The decline and eventual fall of the USA as world superpower?

[silent thunder]

dont forget the medical industrial complex

do your qigong

 

*shudder* that is some effective motivation!

[ralis]

Hobby Lobby's case before the SCOTUS. As I understand it, Hobby Lobby claims to be a religious business and wants relief from certain laws and to impose religious beliefs on employees. Papantonio explains the main points of the case.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hears-hobby-lobbys-religious-challenge-to-birth-control-insurance/

 

 

Edited March 25, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

— Robert Heinlein

 

Personally, I think there are far worse tyrannies but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

[ralis]

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

— Robert Heinlein

 

Personally, I think there are far worse tyrannies but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

 

From what I can ascertain, if this case is ruled favorably by SCOTUS, the legal ramifications are far reaching and will lead to more special request by corporations. Citizens United may open the floodgates for intrusions that most are not in favor of.

[ralis]

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

— Robert Heinlein

 

Personally, I think there are far worse tyrannies but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

 

It is not a good idea to marginalize women. This case has nothing to say in regards to Viagra.

Edited March 26, 2014 by ralis

[Horus]

If we look back into history we notice that every world superpower has eventually fallen one way or the other. If history is anything to go by that means that the USA will eventually and inevitably fall as the world superpower, be it militarily, economically or socially.

 

Decadence, greed and lawlessness are big factors in the decline of a nation/civilization. It is well known that Viet Cong General Vo Nguyen Giap successfully used Sun Tzu's ideas and tactics to defeat the French and then USA. Have the US not learned the lesson after reading the 'Art of War' not to fight too many battles over long periods of time as it weakens the economy because of the great expenses and weakens the morale.

 

I believe we are starting to see the decline of the USA, with Sept 11, then GFC, more recently accusations from Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and now Edward Snowden.

 

What goes up, must come down?

 

One mans' enemy, is another mans' hero,

One mans' hero is another mans' enemy,

 

I believe turning to 'The Tao' can change things for the better, to PEACE!

 

Any constructive thoughts on the above?

We're already there. It just takes time to pan out while the plane is still this dense.

 

But, it doesn't mean much really.

 

In order to unite as one we must even out the playing field.

 

You'll see the same thing with businesses - all the biggies will merge; with sport, you will not see just 1-2 masters dominating, instead emerging groups of masters all at the same level.

 

Yes, toward peace - but it is always darkest before the dawn.

 

We are going to see all the shit come out now that the light is anchoring in - that's how she rolls this grand chick Gaia!

 

Whether it will be 1000 years of shit is debatable - more like 750 and a down slope....with a big white BANG!

[joeblast]

It is not a good idea to marginalize women. This case has nothing to say in regards to Viagra.

It'd be different if the whole thing was even constitutional in the first place, but since it aint.... I dont even know where that conversation goes from there.

 

 

(TPTB dont care about what the constitution says anyway...if there's a constitutional wall in front of what they want to do, why they'll go around it, pole vault over it, it doesnt matter, it will get done no matter how many precedents and established procedures they need to wreck to get there. right nancy?)

[ralis]

It'd be different if the whole thing was even constitutional in the first place, but since it aint.... I dont even know where that conversation goes from there.

 

 

(TPTB dont care about what the constitution says anyway...if there's a constitutional wall in front of what they want to do, why they'll go around it, pole vault over it, it doesnt matter, it will get done no matter how many precedents and established procedures they need to wreck to get there. right nancy?)

 

I guess you don't see the long term ramifications of this case and the legal pleading by corporations et al to have special dispensation granted for religious reasons. Furthermore, the main point is from the 'Citizens United' ruling that corporations have the same rights as persons. That ruling is the crux of the problem.

 

http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/wadrgqbbivbw88lxotat.jpg

 

 

During oral arguments Tuesday about the validity of Obamacare's birth control mandate, Justice Elena Kagan cleverly invoked Justice Antonin Scalia's past warning that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to "anarchy."

 

"Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."

 

Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

 

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Edited March 26, 2014 by ralis

[joeblast]

compulsory military service,

income tax

compulsory vaccination,

EPA that can make any arbitrary rule they want,

 

right, like those are constitutionally sound.

 

but you sidestep the point - OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE. PERIOD. The federal government has no authority to have declared this to be law.

 

and that's even beside the point of it being passed deemed into existence in an entirely ass backwards manner that skips many precedents of established legislative procedure.

 

citizens united would have been a better choice if the unions did not want their cake and eat it too and still be able to contribute astronomical unchecked amounts of money into the pockets of "democrat" politicians. so the courts contort and "level that playing field" by saying something absurd.

 

but hey, absurdity is the norm when the government has to make playing fields level while at the same time still play favorites.

[ralis]

compulsory military service,

income tax

compulsory vaccination,

EPA that can make any arbitrary rule they want,

 

right, like those are constitutionally sound.

 

but you sidestep the point - OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE. PERIOD. The federal government has no authority to have declared this to be law.

 

and that's even beside the point of it being passed deemed into existence in an entirely ass backwards manner that skips many precedents of established legislative procedure.

 

citizens united would have been a better choice if the unions did not want their cake and eat it too and still be able to contribute astronomical unchecked amounts of money into the pockets of "democrat" politicians. so the courts contort and "level that playing field" by saying something absurd.

 

but hey, absurdity is the norm when the government has to make playing fields level while at the same time still play favorites.

 

Stop the off topic trolling Joe and stick to the case in point as opposed to positing Republican/Tea Bagger talking points. You obviously have no clue.

[joeblast]

Hey man, at least I believe in the bill of rights. I know, its tough, talking to someone who believes the goverment should be able to do whatever it wants to do and remain completely unchecked....that always works out great for the citizens of the country.

 

What's off topic trolling? Speaking of the truth of Obamacare's unconstitutional just about everything about it, or talking about how both unions and large corporations (and let's not forget politicians) have strip mined the fkn hell out of the country? I thought that was explicitly what this topic was about!

 

Please relate to me where Obamacare is constitutional. And dont hide behind the vague notion often extrapolated to the lowest depths of hell realms that "general welfare" is anything the government decides is good for the people - because that's how its being treated. Raped and desecrated just like the whole concept of "interstate commerce."

 

You obviously have no clue what the bill of rights means, going by your line of argument over the years.

 

 

it'll be entertaining to see if you can come up with anything besides superlative abuses of general welfare or interstate commerce, because there isnt any other argument that could even be loosely construed as constitutional....oh, except for that whole "let's just have the court rewrite the law" bit saying its really just a tax, when everyone knows damn well it has 0% chance of passing were it presented even remotely honestly, or presented as a tax.

 

I mean did anyone even bring up the issue of the judiciary rewriting the law is unconstitutional?

 

or how about obama changing the law every time a godzilla sized disaster related to the law pokes its head up....is that constitutional too, ralis?

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2014 by joeblast

[ralis]

Hey man, at least I believe in the bill of rights. I know, its tough, talking to someone who believes the goverment should be able to do whatever it wants to do and remain completely unchecked....that always works out great for the citizens of the country.

 

What's off topic trolling? Speaking of the truth of Obamacare's unconstitutional just about everything about it, or talking about how both unions and large corporations (and let's not forget politicians) have strip mined the fkn hell out of the country? I thought that was explicitly what this topic was about!

 

Please relate to me where Obamacare is constitutional. And dont hide behind the vague notion often extrapolated to the lowest depths of hell realms that "general welfare" is anything the government decides is good for the people - because that's how its being treated. Raped and desecrated just like the whole concept of "interstate commerce."

 

You obviously have no clue what the bill of rights means, going by your line of argument over the years.

 

 

it'll be entertaining to see if you can come up with anything besides superlative abuses of general welfare or interstate commerce, because there isnt any other argument that could even be loosely construed as constitutional....oh, except for that whole "let's just have the court rewrite the law" bit saying its really just a tax, when everyone knows damn well it has 0% chance of passing were it presented even remotely honestly, or presented as a tax.

 

I mean did anyone even bring up the issue of the judiciary rewriting the law is unconstitutional?

 

or how about obama changing the law every time a godzilla sized disaster related to the law pokes its head up....is that constitutional too, ralis?

 

 

 

 

I know and believe in the bill of rights also. However, my rights don't supersede everyone's like yours do. E.g. your comment against compulsory vaccines. Vaccines protect the public health by preventing outbreaks of small pox and other extremely virulent diseases. You have no right to endanger public health with naive conspiracy theories regarding vaccines.

 

Why not learn to debate as opposed to posting myriad personal concerns that are designed to move this off topic.

[Green Tiger]

 

The last King of New England. I personally feel more enslaved by the economy than the government. Although the government has two heavy hands in the economy, so I guess they're one in the same.

[joeblast]

I know and believe in the bill of rights also. However, my rights don't supersede everyone's like yours do. E.g. your comment against compulsory vaccines. Vaccines protect the public health by preventing outbreaks of small pox and other extremely virulent diseases. You have no right to endanger public health with naive conspiracy theories regarding vaccines.

 

Why not learn to debate as opposed to posting myriad personal concerns that are designed to move this off topic.

learn to debate, how ironic, coming from someone who will dish it out but not take it, any taking it is off topic mumbo jumbo, right? nice attempt, because every time you hear something you dont like you get condescending and change the context around to suit your (half baked)argument and you seem to have an impeccable talent for finding the main idea of someone's post and ignoring it entirely.

 

oh well, I was hoping that one of these times you might actually come up with something of substance. wishful thinking.

[ralis]

The last King of New England. I personally feel more enslaved by the economy than the government. Although the government has two heavy hands in the economy, so I guess they're one in the same.

 

You might want to add corporations that have bought the entire government and most of the wealth.

[joeblast]

but of course, its no fault of the government's that it was bought out. that's just business.

[ralis]

but of course, its no fault of the government's that it was bought out. that's just business.

 

Politicians have been bought and sold since time immemorial. If you don't understand that one by now you never will.

[joeblast]

yet you have no problem with them governing to whatever arbitrary extent they feel necessary - and it is built upon the buying out - are you somehow missing that connection?

 

government is every bit the problem, they have carved out deals that lined their pockets and the pockets of those who bribed them.

 

but hey, unconstitutional things like obamacare are just fine.

 

 

 

 

that's why I get nowhere with you ralis, I ask questions you cant answer, and perchance you can answer them, you dont want to speak the answer and instead change the focus of the discussion to a portion of ground you feel you are a little more sure footed on.

 

...because you cant tell me where Obamacare is constitutional in the least, unless you subscribe to severe bastardizations of the general welfare and commerce clauses.

 

Hey I heard ol kim jong un mandated that instead of males having 10 haircuts accessible to them, all males now have to cut their hair like his. I think that falls under the general welfare clause over there - the more like dear leader you are, the better off in life you are

Edited March 26, 2014 by joeblast

[Marblehead]

but hey, unconstitutional things like obamacare are just fine.

Hehehe. I'm covered by VA. I don't have to give the wealthy any more of my money than they are already getting.

[Horus]

I guess you don't see the long term ramifications of this case and the legal pleading by corporations et al to have special dispensation granted for religious reasons. Furthermore, the main point is from the 'Citizens United' ruling that corporations have the same rights as persons. That ruling is the crux of the problem.

 

http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/wadrgqbbivbw88lxotat.jpg

The whole thing is a construct Ralis, anyway. They made it they can change it.

 

But, there is no problem.

 

A humanity that chooses to sleep rather than take responsibility for its spiritual power beckons forth those that are willing to hold that power for them until they are done with the resting...then they look the other way and pretent that its not part of them, and then make it real that someone else is oppressing them.

 

It's humanities arm that is pressing down upon itself with the glove of organised control.

 

Too say that one constitutional ruling or another is the problem is to look at the situation at such a granular level that you cant see the forest for the trees.

 

Man, we're all in this together.

 

The nothingness begot the somethingness in order that it could experience itself - but we got tired of all that work - hence the fall (really a jump) and all the complaints and victimhood serves only to stabilise the control.

[silent thunder]

been pondering recently about the constitionality of mandated healthcare vs mandated vehicle insurance...

[joeblast]

there is no federal insurance requirement that I know of for autos. those are all state requirements.

 

look at all the states that have done their own healthcare thing - spectacular money pits.

[Brian]

there is no federal insurance requirement that I know of for autos. those are all state requirements.

 

look at all the states that have done their own healthcare thing - spectacular money pits.

I know for certain that it wasn't too long ago when Tennessee started requiring liability insurance. Auto insurance in the US is state-level.

[joeblast]

ok ralis, on to something we can agree on

 

1.2 trillion from 00-12, not counting the bailouts. utterly disgusting, needs to stop.

 

"That number does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars in housing, bank and auto company bailouts in 2008 and 2009, because those payments and where they went are kept mostly invisible in the federal agency books."

 

http://www.openthebooks.com/welfare_reform_starts_with_the_fortune_100

 

but really - and here's where we'll probably disagree - it is the government's fault for....playing ball....

 

you can have all this, and more! if you just....PLAY BALL!!!

 

 

 

unfortunately our government is Danny Devito and needs a nice red smoking jacket presented to them before we open the door with the bull behind it.

 

oh, were it that our government were Tommy Kelly instead.

[joeblast]

Bloomberg reports that Citigroup has failed the Fed’s new round of stress tests:

Citigroup Inc.’s capital plan was among five that failed Federal Reserve stress tests, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. passed only after reducing their requests for buybacks and dividends.

 

Citigroup, as well as U.S. units of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, HSBC Holdings Plc and Banco Santander SA, failed because of qualitative concerns about their processes, the Fed said today in a

statement

. Zions Bancorporation was rejected as its capital fell below the minimum required. The central bank approved plans for 25 banks.

In reality, Citi "flat lined" - went totally bust - in 2008. It was insolvent.

And former FDIC chief Sheila Bair said that the whole bailout thing was really focused on bringing a very dead Citi back from the grave.

Indeed, the big banks - including Citi - have repeatedly gone bankrupt.

For example, the New York Times wrote in 2009:

>

Over the past 80 years, the United States government has engineered not one, not two, not three, but at least

four

rescues of the institution now known as Citigroup.

So why did the U.S. government give Citi a passing grade in previous stress tests?

Because they were rigged to give all of the students an "A".

Time Magazine called then Secretary Treasury Tim Geithner a “con man” and the stress tests a “confidence game” because those tests were so inaccurate.

But the bigger story is that absolutely nothing was done to address the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, or to fix the system:

• Even though everyone knows that breaking up the big banks is essential to stabilizing the economy, it hasn't happened. Indeed, they're bigger than ever
• The faulty incentive system - huge bonuses that encourage reckless risk-taking by bankers - are still here
• Even though rampant speculation helped destabilize the economy, speculation has shot through the roof
• Another big problem - shadow banking - has only gotten worse
• Derivatives? Washington has poured gasoline on the fire
• Cracking down on fraud and holding criminals accountable is perhaps the most important thing to fix the economy. So has this happened? Nope ... just phony P.R.

Indeed, the only the government has done is to try to cover up the problems that created the 2008 crisis in the first place ... and to throw huge amounts of money at the fattest of the fatcats.

Remember, Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated that failure to punish white collar criminals – and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future.

Indeed, professor of law and economics (and chief S&L prosecutor) William Black notes that we’ve known of this dynamic for “hundreds of years”. (Actually, the government has ignored several thousand years of economic wisdom.)

Heck of a job, guys ...

is it really a surprise

The capital plans of Citigroup, HSBC and several other large, foreign bank holding companies were rejected by the Federal Reserve yesterday. Most of the media reports about this significant rebuttal for Michael Corbat, Citi’s chief executive, focus on operational issues, but a more obvious explanation is that the Citi business model is more risky. Indeed, you cannot really compare Citi to either Wells Fargo, Bank of America or JPMorgan. Allow me to convey a polite “Duh” to the media and analyst community.

Looking at the most recent Fed Y-9 performance report for Citi, the first thing that should strike you is that Citi’s loss rate is 4x that of the large bank peer group. Citi’s business model is more focused on subprime than the average for the peer group. Net losses on average loans and leases were almost 2% for Citi at the end of 2013 vs just 45bp for the large bank peers. So given this fact, you can understand why the Fed is more critical of Citi’s loss rates and capital plan than with other banks.

Another clue for the media is the composition of Citi’s assets. Over 20% of Citi’s loan book are in credit cards vs just 2% on average for the large bank peers. Indeed, the only good large asset peer for Citi is HSBC, which also has a higher loss rate and more of a subprime, consumer focus than do the other 90 banks in the large bank peer group.

Larry Lindsey noted on CNBC this morning that HSBC never took a dime of bailout money from UK authorities, but the fact remains that the bank’s loss profile is far more aggressive than that of most large banks. In the extreme stress test scenario posed by the Fed, both Citi and HSBC would likely see the highest loss rates of any large US banking operation.

Another metric to give you a sense of the relative riskiness of the Citi business vs. other banks is loan commitments, which are 2x the average for the large bank peer group. Another way to think of this metric is “loss given default,” because an obligor could draw on the commitment and then file bankruptcy. Citi has historically had a much higher loss given default than other large banks, in part because of the large credit card book. There are actually four time series for loan commitments reported by banks on the form Y-9 and Citi is higher than other large banks in every category.

So when you read about Citi’s rejection by the Fed in terms of capital planning, remember that the bank’s business model is significantly different than that of BAC, JPM and especially WFC. No credible analyst would even compare Citi with these large asset peers. Indeed, going back to the Fed capital stress tests of several years ago, the best domestic peer for Citi in the large bank peer group is Capital One Financial, a business which is mostly subprime credit cards.

Edited March 27, 2014 by joeblast