Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

"things are great" = 2.2 Billion!

party time!

Well aren't I just the pessimist. Thanks

*goes out to frolic on the sun*

 

[Byakuya769]

This is a misreading of my posts, which should be viewed in the context of my past extensive posting on the subject. I have praised the medical loss ratios before, and written extensively about the regulations (which are much weaker than they should be). I've also written extensively about the delivery system reforms a huge suite of pilot programs, which have enormous potential (potential unscored in the CBO reports).

None the less, the bill was tighly modeled on market based proposals to cover the uninsured from Republicans in the 90's, and which led to MA's bill from which Obama's drew its model. That's a simple fact, and one I pointed to to indicate the rightward tilt to the legislation. It and Obama's other measures only drew GOP opposition because Obama endorsed them; this has been a longrunning pattern of Obama's term. He enmbraces a GOP position (say, an individual mandate) and the GOP turns it into the socialism. That does not defray the point I was making.

This is one of the few times in PoliGAF history I've gotten frustrated with you guys. If you're cheering that post, you haven't read a word I've written over the past two years.

Also we cannot ignore that the discussion is about a history of legislation with a right tilt, and not just one singular bill.

 

[Drkirby]

Others will explain this much better, but $2,000 out of $10,000 is a great deal more of a burden than $1,000,000 out of $5,000,000.

That is not "fair".

You can argue the same way about a Sales tax though. A person with a low income is hurt more paying 8% more for their clothing then a rich man is by paying that same sales tax.

 

[eznark]

EZNARK LIBERAL
About 1,460 results (0.26 seconds)

OH SNAP

Sanders/Franken 2012

 

[besada]

This is one of the few times in PoliGAF history I've gotten frustrated with you guys. If you're cheering that post, you haven't read a word I've written over the past two years.

If you don't caveat every statement with "republicans are terrible" it causes the squad's hormones to send them into defensive mode. Apparently years of kicking Republicans in the balls isn't enough to take that as a given. It's like jumping in the pool and feeling the need to say "it's wet in here."

 

[polyh3dron]

For anyone who was following the rise of the tea party closely at ALL as it happened it's pretty fucking obvious that the tea party was racist in origin.

Of course, disregard any evidence of the fact as "liberal"

Spoiler

and I'm flattered that ToxicAdam has an apparent mancrush on me.

 

[Diablos]

Hillary would've been worse than Obama. I'm sorry beseda, blaming his lack of "leadership" on the most dysfunctional and hyper-partisan Congress we've ever seen is invalid. No former Democratic President would've been able to get a handle on them. You can ramble all you want about how how Obama lacks leadership. He had the majority of both chambers with him in his first two years and he could always get the votes; there is nothing he could have done to twist the arms of those who made a pact to obstruct every little thing he did that came down the pipeline. He got an awful lot done despite that. More than Hillary would have, certainly. McConnell completely manipulated the rules of the Senate to get his way.

Your claim that he didn't push hard enough against the filibuster is ABSURD. The votes never would have been there, the GOP would have NEVER let it happen. The centerpiece to the GOP's strategy since Obama took office was to exploit the filibuster to stall and most often obstruct whatever the President puts forward; you really think they were just going to let it be reformed in such a way that would not allow them to use it like they do? Are you out of your mind? For the sake of fairness, Congressional Democrats would probably react the same way if everything goes to the GOP (which may come sooner than later) and not commit enough votes for filibuster reform; it's a problem with Congress completely lacking a backbone, not the executive branch. Though I doubt Dems will exploit the filibuster as badly as the GOP has.

Politically speaking Obama is much better at his job than Jimmy Carter.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Also we cannot ignore that the discussion is about a history of legislation with a right tilt, and not just one singular bill.

Right, that is what I was (poorly) trying to say, holding the healthcare bill out as an illustration.

I am supportive of much of the administration's policies, and even of the healthcare bill despite it's flaws, but you can't point to any of them and wonder why the progressive base is angry, without being ignorant of the details of the legislation.

If you don't caveat every statement with "republicans are terrible" it causes the squad's hormones to send them into defensive mode. Apparently years of kicking Republicans in the balls isn't enough to take that as a given. It's like jumping in the pool and feeling the need to say "it's wet in here."

Thank you, I needed that. :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

This is the worst talking point. It will always be the worst talking point. And it tells you everything about the self-destructive nature of Obama-Era progressives that it is almost a universal belief among them (at least on the internet). It seems like this started out as a way convince moderates to support Obama and Democrats, but all it has evolved into is a way for progressives to be constantly negative despite huge policy victories.

The Republicans' healthcare proposals in the '90s were, first and foremost, a counter to Clinton's proposals. But you will notice that once Clinton folded on healthcare and Republicans took Congress, they didn't actually go through with any legislation. Keeping with Republican tradition, they are often very willing to propose common sense legislation before elections, but when elected they instead try to cut funding to Planned Parenthood or legislate further discrimination against homosexuals.

The PPACA differs wildly from the ideas Republicans had in the '90s, and even from Romneycare (which itself was a compromise between a moderate republican and an ultraliberal state). Heck, Bob Dole's plan used a lot of the buzzwords we use today about healthcare reform, but much of it was centered on devolving Medicaid to give states more power on what they cover (read: to allow them to cut off healthcare for poor people), while PPACA strengthened Medicaid significantly (though thanks to electing Republicans in the House, these gains will more than likely be mostly or completely reversed).

The core of the healthcare bill is its large subsidies for buying insurance, which is a new entitlement for the middle class. You're crazy if you think congressional republicans in the '90s would have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize middle class healthcare. They would have at most passed a mandate and given tax exempt status to certain employers.

There is no comparison to the extensive list of regulations that the PPACA enacted, few of which Republicans would ever pass on their own. The regulations on medical loss ratios alone are hugely significant, and pave the way to a clear progressive victory (PPACA changed them to the point where the CBO said if we change it much further, we will be defacto nationalizing the health insurance industry). Again, if you think Republicans, '90s or otherwise, would be willing to make moves like this, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

The PPACA was not single-payer healthcare. It's a shame that it wasn't. It's a shame that no one ran on single-payer healthcare and won. It's a shame that we aren't negotiating pharmaceutical prices and importing from Canada. There are many things that could have been done better, but to position what we got as "something the Republicans wanted in the '90s" doesn't pass the laugh test, and yet it's applied to almost everything that has happened in the last three years.

If the healthcare bill is allowed to phase in completely, all it would take to put us on the level of the First World is one more decent Democratic election victory, and a resulting tightening of health care regulations. This is why Republicans do not support the healthcare bill, because they know if it sticks it will improve, and they don't want us to have competent, popular government programs. The sooner progressives stop lying to themselves about how far we've come, the sooner we can start moving forward again.

edit: argh, I see ToxicAdam already posted something similar. Sorry for re-treading a few points.

 

[eznark]

For anyone who was following the rise of the tea party closely at ALL as it happened it's pretty fucking obvious that the tea party was racist in origin.

Spoiler

and I'm flattered that ToxicAdam has an apparent mancrush on me.

Rick Santelli calling for a revolt against the mortgage bailout plan was racist?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The problem lies in the fact that there is no "Tea Party" to repudiate it. There are many regional groups calling themselves Tea Parties, but there is no centralized TPNC or anything. There is no one to denounce that stuff, since no central group exists.

Can anyone call their group a "Tea Party"?

"Packers suck" = 3.86 million.

 

[eznark]

Can anyone call their group a "Tea Party"?

"Packers suck" = 3.86 million.

Depends on what you are using it for.

"Your team sucks" = 24 milliom

 

[PhoenixDark]

Hillary would've been worse than Obama. I'm sorry beseda, blaming his lack of "leadership" on the most dysfunctional and hyper-partisan Congress we've ever seen is invalid. No former Democratic President would've been able to get a handle on them. You can ramble all you want about how how Obama lacks leadership. He had the majority of both chambers with him in his first two years; there is nothing he could have done to twist the arms of those who made a pact to obstruct every little thing he did that came down the pipeline. He got an awful lot done despite that. More than Hillary would have, certainly. McConnell completely manipulated the rules of the Senate to get his way.

Politically speaking Obama is much better at his job than Jimmy Carter.

Hillary would hold no idiotic aspirations of bipartisan support, nor would she trust GOP leadership at their word as Obama has done countless times. I think she would have done a far better job of actually using her fucking (super) majorities when she had them, instead of letting them disappear.

Obama hasn't even tried to address republican obstructionism. We have a record number of vacant appointments on the bench, at the fed, and in government. And yet Obama wouldn't even recess appoint them in mass when he had the chance. Hillary would not avoid confrontation in order to appeal to mythical voter groups

 

[Evlar]

We're arguing that we can't discuss the Tea Party because its boundaries are fuzzy? What a cop out.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

WOAH breaking news-

John Boehner Obama affair
About 4,600,000 results (0.26 seconds)

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Depends on what you are using it for.

Care to explain? Is there some kind of control over who can call a group part of the Tea Party movement?

 

[eznark]

We're arguing that we can't discuss the Tea Party because its boundaries are fuzzy? What a cop out.

Not at all. I'm saying that you can't expect an official response when an official organization doesn't exist.

There is no Reince Priebus (snicker) for the TP.

Care to explain? Is there some kind of control over who can call a group part of the Tea Party movement?

You can register any party you want where you are depending on factors governed by the municipality (my last ballot on the east side of Milwaukee had a Purple Rainbow Party). There have been a number of cases where multiple groups have tried to use the name and have run up against each other resulting in law suits, etc.

So basically, as long as no one else is using it go nuts.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Yeah, Hokuten's post is so good it needs to be brought to every new page. Probably should be in the OP actually.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Not at all. I'm saying that you can't expect an official response when an official organization doesn't exist.

There is no Reince Priebus (snicker) for the TP.

I wonder if Brett Favre is a member of the Tea Party. He'd be an awesome spokesperson.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Damn, it's like one side makes a very valid point, and then I agree, and then the other side rebuttals with it's valid counterargument which makes me agree with them. It's like the sonic cycle.

 

[Measley]

The problem lies in the fact that there is no "Tea Party" to repudiate it. There are many regional groups calling themselves Tea Parties, but there is no centralized TPNC or anything. There is no one to denounce that stuff, since no central group exists.

Really? So these guys can't say we repudiate racists who use our group's name for racist purposes?

I remember when the NAACP asked the tea party groups to repudiate racists within their ranks. Here was the response from one of the tea party leaders;

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

And it gets worse from there.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/...tes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/

And another Tea Party group stood behind him;
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/19/t...liams-on-response-to-naacp-racism-resolution/

 

[Snake]

This is a misreading of my posts, which should be viewed in the context of my past extensive posting on the subject.

This is one of the few times in PoliGAF history I've gotten frustrated with you guys. If you're cheering that post, you haven't read a word I've written over the past two years.

My post was not about you personally, so if you took it as an attack on your longstanding views, I apologize. I usually post large replies once a week instead of regular posting, so it often seems like I'm on a tirade against whomever I am quoting. I'm likely not very well known around here myself, but I've read posts from the regulars for years and have a great deal of respect for your arguments and views. So I apologize again for seemingly singling you out.

I do stand by the central argument I made, that many progressives here and elsewhere respond to the legislation of the 111th congress by completely dismissing/silencing its progress as being "just something the Republicans would have done in the '90s," which I find demonstrably false. What I am saying is not even so much about complimenting Democrats, rather I am saying this relative debate creates myths that give way too much credit to ('90s) Republicans on these issues. The supposed "rightward shift" of the Democrats is then established only by the words of their opposition, and not by the relative actions of '90s Democrats themselves.

 

[eznark]

Really? So these guys can't say we repudiate racists who use our group's name for racist purposes?

I remember when the NAACP asked the tea party groups to repudiate racists within their ranks. Here was the response from one of the tea party leaders;

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/...tes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/

And another Tea Party group stood behind him;
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/19/t...liams-on-response-to-naacp-racism-resolution/

They could, but the rest of your post shows why it doesn't really matter (hint, you just linked to three different organizations).

 

[Dambrosi]

That is proof that tea party is racist? *facepalm*




I'm sorry, but a handful of articles from liberal blogs isn't going to cut it as proof either.

So, what would convince you? A proverb in the Bible that said "And lo, the Lord saw that the Tea Party was indeed hateful of their darker-skinned brethren, and He saw that it was bad"?

You're just not going to be convinced, are you, republifriend?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Sorry, if posted:

The debt ceiling agreement does not directly require cutbacks in federal employment or federal worker benefits but it may set the stage for such cuts to come.

“I am pleased to see that the deal does not include any immediate cuts to federal pay or pensions. However, the impact on the federal workforce remains uncertain and agencies are likely to face reductions in their budgets,” National Treasury Employees Union president Colleen M. Kelley said.

Should the agreement be passed into law, its plan for a two-stage cut in the federal budget could have implications for employees at each step.

The first step would be to set a series of caps on agency spending over 10 years, beginning with the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Those caps would affect spending in both defense and non-defense agencies.

While government spending still is projected to rise, the increase would be smaller than what was projected previously, by some $900 billion over that period. The measure does not specify amounts for individual agencies or programs, leaving that issue to the government’s budget process. Agencies in turn would have to decide how to live within the amounts available.

Depending on how severe the budget restrictions become, agencies might have to resort to steps such as unpaid furloughs, hiring freezes and layoffs. But that is uncertain at this point.

Certain programs would enjoy at least some protection, including disaster relief and efforts to detect fraud in disability and health insurance programs. Further, the caps would not apply to spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The second step would be the creation of a special House-Senate committee tasked with finding up to $1.5 trillion in savings. The regular congressional committees that oversee such programs could make recommendations, by Oct. 14, but would not be required to do so.

The measure does not specify potential targets, but the special committee could examine the numerous ideas for reducing federal benefits have been in circulation for months.

Those ideas have included, among others, extending the general pay freeze beyond 2012, increasing the employee contribution to retirement, cutting federal employment through partial hiring freezes, reducing retirement benefits for new retirees by changing the way those benefits are calculated, and making cost of living adjustments less generous for all retirees.

For employees, especially those near retirement, the effective dates of any such changes would be an important issue, one that also would have to be decided.

Under the bill’s requirements, if the committee doesn’t recommend at least $1.2 trillion in savings by Nov. 23, or if it makes such a recommendation but Congress does not pass it by Dec. 23, automatic cuts of that amount would begin, spread out over 2013 through 2021. Such cuts would put still more pressure on agency budgets and, in turn, employment levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-benefit-cuts/2011/08/01/gIQAEnumnI_blog.html

 

[Measley]

They could, but the rest of your post shows why it doesn't really matter (hint, you just linked to three different organizations).

Like your post said, they could, but they CHOOSE not to.

Probably because they're perfectly fine with stormfront.org members filling their ranks.

 

[Dude Abides]

You can argue the same way about a Sales tax though. A person with a low income is hurt more paying 8% more for their clothing then a rich man is by paying that same sales tax.

Yes, sales taxes are regressive. I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Really? So these guys can't say we repudiate racists who use our group's name for racist purposes?

Let's be honest here, if you push a liberal on the issue hard enough, he will admit that he thinks most of the Republican party is racist.

This is just an extension of that.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

https://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight/status/98086292058939392

"My latest extrapolation from @thehill's whip count: R's approve 153-87, D's against 59-132, bill FAILS 212-219."​

You read the poligaf thread? Bait Vinny into a political argument next bombcast!

 

[eznark]

Like your post said, they could, but they CHOOSE not to.

Probably because they're perfectly fine with stormfront.org members filling their ranks.

Jesus that is absurd.

The more likely answer is that the myriad local organizations calling themselves tea parties have no idea the thread (or the site) exists at all.

Despite multiple sites on the internet claiming he is a lizard man, Tony Blayr has never actually denied being a lizard-man. He hasn't even denounced the claims! So...I guess you think he is a lizard man?

That said, I'm sure there are racist Tea Party organizations. Just like I am sure there are racist Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian (though that would be some twisted "logic") organizations.

 

[Thoraxes]

So they've reached an agreement? Or is this just what has been proposed as a compromise?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_TW

 

[YoungHav]

"Black Americans are too poor to tea party" - Herman Troll Dad Cain

 

[planar1280]

So they've reached an agreement? Or is this just what has been proposed as a compromise?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/debt-deal-info?source=20110801_BO_TW

 

[Dude Abides]

Let's be honest here, if you push a liberal on the issue hard enough, he will admit that he thinks most of the Republican party is racist.

This is just an extension of that.

I demand empirical proof of this assertion.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Is that last bit true? I was under the impression that the the trigger included cuts across the board.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I demand empirical proof of this assertion.

shh .. I'm just goading someone into admitting it.

 

[planar1280]

Is that last bit true? I was under the impression that the the trigger included cuts across the board.

nope SS, medicare and low income programs are protected. everything else is cut

 

[airmangataosenai]

Let's be honest here, if you push a liberal on the issue hard enough, he will admit that he thinks most of the Republican party is racist.

This is just an extension of that.

Gotta admit, I see this all the time. In many if not most progressive circles racism is a synonym for anything negative.

 

[Diablos]

Hillary would hold no idiotic aspirations of bipartisan support, nor would she trust GOP leadership at their word as Obama has done countless times. I think she would have done a far better job of actually using her fucking (super) majorities when she had them, instead of letting them disappear.

I don't know about that. She too would have tried for bipartisan support, especially for things like the stimulus package. 2010 largely boils down to the slow growth of the economic recovery which would have been the case no matter who was President (but Obama did save it from completely crashing and burning, Hillary would have too; can't say McCain would have went about it the same way). Pretty much every economist said we'd be in this for the long haul, and Americans having a short-term memory when it comes to nearly everything these days makes for another epic midterm election. The Tea Party and their deep hatred for even the idea of a black dude in the White House did not help, and probably gave them a few extra seats (and certainly helped them get vital swing state seats in the Senate), but I think they were going to with back the House anyway.

Obama hasn't even tried to address republican obstructionism.

We have a record number of vacant appointments on the bench, at the fed, and in government. And yet Obama wouldn't even recess appoint them in mass when he had the chance. Hillary would not avoid confrontation in order to appeal to mythical voter groups

Obama has addressed their obstructionism; the problem is there's not much he can do about a party that's hell bent at defying him at every turn. It's ideological warfare. There is nothing anyone can do to twist the arms of the vast majority of GOPers in Congress. They are relentless. What we've seen out of Congress is truly unprecedented for the as I've said for the 500th time now.

 

[slidewinder]

shh .. I'm just goading someone into admitting it.

shh .. You're just that much of a hypocrite.

 

[MasterShotgun]

Does low-income programs include Pell Grants?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

I would say the Tea Party is about 30% racist. The rest are just bigots.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Does low-income programs include Pell Grants?

White House.gov said Pell Grants were not touched

 

[Patrick Klepek]

You read the poligaf thread? Bait Vinny into a political argument next bombcast!

Got the political bug alongside the Obama wave.

 

[BruiserBear]

Jesus that is absurd.

The more likely answer is that the myriad local organizations calling themselves tea parties have no idea the thread (or the site) exists at all.

Despite multiple sites on the internet claiming he is a lizard man, Tony Blayr has never actually denied being a lizard-man. He hasn't even denounced the claims! So...I guess you think he is a lizard man?

That said, I'm sure there are racist Tea Party organizations. Just like I am sure there are racist Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian (though that would be some twisted "logic") organizations.

Lizard man. lol

I would say the Tea Party is about 30% racist. The rest are just bigots.

I'm going to go with 36% racist, and 8% bigots. *

Spoiler

*all statistics pulled from my ass

 

[Hootie]

White House.gov said Pell Grants were not touched

 

[Chichikov]

That graph imply that ceiling increase adjustment have the same units and scale as cuts.
Which it obviously doesn't.

The requirement to make cuts equal to amount of ceiling adjustment is just a silly talking point that has no basis in anything.

 

[eznark]

Lizard man. lol

David Icke will teach you things, man!

 

[Dude Abides]

shh .. I'm just goading someone into admitting it.

It doesn't count if you create your own proof! That's like Schrodinger's cat or something.

 

[Luckyman]

Looks like Obama will sell everything for second term