the power of filibuster (especially as he sits in a tie) ... but as many folks here like to point out, the Senate has some, er, natural advantages for the Rs and the moment... so the prospect of narrowing the scope - esp if he can get the Dems to pull the trigger first, benefits him in the long run.
I guess I'm just surprised that folks think that this current phase of politics is going to follow precedent set by Aaron Burr; in my reading the Dems are more loath to break the glass than McConnell is to see them do it. The error, IMO, is the Dems thinking that if the shoe were on McConnell's flipper he'd hesitate to nuke the filibuster to get a $3.5T package that he thought was 'transformative' through the senate (if he could).
I'm chuckling at the idea that people think that McConnell would bind himself that way... but I understand the concern that breaking the glass is still a 'win' for McConnell... so just complicated iteration of pick-your-poison.
The obvious compromise is to adduce new legislative paths/categories such that more things are deemed procedural and hence not subject to filibuster while other things deemed 'legislative' are still filibuster eligible.
Theoretically everything is a legislative act, but we've already separated out judges and non-cabinet level appointments... all parliamentary rules are polite fictions, so the fight would be where the fiction starts and ends... but there's a way to potentially preserve the principle for legislation that isn't more than performing duties.
The Debt ceiling would still be an edge case... could argue that the creation of the law (or repealing) might be legislation but the act of updating/extending might be procedural. But as I say... a fight on the boundaries. If we want to keep the filibuster in principle for 'sweeping' legislation.
Seems a win for McConnell... basically he translates the issue two months into the future without the Dems resolving the fundamental problem at hand which seems to be there aren't anywhere near 50 votes for the $3.5T bill.
Seems McConnell's wins look like this:
* Get the bi-partisan $1.5T 'infrastructure' bill
* Scuttle or curtail the $3.5T reconciliation legislation
* Bonus force Dems to tactically nuke filibuster so he has a 'pocket nuke' for when he wants to use it later.
I bet there's a whole lot of other things McConnell might want or like to see (or frankly might trade for) that I have no idea about... but the above seems fairly straight forward.
We all know there won't be a default (or a meaningful default) ... it's pretty clear to me at this point that McConnell is just forcing the Dems to reckon with the dissention within their own caucus.
That could backfire with dissention turning into sention and comity... but I think it's a fair bet that comity arrives at a price tag significantly less than $3.5T and changes to priorities on what's in/out.
Now, two elections and 3-years from now when the Dems have everyone primaried and total alignment on priorities... well, then McConnel will be in trouble.
Cry Macho was pretty bad. The kid was dreadful, the story was dumb, the editing botched, and, I'm sad to report at 91 Eastwood acts like a 91 year old acting.
I can appreciate that he was trying to do Gran Torino reconciliation story for hispanix ... but it had none of the good young actors to carry roles and the story was just uninteresting and implausible.
On “And the Nobel for Economics Goes To…”
The baseline I've never seen addressed is the U.
Litterally doing your analysis on Lottery winners is to look at NOT-U ... combine U and B and I have no idea how it isn't hoovered up by my Rentier friends as the new baseline for -not having income-
Other than that, I'm totally on board.
On “Wednesday Writs: Mowing Through Laws That Blow Edition”
I have a handful of electric/battery tools for around the house, but I can't imagine the chainsaw tech is remotely useful for my 'property' needs... I could see it perhaps working for your suburban hedge cutter, but I can go through a full tank of gas bucking up one tree... and the power needed?
A four stroke chainsaw? Are there any? Would it have been better if there were before passing the law?
Are all the big ZT mowers exempted? I think my ZT is 4 stroke, but it's on the edge of being a small engine with separate gas/oil, so I'm not sure... but no way I'd just stop using it without a viable alternative.
The article is pretty sparse, but this law has to be loaded with exemptions, right? I mean, sure suburban homeowners could likely comply, but CA is a pretty Industrial Land-Use state.
On “Fall Of The House of Gruden”
I also. I will only use ascii smiley faces, never emojis.
"
Heh, it's the opposite for me... I feel like an English teacher with my tech team.
"Are you proud enough of this response for me to forward it to the customer? Will it bring joy and delight them?"
Romani eunt domus doesn't cut it.
"
I know, I'd blow myself up for half that.
(Pretty sure this is a negotiated exit... he may not get all $10M, but I'm pretty confident he's getting a good pay off to exit).
On “Obsolete Philosophy Kickoff: Marx vs Nietzsche”
He didn't disappear, he won... which is why we don't see him. What's to see?
"
Now I'm wondering if that sort of dialogue book is still being done? Seems almost wistful.
I can imagine Myers putting out his new Revised 2021 Edition: Bad Men saying Bad things Badly.
"
"(If I recall correctly, I got a B on this.)"
Because you didn't stick the landing on deistic personalism in the conclusion. :-)
"
Bravest post ever.
I saved three papers from College (mostly for the professor's comments) and re-reading them is painful.
I'd say this is a solid college effort on three short texts... assume the prompt was something like, compare/contrast Nietzsche/Marx on Utopia? Myers is the wildcard... did you bring him in or was it part of the readings? (Are you channeling Myers?)
This reminds me of a MacIntyre paper where we had to show how/where Aristotle & Machiavelli differed with regards their conception of virtue.
On “Fall Of The House of Gruden”
I think I've finally mastered email.
Learned when I'd articulate in some detail (and rather colorfully -- I am a liberal arts major, after all) a business process that was not performing properly... and Management would forward up-the-chain. Not exactly getting thrown under the bus, more like being thrown on top of the bus... while Mgmt was comfortable *inside* the bus.
Now my emails read like a cryptogram "about that thing we discussed Weds, have you seen any movement from you know who or are we waiting for the other one to do the analysis of the project first?"
Oh, and always ended with "Please advise" to suggest that the other person is driving the bus.
Now Teams? My only response is 'Who dis, fed'
"
I know, I almost called him a Manfred once.
On “Video: CNN Interviews Witness To China’s Abuse of Uyghurs And Other Detainees”
When the revolution comes, we destined for the firing squads, but different firing squads.
The syntax is shared such that the semantic differences are known.
"
"(Jaybird and Marchmaine post the most comments here that I’d agree with, and they’re nobody’s idea of mainstream conservatives.)"
1. God bless you, sir.
2. We're doomed.
On “Democrats Should Raise The Debt Ceiling Now”
Yes, I expect you're right... which is another reason I don't really think any of this is about 'defaulting.' Though I think #5 would be within a week or two, not a prolonged court case. I believe the court can spring into action on constitutional crises like that.
Fun thought for the day... my suspicion is that the court would rule that whichever action the president took was the constitutional one. Like a Schrodinger's SCOTUS ruling... there isn't a Constitutional position other than the one taken by the Executive at the moment the box is opened. No matter what, that is what the court would affirm.
"
Ok, I'm gamed out on this topic... left it all on the field in the previous thread.
You boys have fun storming the castle.
"
Just have to default to find out!
I forget the early SCOTUS ruling that basically said it won't provide constitutional 'advice' absent a case? I think we had a write up here by Em or Burt.
On “The Dance Of The Debt Limit Deadline, Continued”
Heh... Electoral Reform 2025.
C'mon folks... what's the case today isn't deterministically the case tomorrow.
"
Sure, they will say... we support giving you $XX in benefits... in fact if you'd vote for us we'll increase it to $XX+X in benefits becuase we won't waste on reducing bovine flatulence that the Dems put in the deal.
So vote for us and we'll give you more of what you want a less of what you don't want.
Now *that's* fiscal responsibility: spending smart money on my constituencies and not dumb money on their constituencies.
"
I take your point that the Republicans under Trump have demonstrated by (in-)action that they do not have a legislative agenda.
I don't mean to imply that McConnell setting them up for some sort of Grand Legislative sweep in the future. It's more simple:
The debt will be raised. Period.
1. Dems will do it via reconciliation and it impacts what that bill looks like.
*McConnell likes the trajectory on what the Debt forces Dems to do here.
2. Dems suspend filibuster, raise debt.
*McConnell pockets get-out-of-filibuster free card... gets what he wanted, which is raised debt ceiling, no default.
*Dems still have to negotiate with their caucus the size/nature of $3.5T reconciliation... no help to them on this front.
3. Dems offer something McConnell wants
*What does he want? I can't plumb the depths of his heart... but I assume he'd be happy if he forced Pelosi to hold the vote on the $1.5T infrastructure bill without the Reconciliation bill completed.
So consider that... in #3 he gets the bill he's already passed but is being held 'hostage' by the House... while simultaneously throwing the Dems into Disarray over the reconciliation package.
Because, as we all know, once Manchin/Sinema get the $1.5T infrastructure bill... the rest they are negotiating on full bellies.
Like all of us, I'm trying to keep up with the process (which I might have wrong) and guess at motives (which, at best, we only capture the surface motives) for what seems to be a pretty straight forward negotiation among multiple parties with multiple agendas and constituencies.
I understand why one team wants to turn the negotiation into a moral obligation not to default... but we aren't going to default. So multi-party negotiation it is. McConnell's going to get 'something' just not sure what Dem leadership wants to or can reasonably give.
"
I admit that I can easily lose the procedural plot when it comes to how the sausage is made, but it is my understanding that the $3.5T reconciliation bill is the 'reconciliation' that people are referring to when discussing by-passing the filibuster to raise the debt limit.
Dem leadership would like to keep it separate, McConnell is disinclined to acquiesce.
It complicates things for the Dem agenda... which means Manchin/Sinema have more leverage and after them, McConnell... it's up to the Dem leadership *who* they'd like to grant the policy concession they will need to grant... I'd bet that going to go to Manchin/Sinema and as far as McConnell is concerned that's pulling in his direction... even if not a direct concession to his agenda.
Regarding the overton window... I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read people pointing out that Biden is executing Trump's agenda better than Trump.
Less snarky: the $1.5T is being spent in a way R's can run on... the $3.5T less so.
Now, if Trump were an actual Politician with any sort of Agenda other than aggrandizing Trump... there'd be a [Neo-]Republican plan on how to spend $3.5T. I don't think McConnell himself is a [Neo-]Republican... but my main point is that politically the [Neo-]Republican overton window is way past old notions of Republican concerns.
"
Sure, he understands the power of filibuster (especially as he sits in a tie) ... but as many folks here like to point out, the Senate has some, er, natural advantages for the Rs and the moment... so the prospect of narrowing the scope - esp if he can get the Dems to pull the trigger first, benefits him in the long run.
I guess I'm just surprised that folks think that this current phase of politics is going to follow precedent set by Aaron Burr; in my reading the Dems are more loath to break the glass than McConnell is to see them do it. The error, IMO, is the Dems thinking that if the shoe were on McConnell's flipper he'd hesitate to nuke the filibuster to get a $3.5T package that he thought was 'transformative' through the senate (if he could).
I'm chuckling at the idea that people think that McConnell would bind himself that way... but I understand the concern that breaking the glass is still a 'win' for McConnell... so just complicated iteration of pick-your-poison.
"
The obvious compromise is to adduce new legislative paths/categories such that more things are deemed procedural and hence not subject to filibuster while other things deemed 'legislative' are still filibuster eligible.
Theoretically everything is a legislative act, but we've already separated out judges and non-cabinet level appointments... all parliamentary rules are polite fictions, so the fight would be where the fiction starts and ends... but there's a way to potentially preserve the principle for legislation that isn't more than performing duties.
The Debt ceiling would still be an edge case... could argue that the creation of the law (or repealing) might be legislation but the act of updating/extending might be procedural. But as I say... a fight on the boundaries. If we want to keep the filibuster in principle for 'sweeping' legislation.
"
Seems a win for McConnell... basically he translates the issue two months into the future without the Dems resolving the fundamental problem at hand which seems to be there aren't anywhere near 50 votes for the $3.5T bill.
Seems McConnell's wins look like this:
* Get the bi-partisan $1.5T 'infrastructure' bill
* Scuttle or curtail the $3.5T reconciliation legislation
* Bonus force Dems to tactically nuke filibuster so he has a 'pocket nuke' for when he wants to use it later.
I bet there's a whole lot of other things McConnell might want or like to see (or frankly might trade for) that I have no idea about... but the above seems fairly straight forward.
We all know there won't be a default (or a meaningful default) ... it's pretty clear to me at this point that McConnell is just forcing the Dems to reckon with the dissention within their own caucus.
That could backfire with dissention turning into sention and comity... but I think it's a fair bet that comity arrives at a price tag significantly less than $3.5T and changes to priorities on what's in/out.
Now, two elections and 3-years from now when the Dems have everyone primaried and total alignment on priorities... well, then McConnel will be in trouble.
On “The Movies of September: The Month in Theaters and Streaming”
I haven't... I'll check it out, thanks.
"
Cry Macho was pretty bad. The kid was dreadful, the story was dumb, the editing botched, and, I'm sad to report at 91 Eastwood acts like a 91 year old acting.
I can appreciate that he was trying to do Gran Torino reconciliation story for hispanix ... but it had none of the good young actors to carry roles and the story was just uninteresting and implausible.