The "great mental ward of the Pacific Northwest"

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:45:41 -0600, AMuzi wrote:


Bonus= If Congress had to actually read and write all by their little
pointy headed selves, the nation could not possibly be worse and may
well be better.

Shudder, be careful what you wish for. Pollies are very bad at drafting
legislation. Your lot will nt be any better than out recent lot has been.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:47:25 -0800, sltom992 wrote:


I have to ask Jay - since you obviously don't know anything about the
markets perhaps you can tell us why the markets ALL over the world have
been effected by the Federal Reserve threatening to increase interest
rates?

Oh that is easy, when the USA was paying SFA on its bonds, money moved
elsewhere to other countries and inflated other stock markets. Now that
the USA is paying real interest, the money is leaving other foreign stock
market, thus defalting them and coming back into the USA.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 10:25:44 -0800, jbeattie wrote:

The WSJ had a nice article this morning, too, about the affect of robot
trading.

Aah, thanks. I was wondering why our news droid mentioned it this
evening. Normally they wouldn't know why their arse was on fire.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:42:48 -0800, sltom992 wrote:



Then you should take your money out of the market and invest it in real
estate or government bonds with a return of less than 1%.

Long term average is 2%.

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 10:42:19 AM UTC, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:03:42 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

I'd rater not be in Chuck Schumer's
shoes right now, because the pressure to settle must be tremendous. My
betting is he will settle, if not for the full 5b or whatever Mr Trump
is demanding, then for something substantial over 1.6b.

Err, change your news sources. trumpy has already blinked.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4791994/d...ey-for-border-
wall/

That's the art of the deal, my man. You ask for the impossible, then negotiate down to the last amount that won't cause the other guy to walk away for good. Schemer made a mistake when he said there will be no wall. I thought at first that Trump made a mistake when he took responsibility for the shutdown, but I was wrong; this isn't about who makes a mistake, but about who makes the bigger mistake.

Andre Jute
Applied Psychology 101

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 10:45:36 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

Now that you mention it, let's start thinking of some way to
trim Art I and Art III deadweight.

I quite see the point of making Supreme Court of the US justices totally independent of the passing parade of ward heelers etc in the political branches of Government (beyond the confirmation procedure which when it works is excellent, and more generally is a unique American contribution to the incorruptibility of higher courts that other nations could well emulate), and State Supreme Court judges as well, but why, oh why should lower-court judges, especially those elected in party-political contests, have immunity for their misdeeds?

Bonus= If Congress had to actually read and write all by
their little pointy headed selves, the nation could not
possibly be worse and may well be better.

"We have to pass the legislation to find out what is in it"?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The problem starts with the House of Representatives abdicating its powers to all and sundry, not just warmaking powers to the President, but legislative powers to all those unaccountable regulatory authorities whose rules, often with retrospective effect, by a ruling of the Supreme Court have the same effect as laws passed by Congress. That's just plain stupid, and was obviously so before it even started though I can understand why it started in WW2 in the wartime agencies, but not why it was allowed to accelerate so grotesquely from the the 1960s forward.

Andre Jute
Oh blessed peace of the end of history -- only joking! It would be terminally dull.

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 2:58:23 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:42:48 -0800, sltom992 wrote:



Then you should take your money out of the market and invest it in real
estate or government bonds with a return of less than 1%.

Long term average is 2%.

I just got a prospectus from my counselor yesterday that says differently. But you're free to tell us everything you know about investing large sums of money.

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 10:16:11 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 8:15:14 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

For employees who actually work or are owed wages, payment is compelled under the FLSA. Read this: https://www.scribd.com/document/3395...-2013-Shutdown Like any other employer, if the federal government fails to pay employees on time, it is subject to penalties and attorney fee claims under the FLSA. It's all there on the interweb. All money pouring out of the federal government. No savings for walls, sidewalks, bridges . . . nothing.

-- Jay Beattie.

Federal employees actually work for the President, whichever party's golden boy sits in the hot seat at that moment. This is a constitutional matter, because the President is the chief executive of the nation. He can also fire each and every one of those employees, same as he appoints and fires principal officers. The President as chief executive is most likely subject to the same laws as any other organisation with a CEO and employees -- at least I've never heard an argument to the contrary, except the general one that certain of the president's functions and action are immune to legal challenge until after he ceases to be president.

Of course, the government unions can't let this managerial strike continue much longer, or people will start noticing that the country runs better without the government. I'd rater not be in Chuck Schumer's shoes right now, because the pressure to settle must be tremendous. My betting is he will settle, if not for the full 5b or whatever Mr Trump is demanding, then for something substantial over 1.6b.

Wow, this will come as a huge surprise to all the employees of the legislative and judicial branches of government. I'll let you break it to the local federal judges that they work for the President. Who knew?

There are millions of government employees to whom what I wrote applies directly, and perhaps a hundred thousand to whom your sarcastic exemption applies, and guess what, they are specifically excluded by category from the rule I stated.

Actually not. https://law.justia.com/constitution/...val-power.html And that doesn't address CBAs or the statues regulating who may fire whom.

Speaking statues yet! I knew there was a giggle in all this. As for the reference, I'll trust you to give me a true precise. I have no intention of being deflected by reams of cases, even ones where in each instance my skipping eye alights on a case which proves my point, for instance whatever the "Meyers case" is about.

I like you better when you apply your smarts rather than your temper, Jay. This sort of middle school debating tactic is an insult.

Somalia certainly runs better without government, don't you think?

****, yes. I've been in Somalia when they had a government. Have you? The government tried to confiscate the trucks in which were conveying food to the starving. After a bit of to and fro with rifles, they decided to wait for the next convoy instead. See, in those parts of the world, a government, any government, is just a warlord temporarily dominant; the effect on the ground is simply that you're defending yourself against soldiers in uniform rather than the same tribesmen without uniforms. You really shouldn't be writing sarcastically about places you don't know **** about to someone who does know.

So, the answer is that in a country with no central government, there is chaos. Is that correct?

No, the answer is that with or without a government, there is armed corruption. I thought I made that clear. Anyway, what's the point of this argument? I've been there, several times, and each time observed the case, and you haven't been there even once. I don't care **** about Somali warlords and their subordinate thugs, and neither do you.

Maybe we should try a caliphate -- that seems to be really working out..

Of course it is, by the terms of the caliphate. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the caliphate in either its own terms or yours, as I was discussing American structures in American terms, until you stupidly tried to trip me on a technicality that has no place beyond a neutral correction in a social discourse.

By the way, do you actually read what you write?

Of course I do; it's only good manners to present your arguments logically even if you can't manage elegance and wit. What are you suggesting, that I hire a shyster to edit my words to a social forum for the slightest fingernail crack that you can explode into a chasm of misunderstanding?

You can put dog **** in a box with a bow on it, but that doesn't make it beautiful.

Charming!

You're spewing wrong information about the removal power,

Fine, then correct me politely. If you don't, don't blame for reacting in kind.

and even if you dress it up in Victorian English in impossibly complicated sentences,

If you ask me nicely and kiss my ass, I'll give it to you in idiot's English sentences without any subsidiary clauses or nuances. Soon you'll be complaining that I'm treating you like an idiot. Where's that circle-**** get us?

it is still wrong.

Asked and answered. See above.

The President can down-size government in a number of ways, \

Why didn't you say so in the first instance, instead trying your laughably slippery act on us?

but he has limited power to fire line employees from any branch of government.

I already agreed that he has no power to fire certain categories of government employee at all, and I'm happy to agree that his powers may be limited to fire others. So why don't you specify which employees the President can fire, and we'll count them up and see if they total more than the ones he can't fire. That seems fair to me, and should seem fair even to a lawyer if he's corresponding in good faith.

-- Jay Beattie.

Let's see the most slithery of your arguments again:
The President can down-size government in a number of ways,
Nope, trying to exclude "downsizing" from making employees redundant -- which is what in the Age of Euphemism we say instead of "fire" -- is not a good-faith argument.

Andre Jute
Remembering Chris, who did my dissection at college, and ate his sandwiches from a plate on "our" corpse's forehead. You're beyond cool, man.

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 8:36:28 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 10:16:11 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 8:15:14 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

For employees who actually work or are owed wages, payment is compelled under the FLSA. Read this: https://www.scribd.com/document/3395...-2013-Shutdown Like any other employer, if the federal government fails to pay employees on time, it is subject to penalties and attorney fee claims under the FLSA. It's all there on the interweb. All money pouring out of the federal government. No savings for walls, sidewalks, bridges . . . nothing.

-- Jay Beattie.

Federal employees actually work for the President, whichever party's golden boy sits in the hot seat at that moment. This is a constitutional matter, because the President is the chief executive of the nation. He can also fire each and every one of those employees, same as he appoints and fires principal officers. The President as chief executive is most likely subject to the same laws as any other organisation with a CEO and employees -- at least I've never heard an argument to the contrary, except the general one that certain of the president's functions and action are immune to legal challenge until after he ceases to be president.

Of course, the government unions can't let this managerial strike continue much longer, or people will start noticing that the country runs better without the government. I'd rater not be in Chuck Schumer's shoes right now, because the pressure to settle must be tremendous. My betting is he will settle, if not for the full 5b or whatever Mr Trump is demanding, then for something substantial over 1.6b.

Wow, this will come as a huge surprise to all the employees of the legislative and judicial branches of government. I'll let you break it to the local federal judges that they work for the President. Who knew?

There are millions of government employees to whom what I wrote applies directly, and perhaps a hundred thousand to whom your sarcastic exemption applies, and guess what, they are specifically excluded by category from the rule I stated.

Actually not. https://law.justia.com/constitution/...val-power.html And that doesn't address CBAs or the statues regulating who may fire whom.

Speaking statues yet! I knew there was a giggle in all this. As for the reference, I'll trust you to give me a true precise. I have no intention of being deflected by reams of cases, even ones where in each instance my skipping eye alights on a case which proves my point, for instance whatever the "Meyers case" is about.

I like you better when you apply your smarts rather than your temper, Jay. This sort of middle school debating tactic is an insult.

Somalia certainly runs better without government, don't you think?

****, yes. I've been in Somalia when they had a government. Have you? The government tried to confiscate the trucks in which were conveying food to the starving. After a bit of to and fro with rifles, they decided to wait for the next convoy instead. See, in those parts of the world, a government, any government, is just a warlord temporarily dominant; the effect on the ground is simply that you're defending yourself against soldiers in uniform rather than the same tribesmen without uniforms. You really shouldn't be writing sarcastically about places you don't know **** about to someone who does know.

So, the answer is that in a country with no central government, there is chaos. Is that correct?

No, the answer is that with or without a government, there is armed corruption. I thought I made that clear. Anyway, what's the point of this argument? I've been there, several times, and each time observed the case, and you haven't been there even once. I don't care **** about Somali warlords and their subordinate thugs, and neither do you.

Maybe we should try a caliphate -- that seems to be really working out.

Of course it is, by the terms of the caliphate. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the caliphate in either its own terms or yours, as I was discussing American structures in American terms, until you stupidly tried to trip me on a technicality that has no place beyond a neutral correction in a social discourse.

By the way, do you actually read what you write?

Of course I do; it's only good manners to present your arguments logically even if you can't manage elegance and wit. What are you suggesting, that I hire a shyster to edit my words to a social forum for the slightest fingernail crack that you can explode into a chasm of misunderstanding?

You can put dog **** in a box with a bow on it, but that doesn't make it beautiful.

Charming!

You're spewing wrong information about the removal power,

Fine, then correct me politely. If you don't, don't blame for reacting in kind.

and even if you dress it up in Victorian English in impossibly complicated sentences,

If you ask me nicely and kiss my ass, I'll give it to you in idiot's English sentences without any subsidiary clauses or nuances. Soon you'll be complaining that I'm treating you like an idiot. Where's that circle-**** get us?

it is still wrong.

Asked and answered. See above.

The President can down-size government in a number of ways, \

Why didn't you say so in the first instance, instead trying your laughably slippery act on us?

but he has limited power to fire line employees from any branch of government.

I already agreed that he has no power to fire certain categories of government employee at all, and I'm happy to agree that his powers may be limited to fire others. So why don't you specify which employees the President can fire, and we'll count them up and see if they total more than the ones he can't fire. That seems fair to me, and should seem fair even to a lawyer if he's corresponding in good faith.

-- Jay Beattie.

Let's see the most slithery of your arguments again:
The President can down-size government in a number of ways,
Nope, trying to exclude "downsizing" from making employees redundant -- which is what in the Age of Euphemism we say instead of "fire" -- is not a good-faith argument.

Andre Jute
Remembering Chris, who did my dissection at college, and ate his sandwiches from a plate on "our" corpse's forehead. You're beyond cool, man.

Well, to avoid having to play whack-a-mole, this is what you said:

"Federal employees actually work for the President, whichever party's golden boy sits in the hot seat at that moment. This is a constitutional matter, because the President is the chief executive of the nation. He can also fire each and every one of those employees, same as he appoints and fires principal officers. The President as chief executive is most likely subject to the same laws as any other organisation with a CEO and employees -- at least I've never heard an argument to the contrary, except the general one that certain of the president's functions and action are immune to legal challenge until after he ceases to be president."

I can spend all day going over why that is wrong, and you can pelt me with your frilly responses, but no one with half-a-brain and access to LEXIS would endorse that statement. Federal employees do not work for the President. The President cannot fire line Federal employees. He cannot walk into a post office and say "you're fired" -- well he could and would, but that just proves he's a lunatic. The President can fire certain Executive appointees who do not exercise legislative or judicial functions. He can reduce the size of government through agency directives and the budget process, assuming Congress and the courts go along. Even quasi-judicial functions can be terminated through the budget process. See e.g. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1128776.html (P.S. briefed and argued by me).

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 9:41:57 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 8:36:28 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:59:58 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 10:16:11 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 8:15:14 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

For employees who actually work or are owed wages, payment is compelled under the FLSA. Read this: https://www.scribd.com/document/3395...-2013-Shutdown Like any other employer, if the federal government fails to pay employees on time, it is subject to penalties and attorney fee claims under the FLSA. It's all there on the interweb. All money pouring out of the federal government. No savings for walls, sidewalks, bridges . . . nothing.

-- Jay Beattie.

Federal employees actually work for the President, whichever party's golden boy sits in the hot seat at that moment. This is a constitutional matter, because the President is the chief executive of the nation. He can also fire each and every one of those employees, same as he appoints and fires principal officers. The President as chief executive is most likely subject to the same laws as any other organisation with a CEO and employees -- at least I've never heard an argument to the contrary, except the general one that certain of the president's functions and action are immune to legal challenge until after he ceases to be president.

Of course, the government unions can't let this managerial strike continue much longer, or people will start noticing that the country runs better without the government. I'd rater not be in Chuck Schumer's shoes right now, because the pressure to settle must be tremendous. My betting is he will settle, if not for the full 5b or whatever Mr Trump is demanding, then for something substantial over 1.6b.

Wow, this will come as a huge surprise to all the employees of the legislative and judicial branches of government. I'll let you break it to the local federal judges that they work for the President. Who knew?

There are millions of government employees to whom what I wrote applies directly, and perhaps a hundred thousand to whom your sarcastic exemption applies, and guess what, they are specifically excluded by category from the rule I stated.

Actually not. https://law.justia.com/constitution/...val-power.html And that doesn't address CBAs or the statues regulating who may fire whom.

Speaking statues yet! I knew there was a giggle in all this. As for the reference, I'll trust you to give me a true precise. I have no intention of being deflected by reams of cases, even ones where in each instance my skipping eye alights on a case which proves my point, for instance whatever the "Meyers case" is about.

I like you better when you apply your smarts rather than your temper, Jay. This sort of middle school debating tactic is an insult.

Somalia certainly runs better without government, don't you think?

****, yes. I've been in Somalia when they had a government. Have you? The government tried to confiscate the trucks in which were conveying food to the starving. After a bit of to and fro with rifles, they decided to wait for the next convoy instead. See, in those parts of the world, a government, any government, is just a warlord temporarily dominant; the effect on the ground is simply that you're defending yourself against soldiers in uniform rather than the same tribesmen without uniforms. You really shouldn't be writing sarcastically about places you don't know **** about to someone who does know.

So, the answer is that in a country with no central government, there is chaos. Is that correct?

No, the answer is that with or without a government, there is armed corruption. I thought I made that clear. Anyway, what's the point of this argument? I've been there, several times, and each time observed the case, and you haven't been there even once. I don't care **** about Somali warlords and their subordinate thugs, and neither do you.

Maybe we should try a caliphate -- that seems to be really working out.

Of course it is, by the terms of the caliphate. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the caliphate in either its own terms or yours, as I was discussing American structures in American terms, until you stupidly tried to trip me on a technicality that has no place beyond a neutral correction in a social discourse.

By the way, do you actually read what you write?

Of course I do; it's only good manners to present your arguments logically even if you can't manage elegance and wit. What are you suggesting, that I hire a shyster to edit my words to a social forum for the slightest fingernail crack that you can explode into a chasm of misunderstanding?

You can put dog **** in a box with a bow on it, but that doesn't make it beautiful.

Charming!

You're spewing wrong information about the removal power,

Fine, then correct me politely. If you don't, don't blame for reacting in kind.

and even if you dress it up in Victorian English in impossibly complicated sentences,

If you ask me nicely and kiss my ass, I'll give it to you in idiot's English sentences without any subsidiary clauses or nuances. Soon you'll be complaining that I'm treating you like an idiot. Where's that circle-**** get us?

it is still wrong.

Asked and answered. See above.

The President can down-size government in a number of ways, \

Why didn't you say so in the first instance, instead trying your laughably slippery act on us?

but he has limited power to fire line employees from any branch of government.

I already agreed that he has no power to fire certain categories of government employee at all, and I'm happy to agree that his powers may be limited to fire others. So why don't you specify which employees the President can fire, and we'll count them up and see if they total more than the ones he can't fire. That seems fair to me, and should seem fair even to a lawyer if he's corresponding in good faith.

-- Jay Beattie.

Let's see the most slithery of your arguments again:
The President can down-size government in a number of ways,
Nope, trying to exclude "downsizing" from making employees redundant -- which is what in the Age of Euphemism we say instead of "fire" -- is not a good-faith argument.

Andre Jute
Remembering Chris, who did my dissection at college, and ate his sandwiches from a plate on "our" corpse's forehead. You're beyond cool, man.

Well, to avoid having to play whack-a-mole, this is what you said:

"Federal employees actually work for the President, whichever party's golden boy sits in the hot seat at that moment. This is a constitutional matter, because the President is the chief executive of the nation. He can also fire each and every one of those employees, same as he appoints and fires principal officers. The President as chief executive is most likely subject to the same laws as any other organisation with a CEO and employees -- at least I've never heard an argument to the contrary, except the general one that certain of the president's functions and action are immune to legal challenge until after he ceases to be president."

I can spend all day going over why that is wrong, and you can pelt me with your frilly responses, but no one with half-a-brain and access to LEXIS would endorse that statement. Federal employees do not work for the President. The President cannot fire line Federal employees. He cannot walk into a post office and say "you're fired" -- well he could and would, but that just proves he's a lunatic. The President can fire certain Executive appointees who do not exercise legislative or judicial functions. He can reduce the size of government through agency directives and the budget process, assuming Congress and the courts go along. Even quasi-judicial functions can be terminated through the budget process. See e.g. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1128776.html (P.S. briefed and argued by me).

-- Jay Beattie.

And not to put too fine a point on it, read this: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-co...n_decision.pdf
It's so complicated! Who knew?