Three Changes

[sana8410]

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

[1715056427]

1715056427

[1715056427]

1715056427

[1715056427]

1715056427

[umair127]

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

[noviapriani]

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

I have it on good authority from an accomplished constitutional scholar that Hobby Lobby was decided on the basis of one single piece of legislation from 1993 and absolutely nothing else, because that's how Supreme Court decisions work.

[noviapriani]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

[umair127]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

You still have not read the decision have you?

Direct quote from the opinion:

"RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Ibid."

[noviapriani]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

You still have not read the decision have you?

Direct quote from the opinion:

"RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Ibid."

Yes, I have. But you're in the wrong thread.Also that quote agrees with what I just said. Thanks for proving me right again.

[sana8410]

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

As compared to the trillions in wealth lost during the financial crisis of 2008?

I think people would rather pay a few pennies more in bank fees, than to continue with banks allowing their reserves to get so low that they continually risk being unable to fulfill withdrawal requests if defaults spike --- especially when such risk means we can end up with banks failing and 8 million people losing their jobs and for millions to lose their homes, and for every worker in the country having to adjust to a severely depressed economy with lower wages and reduced standards of living.

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on how statutes work.I'm counting more than 1 piece of legislation already.

[sana8410]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......


I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

[noviapriani]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......


I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

I had actually beat him to that too, and he still either didn't understand the point or ignored it. He then responds to this post saying that 'person' is defined by The Dictionary Act, effectively (and seemingly completely unaware that he was) conceding.

He mentions in the beginning of that thread he had been a lawyer. It makes sense why he gave up on that. He seems to think the job description of a lawyer is to shit your pants and then do as much as you can to strengthen your opponent's argument.

[Rigon]

Most controversial:

1. Lower taxes and remove all deductions aka loopholes. No one deserves a tax credit just for wanting a house, a kid, or an ivy league education.

2. Single payer healthcare although for the sake of the economy and choice allow varous options through insurance companies. The big thing would be unhooking healthcare from being still largely based on employers and high deductible plans.

3. Remove finance reform and replace it with full contribution disclosures. It doesn't matter who gives how much to a campaign as long as it's not anonymous.

[sana8410]

Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

He(umair) is indeed wrong.

In his zeal to hype the RFRA as the totality of the Hobby Lobby case, he seems to neglect that the RFRA itself applies to only those with First Amendment rights......


I wonder if the RFRA would apply to corporations. Hmmmmmmmmm

I had actually beat him to that too, and he still either didn't understand the point or ignored it. He then responds to this post saying that 'person' is defined by The Dictionary Act, effectively (and seemingly completely unaware that he was) conceding.

He mentions in the beginning of that thread he had been a lawyer. It makes sense why he gave up on that. He seems to think the job description of a lawyer is to shit your pants and then do as much as you can to strengthen your opponent's argument.

lol


I'm not sure how anyone could claim that only one piece of law played into the Hobby Lobby decision.


Even at first glance, the Hobby Lobby case involved more than the RFRA, because it requires the First Amendment as well. And looking deeper at the case, it is evident that other laws played a part, like:

  1.  exemptions in the ACA itself,
  2. the Dictionary Act,
  3.  the 14th Amendment,
  4.  Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (and a variety of related case law),
  5.  and even the justices' vague consideration of state laws defining closely-held corporations.