The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Private enterprise? If a company invents something, can it sell it for a profit?

Of course they can.

Or is the financial incentive in your country reduced or eliminated in some way?

nope.
Well......... with things like medicines we have a shorter period of time before generics are allowed, but besides that, nope.

[Gatefan1976]

Now for something completely different.
Ted Cruz is having his ability to run challenged.

Cruz is a proud supporter of the conservative legal tradition of constitutional originalism: interpreting the Constitution not by what its words ought to mean today, but by what the Founding Fathers meant as they wrote them in 1787. Cruz is arguably the national politician most closely identified with originalism; he's certainly the presidential candidate with the closest ties to the conservative legal movement.

According to Tribe, constitutional originalism defines "natural born" very narrowly, in a way that would exclude Cruz. By extension, Tribe argued in the Boston Globe, any judges Cruz would appoint to the federal bench as president would invalidate his own presidency.

Full article: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court

What amuses me is that if Cruz took a living constitutional approach, this would be a non issue, but as he is a staunch literalist, it is.

[Annoyed]

Hey, it's a fair question. Better to settle it now than later on.
I have no idea which way the courts will rule on this, but I will bet one thing.

It will at least get a fair run through the court system, as compared to the accusations that the LSoS was ineligible for the same reasons, which were largely ignored.

[SoulReaver]

So that people couldn't stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo.

You buy ammo for target practice when you're at the shooting range. But it doesn't leave the range.

k so the law essentially allows citizens to defend themselves 50 times (assuming optimal use of ammo ie. 1 bullet per assailant) but I guess that's better than nothing :/

what of those in law enforcement do they get a free pass for personal offduty use or does the limit apply to them too?

[Gatefan1976]

Hey, it's a fair question. Better to settle it now than later on.
I have no idea which way the courts will rule on this, but I will bet one thing.

It's a stupid question.

It will at least get a fair run through the court system, as compared to the accusations that the LSoS was ineligible for the same reasons, which were largely ignored.

Cruz was born in Canada, which, last time I checked, was not actually part of America.
Obama was born in Hawaii, which, last time I checked, WAS actually part of America, and has been since 1959
These are not comparable situations.
As for them being ignored, have you forgotten the whole "birther" crap, or the dozens of suits filed since 2008??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack...ity_litigation
(yes, it's wiki, but I am not tracking down individual sources for dozens of lawsuits)

Yeah "largely ignored"

[garhkal]

Now for something completely different.
Ted Cruz is having his ability to run challenged.


Full article: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court

What amuses me is that if Cruz took a living constitutional approach, this would be a non issue, but as he is a staunch literalist, it is.

Since Rubio was born in the US but not of US parents, how is he any less 'natural born citizen' to run than Cruz??

Also where were these people when Obama ran, since he May have been born in Hawaii (still imo contested), but didn't have either parent who were US citizens..??

[Gatefan1976]

Since Rubio was born in the US but not of US parents, how is he any less 'natural born citizen' to run than Cruz??

Rubio: Born in the US, therefore a US citizen by default according to US law.
Cruz: Born in Canada, not US citizen by default, but as a parent was American, can get it at birth -if requested-.

Also where were these people when Obama ran

Did you miss the whole birther debacle?

, since he May have been born in Hawaii (still imo contested),

Nope, just forgot it I see.

but didn't have either parent who were US citizens..??

That is not a requirement.

[Falcon Horus]

Oh noes, he may have been an anchor baby.... that's what anchor babies are, right? Two non-US citizens as parents but born on US-soil?

[Annoyed]

Yes, the baby, if born in the US is a US citizen. Which automagically grants permanent rights for the parents to stay in the country, and usually access to social services benefits as well, hence the term anchor baby.

[Falcon Horus]

So, Rubio was an anchor baby?

[Annoyed]

Dunno. I read an overview of Rubio about a year or two ago, didn't like what I read, and I haven't paid any attention to him since.

[Gatefan1976]

So, Rubio was an anchor baby?

Delicious, isn't it.

[Coco Pops]

We might be going to an early election here in Australia.

The current govt. have no policies to take to the election, which should have been around September / October, but they are still acting like they are in "opposition mode" and not in government mode, so all they can do, and have been doing is attack, attack, attack the other party and nor come up with any decent policies.

Honestly Parliamentary Question Time is like watching children fighting. Has anyone watched QT in other countries? Ours is a joke.

It's quite incredible really.....

Malcolm Turncoat the PM himself could run with a bunch of popular reforms like SSM, or ETS or Republic etc. Instead the party seems perpetually trapped in the 1950s with visions of women tied to the home as housewives and baby factories.

But his party is just so anti-everything that they have left themselves without a single popular policy choice. They have badmouthed every decent Labor policy like their policy on Negative Gearing, and are left holding a bad deficit without having the guts to make any significant changes or reform to anything.

It's like they are paralysed by their own fear. I think they actually should of gone with a GST increase, despite being bad for growth it was about the only trick they had up their sleeve.

Negative Gearing is a huge rort in many western countries.

/thus ends my rant.

[Annoyed]

I'm not up on Australian government or politics, but what I found in a quick google search makes me think they might be as boneheaded as the US.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...51174bbe2b31b3
(May not load for you, seems to be a subscriber only article, but with firefox & ad/script blockers in use, I was able to load it)

If I understand this right, the Australian government is using tax revenue to artificially prop up the value of real estate properties to ensure property owners don't take a bath because property values are dropping.

I'm not so fond of that idea. First, property value losses mean nothing UNLESS YOU ARE SELLING. Values will go back up when whatever is driving them down is fixed.

But artificially manipulating the market like this has other downsides too. The practice protects those who already own property, at the expense of those who do not, and would like to purchase property at reduced cost due to the (presumed) economic downswing that is forcing prices lower.

I'm not so fond of the government playing games like that.

Labor’s proposal to trim negative gearing concessions for investment properties could spell trou*ble for almost 400 suburbs across the country, with executives labelling areas with a high proportion of investor stock as the ones likely to suffer the steepest long-term price falls.

The Weekend Australian has identified 383 suburbs across the country in which investors own up to more than 60 per cent of the housing and apartment stock, ranging* from established harbourside and inner-city suburbs such as Lavender Bay and Ultimo in Sydney, to newly created suburbs thick with development in Adelaide, and outlying areas, such as the Townsville suburb of Idalia.

According to property executives, many of these suburbs rely on investors to keep properties turning over and without their participation in the market the buying pool will shrink, with a decline* in competitive tension pulling prices lower.

“It could decimate people and families because they won’t be able to sell their properties,” Century 21 chairman Charles Tarbey told The Weekend Australian .

“These changes could close a very big door.”

The Grattan Institute has flagged falls of up to 10 per cent, while others are torn on whether investors who already own property will bunker down to retain tax benefits that are grandfathered, or will sell ahead of the implement*ation date to nab buyers while price*s are still firm.

Property investors accounted for about 37 per cent of home loans issued over the past three years, amounting to a total value of more than $58 billion, according to AFG’s Mortgage Index.

Over the past decade, more than 93 per cent of the total amount lent to investors has gone into existing housing, while invest*ors accounted for just 20 per cent of investment in new housing and off-the-plan apartments.

“The real test will come when they go to sell those properties, and if they’re true investment-grade properties then they’ll take a hit,” Core Logic RP Data analyst Cameron Kusher said. “In other markets like Perth, Brisbane, Adelaid*e and Canberra, where we haven’t seen much growth, that fall could be very bad.”

[Annoyed]

And now for an example of the United States' foolishness when it comes to money.

Let's look at US spending as if it were a family budget, where the numbers are small enough that most people can wrap their heads around them.

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...e-carrie-lukas

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385

I don't know about the banks near you, but mine would have cancelled my credit cards long ago.