j.liam wrote:
Not a hijack at all; I have a good friend at work, a German, who was utterly befuddled by the notion of police having to break off a car chase at a county or State line because their jurisdiction ended there. Many unfamiliar with US history don't realize that it is a union of sovereign states whose fiscal relationship is quite different than the EU.
Doesn't that lead to a situation where there is a lot more planned crime close to state borders?
carstenw wrote:
Doesn't that lead to a situation where there is a lot more planned crime close to state borders?
I don't think it actually goes down like that. If there was a chase, law enforcement would just call ahead to law enforcement in the next state. The crime will often become more serious if state lines are crossed I believe (some become federal crimes for instance). I guess all this is to deter what you suggest.
carstenw wrote:
Doesn't that lead to a situation where there is a lot more planned crime close to state borders?
No. This was an issue early in the last century, given the great distances between individual states. They would hide and law enforcement could not operate in the neighboring state. These days the authorities will communicate when someone is speeding toward a border and hand off the chase to the next jurisdiction, no doubt similarly if a criminal might cross from Germany into France.
The national government will only get involved when a Federal law is violated, otherwise once caught, have to be extradited after a legal proceeding. Remember, that the laws of each State may vary greatly; Louisiana's laws, for example, are based on the Code Napoleon whereas the rest have their origins in English common law.
j.liam wrote:
No. This was an issue early in the last century, given the great distances between individual states. They would hide and law enforcement could not operate in the neighboring state. These days the authorities will communicate when someone is speeding toward a border and hand off the chase to the next jurisdiction, no doubt similarly if a criminal might cross from Germany into France.
The national government will only get involved when a Federal law is violated, otherwise once caught, have to be extradited after a legal proceeding. Remember, that the laws of each State may vary greatly; Louisiana's laws, for example, are based on the Code Napoleon whereas the rest have their origins in English common law....Show more →
Some state crimes actually become federal crimes/ violations when state lines are crossed as a result of the Commerce power of the federal government. I believe examples are drug and firearm trafficking, some white collar crimes, sex offenses and so on....but I'm not a lawyer, this is just what I seem to recall.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Some state crimes actually become federal crimes/ violations when state lines are crossed as a result of the Commerce power of the federal government. I believe examples are drug and firearm trafficking, some white collar crimes, sex offenses and so on....but I'm not a lawyer, this is just what I seem to recall.
I believe you are correct.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Actually, it took about what..8 years of Bush!
After 3 years of Obama, his numbers make Bush's fiscal malfeasance minor by comparison.
After 3 years of Obama, his numbers make Bush's fiscal malfeasance minor by comparison.
Obama walked right into a disaster/ crash. The financial system had just crumbled when he took office and Bush had already panicked and started the bail outs. It's amazing we are where we are today really. Starving a recovery would have been an economic disaster...but it sounds like we would never agree on any of this so I will leave it at that.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Obama walked right into a disaster/ crash. The financial system had just crumbled when he took office and Bush had already panicked and started the bail outs. It's amazing we are where we are today really. Starving a recovery would have been an economic disaster...but it sounds like we would never agree on any of this so I will leave it at that.
Convenient excuse to outspend every other president before him and hand it out to crony operations like Solyndra, big banks, big Auto and the rest. Only thing more egregious than crony Capitalism is crony Socialism and a Corporatist State.
Actually, the Congressional Budget Office. When the debt approaches or exceeds the GDP (~2020) and servicing the debt consumes >50% of the tax revenue raised and all the anticipated 'goodies' can no longer be afforded. But we'll chat about this then..
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Obama walked right into a disaster/ crash. The financial system had just crumbled when he took office and Bush had already panicked and started the bail outs. It's amazing we are where we are today really. Starving a recovery would have been an economic disaster...but it sounds like we would never agree on any of this so I will leave it at that.
Right. And we would be better off right now if the Republican's didn't obstruct everything the Obama Administration tried to do -- including forcing a very suboptimal stimulus package that, 1) was not large enough, and 2) had more than 40% of the total package jammed highly unproductive tax cuts (instead of badly need infrastructure investments). Thank God Obama insisted on supporting GM instead of letting it die like the Republicans wanted -- it would have cost us far more to let it die. Oh, and anyone who tells you the "stimulus" didn't work is either lying or clueless.
Now, can we get back on topic? I still have no information when my D800E will be arriving.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Right. And we would be better off right now if the Republican's didn't obstruct everything the Obama Administration tried to do -- including forcing a very suboptimal stimulus package that, 1) was not large enough, and 2) had more than 40% of the total package jammed highly unproductive tax cuts (instead of badly need infrastructure investments). Thank God Obama insisted on supporting GM instead of letting it die like the Republicans wanted -- it would have cost us far more to let it die. Oh, and anyone who tells you the "stimulus" didn't work is either lying or clueless.
For the first 2 years of Obama, Democrat super-majorities in the House and Senate precluded any and all 'obstruction', if you care to recall. Obama and Co. did whatever they pleased without any countervailing balance or check. Like bailing out favored businesses like GM, Chrysler as crony favors to Labor Unions or big political-donor banks, instead of letting failures fail. Anything that didn't pass was because of some Democrats fearful of not being re-elected, balking at absolutely everything they were asked to write a carte blanche for. Check your facts. The "Stimulus" is all gone now and we have unemployment+underemployment+people just giving up at about 15-17%. College grads at nearly 20% unemployment in some areas. And someone in the future will have to pay it all off one day.
That's the reality.
But we digress from our "1%-er" discussion of $3000 cameras....
j.liam wrote:
For the first 2 years of Obama, Democrat super-majorities in the House and Senate precluded any and all 'obstruction', if you care to recall. Obama and Co. did whatever they pleased without a check. Like bailing out favored businesses like GM, Chryler as crony favors to Labor Unions. Or big-donor banks, instead of letting failures fail. Anything that didn't pass was because of some Democrats fearful of not being re-elected, balking at absolutely everything they were asked to write a carte blanche. Check your facts. The "Stimulus" is all gone now and we have unemployment+underemployment+people just giving up at about 15-17%. College grads at nearly 20% unemployment in some areas. And someone in the future will have to pay it all off one day. ...Show more →
Nonsense. The Republicans obstructed and filibustered everything in the Senate with just 41% (picking up the occasional conservative Democrat from Red states to grind everything to a halt). You really need to read the real news a little more and stop listening to FOX News propaganda (not to mention the complete and utter nonsense from people like Gingrich, Bachman, Palin, Santorum and Paul). You would be much better informed.
And the FACTS are that GM and Chrysler are profitable again and GM is at record profit levels and all 3 auto makers are hiring. It was a resounding success. If you can't see that you are quite blind. While we still haven't recovered from the depths the Bush Administration fiasco plunged us into,under Obama we have reversed job losses in the economy and now have produced 24 straight months of private sector job growth. This is also FACT. This has been partially offset by public sector job losses forced by misguided Republican polices in Federal compromises and in the States with GOP Governors. What is clear, that by reducing the stimulus, making the stimulus inefficient, killing public sector jobs and reducing public expenditure while trying to recover from a recession (always stupid), the Republicans have tried to do everything to kill recovery, economic growth and job growth in the economy for the singular purpose of making Obama less effective to strengthen their hand in the 2012 election. The interests of the Nation be damned -- all the Republicans care about it their power, and billionaires that fund their campaigns.
Now, back to our issues with the D800/D800E (or do you prefer to be corrected with facts some more?)
j.liam wrote:
Obama and Co. did whatever they pleased without any countervailing balance or check. Like bailing out ... big political-donor banks, instead of letting failures fail.
By bank bailouts, do you mean TARP? The massive bank bailout by government purchase of bad assets, which resulted in huge windfall profits for top bank executives with no strings attached about actually re-starting lending? Which was signed into law by President Bush in October 2008? Yep, that's definitely one to blame on Obama and Co.
dennishh wrote:
Do you have to be a republican to buy a D800?
Hopefully they'll create the Nikon Nuclear Disaster subsidy for D800's.
mpmendenhall wrote:
By bank bailouts, do you mean TARP? The massive bank bailout by government purchase of bad assets, which resulted in huge windfall profits for top bank executives with no strings attached about actually re-starting lending? Which was signed into law by President Bush in October 2008? Yep, that's definitely one to blame on Obama and Co.
You mean TARP, Bush's bad idea that Barry & Co. doubled down on? Yup. And Solyndra, etc. and all the 'green industry' loan guarantees to contributors now defaulted upon, amounting to billions up in smoke, shovel ready that wasn't, auto bailouts and the tripling of the debt resulting in downrating of US credit...all those good things..
j.liam wrote:
You mean TARP, Bush's bad idea that Barry & Co. doubled down on? Yup. And Solyndra, etc. and all the 'green industry' loan guarantees to contributors now defaulted upon, amounting to billions up in smoke, shovel ready that wasn't, auto bailouts and the tripling of the debt resulting in downrating of US credit...all those good things..
By "doubled down on," you mean "doubled" from the $700B program signed into law by Bush (2008) to a $475B program under Dodd-Frank (2010)?
Yes, Solyndra and a few related loans turned out to be bad decisions; it all adds up to nearly 0.02% of the (conservatively low CBO estimate) $2.4e12 cost of the Iraq war.
There's plenty that I fault Obama for, but it mostly comes down to not using his election as a "mandate" to immediately roll back major Bush policies --- stop the wars, end the tax cuts for the megarich, close Guantanamo, shut down the TSA and domestic surveillance programs, etc. It's disingenuous, however, to blame Obama alone for the failure of his bailout programs, which nearly every economist outside of far-right-wing circles calculates to have been too small (thanks to compromise "across the aisle") rather than too big (though at least what was spent did help to level off the massive downward plunge coming out of the Bush years, though not enough to recover from it). However much Obama's programs have failed, it is due mainly to his continued compromising acceptance of failed neoconservative policies pushed by "Bush and Co." rather than some mythical union-loving left wing bent.
mpmendenhall wrote:
By "doubled down on," you mean "doubled" from the $700B program signed into law by Bush (2008) to a $475B program under Dodd-Frank (2010)?
And by effectively managing and controlling the $700B program so that the final, actual cost of TARP only amounted to $50B.
mpmendenhall wrote:
There's plenty that I fault Obama for, but it mostly comes down to not using his election as a "mandate" to immediately roll back major Bush policies --- stop the wars, end the tax cuts for the megarich, close Guantanamo, shut down the TSA and domestic surveillance programs, etc. It's disingenuous, however, to blame Obama alone for the failure of his bailout programs, which nearly every economist outside of far-right-wing circles calculates to have been too small (thanks to compromise "across the aisle") rather than too big (though at least what was spent did help to level off the massive downward plunge coming out of the Bush years, though not enough to recover from it). However much Obama's programs have failed, it is due mainly to his continued compromising acceptance of failed neoconservative policies pushed by "Bush and Co." rather than some mythical union-loving left wing bent....Show more →
I agree. Obama spent WAY too much time and effort and wasted his very clear mandate appeasing Republican nut jobs out to destroy him regardless of the effect on the country. The most egregious caving to the right wing (not to mention drug and healthcare industry lobbyists) was the abandonment of the Public Option for health care. The opportunity to truly fix the craziest, most wasteful and least effective, health care system in the developed in the world was lost. The resulting legislation is an improvement, but only just.
