• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RustyNails

Member
if someone's gonna draw a poligaf cartoon, somedude should be pictured as someone in a confederate uniform with a musket looking out the window with binoculars.
 
C

Cyan

Banned
RustyNails said:
if someone's gonna draw a poligaf cartoon, somedude should be pictured as someone in a confederate uniform with a musket looking out the window with binoculars.
Click to expand...
That's giving him too much credit. He's more like a cuckoo clock that goes off every few days, only instead of "cuckoo!" it's "secession!"
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I've mentioned this before, but there was an episode of Glenn beck's show where he insulted some religious denomination because they attacked him the day before for trying to pervert the message of Christ that was supposed to be to help those in need. I remember wondering the day before how Beck would respond, if he chose to respond at all. Here we had a situation where it was religion vs. money, two things the right absolutely tries to pander to. Which one would win out in the end? Sure enough, it turned out to be the latter.

From that point on, i thought that there would be no question about which side the Reps would take if it came down to money vs. pretty much anything else. which is why it's almost unreal to see that we have a significant number of republicans actually hesitating to back up fucking WALL STREET FER CHRISSAKES, out of fear of pissing off these mouth breathing tea baggers. It's so fucking surreal.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
I'm watching this movie

sNTxp.jpg


Surprisingly decent movie and scarily prescient.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Republican priorities:

As a Watchdog Starves, Wall Street Is Tossed a Bone

The economy is still suffering from the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and widespread anger persists that financial institutions that caused it received bailouts of billions of taxpayer dollars and haven’t been held accountable for any wrongdoing. Yet the House Appropriations Committee has responded by starving the agency responsible for bringing financial wrongdoers to justice — while putting over $200 million that could otherwise have been spent on investigations and enforcement actions back into the pockets of Wall Street.

A few weeks ago, the Republican-controlled appropriations committee cut the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fiscal 2012 budget request by $222.5 million, to $1.19 billion (the same as this year’s), even though the S.E.C.’s responsibilities were vastly expanded under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Charged with protecting investors and policing markets, the S.E.C. is the nation’s front-line defense against financial fraud. The committee’s accompanying report referred to the agency’s “troubled past” and “lack of ability to manage funds,” and said the committee “remains concerned with the S.E.C.’s track record in dealing with Ponzi schemes.” The report stressed, “With the federal debt exceeding $14 trillion, the committee is committed to reducing the cost and size of government.”

But cutting the S.E.C.’s budget will have no effect on the budget deficit, won’t save taxpayers a dime and could cost the Treasury millions in lost fees and penalties. That’s because the S.E.C. isn’t financed by tax revenue, but rather by fees levied on those it regulates, which include all the big securities firms.

A little-noticed provision in Dodd-Frank mandates that those fees can’t exceed the S.E.C.’s budget. So cutting its requested budget by $222.5 million saves Wall Street the same amount, and means regulated firms will pay $136 million less in fiscal 2012 than they did the previous year, the S.E.C. projects.

Moreover, enforcement actions generate billions of dollars in revenue in the form of fines, disgorgements and other penalties. Last year the S.E.C. turned over $2.2 billion to victims of financial wrongdoing and paid hundreds of millions more to the Treasury, helping to reduce the deficit.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce-its-effectiveness.html?_r=1&hp

The frustrating thing about this whole dance about the deficit is, the GOP doesn't give a shit about the deficit. That's not and never will be what it's about. But they're not getting called out for it.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
I mentioned colbert pac a bit ago, and turns out colbert pac sent it's first email:

9zK4G.png


I can't wait to find out what colbert is gonna do with this. 2012 is gonna be crazy.
 
H

HammerOfThor

Member
So I just saw this on a friend's facebook:

284844_10150719253440198_779765197_19900886_3671578_n.jpg



I'll admit I chuckled, then I laughed at how people proudly display their ignorance. I'm referring to the Kenya one, the Huge ass mistake one is common political opinion, I guess.

Regardless, both are why I hate bumper stickers....
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Obama making bank

Twenty-seven fund-raisers collected more than $500,000 each in contributions for President Obama and the Democratic Party in the past three months, helping Mr. Obama collect a record haul of campaign cash as he starts his re-election effort.
Click to expand...

And lol at the GOP response

“President Obama wants voters to believe he’s running a grass-roots campaign, but it’s clear the hope-and-change president is bought and paid for by liberal fat-cat donors,” said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
lol, U mad?
 
E

Escape Goat

Member
RustyNails said:
I mentioned colbert pac a bit ago, and turns out colbert pac sent it's first email:

9zK4G.png


I can't wait to find out what colbert is gonna do with this. 2012 is gonna be crazy.
Click to expand...


"Its also on HBO so you know theres going to be boobs"


LMAO
 
J

Jackson50

Member
As part of NATO's Defense and Deterrence Posture Review, discussions to remove the remaining TNWs from Europe are ongoing. If they decide to remove the TNWs, they must decide whether to remove them unilaterally or use them as leverage to reduce Russia's quantity of NSNWs. First, I advocate their removal. And I am unopposed to using them as leverage. Yet I am skeptical that Russia will reciprocate. It would pressure them to cooperate, yet their TNWs are not intended to deter our TNWs; our current quantity is miniscule and largely inconsequential. They are primarily intended to counter our substantial advantage in conventional forces. Therefore, they may not accept a deal only for NSNWs. Still, their removal would be preferable. There is no reason to maintain an outmoded policy with little strategic value.
scorcho said:
In other news, Thomas A. Drake was given a year's probation and community service as the judge excoriated the Justice Dept's handling of the NSA leak case.

background info:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/us/16leak.html
Click to expand...
Finally. I am glad he was able to avoid incarceration. And the judge is correct. The government's handling of the case was deplorable. Moreover, the rabid prosecution of whistleblowers is disappointing.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
worldrunover said:
Fear not! She only derided liberal fat cats. Those guys deserve to lose their money anyway.
Click to expand...
I think it's important to note that insane hypocrisy aside, she does kinda have a point.
Obama has greatly overplayed his grassrootness, and what's more important, he policies are very skewed toward the very rich.
 
W

WickedAngel

Banned
worldrunover said:
Fear not! She only derided liberal fat cats. Those guys deserve to lose their money anyway.
Click to expand...

They probably got rich by defrauding Medicare/Medicaid.

Chichikov said:
I think it's important to note that insane hypocrisy aside, she does kinda have a point.
Obama has greatly overplayed his grassrootness, and what's more important, he policies are very skewed toward the very rich.
Click to expand...

When did he do this?
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Oy vey

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/07/16/obama_bypassing_warren_for_consumer_bureau_officials_say/

Obama bypassing Warren for consumer bureau, officials say
Harvard professor faced opposition from the GOP
Bloomberg News / July 16, 2011

WASHINGTON - President Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The president’s choice already works at the consumer agency, the person said yesterday. Obama may make the nomination as soon as next week, another person briefed on the administration’s plans said.

The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not public, did not give the name of the choice.

Last fall, Obama appointed Warren, a Harvard law professor, to set up the consumer bureau until a director was named. Warren, one of the nation’s leading experts on the effect of bankruptcy on American families, had been the architect of the bureau, one of the cornerstones of the Dodd-Frank package of Wall Street regulations following the 2008 credit meltdown.

The consumer bureau, which is to begin formal operations Thursday, was established to fill a gap in oversight of products whose abuse contributed to the crisis, including mortgages and credit cards.

Warren also served as head of the congressional watchdog panel overseeing the TARP bank bailout.

Known for a plain-spoken bluntness and relentless advocacy for consumers, Warren has become a polarizing figure, showered with accolades from groups supporting working-class families and criticism from Republicans and some Wall Street bankers.

She has been vigorously campaigning to keep the GOP-controlled House from diluting the bureau’s powers, including talking with community bankers in every state and meeting with hundreds of business and consumer representatives. Preparing for the agency’s opening, she supervised the hiring of more than 300 people.

The bureau, however, cannot write rules to govern consumer finance until a director is nominated and confirmed in the Senate.

In May, 44 Republican senators announced they would not vote to approve any candidate to run the bureau unless its management structure is changed, with some calling for a five-person commission to replace the director position.

Warren has told The New York Times that opponents are trying to stick “a knife in the ribs of the agency.’’

“The fight has now shifted. It didn’t stop, it just moved from being a fight out in the headlines, out in the middle of the street, to a fight in the back alleys,’’ she said.

Consumer bureau spokeswoman Jen Howard declined to comment on whether Warren would be bypassed. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Raj Date, a top deputy to Warren at the consumer bureau, was on a short list of candidates to become director, a person briefed on the process said last month.
Click to expand...
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
JCX said:
As much as I really like Warren, I doubt Republicans would vote to confirm her.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I totally bet they are going to be gung ho for whoever else Obama chooses!

edit: sarcasm aside, Warren was whip smart, which means she never stood a chance of being confirmed :(

Former Goldman Saks exec in 3...2...
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Another instance of Obama caving before facing opposition. Unless he plans to put her forward after whoever he chose inevitably fails.

Yeah...
 
T

Tim the Wiz

Banned
LovingSteam said:
Oy vey
Click to expand...

As an Australian, it's weird to see a mainstream political party not treat working-class families as hallowed ground. It's just a strange sight; how does a political party opposing the ratification of the person who basically built up the Consumer Protection Bureau, and--seemingly--the impetus behind the Bureau itself, not seem more outrageous? The way it plays in the American press is just so astonishingly flat. It's almost as if elements of the Republican Party could declare globally-established science consensus an immense tapestry of intensely-complex falsehood and no-one would blink at all: Oh wait, that actually happened.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
I hate to say it, but Warren may have been the price Obama had to pay for whatever devil's bargain is being cooked up to solve the debt ceiling crisis. An alliance is forming between the White House and Wall Street for an effort to knock some sense into Congress before the end of next week. This may have been part of it.

And, if true, other parts of Dodd-Frank may have been sacrificed, too.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Evlar said:
I hate to say it, but Warren may have been the price Obama had to pay for whatever devil's bargain is being cooked up to solve the debt ceiling crisis. An alliance is forming between the White House and Wall Street for an effort to knock some sense into Congress before the end of next week. This may have been part of it.

And, if true, other parts of Dodd-Frank may have been sacrificed, too.
Click to expand...

Considering both of those were DOA, if those were seriously bargained in exchange for ... what the fuck man I can't believe I just said that. This sucks.

On the other hand, if Obama compromise, "he caved in again." LOL
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Evlar said:
I hate to say it, but Warren may have been the price Obama had to pay for whatever devil's bargain is being cooked up to solve the debt ceiling crisis. An alliance is forming between the White House and Wall Street for an effort to knock some sense into Congress before the end of next week. This may have been part of it.

And, if true, other parts of Dodd-Frank may have been sacrificed, too.
Click to expand...

Stupid, stupid bullshit (not you, but Obama, potentially). The GOP leaders have already expressed that it's essential to raise the debt ceiling, if only not to tarnish their brand. There is no need to placate them. None. And certainly not to those lengths.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Evlar said:
I hate to say it, but Warren may have been the price Obama had to pay for whatever devil's bargain is being cooked up to solve the debt ceiling crisis. An alliance is forming between the White House and Wall Street for an effort to knock some sense into Congress before the end of next week. This may have been part of it.

And, if true, other parts of Dodd-Frank may have been sacrificed, too.
Click to expand...
This is so depressing, if true. I don't know why I even follow politics at this point.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
Clevinger said:
Stupid, stupid bullshit (not you, but Obama, potentially). The GOP leaders have already expressed that it's essential to raise the debt ceiling, if only not to tarnish brand. There is no need to placate them. None. And certainly not to those lengths.
Click to expand...
The problem Washington is facing is that no one has any control over the House Republican caucus. Boehner obviously doesn't. Cantor doesn't, either: he's not playing the role of negotiator so much as a dipshit parrot squawking out the party line; Cantor can only make demands of Obama, he has no leverage over his own caucus to extract concessions.

Someone is going to have to strap together some coalition over there- almost certainly Democrats and just enough House Republicans who are still sane- to get this passed. I'm just saying that "someone" may be Wall Street lobbyists, who have both the contacts AND the motivation to get such a thing done. In the final analysis they certainly don't want to push the government to the precipice of default.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
We haven't seen the last of Warren. She might challenge Scott Brown. Be funny if he pulled off an anti Vitter. Become the most progressive member of the Senate. Also, might put her on the Supreme Court. Now that would be awesome.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
Also, might put her on the Supreme Court. Now that would be awesome.
Click to expand...
"Why does Obama hate men?" :p

Cyan said:
Yeah, was gonna say. I can only conclude that some Republicans don't realize that people really did think Bush was stupid--we weren't just saying that because we disagreed with him.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't vibe with the "professor" image they try to use as a missive.

"He is an overly-cerebral, professory lecturer! But also an dumb idiot."
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
scola said:
It also doesn't vibe with the "professor" image they try to use as a missive.

"He is an overly-cerebral, professory lecturer! But also an dumb idiot."
Click to expand...

Conservatives never particularly had a problem with that whole cognitive dissonance thing.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
We haven't seen the last of Warren. She might challenge Scott Brown. Be funny if he pulled off an anti Vitter. Become the most progressive member of the Senate. Also, might put her on the Supreme Court. Now that would be awesome.
Click to expand...
Ginsburg needs to hurry up and retire.
 
V

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
NPR Article!

When A Turn Toward Austerity Turned To Disaster
by NPR STAFF July 16, 2011

Four years into Franklin Roosevelt's first presidential term, the worst of the Great Depression seemed behind him. Massive jolts of New Deal spending had stopped the economic slide, and the unemployment rate was cut from 22 percent to less than 10 percent.

"People felt that there was momentum," U.S. Senate historian Donald Ritchie tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered. "Finally, there was the light at the end of the tunnel."

So Roosevelt, on the advice of his conservative Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, decided to tackle the country's exploding deficits. Over two years, FDR slashed government spending 17 percent.

"All of a sudden," Ritchie says, "after unemployment had been going steadily down, unemployment shot up, the economy stagnated, the stock market crashed again. And now it seemed we'd come out of the Hoover Depression to go into the Roosevelt recession."

Similar decisions Roosevelt made about spending and austerity are being discussed at the White House right now. In the long term, both political parties say they agree that austerity is a good thing. But what about in the short term, while unemployment remains high?

Could austerity slow economic recovery?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Remember what happened to the Infinity Ward Founders?
8
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
|OT| NEOGAF 2020 Pick-Up Post! Show Us Your Gaming Goods + MORE [REAL PICS ONLY]
|OT| 2
85
11K
Godzilla Emu replied
Top Bottom