Null



NolaAuTiger

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    4,449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

NolaAuTiger last won the day on October 27 2018

NolaAuTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,131 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank
    Royal Rogue Booster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. NolaAuTiger

    Kaepernick Won. The NFL Lost.

    Is there a strong correspondence between the amount of money similarly situated players made prior to being in the center of public attention for matters external to sports vs. the money they made after the matter was resolved? I could see how a correspondence would be enlightening, particularly to the point of why teams aren't chopping at the bit to sign him - irrespective of talent. Granted, he did not commit a comparatively egregious act like others in the NFL have (Hunt, Vick, Rice, etc.) I don't think it matters whether one was one the "Kap" side or the "NFL" side - regardless, the controversy spawned will accompany him for the rest of his career. Perhaps teams are wary of signing Kap, or anyone else for that matter, on the basis of the franchise's interest in minimizing accompanying external facets that will potentially attach to the organization? Or, should they sign such a player, its also reasonable that the pay be deemed in the eyes of the organization "commensurate" (for lack of better wording) with the public attention that will attach with the player?
  2. Worry About Debt? Not So Fast, Some Economists Say U.S. deficits may not matter so much after all—and it might not hurt to expand them for the right reasons David Harrison and Kate Davidson Feb. 17, 2019 9:47 a.m. ET As the national debt swells, some economists are making a once-heretical argument: The U.S. needn’t be so worried about all of its red ink. The 2017 Republican tax cuts and this year’s Democratic spending proposals have reignited long-simmering worries that the debt is getting too big. Annual deficits are set to top $1 trillion starting in 2022 and the Congressional Budget Office projects debt will total 93% of gross domestic product by the end of the next decade. Yet borrowing costs are still historically low, despite a surge in deficits and debt in the years following the financial crisis. Debt as a share of GDP rose from 34% before the recession, to 78% at the end of 2018. Treasury yields, on the other hand, have fallen from over 4% before the recession to 2.7%. That suggests investors aren’t worried about holding large volumes of credit. In theory, high debt levels should cause interest rates to rise. That’s because investors will demand higher returns to compensate for the risk they take on when the government borrows at unsustainable levels or because they worry that so much debt could trigger inflation. The need to finance such high levels of debt also makes less money available for other investments. In practice, investors are happy to keep lending to the U.S. in good times and bad, regardless of how much it borrows. In 2009, for instance, when the Obama administration’s stimulus efforts sent federal deficits rising to almost 10% of GDP, the highest since World War II, the interest on 10-year Treasury securities remained below where it had been before the recession. Many Republicans warned the U.S. was pushing itself to the brink of a fiscal crisis and pressed Mr. Obama to rein in spending. Economists debated how much debt a nation could hold before it crimped growth. In one paper, Harvard University economics professor Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, found that countries with debt loads greater than 90% of GDP tended to have slower growth rates. Now, some prominent economists say U.S. deficits don’t matter so much after all, and it might not hurt to expand them in return for beneficial programs such as an infrastructure project. “The levels of debt we have in the U.S. are not catastrophic,” said Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “We clearly can afford more debt if there is a good reason to do it. There’s no reason to panic.” Mr. Blanchard, also a former IMF chief economist, delivered a lecture at last month’s meeting of the American Economic Association where he called on economists and policymakers to reconsider their views on debt. The crux of Mr. Blanchard’s argument is that when the interest rate on government borrowing is below the growth rate of the economy, financing the debt should be sustainable. Interest rates will likely remain low in the coming years as the population ages. An aging population borrows and spends less and limits how much firms invest, holding down borrowing costs. That suggests the government will not be faced with an urgent need to shrink the debt. Mr. Blanchard stops short of arguing that the government should run up its debt indiscriminately. The need to finance higher government debt loads could soak up capital from investors that might otherwise be invested in promising private ventures. Mr. Rogoff himself is sympathetic. “The U.S. position is very strong at the moment,” he said. “There’s room.”
  3. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    IMO, there’s a common denominator that sets this course of action and others apart from the “norm” - namely the notion that the operative ramification is a disregarding of the democratic process, and the healthy gridlock (which forces compromise) that’s so fundamental to the nature of our democracy.
  4. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    We keep moving the needle in wrong direction, no doubt. Similar courses of action have undoubtedly preceded this one. But whether it’s executive orders, FISA apps, or emergency declarations, we must be cautious about what is happening to the actual standard. These “exceptions” (or however one may properly characterize them) were never intended to operate as a means to circumvent the democratic process. There’s a fine line, and I fear we are continually losing sight of it.
  5. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    Off the top of my head, that would trigger a much broader Constitutional basis. I get the point though. At some point, we have to put at end to these sorts of maneuvers - let's trust SCOTUS will help. I am not well-versed in political history, but it seems that since George W., this has only intensified in the Executive Branch.
  6. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    Unless the Court stops it right now, it’ll happen. And we will spiral out of control as a democracy.
  7. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    This wouldn’t be a win ha
  8. How is this weaseling? You’re just being a grump 😂
  9. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    Meanwhile the people of southern Louisiana will lose federal funding for wetlands that the state fought for years to have apportioned.
  10. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    It’s another example of the bar being set too low. As previously stated, we’ve already screwed Executive Orders for example. There are people in DC on both sides of the aisle who are secretly grinning at these sorts of actions because all it does is empower those down the line, in the future, to accomplish their own ends by similarly low-level means.
  11. NolaAuTiger

    President Emergency Powers

    Looks like Trump is going to break the glass ceiling and declare a national emergency. IMO, very unwise. It will establish a precedent at an extremely low level for emergency declarations. It sets the bar very low. We saw this with the expansion of the use of executive orders under Bush - Obama and Trump followed suit. FISA apps too. The next Democratic president is going to do the same thing with climate change via emergency powers - just as an example. BUT, then again, I would not be surprised the least bit if Gorsuch and Roberts rule against it - mark my words!
  12. What is false? Are you reading my comments???? I’m not arguing against the overwhelming consensus. We are in no disagreement. I do not know what you mean by “cite” the small fraction - I am just going off of one of the government-backed findings. If you want to see the link I’m happy to try and find it again. I do not think they offer a citation to identify the minority, they just say there is one. When I used the term “consensus” in the prior post, I did not mean that the majority of the scientific community makes a distinction.
  13. I just didn’t think this was “deep” enough to the point of being reprehensible and obligating one to owe another an apology. It’s a message board.
  14. To the first: The majority in the scientific community. To the second: yes Third: I was merely pointing out that there is a small fraction in the scientific community that distinguishes between AGW and “non” anthropogenic GW. That’s why I phrased the question in the way I did.