• 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.
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Deku said:
The Republican strategy isn't that sophisticated. I really wish the democrats would be smarter about it and call their bluff.
Click to expand...


I think the Democrats are allowing for the Republicans to push this right to the edge, so they can blame any recession that happens in the next year on their debt limit fight.

Not that either tactic will be effective. Both parties are at record-high disapproval levels.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ngs-for-both-major-parties-near-record-highs/


You wonder if Bloomberg might start to toy with the idea of running as an independent.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
My Congressman, David Wu, is resigning, TPM is reporting.

He's been a good representative, but given last year's weirdness plus the latest allegations, it's probably for the best. He needs to get help, or at least some time to himself.

He's resigning once the debt limit is passed. Assuming it's passed, that is.
 
A

Azih

Member
Chichikov said:
You're conflating two different things here.
Hardly anyone want to be on welfare, in no small part because life on welfare fucking blows, but that does not mean that they oppose our tax code becoming more progressive.

In fact, every poll I saw show support for tax burden on the rich.
Click to expand...
As a bystander I don't think there's any disagreement.

Krowley seems to be saying that people respond poorly to "Let's give the poor a helping hand!" but will respond positively to "Fuck those corporate fat cats."

I agree with him on that by the by.
 
B

Big-E

Member
In Canada, servers here get at least minimum wage plus tips. Works here, don't know why it can't work in the States but the States has a more prevalent anti labour movement so that is probably the reason.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Deku said:
The red neck tea partiers might. But the establishment is probably banking the dems cave completely at the last minute or Obama raises the limit himself and then they could bog him down with impeachment hearings.

The Republican strategy isn't that sophisticated. I really wish the democrats would be smarter about it and call their bluff.
Click to expand...

Plus given the weak economic growth, GOP arguments may be more potent next year, and a candidate hand wringing over the credit rating might have more impact too. Americans have very short attention spans. Boehner's short term plan has a chance to result in a downgrade, which might satisfy his base.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Azih said:
As a bystander I don't think there's any disagreement.

Krowley seems to be saying that people respond poorly to "Let's give the poor a helping hand!" but will respond positively to "Fuck those corporate fat cats."

I agree with him on that by the by.
Click to expand...
The discussion was about why poor/middle class people are for lower taxation on the rich.
Which is –
  • Not true
  • Not directly related to welfare (even if the only thing you’re funding is war, there is still the question of who pay what).
 
M

Mercury Fred

Banned
New York Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act
By THOMAS KAPLAN

The New York State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, acting just days after the state began allowing gay couples to wed, filed a legal brief on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. Schneiderman asserted that the law, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, violates the right to equal protection under the law for gay and lesbian couples.

The brief (attached at the bottom of the post), filed in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York, refers specifically to New York State’s Marriage Equality Act, which was approved by lawmakers last month and took effect to great fanfare on Sunday.

“Without such equal treatment by the federal government,” Mr. Schneiderman wrote, “New York’s statutory commitment to marriage equality for all married couples will be substantially unrealized.”

Mr. Schneiderman submitted the brief in support of Edith S. Windsor, the plaintiff in Windsor v. United States. Ms. Windsor was married in Canada in 2007 to her longtime partner, Thea Spyer. The couple lived in New York City, and when Ms. Spyer died two years after their marriage, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and collected estate taxes on her inheritance, prompting the lawsuit.

Ms. Windsor’s legal challenge was one of two lawsuits that prompted President Obama in February to direct the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama determined was unconstitutional.

There are several other legal challenges to the act being considered in federal courts around the nation, and President Obama has called for the law’s repeal.
Click to expand...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/new-york-challenges-u-s-defense-of-marriage-act/
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
One of the most influential conservatives in Congress says he's confident his own Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will lack the votes to pass his plan to raise the debt limit in the House of Representatives.

Complicating matters further for Boehner -- the Dems' top vote counter wryly suggested at a simultaneous press briefing that few, if any, Democrats will vote for the GOP's bill, since there is a preferable Democratic plan waiting in the wings. That suggests House conservatives are holding the line against any debt limit increase that can plausibly pass the Senate -- and that Democrats will have added leverage to muscle their own plan through both chambers.

"I am confident as of this morning that there are not 218 Republicans in support of the plan," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters at a Tuesday morning press briefing.

Two-hundred eighteen votes is the usual number required to pass legislation in the House. Because of vacancies, that number is currently 217. That means Boehner can lose no more than 23 Republicans and still pass his plan that would raise the debt limit and set the country up for another default crisis early in 2012.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said "very few" if any Democrats will join Boehner. "I don't want to give a number, but very few."

Asked if Boehner's plan can pass without Democratic help, Hoyer chuckled, "We'll see. I don't know, but we'll see I think. I think we'll see."
Click to expand...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-gop-support-to-raise-debt-limit.php?ref=fpa

wow
 
P

planar1280

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-gop-support-to-raise-debt-limit.php?ref=fpa

wow
Click to expand...

The destruction of America continues from those who were born with the need to go by the constitution to the extreme. (the tea party)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_909716.html#s280957&title=The_Stock_Market

On Monday, Donald Trump urged Republicans to reject any deal with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and let the country risk default. Economists and administration officials have warned that defaulting on our debt would have dire economic consequences, but for Trump there is an upside: the crisis would prevent President Barack Obama from being reelected.
Click to expand...
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
PhoenixDark said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-gop-support-to-raise-debt-limit.php?ref=fpa

wow
Click to expand...
Part of me is "Fuck Yeah" at the possibility of sticking it to Republicans and beating them at the game (though that won't happen) but then when I step back I think about it I'd rather have a quick solution to have this mess over and done with because of the economic implications but then I think of what the quick solution would end up entailing and I move back to "Fuck Yeah" at the possibility of sticking it to the Republicans and beating them at the game (though that won't happen.)
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Blergmeister said:
Part of me is "Fuck Yeah" at the possibility of sticking it to Republicans and beating them at the game (though that won't happen) but then when I step back I think about it I'd rather have a quick solution to have this mess over and done with because of the economic implications but then I think of what the quick solution would end up entailing and I move back to "Fuck Yeah" at the possibility of sticking it to the Republicans and beating them at the game (though that won't happen.)
Click to expand...

Boehner's quick solution would have us doing this shit again not too far from now.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Clevinger said:
Boehner's quick solution would have us doing this shit again not too far from now.
Click to expand...

And it risks the credit rating. It's a plan that puts politics ahead of the country, and cannot pass. It's even more pathetic when you consider this is the party that constantly wrings its hands over "uncertainty" hurting businesses/the economy. How will they respond when told this farce will play out again in six months?
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
empty vessel said:
Only one of those is accurate. It isn't the former. Boehner would be lying through his teeth if he said Obama were responsible for the debt limit not being raised. All, or effectively all, Democrats would vote 'yes' on a bill to raise the debt limit, and Obama would sign it. The problem is that Republicans will vote no. Since Republicans control the House, the effect of this is that the debt limit is not raised.
Click to expand...

Didn't Boehner say he had a budget plan that Obama promised to veto? I believe it was the Cap, Cut and Balance Act that the Senate killed anyway. The plan increased the debt limit marginally twice in a period of one year.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
A Human Becoming said:
Didn't Boehner say he had a budget plan that Obama promised to veto? I believe it was the Cap, Cut and Balance Act that the Senate killed anyway. The plan increased the debt limit marginally twice in a period of one year.
Click to expand...

it also required a constitutional amendment re: a balanced budget, which is a bad idea for numerous reasons, and never would have passed at all, let alone before the budget deadline.

Republicans knew that deal was dead in the water when they proposed it. They WANTED that to be shot down.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
A Human Becoming said:
Didn't Boehner say he had a budget plan that Obama promised to veto? I believe it was the Cap, Cut and Balance Act that the Senate killed anyway. The plan increased the debt limit marginally twice in a period of one year.
Click to expand...

No. What you are talking about is a budget plan, which has nothing to do with the debt limit. We're talking about raising the debt limit. Republicans will vote no on a bill that raises the debt limit. They are the only reason the debt limit is not raised right now. No other reason. You don't need a plan to raise the debt limit. You just have to vote yes on a bill that raises the debt limit. The Republicans refuse to do it.

Door2Dawn said:
Can't they just raise the ceiling without all of the crap that is attached to it?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what Republicans refuse to do.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Door2Dawn said:
Can't they just raise the ceiling without all of the crap that is attached to it?
Click to expand...
technically, yes, but Obama and Republicans want to complicate things for political posturing going forward.
 
A

Averon

Member
As I said before, no one's plan will pass. We're back to square one with less than a week left. We're fucked unless a clean debt ceiling vote pass. And how likely is that to happen?
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm wondering, the BBA that the Reps wanna pass, even if by some miracle it passes both houses of congress, it still needs 3/4 of the states to ratify it, doesn't it? Wouldn't that take a fucking ridiculous amount of time?
 
B

Bishman

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Current Dem thinking in the Senate to push the Reid bill, whether Boehner has the votes or not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rash-and-burn/2011/03/03/gIQAFebvaI_blog.html

What a mess.
Click to expand...
The second alternative!

The second alternative possibility being gamed out by Senate Dems would take place if the Boehner plan does manage to sneak through the House. Aides say Dems would then vote it down in the Senate. And here’s where it gets even more interesting.

Senate Dem aides say they would then use Boehner’s bill — which passed the House but died in the Senate — to expedidate their own proposal. Here’s how. They would use the “shell” of the Boehner bill as a vehicle to pass Harry Reid’s proposal, because for various procedural reasons House messages get expedited consideration. Senate Dems would vote to “amend” Boehner’s bill by replacing it completely with Reid’s proposal — which the Senate could then pass more quickly than they otherwise could.

After that, Reid’s proposal — having passed the Senate — would then get kicked back to the House. Having proved that Boehner’s plan can’t pass the Senate, Democrats would in effect be giving House Republicans a choice: Either pass the Reid proposal, or take the blame for default and the economic calamity that ensues.​
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
PhoenixDark said:
How can they possibly expect Reid's plan not to be filibustered if Boehner's doesn't pass?
Click to expand...
Because Reid is (apparantly) working with McConnell to marry it to his proposal. Reid's cuts, McConnell's tiered voting plan. McConnell is much smarter, politically, and knows Reid gave them nearly everything they wanted. He has no problem saying yes.
 
P

planar1280

Banned
Bishman said:
The second alternative!

The second alternative possibility being gamed out by Senate Dems would take place if the Boehner plan does manage to sneak through the House. Aides say Dems would then vote it down in the Senate. And here’s where it gets even more interesting.

Senate Dem aides say they would then use Boehner’s bill — which passed the House but died in the Senate — to expedidate their own proposal. Here’s how. They would use the “shell” of the Boehner bill as a vehicle to pass Harry Reid’s proposal, because for various procedural reasons House messages get expedited consideration. Senate Dems would vote to “amend” Boehner’s bill by replacing it completely with Reid’s proposal — which the Senate could then pass more quickly than they otherwise could.

After that, Reid’s proposal — having passed the Senate — would then get kicked back to the House. Having proved that Boehner’s plan can’t pass the Senate, Democrats would in effect be giving House Republicans a choice: Either pass the Reid proposal, or take the blame for default and the hilarity that ensues.​
Click to expand...


fixed
 
P

Patrick Klepek

furiously molesting tim burton
GhaleonEB said:
Because Reid is (apparantly) working with McConnell to marry it to his proposal. Reid's cuts, McConnell's tiered voting plan. McConnell is much smarter, politically, and knows Reid gave them nearly everything they wanted. He has no problem saying yes.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out how Obama spent last night pushing for tax revenues when this endgame involves just cuts. Am I missing something?
 
M

Milchjon

Member
As a German, allow me to say:

WTF AMERICA???

Gambling away your (and maybe even our) future because of stupid party tactics?

Been watching this process for weeks and thought there was no way this could ever get this bad. It's not like this hasn't been done before!
 
E

eznark

Banned
Patrick Klepek said:
I'm trying to figure out how Obama spent last night pushing for tax revenues when this endgame involves just cuts. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I like how quickly this caught on. And without a lefty radio presence!

As a German, allow me to say:

WTF AMERICA???
Click to expand...

How quickly we forget........
 
P

polyh3dron

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Right now, they are. But I fully expect it to come right back on the Dems and Obama.
Click to expand...
Yeah, about 6 months or so of Fox News and the GOP's repeated talking points ad nauseum would swing public opinion.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
Oblivion said:
I'm wondering, the BBA that the Reps wanna pass, even if by some miracle it passes both houses of congress, it still needs 3/4 of the states to ratify it, doesn't it? Wouldn't that take a fucking ridiculous amount of time?
Click to expand...

Yes, I could take quite a long time considering that we still have amendments regarding child labor that haven't been ratified 80+ years after their passage in Congress.

Anyone pushing for a BBA is completely unserious about solving real problems.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Patrick Klepek said:
I'm trying to figure out how Obama spent last night pushing for tax revenues when this endgame involves just cuts. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I think it was all political framing.

He spent most of his time arguing for revenues in a "balanced" approach - and then praised Reid's revenue-free plan. That to me was the tell for where this thing is going.
 
M

Milchjon

Member
eznark said:
How quickly we forget........
Click to expand...

1. If I understand you correctly, thanks for using one of the most stupid standard non-arguments that bear no connection to the situation at hand.

2. Germany threatened the stability by being evil, not by sheer stupidity. At least I still hope that Republicans are doing this out of stupidity.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Milchjon said:
1. If I understand you correctly, thanks for using one of the most stupid standard non-arguments that bear no connection to the situation at hand.

2. Germany threatened the stability by being evil, not by sheer stupidity. At least I still hope that Republicans are doing this out of stupidity.
Click to expand...

1. People in glass houses

2. Patriots*
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
I think the Democrats are allowing for the Republicans to push this right to the edge, so they can blame any recession that happens in the next year on their debt limit fight.

Not that either tactic will be effective. Both parties are at record-high disapproval levels.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ngs-for-both-major-parties-near-record-highs/


You wonder if Bloomberg might start to toy with the idea of running as an independent.
Click to expand...

He was really adamant that he is not on This Week this week.
 
T

TheNatural

My Member!
I'm independent, but it's really hard to not hate fucking Republicans right now who refuse - despite independent economists and national wide polls supporting cuts AND tax revenue - to compromise.

I'm really fucking sick of this "protect the rich" tax philosophy, with the lame ass reasoning that taxing the rich hurts businesses and prevents jobs being created.

Guess what? They've had these fucking cuts for years now. WHERE ARE THE JOBS AT THEN DUMBASSES? If your philosophy for high income tax breaks was so fucking correct, then the economy should be rolling right now right???

John Maynard Keynes is rolling in his grave at this shit.
 
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