• 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.

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I'm not sure if it's going to be 2012 or 2014 but this "put the burden on the middle and lower class" stuff is finally coming to a point where the American public is pissed and is going to take it out on the incumbents. The economy is stagnant and seems to be getting worse.
 

Jeels

Member
How's he going to push true liberal values in 2013 (if he gets re-elected) when the GOP will more than likely retain the House majority and without a doubt will win back the Senate?

Question, why is just about everyone more than certain that the Republicans will take the senate even if Obama brings people voting in droves like 2008? (I know that's not going to happen, but assuming that most people still think Obama is going to win.)
 

Cyrillus

Member
Diablos said:
How's he going to push true liberal values in 2013 (if he gets re-elected) when the GOP will more than likely retain the House majority and without a doubt will win back the Senate?

Are you delusional? Maybe this "liberal base" that keeps giving up on Obama and coming back needs a healthy dose of something called reality; no Democratic President in quite some time has had to put up with so many fringe lunatics representing the opposition, from Kennedy to Clinton; they all had a much easier ride. Anything before that was in a fundamentally different world so it would be hard to compare, but it would be so long ago that it probably wouldn't be worth bringing up.
I never said he was going to. In fact, my post implies that I don't think that will happen. Doesn't mean I don't hope it will somehow happen, I just don't think it will. I agree with all your points.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I think the democrats need one of two things:

1. Some leaders with some actual balls who stand up to the Tea Party/GOP "Go Go Corporations!" BS.

2. Their own version of the "Tea Party." If the Tea Party is getting this kind of crap done for the GOP because they're scaring them, I wonder what effect it would have on the democrats if they had their own people screaming for this.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Plinko said:
I'm not sure if it's going to be 2012 or 2014 but this "put the burden on the middle and lower class" stuff is finally coming to a point where the American public is pissed and is going to take it out on the incumbents. The economy is stagnant and seems to be getting worse.

They'll just kick out the Dems and Obama, and elect more Reps to fuck things up even worse.
 
Plinko said:
I think the democrats need one of two things:

1. Some leaders with some actual balls who stand up to the Tea Party/GOP "Go Go Corporations!" BS.

2. Their own version of the "Tea Party." If the Tea Party is getting this kind of crap done for the GOP because they're scaring them, I wonder what effect it would have on the democrats if they had their own people screaming for this.

Unfortunately most Dems are tone-deaf cowards and there would be no difference.
 
Jeels said:
Question, why is just about everyone more than certain that the Republicans will take the senate even if Obama brings people voting in droves like 2008? (I know that's not going to happen, but assuming that most people still think Obama is going to win.)

2012 will look like 2010, not 2008. Just as in 2010, we'll see a whiter, older electorate and disillusioned democrats coming out in smaller numbers. Obama has given them nothing to fight for. At every turn he dismisses and belittles his base, then appeals to them to advocate his right leaning policies.

This deal could destroy the democratic party's chances next year. Draconian spending cuts during a tepid recovery? And what's to stop republicans from threatening to shut down government in time for the holidays, in exchange for even more spending cuts that Obama gladly accepts.
 

Diablos

Member
Looks like a lot of you are throwing in the towel and abandoning Obama. Kind of silly when you consider the alternative; a GOP President, House, and Senate.

If you thought the Bush years were bad, watch out.
 

Kusagari

Member
Jeels said:
Question, why is just about everyone more than certain that the Republicans will take the senate even if Obama brings people voting in droves like 2008? (I know that's not going to happen, but assuming that most people still think Obama is going to win.)

Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota

All seats held by Democrats that are up in 2012. Democrats need to win 3 of these to keep the majority. This isn't even including other races like Ohio that could flip.
 
Jeels said:
Question, why is just about everyone more than certain that the Republicans will take the senate even if Obama brings people voting in droves like 2008? (I know that's not going to happen, but assuming that most people still think Obama is going to win.)

The Senate is a matter of what seats are up more than whether it's a wave election or whatever. The Dems simply have too many seats up to win them all and Republicans have been in this situation before when they had the Senate. It's possible they could make a run at the house judging by some of the generic ballot polling I've seen but I'm not familiar with the redistricting situation going on right now.

PhoenixDark said:
This deal could destroy the democratic party's chances next year. Draconian spending cuts during a tepid recovery? And what's to stop republicans from threatening to shut down government in time for the holidays, in exchange for even more spending cuts that Obama gladly accepts.

That's putting a bit harsh. He waited till they were 48 hours away from an unprecedented default, I don't think he's very happy and it's not like he thinks cutting spending helps fragile economies but the alternative is even worse.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Rick Scott will help Democrats win the Senate there, haha.
 

Chichikov

Member
Democrats need to offer a clear alternative to the GOP.

Say it in plain and simple words, no need to lie or bullshit -

The GOP want to balance the budget through cuts to government programs like [list things they want to cut].
The Democratic party will balance the budget by defense cuts and raising taxes on rich individual, capital gains and scaling back corporate welfare

You obviously need to provide details, just be honest with the numbers and let the public choose.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Chichikov said:
Democrats need to offer a clear alternative to the GOP.

Say it in plain and simple words, no need to lie or bullshit -

The GOP want to balance the budget through cuts to government programs like [list things they want to cut].
The Democratic party will balance the budget by defense cuts and raising taxes on rich individual, capital gains and scaling back corporate welfare

You obviously need to provide details, just be honest with the numbers and let the public choose.

This is a clear path to victory for democrats. I just wish they'd do it.
 

JCX

Member
Chichikov said:
You obviously need to provide details, just be honest with the numbers and let the public choose.

Unfortunately, I think people like feelings more than facts.
 

Piecake

Member
JCX said:
Unfortunately, I think people like feelings more than facts.

pretty much. It also explains why local news has like 2 minutes of actual news, 10 minutes of special interest stories, 5 minutes of weather and 8 minutes of sports
 
MiDNiGHTS said:
That's putting a bit harsh. He waited till they were 48 hours away from an unprecedented default, I don't think he's very happy and it's not like he thinks cutting spending helps fragile economies but the alternative is even worse.

He wanted to cut 4T in spending. And when this lower deal is reached, he'll parade out and tell us how great it is for both sides to work together, how both sides have things they can cling to etc. He offered Medicare and SS cuts to Boehner, and even agreed to raise the Medicare age requirement. So I don't want to hear anything about him not being pleased by this; the only thing he's not pleased about is not getting a "historic" deal he can brag about to independents.

BOTH sides said a default would not happen. So why are we at this stage, with one side giving in to nearly every republican demand?
 
Slightly off topic but in regards to the 2012 presidential election I think one key area that democrats could really rally up voters is through social media. Instead of paying millions upon millions for tons of tv advertising they should focus on more aggressive social media marketing.
 

Piecake

Member
PhoenixDark said:
He wanted to cut 4T in spending. And when this lower deal is reached, he'll parade out and tell us how great it is for both sides to work together, how both sides have things they can cling to etc. He offered Medicare and SS cuts to Boehner, and even agreed to raise the Medicare age requirement. So I don't want to hear anything about him not being pleased by this; the only thing he's not pleased about is getting a "historic" deal he can brag about to independents.

BOTH sides said a default would not happen. So why are we at this stage, with one side giving in to nearly every republican demand?

Well, lets hope Obama's threat to repeal Bush's tax cuts unless the committee comes up with some serious tax reform is real. If that and keeping the pentagon kicker as high as possible remains, I think the bill becomes a bit nasty, but digestible.

Lord_Byron28 said:
Slightly off topic but in regards to the 2012 presidential election I think one key area that democrats could really rally up voters is through social media. Instead of paying millions upon millions for tons of tv advertising they should focus on more aggressive social media marketing.

Obama was doing that a bit in 2008, and I can't imagine that not seriously expanding in 2012. I doubt it will overtake commercials moneywise, mostly because commercials cost a lot mroe
 

Chichikov

Member
JCX said:
Unfortunately, I think people like feelings more than facts.
I'm certain that the American public can be receptive to something like - "would you rather increase medicare eligibility age or create a new 500k tax bracket?
"Would you rather end oil subsidy or cut pell grants?"
(numbers out of my ass obviously).

But the dems conceded the narrative, we talk about cuts instead of a budget and in numbers instead of services.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So here's what's being proposed:

The deal works like this:

It guarantees the debt limit will be hiked by $2.4 trillion. Immediately upon enactment of the plan, the Treasury will be granted $400 billion of new borrowing authority, after which President Obama will be allowed to extend the debt limit by $500 billion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That initial $900 billion will be paired with $900 billion of discretionary spending cuts, first identified in a weeks-old bipartisan working group led by Vice President Joe Biden, which will be spread out over 10 years.

Obama will later be able to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, again subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can come from spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture thereof.

If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.5 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.

If the committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanism would not be triggered. That's because Republicans are insisting on a dollar-for-dollar match between deficit reduction and new borrowing authority, and $900 billion plus $1.5 trillion add up to $2.4 trillion.

However, if the committee finds somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion in savings, the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism's cuts, still in a one-to-one ratio.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...imit-deal----heres-what-hes-signed-off-on.php

Half of the cuts in defense is far more than I ever would have guessed.
 

Diablos

Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/31/durbin-debt-deal-keynes-deficit_n_914356.html said:
WASHINGTON -- The Republicans are killing Keynesian economics with their attempt to cut spending as the economy rebounds from a recession, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a floor speech on Sunday.

"I would say ... that symbolically, that agreement is moving us to the point where we are having the final interment of John Maynard Keynes," he said, referring to the British economist. "He normally died in 1946 but it appears we are going to put him to his final rest with this agreement."

Keynes argued that aggregate demand was not always enough to spur full employment and that outside structures, such as governments, could influence the economy to create jobs and regulate business cycles. His thinking influenced later New Deal spending by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Durbin said the economy is too weak for major cuts in spending, a view that is shared by many economists.

Although details of a debt deal are still unclear, lawmakers are likely to make cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, beginning in the 2012 fiscal year. Commissions set up to create a path for deficit reduction, such as the Bowles-Simpson commission, have advised against spending cuts for at least a year to protect the economic rebound.

"Their fear, and the fear that I share, is that if we make spending cuts at this point, it will not help economic recovery," he said.

Massive spending cuts as part of a spending deal, Durbin said, could cause the economy to sputter even if Congress can avoid economic turmoil by meeting an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt limit.

"So here we are in the horns of a dilemma," Durbin said. "In order to avoid the disaster that would occur August 2 if the United States defaulted for the first time in its history, we are being told we have to cut back on government spending and by cutting back on spending, we may also have a negative impact on our economy."

The Chamber of Commerce has warned against major spending cuts as part of a debt limit deal, asking lawmakers on Friday to be careful.

"The recovery is clearly on a lower trajectory, and it will likely be some time before the economy rebounds to the point it will create much in terms of job growth," Martin Regalia, the group's chief economist, said in a statement.
Well said.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Diablos said:
Looks like a lot of you are throwing in the towel and abandoning Obama. Kind of silly when you consider the alternative; a GOP President, House, and Senate.

If you thought the Bush years were bad, watch out.
I'm just about to the point where I'm ok with letting this happen. If the voting public can't see what the GOP is doing, then let them see what happens when they have unfettered control of our government. When the country hits absolute rock bottom in 4 short years, then they might finally see the consequences of their actions.

I'll be doing everything in my power to leave this country if that happens.
 

Zzoram

Member
XMonkey said:
I'm just about to the point where I'm ok with letting this happen. If the voting public can't see what the GOP is doing, then let them see what happens when they have unfettered control of our government. When the country hits absolute rock bottom in 4 short years, then they might finally see the consequences of their actions.

I'll be doing everything in my power to leave this country if that happens.

If you have a good education (minimum Bachelor's degree), some work experience, and you're under 30 years old, you'll almost certainly be approved to move to Canada.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Zzoram said:
If you have a good education (minimum Bachelor's degree), some work experience, and you're under 30 years old, you'll almost certainly be approved to move to Canada.
I have those things. I've always loved Vancouver.
 

Puddles

Banned
Zzoram said:
If you have a good education (minimum Bachelor's degree), some work experience, and you're under 30 years old, you'll almost certainly be approved to move to Canada.

Are we talking any degree (liberal arts included), or just real degrees (STEM)?
 

Zzoram

Member
XMonkey said:
I have those things. I've always loved Vancouver.

My cousin got accept to Canada, but I think he had to wait about a year for the papers to be finalized. He just kept working his US job until a month before the move, then took some time to get his stuff packed and his affairs in order, hang out with his friends, then moved.

He's since made Canadian friends, and after a few months found a job that he's been at now for a year. He had some family in Canada to help him settle in. I think he left the US because of Bush, lol.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Zzoram said:
If you have a good education (minimum Bachelor's degree), some work experience, and you're under 30 years old, you'll almost certainly be approved to move to Canada.

I've always wanted to live in Canada--my Dad's family was Canadian.

I wish they had some math teaching jobs available up there :( I'd move my family next year.
 
Gonaria said:
Obama was doing that a bit in 2008, and I can't imagine that not seriously expanding in 2012. I doubt it will overtake commercials moneywise, mostly because commercials cost a lot mroe
I don't mean stop paying for tv adverts obviously but reducing down on that and pursuing social media marketing would make more financial sense and would make sense since Democrats typically pull in a lot of younger people.

Granted I always had issues with presidential campaigns coming down to raising massive amounts of money if you ever hoped to become a serious candidate in the race. However, the ridiculous amount of money spent and needed to run in a presidential race will not change anytime in the near or forseeable future.
 

Puddles

Banned
JCX said:
Unfortunately, I think people like feelings more than facts.

You have to hope the public can see the difference between punks like Scott Brown who need a lesson in manners and freaks like the Tea Party who just enjoy this.
 

Zzoram

Member
Puddles said:
Are we talking any degree (liberal arts included), or just real degrees (STEM)?

My cousin had a BA in Economics, and 5 years experience in IT work. He got a job doing IT in Canada. Not sure how they award points for stuff exactly.

I know that Immigration Canada loves:

Degrees
Age (younger is better, you'll pay more tax over your life)
Years of full-time work experience in skilled career jobs (STEM, management, insurance, social work, trades, anything oil industry)



I think the requirement of 1+ years of full-time employment in a skilled career field is to ensure that the people they let in are going to be productive members of society, and not just people who coasted through with an easy degree then never managed to hold a good job.
 

Averon

Member
Puddles said:
You have to hope the public can see the difference between punks like Scott Brown who need a lesson in manners and freaks like the Tea Party who just enjoy this.

iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
 

Zzoram

Member
Averon said:
One thing that sucks about moving to Canada is that its internet providers are even crappier than it is in the US.

$59.99 for 120GB data, 24Mbps down/1Mbps up

Not bad. You won't go bankrupt if you break your leg either.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Zzoram said:
What do you think will have to be cut to make up that lost revenue?
I don't know what will be cut (pick something out of a hat), but it will make our already-shit infrastructure worse.
 
Plinko said:
I think the democrats need one of two things:

1. Some leaders with some actual balls who stand up to the Tea Party/GOP "Go Go Corporations!" BS.

2. Their own version of the "Tea Party." If the Tea Party is getting this kind of crap done for the GOP because they're scaring them, I wonder what effect it would have on the democrats if they had their own people screaming for this.
In regards to point 2 I heard on NPR today something about the American Dream Movement. Supposedly something like what you mentioned...

Van Jones is involved...

American Dream Movement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom