You two really need to put each other on Ignore. Everyone would appreciate it.
The thought police prohibit a sense of humor
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Are you suggesting Chevron shouldn’t be gutted?
How so.? How about a rule that is applied at the state level which is that administrative interpretations are entitled to a presumption ? This federal deferral may have sounded good when announced, but that really did turn into a “careful what you wish for” notion. The feds have abused its power in many ways, the least of which is not congress’ deliberate avoidance of hard questions knowing that administrative interpretations wont be disturbed.
More about this here
Here comes the government to fix more problems we didn't know we had. Policy wonks have been busy updating the rules, and now funny variable message signs (VMS) such as these must go from the wayside:
******
It's important to remember that little things can turn into big things in a hurry when the leftists are in charge. They're particularly offended by anyone who won't join them in their wallowing. Every day, there are armies of progressive minions scouring social media for that one post that they can use to launch a career assassination attempt. They love it when they can find an obviously flippant attempt at humor that they can use to try and ruin the life of someone they don't even know.
The FHWA's justification for the change is classic leftist "government knows best" stuff. The hoi polloi in the vehicles might struggle with figuring out what the witticisms mean, after all. Your bureaucratic overlords are just trying to make things easier for you, dummy! A little gratitude would be nice.
This thread reminds me of the Barbasol shaving signs of yesteryear which added some entertainment in traveling some fifty years ago. The signs were a welcome relief on a long trip on highways such as Route 66.
Unfortunately today's super highway travel requires a driver to devout his full attention given the high speeds of traffic and the density of traffic. Would it be safe for a race car driver to have his attention diverted by reading signs held up by fans attending the race ?
Finally, does anyone really believe the signs will alter the stubborn driving habits on our busy thoroughfares ?
Unfortunately today's super highway travel requires a driver to devout his full attention given the high speeds of traffic and the density of traffic. Would it be safe for a race car driver to have his attention diverted by reading signs held up by fans attending the race ?
Finally, does anyone really believe the signs will alter the stubborn driving habits on our busy thoroughfares ?
Last edited:
Burmashave.
I don’t think they are a distraction. And if they help with anger they are a benefit.
No more than billboardsBurmashave.
I don’t think they are a distraction. And if they help with anger they are a benefit.
No, you have consistently made posts about what Biden and other Democrats are doing wrong. You pretend it's something deeper, but you only complain if you can find a liberal to blame for it.
No one thought it was serious until they will come for the funny radio adds. Then just thinking of a funny dad joke was illegal.
Burmashave.
I don’t think they are a distraction. And if they help with anger they are a benefit.
CoH, on the subject of humor, anger, and politics.. think we can agree.
We would all be better off if we laughed with each other rather than laughing at each other.
We have to laugh at someone Hoot. Jokes necessarily need to be at someone’s expense.
Not necessarily.
Ronald Reagan comes to mind, and Joe Biden could use some of Reagan's humor when age is the issue as per the following Reagan quotes...
In the October 28, 1984, presidential debate with former Vice President Walter Mondale, President Reagan spun the issue in his own favor, deadpanning, “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
In another instance, he noted, “Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.”
Maybe make congress write laws that really are laws specifics rather than writing a 100 page essay that doesn't say anything and lets the agency decide what they want to do. The example below is a good example where the law could have been written to be specific. I don't care either way because it doesn't affect me but make the law specific when you write it. Either they get the step-up in basis or they don't... just state it. But what we end up with is a law where the IRS allows the step-up basis for years and then changes the rules.
IRS Quietly Changed the Rules on Your Children’s Inheritance
Property, such as your home, held in an irrevocable trust 'that is not included in the taxable estate at death' will no longer receive a step-up in basis. Here’s why the wording of that is key.
www.kiplinger.com
It's a cat and mouse game. In this case, it's people trying to shield or "hide" their assets so they can qualify for Medicaid. I don't have much sympathy for someone who can pay for their end of life care but want to get the government to pay for it instead.
Last edited:
So.... Write the law and make say what you want. From what you've said you take advantage of everything they give you and I'm not faulting you for that. However, they let the IRS decide what something means and they screw people over. How would you like to be going down the interstate at 70 mph and the speed limit sign says 70 mph and a cop pulls you over for speeding and tells you that they've decide that 70 mph really means 55 mph is the speed limit. That is the way the IRS works.... they interpret a law one way for years then change it after people have taken advantage of it and have money where they can tax it. You watch.... eventually they'll find a way to tax Roth 401Ks and Roth IRAs even though they've told us for years that you never have to pay taxes on the gains.
There is nothing that prevents Congress from passing legislation to "fix" the rules that the agencies come up with that it doesn't like. All Chevron did was tell the courts that they should defer to the expertise of the agencies when a dispute arises. The current case could remove that benefit of the doubt.
Interestingly, Chevron originally came up after the Reagan EPA posted weak regulations and the environmentalists objected. Now, in the current case you have an agency posting stringent rules and it's business that's objecting. Goose/gander, whatever.
Initial reports I saw said Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh sounded favorable to overturning Chevron. Only a handful of us nerds will know anything about it or give a shit, but the long term effects could be weighty.
Oh I agree but congress needs to write laws that are more specific and not be so damn lazy. There are lots of places where they could be specific but aren't and it wouldn't be any more work. I know there are some places where you have to let an agency decide how to do something. You can't give an agency too much power or they'll declare the top of Mt Everest a wetland and there's nothing you can do about it. There needs to be a common sense approach to things. Individuals in agencies need to be able to be sued and convicted just like the G Floyd cop was.
My bad. Yes, he hates it. Sounded like ACB was skeptical. No idea about Roberts. So not clear if they have five votes.
I'm surprised to see a non-lawyer so invested in Chevron. Discussing that case is a major part of law school, but few Americans seem to even know what it is.
Mark likes to pretend he’s just a common man, salt-of-the-earth type, but we know the truth.
Let us face it, a good many Americans enter their so-called Golden Years relying solely on Social Security.
Many of those who face trying to live solely on Social Security end up living in poverty. Once this happens the state In which they live sets up rules about qualifying for Medicaid. The cat and mouse game then becomes how the state you live in establishes rules about income and assets.
On top of this, medical costs and availability of health care along with assisted living for our seniors varies greatly from state to state.
A argument thus could be made that how oldsters hide assets and/or income and somehow beat the system has a lot to do with the state they live in.
Last edited:
I hadn't gotten around to reading this until just now. Lefty slant, of course, but lays the stakes out well.
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
This court's hubris is fueling a reckless race to snatch ever more power away from what remains of our democracy.
The environment, the economy, health care, civil rights, education: All aspects of federal governance will be in peril, subject to the whims of unelected judges with zero expertise or accountability and a distinct bias toward deregulation. Throughout the morning, SCOTUS sounded hostile to the very notion that elections have consequences—at least when a majority of justices dislike those consequences.
[...]
Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.
What a ridiculous waste of time. This is like trying to outlaw teachers from hanging a pride flag.
Do you think congress capable of more precise laws? First, they are mostly lawyers. Second, they aren't really concerned with questions of safety vs efficacy, they are concerned with what helps get elected.
There were stories out yesterday of some Senators warning the House there will never be a better immigration bill then what the Senate is working on. You can find the quotes. The House is still likely to vote no simply not to hand Biden a win. Is that really how to run a country? Does that sound like a group of people able to set aside partisan beliefs to understand the minutiae of medical statistics, as if lawyers could to begin with?
It isn't just lawyers, I read a book about a statistician diagnosed with AIDS. Multiple doctors refused to test again because the test is 99% accurate. The statistician looked into that, yes, it is 99% accurate all things considered. But for a straight intravenous drug user without blood transfusions, the error rate was significantly higher than the odds of having AIDS. But doctors could not comprehend that. I doubt our senators and House understand it any better.
I think they can write laws with interpretative guidelines that would curtail either judicial or executive arbitrary interpretation. And they can and should amend statutes far more often to review/reverse court or agency decisions that interpret those statutes.
Good point.
Also cannot forget the role lobbyists play in helping to write the laws.
At the state level where most of the law making is taking place with the divided Congress there is ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Committee) writing "model bills".
Soooooo many dumb people from cori bush to boebert and all the rest tho. Has to be awful
Do we really want these people writing rules for nuclear waste disposal?
Yeah I do.... You and i could in certain areas. In the example I linked above it would have been easy to make it specific and that is true of a lot of things the IRS does. Of course, other areas they would have no clue but in those areas you have to put a limit on their power somehow.
Think about all we depend on. For example, a model of car starts blowing up and congress is in a one month recess. Can there be an ordered recall without congress specifically ordering it? I can just imagine filibusters over a chemical's safety at 8 parts per million vs 9.
Who ever wrote that doesn’t understand Chevron deference. The first problem is the assumption that experts are not biased. That is wrong. In fact I’d suggest biases are stronger among experts. That’s just one lesson of the Lab Leak affair.I hadn't gotten around to reading this until just now. Lefty slant, of course, but lays the stakes out well.
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
This court's hubris is fueling a reckless race to snatch ever more power away from what remains of our democracy.slate.com
The environment, the economy, health care, civil rights, education: All aspects of federal governance will be in peril, subject to the whims of unelected judges with zero expertise or accountability and a distinct bias toward deregulation. Throughout the morning, SCOTUS sounded hostile to the very notion that elections have consequences—at least when a majority of justices dislike those consequences.[...]Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.
There is a big difference between deference and a presumption. Nobody has said why deference is better than a presumption. Judges don’t need to be experts to evaluate the expert agency opinion.
Finally, now we know the truth about the 6 foot requirement, , we should all. Be in favor of limiting the Chevron deference rule.
