>You can't pass a budget without a super majority in the Senate
Yes you can. It is called reconciliation and it was made for passing a budget with a simple majority. Problem is when republicans used it earlier this summer they didn't actually fund the government fully so now they need 60 votes.
>Problem is when republicans used it earlier this summer they didn't actually fund the government fully so now they need 60 votes.
How did the OBBBA get passed under reconciliation then? I thought the whole point was that bills could only pass via reconciliation if it didn't change spending/revenues?
There were arcane rules. For example to pass the Shuttle-to-Houson bullshit (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45424822) they couldn't put money for a specific policy (move Discovery) but only set aside money for Texas to house a nonspecific vehicle, one that had flown to space. Etc.
Many of the other comments in the thread illustrate that you shouldn't trust proclamations on the internet, AI or otherwise. You don't ipso facto need 60 votes to pass every bill through the Senate. The reconciliation bill over the summer thus passed with solely Republican support.
It's the opposite. Reconciliation lets you pass bills that only change spending/revenues, and isn't allowed to change policies which are revenue-neutral.
You might be thinking of how it's not allowed to create a deficit after 10 years, but that's traditionally done by just saying "everything here expires after 10 years" and then leaning on a later congress to extend it.
That still doesn't explain how the OBBBA passed but they can't use the same process to pass a debt limit increase. Do republicans want to add more stuff to the bill? Based on the wikipedia article it looks like it should be able to pass a bill that only raises the debt limit through reconciliation?
They could have raised the debt limit through reconciliation, but this shutdown isn't about the debt limit. This is literally the bill saying what the budget for the next year is, without which the government isn't allowed to spend any money (as opposed to not having any money to spend when it's the debt limit).
I think the reason they can't use reconciliation for this is that the budget has to include discretionary spending, and reconciliation is only allowed to be used for mandatory spending.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out why it should matter who owns these farms to anyone who doesn't own one. Impact to our food supply seems minimal at best. At worst, we are taking taxes from teachers to send to these rich farmers, which seems like terrible policy.
Not a an expert in this area at all, but I suspect there's an aspect here if maintaining productive capacity to replace imported food, if that became unavailable. Cursory searching suggests US food exports are similar in scale to food imports. Roughly speaking, with some adaptation that export capacity could be redirected for domestic nutrition.
If, in contrast, you let those farms and skill dry up it would be difficult to rebuild quickly.
How does capacity work? If the US needs food because of an export stop of supplier countries because of a crisis, those farmers can't swap out what they produce. Depending on the year of time it might take 12 months to swap out export products for something else. This is not "standby-capacity".
Many things that can stop imports take a lot longer than 12 months to resolve. Wars can take several years for example.
Getting a domestic replacement in 12 months of belt tightening would still be a lot better than having to deal with several more years of that.
Also I'd expect that there are cases were we export X and import Y, and if Y was cut off we could switch to using X somewhat as a substitute. I don't know offhand of any specific plant foods where this is the case, but pork and beef illustrate the idea. We import about 15% of our beef. If that got cut off we could cut some pork exports and use that as a substitute. It's not a great substitute but it is calories that can get you through a crisis.
I get that aspect. My assumption is that due to scale, location, etc., a farm that transitions from its current owner to a different owner will still be a farm with (possibly the same) employees. I don't see 30% of the farmland in Arkansas (assuming a foreclosure rate that high) suddenly becoming new-build city centers, or factories, or suburbs. It works as farmland, someone will probably buy it to use as farmland.
I don't see why it's strategically important to the US taxpayer that one millionaire own it vs a different millionaire (or corporation).
Cos then you'll believe the story and side with the farmer that voted for the leopards and will vote for them again in the next election cos the "coastal elites are out of touch".
is Asmongold wrong? the WhitePeopleTwitter subreddit is now banned for 72 hours.
"This community has been banned
This subreddit has been temporarily banned due to a prevalence of violent content. Inciting and glorifying violence or doxing are against Reddit’s platform-wide Rules. It will reopen in 72 hours, during which Reddit will support moderators and provide resources to keep Reddit a healthy place for discussion and debate."
Reddit banned it because they were threatened by Elon. And the 'doxing' everyone is talking about is the naming of Elon's rightwing goons who took over federal systems lol. He said the same 'tHeY aRe cOmMItTinG a CrImE' bullshit against wired and other outlets who reported on his goons.
As for violent content on reddit lets be real please. If you want to talk about violence open a Israel-Palestine thread not /r/whitepeopletwitter lol..
I'll never understand why people think being across the globe matters. Basically all internet crime can be done across the globe (plus tons of other types of crime like drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc).
Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
The problem is that it sort of does. It shouldn't, but laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in. Sure there are extradition treaties, but those are far more malleable and operate at a much higher level, turning what would be a mundane crime into a nation state level concern.
I don't think there's a good solution here. Obviously the police of one country turning up and arresting people in another is a non-starter. The best option is probably just countries agreeing on the same important laws (e.g. it's rare for extradition for murder to be controversial), but copyright infringement is viewed very differently around the world, and the US has rightly struggled to exert its own opinions on this topic on other nation states.
Actually, jurisdiction is not solely based on physical location but fundamentally on the power and authority to enforce laws. While geographic boundaries are significant, they are not the only factor determining jurisdiction. Countries often assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially when crimes committed abroad have substantial effects within their own territory or involve their nationals.
This is my point, that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction is up to agreements between countries, and not laws within one country. These agreements are fundamentally political and at the whim of both countries involved. They are not a simple police matter as they would be if the crime took place within one country.
> laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in.
I don’t think this is accurate, wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire. What is t resolved is when there is no escalation path.
> wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire
The minor error here is that wire fraud isn't literally named after crossing jurisdictions; there's nothing stopping a wire from having both its endpoints in the same state.
The major error is that while you're correct that wire fraud has to cross jurisdictions because of certain legal boondoggles, it isn't a crime in any of the jurisdictions it crosses. Only in the ur-jurisdiction superior to both of them.
I think you might be thinking of US states, which is a bit of a special case. I believe wire fraud in the US is a federal crime because it can easily cross US-state boundaries.
Ignoring US peculiarity here, if you commit fraud online against someone from one country, when you're in a country where that is not fraud, that's something that would need to rely on extradition treaties. You haven't committed a crime at home where you were so police aren't going to come and arrest you unless the country you committed the crime against convinces them to do so.
This was a similar situation before US states figured out the federal escalation policy. And, with abortion access, it is also a front and center issue again. I’m unconvinced by your dismissal - how is it different, except lacking an escalation path to resolve it?
> Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries. Or rather, what is illegal differs between countries.
I think what parent is trying to call out unfair, is someone getting arrested in one country where something isn't necessarily proven to be illegal, then taken to a different country and prosecuted there, even if you're not actively involved with that country. Things like drug trafficking arrests are made by either the receiving/sending side (either way, local border control and/or anti-narcotics police) of that particular transaction, not by some other party half-way across the globe, because it isn't really their responsibility.
But then I'm sure you can make the argument that because somewhere, somehow, Kim Dotcom touched USD and/or US movie studios so the US has "right" to make whatever he did their business.
It's easy to just declare something "crime" and then claim justification for anything you do to prosecute it, but the strategy is also often a moral sewer of corrupt interests and mendacity.
If you think that the sort of "crime" that Dotcom committed justified all the measures taken against him, especially given the kind of reprehensible corporate interests working behind these measures for their own entirely self serving extremes, then maybe you should more closely examine how you define your morality on crime.
If an alleged crime affects someone or some company in another country, that country has the right to request extradition to force the accused to stand trial. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.
It has nothing to do with the US uniquely, nor is it about one country making laws for citizens of a different country.
NZ isn't some 3rd world country where someone who broke the law can flee. There are plenty of cases where a non-citizen breaks US Law (ex: Sanctions) and is arrested outside of the USA.
The United States and New Zealand have a number of agreements in place to fight crime and are both are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
sorry but this makes no sense: if you infrange a US law, but you neither are a US resident or citizen, or you never even been there, why this law should apply to you?
perhaps nz is indeed a US protectorate if it allows this
What part of this situation implies one jurisdiction is above another? This is happening because New Zealand has an extradition treaty with the US that they mutually agreed to.
in this case US law is clearly superior because the guy is not a US citizen, the "crime" wasn't even committed in the US and yet he is extradited, or better say, moved there for what reasons? infringement of us law
fairly soon it will be illegal to stream pornography in the United States, wanna be arrested for looking at PH for 20 seconds while in some free country like China? :)
it already is in some states and soon it will be federal thing. In Virginia for instance, while technically not illegal, no major pornography website operates. soon there will be prison sentences if you do and NZ will be extrading people for looking at boobs :) cause you know - jurisdiction and all that jazz…
