-
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
Krugthula:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...bal-economy/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
We are ruled by idiots.
Meanwhile, in the Global Economy
Bad news all over. In the US, Manufacturing growth hits lowest level in 2 years. In Europe, my favorite current indicator of the eurozone crisis, the Italy-Germany bond spread, has blown out again. And while part of this is due to falling German rates which, like falling US rates, reflect growing pessimism about growth the Italian bond rate is once again at 6 percent, a level that invites a self-fulfilling debt spiral.
Oh, and in Britain, poster child for wonderful expansionary austerity, we have this:
Im so glad we have a deal that will bring the confidence fairy to our rescue!
Bad news all over. In the US, Manufacturing growth hits lowest level in 2 years. In Europe, my favorite current indicator of the eurozone crisis, the Italy-Germany bond spread, has blown out again. And while part of this is due to falling German rates which, like falling US rates, reflect growing pessimism about growth the Italian bond rate is once again at 6 percent, a level that invites a self-fulfilling debt spiral.
Oh, and in Britain, poster child for wonderful expansionary austerity, we have this:
For the fifth consecutive month, the manufacturing sector has disappointed expectations. In the past six months, the headline composite index has crashed by 12.5 points, a record only exceeded post-Lehman in 2008. Output has been slightly better behaved over the past few months, but Julys 2 point decline to 50.6 leaves it slightly below Mays trough. Worryingly, the temporary supply-chain disruptions that depressed output in May appear to have eased, indicating that Julys weakness might be more structural
Im so glad we have a deal that will bring the confidence fairy to our rescue!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...bal-economy/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
We are ruled by idiots.
GaimeGuy said:
That just makes him happy. Someday you'll learn how people work.
I give us about a 40% chance of a full on, on-stage meltdown between candidates if Perry gets in the race. He's going to ratchet up Cain and Bachmann's need to grasp the crazy-rail by a factor of a hundred. And he's going to make Romney spin like a top on issues.
If the Republicans had any balls, they'd let Johnson on the stage. Of course, they won't. Which seems weird to me, since they're letting Paul on, and there isn't that much daylight between their core positions. Paul's better at kissing Republican ass, though.
Austerity measures never worked and never will work. Sure you can cut some spending and you have to set some of timeline to get your debt managable but cutting spending to a point that it hurts consumption and production just slows the economy down even further.GhaleonEB said:
turnbuckle
Member
Flo_Evans said:
Part of me has wondered if he is in fact D B Cooper.
besada said:
well shit, apparently my memory is garbage, i could have sworn i saw a story where he announced he wasn't going to run this year (about a month ago). www.ronpaul2012.com proves otherwise.
False target of blame. The fact is, obama put everything on the table. Literally, everything, including cuts to benefits and raising the retirement age. He offered more spending cuts than anyone in congress did. He offered a plan with close to $4T i nspending cuts. He also offered a separate plan which included $3T in spending cuts and $800B in revenues. Both of these were heavily, heavily slanted towards the republicans' wishes, with significant cuts to social safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security while only marginally, or not at all, touching taxes.besada said:
The gridlock is occuring not because the president isn't reahcing out, but because the opposition wants gridlock more than anything else. That's why they wanted $1T in cuts and a short term extension of the debt ceiling with a 3 republican, 3 democrat "super congress" instead of a long term extension and $4T in cuts. They want gridlock. They want to play political games instead of resolving problems in a timely manner. That's why they shouted about health care being rammed down our throats after a year of legislative proceedings. They don't want a government that can act swiftly and effectively. They want a government that creates automatic triggers and special commissions and committees to enact spending cuts , committees that everyone knows will be stalled in talks for weeks or months on end, instead of just making the damn spending cuts directly right now, because then they can point to the convoluted bureaucratic mess in place and say "SEE? GOVERNMENT IS INEFFICIENT!!!"
Most of all, they want to stall for time so that their "opponents" can do as little as possible during the lenght of their appointed terms. Likewise, they want to enact as many policies as possible when they control different political branches, which is why you see them voting in lockstep and not giving anywhere near as much thought to approving $4 trillion dollar tax cuts and $3 trillion dollar wars as they do an $800B health care bill, or a few hundred million dollars towards planned parenthood, or a few billion dollars towards food stamps.
Stop electing obstructionists and maybe you won't be so dissapointed when the non-obstructionists like Obama, whom you place all your hopes on, can't get anything done. And when I say stop electing obstructionists, that includes the act of not voting against them. Always make sure you and those you know vote, because while you may not 100% agree with someone's policies, you should still be trying to push for qualified individuals to fill the positions, to steer the country in a better direction, rather than allow poor candidates to fill posiitons out of your own apathy.
empty vessel
Member
BruiserBear said:We will be another Greece in about 10-15 years.
I hope I'm wrong.
I can't stress enough how wrong you are and how wrong your thinking on the deficit and debt is. The US being Greece is an impossibility. It simply cannot happen for various reasons including the US's unique position in the world and the fiat nature of its currency. This belief is due to a narrative that has been advanced to service a particular agenda. That agenda is one that will be harmful to overwhelming majority of Americans.
Given that you have bought into the campaign that has been sold to you, I frankly think we should talk this through. What, exactly, are your worries about the deficit and/or debt that makes you think there is a problem? Can you articulate them?
The Chosen One
Member
Loudninja said:
This is why I laugh when people say Mittens will be a sane Republican president. He's a complete wind-sock and pretty much flails in whatever party winds are blowing. If he gets elected he'll be in a constant state of trying to appease the Tea Party.
I'm not sure how anyone thinks it would be a good idea for Republicans to control the House, Senate, and the Presidency with Tea Partyers essentially controlling the reigns. Also, why would you give Republicans full-control of the US government after they just destroyed the economy in '08? They should really be banned from controlling more than 1/3 of the government for at least a quarter century until they get some new ideas.
GaimeGuy said:
Obama's a terrible leader. He has plenty of other great qualities, but he was unable to convince his own party to enact his agenda. That's the hallmark of a terrible leader. You act as if he's the only President to have stiff, ridiculous opposition, and yet it's as common as the rain.
You either don't know what leadership is, or you're deluded on the subject. Leadership is not hanging back and letting idiots sort things out. It's using your persuasive powers to direct those idiots. If he didn't want to do that, he applied for the wrong job.
And seriously, telling me about Republicans being obstinate and wanting to kill government is the very definition of teaching your granny to suck eggs. Unlike you, I've been involved in electoral politics for decades, ranging everywhere from Democratic precinct chairman to state delegate. I've been nose to nose with more recalcitrant Republicans than you're ever likely to see.
None of your complaints about the Republicans change that Obama was unable to persuade his own party, or the American people, that his ideas were good. In part because he was too chickenshit to get his hands dirty. You can be happy about his standoffishness and bipartisanship all you want, but it hasn't worked out very well for anyone. Twenty years from now you're going to look back at him like we look back at Carter. Great guy, great ideas, tremendously ineffectual leader. Like Carter, he prefers doing it the right way to actually getting it done. People like that are always going to be ground up in our political system.
I'm sorry that our political system offends your sensibilities, but it is what it is. You're welcome to spend your life trying to change that, or you might actually focus on understanding it and learning how to use it. One will buy you a life of misery and disappointment, and the other might allow you to help actual people rather than feeling good about how honorable you are.
radioheadrule83
Banned
GaimeGuy said:
As an outsider, this is how I see it too. It seems like everyone is talking up the gravity of the situation and wants to take part in the brinksmanship purely because they all have one eye on 2012. The November results seem to have really hamstrung this government, and I don't think it particularly helps the GOP, because all this stalling and obstructivism has stopped important things from being done -- the damage is easily going to be felt into the next presidents' term, if indeed, there is a new one. And what then? That president and his party lose seats at mid-terms and this inter-house deadlock begins anew?
You can tell that some politicians in Washington genuinely would like to stop this nonsensical partisan rhetoric, the fillibustering and all of the delaying, and that they would prefer to be pragmatic and do the important work that there is to be done: I think that Obama is one of those people... sadly, everything is against him. The economy, the influx of teabaggers, his opposition in the House of Representatives, declining public sentiment. He wants all sides to play nice and get shit done, but everybody is just always thinking about the next election.
TacticalFox88
Banned
The day the Tea Party controls all three branches of government is the day I move to Western Europe. I'm not even joking.The Chosen One said:
jamesinclair
Banned
eznark said:
You know how the FAA is treading water, because theyc ant collect their taxes anymore and so thousands of projects are on hold?
The highway trust fund system expires september 30. Aka, gas tax goes away.
reilo said:
He didn't, because he was unable to persuade outliers to follow him. That's the issue. Everyone acts like those votes were just supposed to lay down at his feet, but that's not how it works. It requires persuasion, arm twisting, and deal making. And Obama explicitly opted out of all that, because it wasn't bipartisan enough, and it wasn't the "right" way to do things.
If you can't convince them directly, you set the electorate on their asses, and do it indirectly. And you have to put some skin in the game, otherwise no one takes you seriously. I knew healthcare would be derailed the moment the WH announced they had no intention of submitting their own legislation. It was a clear signal that they were unwilling to take the potential blowback of putting their name on a plan, and everyone in the House and Senate saw it, too.
There are great arguments to be made that that's the way it "should" be, but they're all predicated on the idea that anyone else cares about doing it the right way. Most people don't. They want action and they want a strong voice telling them what needs to be done. Obama's not that guy. It doesn't mean he's terrible, it just means he's ineffectual.
Obama's trying to play chess with an opponent that's trying to kill him with a knife.
BotoxAgent
Member
Obama is not exactly the president we dreamed about. But I will still vote and support him 100%. The other side is just too evil and destructive to just be sitting out in the sidelines to "punish" the democrats.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
IMO, his lack of executive experience is doing him in. He's never had to do this before.besada said:
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I think it's a mix of that and a character...flaw isn't the right word, because not being an abusive obstinate asshole isn't exactly a flaw, but it's a serious handicap when one is President.
I'll sit here and shit on Reagan and Bush all day long, but you can't deny that both of them understood people and how to lead. They led in bad directions, and I think both are terrible human beings, but they led. Clinton was also a shitbag, but he also knew how to rock a fucking microphone and scare the balls off his opposition.
teruterubozu
Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I thought it was ridiculous before, but Hillary for VP is definitely looking more and more like a legitimate option going into 2012.
Federal health department approves free birth control for women
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/08/federal_health_department_approves_free_birth_cont.php
besada said:
A pretty sizeable portion of democrats have the exact same ideological and philosophical beliefs as republicans, they just fall in line with liberals on certain social wedge issues, which makes them unelectable as republicans.
And I mean this. People like Harry Reid and Max Baucus and Joe Liebermann and about half a dozen other senators and another 30 or 40 house representatives that caucus with the democratic party don't believe the government should be involved in health care, or in providing funds for education, or raising taxes. They believe the government economic policy should be focussed on enabling the private sector to pursue opportunities through trade agreements, municipalities with local governments, and access to credit.
They're really much, much closer to republicans than they are democrats. You can't expect eveeryone to vote in lockstep with such differences. Nor should you. Just because they are in the same party does not mean they should agree on policy. The fact that some people vote in lockstep does not make it a desireable outcome. We should be discouraging such political gamesmanship and tryiing to pursue improvement through discussion and debate rather than trying to "win over" caucus votes. The fact that legislative debate rarely brings about a change in the voting stance on an individual means the mentality of our political system is very, very wrong.
worldrunover
Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
No president has had to do this before, until they become president. Running a business or even a state does not mean you're prepared to be president.
That's a damn inaccurate revisionist history type of thinking right there. He's had the majority of votes on nearly every piece of agenda. Where it fell apart ("the outliers") was in the Senate to break fillibuster. The minority outvoted the majority. The system is far more broken than the leadership.besada said:
He thinks that because there were 60 members caucusing with the dems for a period of time, that no piece of legislation should have been able to be blocked by a fillibuster. He thinks there SHOULD be lockstep voting, and that the fact there isn't is a sign of poor leadership :/reilo said:
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
reilo said:
But his point is correct. Its the job of the President to use his bully pulpit and what not to persuade those members of your party who are not in line. From afar it doesn't seem that Obama does this.
GaimeGuy said:
And all that was true the day before Obama threw his hat in the ring. If he didn't think he could persuade, embarrass, or humiliate these people into doing what he wanted, then he's wasting everyone's time.
I'd love it if we had a reasonable, rational political system, but that's not what we have. We have a meat-grinder full of hatred, irrationality, and silliness. You can either change that, or you can get something doen, but you can't do both at the same time, and Obama chose to try and change that. It's failed spectacularly, of course, because his enemies and many of the American people see it as weakness, which is why he's turned into the best punching bag the Republicans have had in decades.
Wanting a better system is a noble thing, but if you're willing to trade actual results that help people in order to do it, you're in the wrong game. And it hasn't worked for him anyway. The whole point of not submitting legislation on healthcare was to protect himself rom blowback, and yet most people call it Obamacare anyway.
You and he have the same problem. You're in the middle of a raging house fire and rather than get out or put it out, you're tracing wiring to see how you can stop it from catching fire.
The best punching back the republicans have had in decades resulted in a huge healthcare bill, auto bailouts, finance reform, DADT on its way to repeal, stimulus plan, defense cuts and more. If you dislike Obama this much, then you really must hate Clinton.
I think Obama's main problem is that he would rather be campaigning than running a government. Many of the people he surrounded himself seem to have the same mindset.
Once you get past the first 100 days, his political posture and actions have reflected that of a man that was constantly worried about 2012 implications than what might be beneficial for his party or their ideology.
Once you get past the first 100 days, his political posture and actions have reflected that of a man that was constantly worried about 2012 implications than what might be beneficial for his party or their ideology.
reilo said:
So, why didn't he persuade Reid to change the filibuster when they had the chance? Why didn't he put enough pressure on the blue dogs to force them to bend the knee whether they wanted to or not. You act like I'm forgiving the Republicans and Blue Dogs. I'm not. They're shitbags, but they were predictable shitbags.
I think you're aware of my opinions regarding the shitasticness of the existing filibuster rules, but did Obama not know about these rules before he became President? Was he somehow unaware of how broken the body he came from was?
Did he not know that his role was going to have to be marshaling enough Democrats, and scaring enough Republicans to get over that bar? Again, I'm not saying he had an easy road, I'm saying he wasn't up to the road he knew he was going to have to walk, because he's terrible at playing the ugly game of politics, which involves scaring the fuck out of enough people to get what the country needs. You can do that directly, by beating up the Congress, or you can do it indirectly by firing up the people until they beat up the Congress, and he's been utterly ineffectual at either of those tactics.
It's also resulted in a stagnant economy on the edge of plunging back down, and the real possibility of losing control of the government, which will allow his enemies to undo most of what he's done.reilo said:
And again, I don't dislike Obama. I think he has many very fine qualities. I just don't think effective leadership is among them. Shit man, it's not like I'm not going to vote for him. Given the choices you'd have to be unstable to do that. But that doesn't mean it's my job, or your job, to defend him against something that's clearly true by ranting about how terrible Republicans are. I know how terrible this Republican House is. I know how shitty the Republicans, including the ones masquerading as Democrats, are.
As for his accomplishments, he managed to sign a huge healthcare bill that barely addresses the problems with healthcare, and financial reform that's largely toothless. That you consider either of those victories suggests how low the bar has been set.
cartoon_soldier
Member
GhaleonEB said:
We elected idiots?
teruterubozu
Member
ToxicAdam said:
I've been saying it since day one - get rid of the two Davids - Plouffe and Axelrod. Total shitstains on his presidency. Awesome at pre-election hyping, but god-awful at White House PR.
Here is your answer:besada said:
Fillibuster reform was talked about in the open and there was hope it was going yo get reformed during the lame duck session.
Guess who didn't bring it up to a vote much like a lot of things? Harry Shitbag Reid.
It seems like you understand the problem but you are misattributing the solution. It's far more complex than to say that it is a leadership failure.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Maybe his presidency will flourish in its second term thenToxicAdam said:
BruiserBear
Banned
empty vessel said:
I understand we cannot become Greece when the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, but then there is this......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7960620.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12203391
planar1280
Banned
The best thing for Obama and worst thing for Obama about this process is that American voters have a goldfish memory because this debt crisis does not affect jobs so everyone in the US will forget about this in a year. unfortunately they will also forget the Tea Party hijacking the congress.
- Status