-
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
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
From Ezra Klein this morning:Novid said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ceiling-gone/2011/07/18/gIQAMZGoLI_blog.html
Has he never read the Torah? The Torah is as legalistic as Shari'ah. Both Islam and Judaism emphasize a comprehensive and extensive religio-legal system. Moreover, that is one of the primary reasons the concept of Judeo-Christian tradition makes decidedly less sense than Judeo-Islamic tradition. I suppose it depends on his criteria for "America's traditional religions," but I doubt he omits Judaism. And I will ignore the other bigoted nonsense.besada said:
There are institutional differences that confer the president with certain advantages during negotiations; conversely, these differences may prove liabilities during elections. Still, the president usually wins the battle with Congress for public perception.besada said:
worldrunover
Member
gcubed said:
Really? I didn't know that. We need one of those meme gifs for this...
SPEND UNLIMITED FUNDS FROM ANONYMOUS SOURCES FOR CAMPAIGNS
CAN'T USE WEST WING IN AD
I don't frequent PoliGAF, so I apologize if this has been discussed to death around here, but is anyone (even within the GOP) actually taking Rick Perry seriously? If the GOP nominees come down to being between Palin and Perry, it would seem like Obama pretty much automatically wins re-election.
If I didn't make it clear, let me say that I am not a fan of either Palin or Perry at all.
If I didn't make it clear, let me say that I am not a fan of either Palin or Perry at all.
GhaleonEB said:
There was an article at The New Republic the other day that was talking about how Obama was chose to take a deal with massive spending cuts because it would some how help him MORE in terms of passing progressive legislation in the short term (or long term, one of those). Basically, a case of it just "seeming" like a shitty deal, but in fact was Obama playing 11th dimensional chess or some shit.
Until then, I think I'll stick with Obama just being a douche.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
How much is spending suppose to go up in the next decade if all else is constant? It would seem pointless if spending dramatically increases while you only cut like, say 4 trillion dollars in the next decade.
So we all know what an immense dipshit Grover Norquist is, but I started thinking about something he said when he was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He came out in support of Paul Ryan's budget plan. I actually wasn't aware of his opinion on that particular budget before, so it came as somewhat of a surprise. As everone knows, Norquist is seemingly against any and all tax hikes. Yet his comments on the Ryan budget intrigued me since the Ryan budget states, quite clearly from what I remember, that taxes will be RAISED on the working poor. Isn't Paul Ryan (and by extension Norquist himself) in violation of his own pledge in that case?
But it also got me wondering how the fuck can one follow Norquist's idiotic pledge in the first place. One of the most fundamental concepts of economics is the idea of no free lunch, you can't have something for nothing. If one person pays less (such as the rich, getting a tax cut) that means somebody ELSE has to be paying more (such as everyone else).
But it also got me wondering how the fuck can one follow Norquist's idiotic pledge in the first place. One of the most fundamental concepts of economics is the idea of no free lunch, you can't have something for nothing. If one person pays less (such as the rich, getting a tax cut) that means somebody ELSE has to be paying more (such as everyone else).
speculawyer
Member
It is OK for the little people to pay taxes.Oblivion said:
No one has to pay more if you start slashing the government.Oblivion said:
Of course, that is where the problems begin. Everyone is with Norquist in not wanting to pay taxes. But once the obligatory cuts begin, people then vote against it. Voters are really like spoiled children . . . they want lots of government services but no taxes. The spineless GOP gives that to them and thereby creating massive deficits. But as soon as a Democrat gets into the whitehouse, they suddenly remember the cutting services part.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
You are correct. Cutting 2 trillion is easy. Anyone can stop paying for certain programs. What is hard is controlling the growth in spending that is coming. Baby boomers are going to retire and send our current retired population from 12% to 20%. This means social security, which has controllable growth, and medicare, which has uncontrollable growth, costs more to the government. That along with delayed payments on our debt makes the future interest payments higher. You could say cut 1 trillion this year, and then next year see a raise in the cost of Medicare of 1.5 trillion. Boom your cuts have already happen and now you have a new deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars.Jason's Ultimatum said:
I feel like, before the gloom over the seeming intractibility of the deficits gets too thick, it is worth reposting these charts, which I am sure have been posted here before.
Basically it shows how, if congress does nothing, the deficits actually dissapear after 2016 or so. The following article makes the same point:
http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/
Of course, "doing nothing", is much more difficult for congress to do than it sounds. It involves increasing the tax burden on pretty much everyone by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, allowing the alternative miniumum tax to take effect, and raising the cap on earnings subject to taxation for social security.
Obviously raising taxes is massively unpopular, hence the reason why even the Democrats never propose such measures.
Still, I wish some entity would at least take the effort to explain to the American people the choice that they face. They vote against anyone that even gives a hint of raising taxes on them, but then turn around and vote against people who advocate for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
The problem, I believe, stems from the fact that there is a core belief out there that there is some huge amount of wasteful spending in the government, and that if that spending were just cut, the deficits were to dissapear.
That is simply untrue. Even if we were to cut all discretionary spending, eliminate every "bridge to nowhere" (along with letting the country's infastructure, educational system, and research capacitie rot - among other things), deficits would still exist because of rising medical costs and the increase in the number of individuals using social security.
There is another politically difficult issue that congress would need to confront in order to "do nothing". It would need to decline to raise the rates at which Medicare remimburses health care providers. Obviously health care providers are massively influential and political powerful members of our society.
Still, I don't think that these are intractable problems. I think it just requires that people make some hard choices. Do they want to pay more in taxes and not face the prospect of the eligibility age for medicare being increased, or the progam being further means tested, or do they want to pay higher taxes? A similar decision needs to be made with Social Security.
Medical providers also need to make a similar choice. Do they want to accept less in return for more patients, or do they want to face the prospct of a shrinking medicare program and hope that the private exchanges set up under the ACA allow enough people to afford their services (and pay out at high enough rates), to make up for the lost "business" from medicare - especially as the system of employer provided health insurance continues to break down?
In the meantime, I think that we need to do more to address unemployment now and prevent the further deterioration of our infastructure, educational systems, and research capacities. Unemployed people don't pay taxes and collect various forms of social assistance, so their tax revenue cannot contribute to closing any future deficits. They also tend to see their job skills erode, which further damages their ability to contribute to the economy, and therefore to deficit reduction via their tax money. Similarly, poorly educated people tend to be less "productive", which, overall (I realize there are ancedotal expections), has the same effect on their ability to contribute to deficit reduction as unemployment. Finally, damaged infastructure and a reduced capacity reseach makes our economy overall less productive, which means less money to pay down the debt.
As a result we shouldn't hesitate to do what is neccessary to address our unemployment and other issues such as cutbacks in government services like education while the economy is still weak. It will make future deficit reduction easier.
Basically it shows how, if congress does nothing, the deficits actually dissapear after 2016 or so. The following article makes the same point:
http://www.slate.com/id/2291054/
Of course, "doing nothing", is much more difficult for congress to do than it sounds. It involves increasing the tax burden on pretty much everyone by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, allowing the alternative miniumum tax to take effect, and raising the cap on earnings subject to taxation for social security.
Obviously raising taxes is massively unpopular, hence the reason why even the Democrats never propose such measures.
Still, I wish some entity would at least take the effort to explain to the American people the choice that they face. They vote against anyone that even gives a hint of raising taxes on them, but then turn around and vote against people who advocate for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
The problem, I believe, stems from the fact that there is a core belief out there that there is some huge amount of wasteful spending in the government, and that if that spending were just cut, the deficits were to dissapear.
That is simply untrue. Even if we were to cut all discretionary spending, eliminate every "bridge to nowhere" (along with letting the country's infastructure, educational system, and research capacitie rot - among other things), deficits would still exist because of rising medical costs and the increase in the number of individuals using social security.
There is another politically difficult issue that congress would need to confront in order to "do nothing". It would need to decline to raise the rates at which Medicare remimburses health care providers. Obviously health care providers are massively influential and political powerful members of our society.
Still, I don't think that these are intractable problems. I think it just requires that people make some hard choices. Do they want to pay more in taxes and not face the prospect of the eligibility age for medicare being increased, or the progam being further means tested, or do they want to pay higher taxes? A similar decision needs to be made with Social Security.
Medical providers also need to make a similar choice. Do they want to accept less in return for more patients, or do they want to face the prospct of a shrinking medicare program and hope that the private exchanges set up under the ACA allow enough people to afford their services (and pay out at high enough rates), to make up for the lost "business" from medicare - especially as the system of employer provided health insurance continues to break down?
In the meantime, I think that we need to do more to address unemployment now and prevent the further deterioration of our infastructure, educational systems, and research capacities. Unemployed people don't pay taxes and collect various forms of social assistance, so their tax revenue cannot contribute to closing any future deficits. They also tend to see their job skills erode, which further damages their ability to contribute to the economy, and therefore to deficit reduction via their tax money. Similarly, poorly educated people tend to be less "productive", which, overall (I realize there are ancedotal expections), has the same effect on their ability to contribute to deficit reduction as unemployment. Finally, damaged infastructure and a reduced capacity reseach makes our economy overall less productive, which means less money to pay down the debt.
As a result we shouldn't hesitate to do what is neccessary to address our unemployment and other issues such as cutbacks in government services like education while the economy is still weak. It will make future deficit reduction easier.
I also feel like expressing my annoyance that Moody' and other ratings agencies continue to hold any influence after their abysmal performance during the financial crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
They aren't gods, they are simply a private firm with a suspect methodolgy for assessing risk. That being said, if others take them seriously, their downgrade will effect the economy - but how much?
The only estimate I've seen or heard was given by Bill Gross, who guessed that it would cause a quarter of a point rise in the interests rates that the government needs to pay on its T-Bills, along with a hike in interest rates generally across the economy and a drop in the DOW of a "couple hundred points".
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11788
(answer starts at 19:16, but you should watch the whole interview if you get chance, Gross in particular has good things to say)
I find it hard to get excited about a quarter of a percentage point rise in the interest rates that the government needs to pay on new T-Bills that it sells considering that the rates are at historic lows.
Here is the rate over ten years. Even a quarter point rise would not get them even as high as they were just 6 years ago.
Looking at a longer timescale makes it even more apparent how low interests rates on T-Bills now are.
I also think that it is worth remembering that various ratings agencies have been downgrading Japanese government debt for the past decade, but they too are still able to borrow at historic lows.
I realize the argument for worrying about this is that crisises of confidence are supposed to appear suddenly, with no prior warning .... but I just don't see it. Economic conditions are different hear than they were in the seventies, and different from countries like Greece and Italy, for that matter.
As for the interest rate hikes across the economy - if they come to pass that will suck for people. Lock in any loans you can now I guess.
Still, again, I think that it is worth remembering that interests rates right now are really low before we all fly into a panic. They aren't quite historic lows, (unless you look at what the fed charges, which is zero right now) but, they aren't crippling either.
If it seems like I am trying to downplay panic - I am. I think that right now panicking and doing what *seems* like the safe option, enacting lots of cuts, would actually be the course of action that causes the most damage.
That being said, of course we should raise the debt ceiling, or, preferably, do away with it. The only possible function I can see it serving is as a way for congress to get out of paying for a budget that it already passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
They aren't gods, they are simply a private firm with a suspect methodolgy for assessing risk. That being said, if others take them seriously, their downgrade will effect the economy - but how much?
The only estimate I've seen or heard was given by Bill Gross, who guessed that it would cause a quarter of a point rise in the interests rates that the government needs to pay on its T-Bills, along with a hike in interest rates generally across the economy and a drop in the DOW of a "couple hundred points".
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11788
(answer starts at 19:16, but you should watch the whole interview if you get chance, Gross in particular has good things to say)
I find it hard to get excited about a quarter of a percentage point rise in the interest rates that the government needs to pay on new T-Bills that it sells considering that the rates are at historic lows.
Here is the rate over ten years. Even a quarter point rise would not get them even as high as they were just 6 years ago.
Looking at a longer timescale makes it even more apparent how low interests rates on T-Bills now are.
I also think that it is worth remembering that various ratings agencies have been downgrading Japanese government debt for the past decade, but they too are still able to borrow at historic lows.
I realize the argument for worrying about this is that crisises of confidence are supposed to appear suddenly, with no prior warning .... but I just don't see it. Economic conditions are different hear than they were in the seventies, and different from countries like Greece and Italy, for that matter.
As for the interest rate hikes across the economy - if they come to pass that will suck for people. Lock in any loans you can now I guess.
Still, again, I think that it is worth remembering that interests rates right now are really low before we all fly into a panic. They aren't quite historic lows, (unless you look at what the fed charges, which is zero right now) but, they aren't crippling either.
If it seems like I am trying to downplay panic - I am. I think that right now panicking and doing what *seems* like the safe option, enacting lots of cuts, would actually be the course of action that causes the most damage.
That being said, of course we should raise the debt ceiling, or, preferably, do away with it. The only possible function I can see it serving is as a way for congress to get out of paying for a budget that it already passed.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Club For Growth To Republicans: Trigger A Default, Or Else!
Brian Beutler | July 18, 2011, 2:01PM
To understand why Republicans won't raise the debt limit until after they hold a symbolic vote on a plan to squeeze the government down to a size that would require it to gut popular entitlement programs, it's important to realize it's not just because of the political perks. Powerful conservative interest groups are demanding they vote for it. And at the same time they're warning the GOP against voting for the only viable option currently on the table for avoiding a catastrophic debt default.
"Cut, Cap, and Balance will fix our fiscal mess. The McConnell-Reid plan does not," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola in a statement accompanying an alert that these votes will be counted on the group's scorecard. "McConnell-Reid simply punts our budget problem further down the road and is everything that's wrong with Washington. Congress has proven that they are unable to balance the budget without reform. Cut, Cap and Balance is the only plan that permanently handcuffs politicians from spending more money than they take in."
If you're a Republican, voting for Plan B means you're that much likelier to face a primary. By holding the test votes on Cut, Cap, and Balance, and the Balanced Budget Amendment, they can at least meet the Club for Growth, and similar groups half way.
################
When did politics get so shitty? Or maybe it's always been bad and I'm just noticing it now. So now cutting $1.5 Trillion in 10 years is so bad that it'll get you primaried. Terrible!
Brian Beutler | July 18, 2011, 2:01PM
To understand why Republicans won't raise the debt limit until after they hold a symbolic vote on a plan to squeeze the government down to a size that would require it to gut popular entitlement programs, it's important to realize it's not just because of the political perks. Powerful conservative interest groups are demanding they vote for it. And at the same time they're warning the GOP against voting for the only viable option currently on the table for avoiding a catastrophic debt default.
"Cut, Cap, and Balance will fix our fiscal mess. The McConnell-Reid plan does not," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola in a statement accompanying an alert that these votes will be counted on the group's scorecard. "McConnell-Reid simply punts our budget problem further down the road and is everything that's wrong with Washington. Congress has proven that they are unable to balance the budget without reform. Cut, Cap and Balance is the only plan that permanently handcuffs politicians from spending more money than they take in."
If you're a Republican, voting for Plan B means you're that much likelier to face a primary. By holding the test votes on Cut, Cap, and Balance, and the Balanced Budget Amendment, they can at least meet the Club for Growth, and similar groups half way.
################
When did politics get so shitty? Or maybe it's always been bad and I'm just noticing it now. So now cutting $1.5 Trillion in 10 years is so bad that it'll get you primaried. Terrible!
Invisible_Insane
Member
As I understand it, the debt ceiling was initially designed to make Congress' job easier--initially, Congress had to appropriate spending for each individual bill that required it, which got to be pretty onerous around WWI. So they implemented the debt ceiling instead, which was like a blanket authorization to borrow up to a certain amount before the issue would have to be revisited.Chichikov said:
It should be got rid of, of course. But this is the United States! We still have the electoral college (and the Senate)!
edit: Hyper-partisan left wing radio explains the history of the debt ceiling.
Journeywalker
Member
I think it makes sense to have some kind of Congressional check on the Treasury, but I can't think of anything that would be better than the debt ceiling. Making a debt ceiling as a percent of GDP has its own issues. GDP estimates fluctuate and respond to monthly job/housing data. There's the question of what to do when GDP decreases (do we pay people less?). Furthermore, do we count individual state debt (92.7% according to IMF) or not (58.9% according to CIA and Eurostat).
Speak of the devil.Oblivion said:
Coburn rejoins Gang of Six, backs $3.7T deficit-reduction plan
Democratic and Republican senators are rallying behind a $3.7 trillion deficit reduction plan unveiled Tuesday morning by the five remaining members of the Gang of Six.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who pulled out of the Gang of Six in May, has rejoined the group and praised the plan as something that could win the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
The plan has moved significantly and its where we need to be and its a start, Coburn said. This doesnt solve our problems but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.
Theres a lot of support for turning the gang into a mob, said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who said he would support the gang's plan.Coburn said it would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next ten years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.
Coburn, however, noted the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.
Coburn said he expected a significant portion of the Senate to support the plan, maybe sixty members.
He endorsed the plan to colleagues during Tuesdays meeting, according to a lawmaker who attended.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the plan negotiated by the remaining members of the Gang of Six, Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), could win a majority of votes in the Senate.
Likely 60, she said. The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts and I believe it will spur the economy.
Hutchison said she would vote for it and urged House Republicans to back it as well.
It think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete and thats what I think what the House is looking for and we are, she said.
The gang of six-plus is back, Warner declared after the meeting.
Conrad said the Gang has given their colleagues 24 hours to say whether they are on board and the signs are encouraging since Republicans and Democrats in the room stood up to support the framework.
We need to get to 60 senators. Six senators cannot pass anything, he said. Conrad said he does not know if the framework can be used to resolve the debt ceiling crisis but that could be a possibility if enough senators sign on.
He said that Coburn was enticed to rejoin the group because the Gang agreed to add $116 billion in heathcare entitlement savings to the framework. He said the way the extra reductions are achieved is up to Senate committees, but the framework specifies that if the target savings is not achieved 10 senators can propose a way to do so on the Senate floor and have the plan receive expedited treatment on the floor.
Conrad said that 74 percent of the plan's deficit-reduction goal would come from spending cuts and 26 percent from higher revenues.
More than 50 senators, including an even mix of Democrats and Republicans, attended a briefing by the architects of the plan.
Democratic and Republican senators are rallying behind a $3.7 trillion deficit reduction plan unveiled Tuesday morning by the five remaining members of the Gang of Six.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who pulled out of the Gang of Six in May, has rejoined the group and praised the plan as something that could win the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
The plan has moved significantly and its where we need to be and its a start, Coburn said. This doesnt solve our problems but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.
Theres a lot of support for turning the gang into a mob, said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who said he would support the gang's plan.Coburn said it would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next ten years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.
Coburn, however, noted the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.
Coburn said he expected a significant portion of the Senate to support the plan, maybe sixty members.
He endorsed the plan to colleagues during Tuesdays meeting, according to a lawmaker who attended.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the plan negotiated by the remaining members of the Gang of Six, Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), could win a majority of votes in the Senate.
Likely 60, she said. The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts and I believe it will spur the economy.
Hutchison said she would vote for it and urged House Republicans to back it as well.
It think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete and thats what I think what the House is looking for and we are, she said.
The gang of six-plus is back, Warner declared after the meeting.
Conrad said the Gang has given their colleagues 24 hours to say whether they are on board and the signs are encouraging since Republicans and Democrats in the room stood up to support the framework.
We need to get to 60 senators. Six senators cannot pass anything, he said. Conrad said he does not know if the framework can be used to resolve the debt ceiling crisis but that could be a possibility if enough senators sign on.
He said that Coburn was enticed to rejoin the group because the Gang agreed to add $116 billion in heathcare entitlement savings to the framework. He said the way the extra reductions are achieved is up to Senate committees, but the framework specifies that if the target savings is not achieved 10 senators can propose a way to do so on the Senate floor and have the plan receive expedited treatment on the floor.
Conrad said that 74 percent of the plan's deficit-reduction goal would come from spending cuts and 26 percent from higher revenues.
More than 50 senators, including an even mix of Democrats and Republicans, attended a briefing by the architects of the plan.
That's about half the article. Very, very few details are included, but it's a higher mix of revenue increases than Obama was negotiating toward (17% of $4t). It was negotiated with three Dems and two GOPers, before Coburn joined up again.
I share your disapproval of both. And I concur that Palin would improve Obama's prospects markedly; of course, she is not even running, so I will ignore her. Nonetheless, I do not think Perry should be immediately dismissed. A multi-term governor from a large state is an impressive resume for a prospective presidential candidate; moreover, he is an incumbent. Would he be an especially formidable candidate? No. Similar to Romney, I think he would be an average nominee.Hylian7 said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
It would make too much sense.GaimeGuy said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
There's lies, damned lies, and then there's jobs numbers.eznark said:
Invisible_Insane said:
We could fill a whole thread with wise & reasonable things the US Government could do but doesn't/can't with the current Legislative branch. Indexing the AMT wouldn't even make the top 20.
BTW: I'm liking the Go6 plan. And in the 11th hour as we are, I fully expect that it'll get more support than the Senate's abdication of authority plan and the built-to-fail Cut/Cap/Balance plan.
If this is true, Bachmann's presidential ambitions just evaporated. It is certainly leaks from oppo-research, but that's never matter before when it comes to politics.
Bachmann Reportedly Suffers From Stress-Induced "Episodes"
Bachmann Reportedly Suffers From Stress-Induced "Episodes"
speculawyer
Member
The state with the most oil production and the oil services industry had some of the best job numbers as oil went from $20/barrel to $100/barrel.eznark said:
Well, to replicate the success all Perry needs to do is implant oil in all of the other 50 states! I'll vote for him if he can do that.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'll get us started:DasRaven said:
1) Eliminate electoral college
2) Impose federal standards for Congressional district drawing
3) VAT
4) Decriminalize/legalize marijuana
5) Restrict corporate and individual contributions to elections, institute public finance
PhoenixDark
Banned
eznark said:
Perry is a clown, but an effective one with an impressive economic record. He's the only candidate who can appease the business community and tea party base at the same time, plus he's coveted by the Evangelical wing. I had thought Pawlenty would do that but clearly his campaign is dead.
speculawyer said:
You guys get too complicated with your analysis. The public won't fucking care what the circumstances are. And even if they do, what's the attack ad going to be? "Compared to Texas, American fucking sucks so there is no way Perry could be successful on the national level."
c'mon, Perry has a "proven" record of job creation during the worst economy in our life times. That will resonate.
But...has he even declared?
RustyNails
Member
We don't like that 'round these parts.Invisible_Insane said:
gkryhewy said:
Even I wouldn't call them the "Taliban," but yes I think there's a real chance it passes the House and has built-in advantages in the Senate (we like stuff we make).
As we've shuffled toward the edge, it hasn't been the Dems that have started hedging and looking for an out.
Now that the "countdown to default" clocks have started appearing, reticent Reps have a opportunity to say, "I did my best and held out as long as I could to deliver $2.6T in cuts."
BTW: Just coming across the wires, the Murdochs were "accosted/attacked" during their hearing. Just what they needed, sympathy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
gcubed said:
I think Obama is going to lose in 2012, assuming Romney or Perry get the nomination. Same bandwagon I've been on for awhile. I think he'll be <40% approval this time next year.
RustyNails
Member
Do you want to bet a one year account ban if Obama wins? Please say yes.PhoenixDark said:
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
PhoenixDark said:
lol oh man. Please take the ban. Not that I want to see you banned but that has got to be one of the dumbest things I have seen.
PhoenixDark
Banned
RustyNails said:
Only if I can make my decision on Jan 1st, 2012.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
eznark said:
LOL
PhoenixDark said:
...
You're off to a great start
PhoenixDark
Banned
LovingSteam said:
I meant Jan 1st, 2012 fuck. I'll be able to tell what will happen by then.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Fuckers are simple.Cyan said:
Re: Perry and the Texas miracle:
http://www.businessinsider.com/for-...-be-cuts-to-employment-and-tax-revenue-2011-7
http://www.businessinsider.com/for-...-be-cuts-to-employment-and-tax-revenue-2011-7
- Status