Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

The "as they are now" only modifies "GOP," meaning the modern incarnation of the GOP, i.e., crazy town.

gotcha

 

[RustyNails]

The thought of that happening post-2012. The thought of the GOP members, as they are today, being in charge of both houses. (Jeez, I need to refresh my PoliGAF more often. Beaten like a witch in Delaware.)

GOP is toxic right now. Assuming they play hard ball for the rest of the year, there's no way they can control both the houses.

 

[gcubed]

I never called you annoying. I defended you the last time someone said something! (Your last post was just especially forced).

Plus, I've never ignored anyone.

Hello?

 

[Jackson50]

It's about 8 months overdo.

I share your fervency. But ending DADT quickly was unrealistic. The military is too colossal and compartmentalized to quickly implement a significant change in policy. Note, I am not criticizing your eagerness. I welcome it. I think the consistent pressure prevented any idleness on the issue.

I never called you annoying. I defended you the last time someone said something! (Your last post was just especially forced).

Plus, I've never ignored anyone.

Actually, you did. And eloquently to boot!

 

[Rubenov]

When it happens and soldiers in the Army can come right out and say "I'm gay" I'll believe it.

Even when it's allowed, I don't see this happening soon. It will take time for my fellow service members to get used to it.

 

[mckmas8808]

I share your fervency. But ending DADT quickly was unrealistic. The military is too colossal and compartmentalized to quickly implement a significant change in policy. Note, I am not criticizing your eagerness. I welcome it. I think the consistent pressure prevented any idleness on the issue.

And I wished more people would realize that the same happened when blacks were allowed in the military. It didn't happen fast. And it took years to be implemented (from the start of talks to the finish).

 

[speculawyer]

One thing's for sure. If Perry does run, the entire Christian/evangelical/megachurch community will wholeheartedly endorse him. Right now, they're wincing whenever they see Romney.

Yeah, he could run away with it.

I can't believe we could face another theocratic evolution-denying nutty Republican Governor. It seems like the election would come down to:

 

[jamesinclair]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

 

[Chichikov]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

We all still have bad memories...

Bad, bad, memories...

The horror, the horror

 

[speculawyer]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

Without proportional representation or instant run-off voting, the structure of the U.S. political system naturally devolves into a two-party system. It sucks. Democracy 1.0. But we are kind of stuck with it since the two parties that benefit from it certainly won't change it.

 

[Oblivion]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

we have a third party

it's called the tea party

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

You know who's more incompetent than the democrats?

Third parties.

Polls show everyone hates the GOP house.

Polls show people are unhappy with Obama.


There has never been a better time for a candidate to come out and say "Im not with them"

So whats the holdup?

The process is rigged. They don't have big money behind them and the political parties currently in power do everything they can to make sure third party candidates are marginalized at every turn. It's not hard either when the public has been conditioned to laugh off anyone who doesn't express the same canned sentiments we get every election cycle as a whackjob or pie in the sky idealist.

we have a third party

it's called the tea party

Yeah, but everyone except the Tea Party itself recognizes it's just a splinter of the Republican party.

 

[speculawyer]

we have a third party

it's called the tea party

Tea Party = GOP with a rebranding

 

[Oblivion]

....guys. Really now?

 

[jamesinclair]

We all still have bad memories...

Bad, bad, memories...


The horror, the horror

Id give anything to see charts on primetime TV.

The score needs to be set straight.

 

[eznark]

Hello?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It's official: President Obama is "serious" now.

 

[empty vessel]

It's official: President Obama is "serious" now.

From the article:

Imagine you’re a member of Congress. You have your own preferred way to reduce debt. If you’re a Democrat, it probably involves protecting Medicare and raising taxes. If you’re a Republican, it probably involves cutting spending, reforming Medicare and keeping taxes low.

Your plan is going nowhere. There just aren’t the votes. Meanwhile, the debt ceiling is fast approaching and a national catastrophe could be just weeks away.

Here's a crazy idea. Raise the debt ceiling and not worry about reducing the debt. National catastrophe averted!

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Here's a crazy idea. Raise the debt ceiling and not worry about reducing the debt. National catastrophe averted!

You go too far, sir!

 

[Evlar]

From the article:



Here's a crazy idea. Raise the debt ceiling and not worry about reducing the debt. National catastrophe averted!

They're like mimes who are fearful of passing out from asphyxiation because they're holding imaginary nooses around their own necks.

 

[mckmas8808]

Barack on TV with his townhall just starting. He just stated that the last time a budget was balanced was under a Democratic President.

 

[Chichikov]

Id give anything to see charts on primetime TV.

The score needs to be set straight.

Fear not, Chartman may be old and busted (though surprisingly not dead) but he had found a new and dynamic sidekick -

Introducing Chart Lad!

He's super serial and stuff.

(seriously though, in American politics, charts and graphs are more often used to obfuscate than anything; now, if only I have an example close to home to help drive that point...)

 

[besada]

Redux of last night's chart, now with more women!

 

[PantherLotus]

Weird question inspired by the norquist piece at The Atlantic today:

Let's pretend that taxes went up with each piece of additional government spending until we no longer were at a deficit, all programs kept at their current level of spending? How much money do we actually need?

We could split it up a bunch of ways, but, and this is the jist of the article, if we had to pay for everything we're doing, people would be less likely to approve of additional spending. Never thought of it that way before.

 

[RustyNails]

We all still have bad memories...

Bad, bad, memories...

The horror, the horror

If you or anyone can find Dana Carvey's Ross Perot SNL skits, I will love you long time.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Weird question inspired by the norquist piece at The Atlantic today:

Let's pretend that taxes went up with each piece of additional government spending until we no longer were at a deficit, all programs kept at their current level of spending? How much money do we actually need?

We could split it up a bunch of ways, but, and this is the jist of the article, if we had to pay for everything we're doing, people would be less likely to approve of additional spending. Never thought of it that way before.

A trillion dollars? That's not especially profound, I don't think. We call it the deficit.

 

[PantherLotus]

A trillion dollars? That's not especially profound, I don't think. We call it the deficit.

don't be a d-bag. How much would that be for each taxpayer?

 

[besada]

don't be a d-bag. How much would that be for each taxpayer?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[Chichikov]

Weird question inspired by the norquist piece at The Atlantic today:

Let's pretend that taxes went up with each piece of additional government spending until we no longer were at a deficit, all programs kept at their current level of spending? How much money do we actually need?

We could split it up a bunch of ways, but, and this is the jist of the article, if we had to pay for everything we're doing, people would be less likely to approve of additional spending. Never thought of it that way before.

Most likely because you're not a dogmatic idiot.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with financing large projects by debt, in fact, it's essential for any big investment, otherwise, you're limited to whatever you can collect in a tax year.
You think we could've put a man on the moon or fight the Nazis like that?

And for fuck's sake, everyone is fucking doing it in the private sector, but I guess since they call it "leverage" instead of debt it's a-okay.
Pro-business my ass, he's just another spoiled rich kid who never had an honest job in his life; I want to see that idiot trying to explain to shareholders why it's bad to borrow money to expand the company, or trying to start a business without a business loan (and without a check from his parents).

If you or anyone can find Dana Carvey's Ross Perot SNL skits, I will love you long time.

No kissing!

 

[timetokill]

don't be a d-bag. How much would that be for each taxpayer?

$130k isn't it?

 

[RustyNails]

$130k isn't it?

$45,000 per capita.

 

[reilo]

Chrysler has taken the final step towards freedom from Uncle Sam by paying off the rest of its government loans. USA Today reports that Chrysler and Fiat paid the Treasury Department $500 million for 98,461 shares and $60 million for shares from a pact with the United Auto Workers' VEBA retirement trust.

The payment means that Chrysler shed its government obligations a full six years ahead of schedule. The automaker made the move in part to show U.S. car buyers that it is independent of government control, but the payment also means that the automaker no longer has to pay interest rates on the loan

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/22/chrysler-repays-last-of-tarp-loans-six-years-ahead-of-schedule/

 

[HylianTom]

We all still have bad memories...

Bad, bad, memories...

The horror, the horror

You say that, but I'm convinced that part of the reason that Perot did so well - aside from money - was that he busted-out those charts during primetime and tried to break things down to us. 19% for a third party candidate is nothing to sneeze at.

I kinda wish Obama would employ this device during his primetime addresses. While many people learn verbally/aurally, others learn visually, and I think that this could help reinforce the message being delivered.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

$45,000 per capita.

but HALF OF AMERICANS DON'T PAY ANY TAXES.

Get with the talking points, man.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/22/c...d-of-schedule/

Here's looking at you, Mitt.

 

[mckmas8808]

Weird question inspired by the norquist piece at The Atlantic today:

Let's pretend that taxes went up with each piece of additional government spending until we no longer were at a deficit, all programs kept at their current level of spending? How much money do we actually need?

We could split it up a bunch of ways, but, and this is the jist of the article, if we had to pay for everything we're doing, people would be less likely to approve of additional spending. Never thought of it that way before.

This is probably true, but something stupid to say. It's like saying if people had to pay for everything in their daily lives they wouldn't take out loans to go to college or buy a house. Debt isn't an issue by itself.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Most likely because you're not a dogmatic idiot.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with financing large projects by debt, in fact, it's essential for any big investment, otherwise, you're limited to whatever you can collect in a tax year.
You think we could've put a man on the moon or fight the Nazis like that?

And for fuck's sake, everyone is fucking doing it in the private sector, but I guess since they call it "leverage" instead of debt it's a-okay.
Pro-business my ass, he's just another spoiled rich kid who never had an honest job in his life; I want to see that idiot trying to explain to shareholders why it's bad to borrow money to expand the company, or trying to start a business without a business loan (and without a check from his parents).

Sure, there's nothing wrong with borrowing to take on vital tasks such as fighting Nazis on the moon. But to maintain this as standard operating procedure for decade after decade is simply insane. How long can we live with massive deficits and debt? Would a company be able to get away with this forever? Should they? Can they? Can we? Should we? Who's on first?
I know EV... nobody cares about debt.

 

[Vanillalite]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with borrowing to take on vital tasks such as fighting Nazis on the moon. But to maintain this as standard operating procedure for decade after decade is simply insane. How long can we live with massive deficits and debt? Would a company be able to get away with this forever? Should they? Can they? Can we? Should we? Who's on first?
I know EV... nobody cares about debt.

It hasn't been decade after decade... we were in the black at the end of the last century with Clinton after his policies....

 

[Chichikov]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with borrowing to take on vital tasks such as fighting Nazis on the moon. But to maintain this as standard operating procedure for decade after decade is simply insane. How long can we live with massive deficits and debt? Would a company be able to get away with this forever? Should they? Can they? Can we? Should we? Who's on first?
I know EV... nobody cares about debt.

This is not about the current level of debt or revenue.
There's most certainly a debate to be had about that.

This is about the idea floated around by idiots like Norquist that all debt is bad by definition, or that it needs to be eliminated all together by a constitutional amendment.

 

[reilo]

It hasn't been decade after decade... we were in the black at the end of the last century with Clinton after his policies....

I was going to say... It's been a single decade.

 

[mckmas8808]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with borrowing to take on vital tasks such as fighting Nazis on the moon. But to maintain this as standard operating procedure for decade after decade is simply insane. How long can we live with massive deficits and debt? Would a company be able to get away with this forever? Should they? Can they? Can we? Should we? Who's on first?
I know EV... nobody cares about debt.

Countries shouldn't and can't be run like private companies. This knowledge is obvious. Each of their interest are so different that I don't even know why you put them together like that.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Countries shouldn't and can't be run like private companies.

or households.

How many times does this point need to be made?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

This is not about the current level of debt or revenue.
There's most certainly a debate to be had about that.

This is about the idea floated around by idiots like Norquist that all debt is bad by definition, or that it needs to be eliminated all together by a constitutional amendment.

Oh. Should have read the article.
Carry on.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/22/chrysler-repays-last-of-tarp-loans-six-years-ahead-of-schedule/

The auto bailouts remain one of the bright spots for the administration's economic polices. I've been impressed with the approach and success throughout the process.

I just watched this short but fascinating video of Obama talking to a small roundtable of college students about political compromise.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/obama_on_compromise.php?ref=fpblg

 

[Chichikov]

Countries shouldn't and can't be run like private companies. This knowledge is obvious. Each of their interest are so different that I don't even know why you put them together like that.

Private companies take massive amounts of debt when they need to expand their business.
Just look at the debt to equity ratio on their balance sheets.

For fuck's sake, banks are routinely leveraged at 30 to 1.

 

[PantherLotus]

Here's the video I was referencing a few days ago, regarding Obama/Lincoln, and the long view of history and compromise (in the face of extreme adversity).

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/obama_on_compromise.php?ref=fpblg

sidenote: I wish there was a world that he was my professor and I was his student. That would be so freaking cool.

 

[Cyan]

Private companies take massive amounts of debt when they need to expand their business.
Just look at the debt to equity ratio on their balance sheets.

For fuck's sake, banks are routinely leveraged at 30 to 1.

Indeed. A company that wasn't in debt would be failing in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders...

 

[PantherLotus]

That video really makes me want to get into politics/civics. I love that stuff.

 

[speculawyer]

Sure, there's nothing wrong with borrowing to take on vital tasks such as fighting Nazis on the moon. But to maintain this as standard operating procedure for decade after decade is simply insane. How long can we live with massive deficits and debt?

Then why was it standard operating procedure for the GOP to do that from 2000 to 2008?

Why should ANYONE believe they are serious at all when both Reagan and W ran up MASSIVE amounts of deficits & debt?

 

[mckmas8808]

The auto bailouts remain one of the bright spots for the administration's economic polices. I've been impressed with the approach and success throughout the process.

I just watched this short but fascinating video of Obama talking to a small roundtable of college students about political compromise.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/obama_on_compromise.php?ref=fpblg

I can't watch the video right now, but basically what does he say to the students?

 

[Vanillalite]

Then why was it standard operating procedure for the GOP to do that from 2000 to 2008?

Why should ANYONE believe they are serious at all when both Reagan and W ran up MASSIVE amounts of deficits & debt?

Cause it's like the twilight zone up in here. Clinton ended his term with a surplus... while the last two 2 term republican presidents ran up the tab. Yet all of a sudden it's a big deal for the republicans, and the dems are just some clueless hacks or something. TWILIGHT ZONE!