We need more of this in the USA Twitch | / atrioc Twitter | / atrioc RU-vid | / atrioc VOD Channel | / @atriocvods Reddit | / atrioc Edited by ædish :) | / aedishedits Outro music | @CMT8 #atrioc #clips #twitch
I'll never forget the scene in the cult classic Cat in the Hat (2003) where the babysitter is watching a fight in a parliament on TV and the kids turn to each other and say "Taiwanese parliament" in unison. What a crazy joke to include in a kids film
here's the jist: There are three parties: the DPP(progressive), the KMT(conservatives/mainland china appeasers), and the TPP(third party). DPP won the presidency, but lost the majority in parliament. KMT has more in parliament, but not a majority, so they are working with TPP to push legislation through. The legislation in question would increase the powers of parliament and weaken the executive branch. Also it would allow parliament to criminally prosecute other members for "Lying". So it's a power play by one branch of government to weaken the branch they don't control and strengthen the one they do.
They also attempted to push through bills and amendments without any public review, effectively nobody (besides the parliament majority) would know what's inside until it's passed
Big A: What was in the bill? Me: yes Context here, this bill snafu happened largely due to the fact that it wasn't presented to the congress let along under went proper reviewing before the majority party (KMT) trying to foced it through in less than 11mins. The opposing party (DPP) outnumbered and pressured in this situation, had no choice but to "steal" the bill from the podium to stop it from passing without discussion. (It was later scheduled to the 21st so I guess it kind of works?) About the bill, allegedly from earlier drafts, there were 2 sections in this bill that could cause intense debate and revision, which might be the reason KMT was trying to force it through without negotiation. One being an estimated 2 trillion infrastructure initiative that didn't get environmental/viability assessments at all; And another being the attempt to expand power of the congress to criminalize civilians/coporation under vague terms like despising the congress, and the power to request information from businesses/individuals without court rulings.
To offer a different perspective, earlier this year in March and April, multiple hearings and discussions were held regarding the content and details of the bill, with all three parties present. However, the DPP party did not participate and constantly disrupted the meetings with motions to dismiss, with around 40 motions in a 3-hour meeting (for example). Additionally, the two contentious sections in the bill you mentioned are not quite accurate. The 2 trillion initiative was previously agreed upon to be postponed until the new minister takes office, and the bill was not discussed on 05/17 when the altercation occurred. The 2 trillion figure is also speculative by and not officially confirmed. Furthermore, the other bill aims to expand power of the congress does not have the power to criminalize civilians or corporations, as it only targets government officials and not individuals. This is my 2 cents after reading the original released documents/bill and after watching most of the lived congressional meetings. Regardless, it is still a shame to see this kind of mess within a democratic government.
@@johnnyli4320 Why would a bill have these two things in it Aren't they totally different subject that should be voted on separately or do their system work like that normally Is it a case where a party has a strict majority and can pass pretty much whatever they want? So the opposing party just slow everything down through any mean necessary ?
@@fabienso5889 These two items are indeed in separate bills, but due to scheduling, they were discussed on the same day. It's important to note that although a consensus was reached to postpone the 2 trillion infrastructure bill, it was too late to remove it from the schedule to avoid collision with the other bills. Regarding the second question, it is generally true that a party with a majority can push for their agenda, while the opposing party may use filibusters to delay progress. However, in this particular congress, no party holds a majority, including the leading party (DPP). In this case, the KMT party managed to collaborate with the TPP and formulated a mutually agreed version of the bill, which they then presented for congressional review. On the other hand, DPP threw a tantrum instead of engaging in rational discussions to win over the favor of other minority parties. At the end of the day, it is a relatively standard democratic process in my opinion.
@@fabienso5889 These two items are actually in separate bills; they just happened to be scheduled for discussion on the same day. As a side note, the previously agreed-upon 2 trillion infrastructure bill was not removed from the schedule since it was too late for any changes. Regarding the second point, it is true that a party with a strict majority can pass whatever they want. In such cases, yes it is common for the opposition party to use filibusters in an effort to delay the process. One key fact is that none of the parties in this congress holds a majority, not even the ruling party. Therefore, it is always necessary to collaborate with other parties to form a majority. This is exactly what the KMT and TPP did. They held multiple open discussions to work out a version of the bill they could both agree on and submitted it to congress. The DPP, on the other hand, forfeited their chance at any dialogue with the TPP early on and threw a tantrum when the TPP decided to side with the KMT. At the end of the day, democracy is a numbers game. If you want to have a say in congress, it is wiser to find common ground rather than taking a hardline stance and blaming others for not agreeing with you. Once again, this is just my take on the situation. You might sense a little bit of frustration.
Yes Canada is a frozen wasteland, that’s why over 90% of them live right along the southern border with the USA. You can easily get cheap land in Canada if you want to live in the North, the government will actually pay you to live there. The same is true in the USA with Alaska.
Untrue- Yellowknife and Whitehorse are the cities in the north, and they have a higher median home price than the national average. Same with Anchorage, Barrow, and Juneau in Alaska. It's far cheaper to live in states like Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana. Alberta (outside of cities), Saskatchewan, or Manitoba are also cheaper
Calgary is still up because everyone from Vancouver and Toronto are selling their houses and moving to Calgary and bidding up houses because it’s still half the prices from where they sold from lol.
5:16 huh, I live in Calgary, rn municipal lawmakers are trying to get a bill passed that would allow them to build high density housing essentially anywhere, and it’s gotten a lot of pushback because it’s such a dramatic shift compared to the current system (mostly single family detached homes). I think the mayor is overreaching with this bill cause it will certainly cause my parents and grandparents and other middle-class homeowners to lose lots equity in their home but as a young person I think some rezoning isn’t a bad idea.
They need to fix their zoning laws in general. So much new construction in Calgary is dedicated to R1 zoning for single family detached homes. They also need to start adding commercial space to neighborhoods so people have the option to walk to the store instead of always having to drive.
If that was a government rule I feel conspiracies about stunt doubles may hold more water, or suddenly cybernetic technology progress surprisingly rapidly…
Haha oh man forced to sell is even worse. On top of 5 year mortgage, everywhere but alberta (where calgary is), they are full recourse loans. You cant walk away, youre liable for every dollar youre underwater....
so was housing after WW2 designed to be an appreciating asset, or was that just by accident and then boomers in power exacerbated it? like for me it's hard to imagine a house not going up in value by the time you sell it, but I also realize that's fundamentally flawed in the long term.
Prices for things in our current economic model will always increase due to inflation. Based on current economic theory and expierence a but of inflation is a good thing in a capatalist society. The reason being is becoise it drives people to spend now, since there is an expectiation it will cost more later. The challenge is when a certain necessary commodity (in this case housing) outpaces wage growth and inflation. Its not so much an accident or intentional as it is a problem with the reality of living on a planet with a fixed amounf of space, and a population that continues to grow, and have the same thinga the generation before had. If everyone had an acre plot of land, we would be out of space in no time.
@@davidbaker9479 so you think that coupled with speculation of value is why it's as bad as it is now? basically i'm asking if history is doomed to repeat itself after what seems to be an inevitable crash.
@@samhibshman5114 i think its more of a supply issue. History will only repeat itself if, as atriot briefly mentioned, people start losing jobs. As long as people can afford to at least stay where they are, prices wont drop since its becoming harder and harder to increase supply, unless people move further away. If more people became okay with moving to lower population density areas, and work is there for them, they could build there. Many people want to stay close to where they, either because of work or family, but many of those places are running out of space for the traditional home model. An example of this is my area. You talk to anyone that is 45+ and they talk about how they used to be able ride there dirtbikes here, or walk in the woods there, buts its all devolped neighborhoods now. Eventually people need to move or accept living in a different home life than generations past.
back in the early 2010s my dad tried the whole "buy land and build a house yourself" thing (he's a civil engineer). Even as somebody who's job it has been to run construction projects (often houses or stores) for over 25 years at that point, it was still a pain in the ass. Everything gets a lot more annoying when you're the one fronting the cost. Ultimately he got lucky with the location and end up profiting off of selling without finishing the project. Still a pretty silly story tho
Wouldn’t a nice solution to the housing market be to increase the tax rate based on the amount of properties someone owns? Like if you only own one house you have regular rates, but every subsequent piece of property you own has an increase in taxes. The big companies will be able to pay, but the semi rich people who own like a dozen properties who are trying to sell them at obscene prices will have to lower the prices in order to sell them, or try and pay taxes that they can’t afford. Ik this will never happen anytime soon or ever really. But it seems like a solution to the problem, albeit a very volatile one
Imo most boomers aren't treating their property as Generational Wealth. They are treating it as their Lottery Ticket to Retirement. Because most boomers fully intend to sell their homes to fund their retirement. I don't know any boomer who isn't a millionaire by liquidity. Whose retirement plan includes not selling their home. If there are any. How. Simply how. How can you possibly have enough money to retire by 65. Die 85+. And not have the sale of your property as the primary source of your income?
I’ve never understood atriocs dislike of inherited wealth. Giving your kids a better life than yourself is a core human value and one of the driving factors behind progress. Removing that just because not every kid gets the benefit seems counterintuitive to me. It’s like in school when your teacher says you can’t bring a snack to class unless you’ve got enough for everyone.
