Support NeoGAF

[maximum360]

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.


Med school costs a shit ton already. :/

So does PT school.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Sounds incredibly stupid to me. Just fucking hire people to fix roads, build bridges, and do other necessary projects.

?? They already spend 3 billion a year on this, employing 6000 people.

 

[empty vessel]

?? They already spend 3 billion a year on this, employing 6000 people.

Do it more? Why spend additional money gambling on jobs when you can just create them?

 

[Veezy]

Do it more? Why spend additional money gambling on jobs when you can just create them?

Because, as we all know, the government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does.

Duh.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Do it more? Why spend additional money gambling on jobs when you can just create them?

If you are meeting the needs of citizens and their traffic, why would you create more jobs just because? It would seem more intelligent to help fund start-ups that could create new industries inside your state that could promote jobs for a broad spectrum of people.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Do it more? Why spend additional money gambling on jobs when you can just create them?

Because Government jobs aren't "job Jobs" of course!

 

[RustyNails]

?? They already spend 3 billion a year on this, employing 6000 people.

Those lazy construction workers!

I'm pretty sure that quite a large margin of that figure you posted goes towards equipment and supplies. Therefore, a 3b amount on 6k workers doesn't reflect the government's inefficiency, but rather the cost of cranes, trucks, tar, cement, asphalt, etc.

 

[ronito]

If you are meeting the needs of citizens and their traffic, why would you create more jobs just because? It would seem more intelligent to help fund start-ups that could create new industries inside your state that could promote jobs for a broad spectrum of people.

problem with that is the system will be gamed. People will find a way to get the start up money with creating a few jobs as possible. Either that or they'll spend all the time to curry favor to get start up money and take it and run. It's the same reason communism doesn't work. The problem is people.

If there is work to do, have them do it. If there is no work to do pay down your debt or save the money.

 

[empty vessel]

If you are meeting the needs of citizens and their traffic, why would you create more jobs just because? It would seem more intelligent to help fund start-ups that could create new industries inside your state that could promote jobs for a broad spectrum of people.

I'm incredulous that any state government, especially in these days, is spending what it needs to spend on infrastructure or investment in human capital or public services. I do not include the provision of capital to individuals in the latter. There are far greater needs. If the government is doing that, it's time for a communist revolution, because there must be enough wealth to sustain it.

If you want to promote industry, government can subsidize proven industries where it is in the public interest to do so. Gambling with public money, no. Only a wacked out libertarian could think it a good idea. And that person shouldn't be anywhere near a government, let alone the executive of one.

 

[Skiptastic]

Reading through the last few pages, I feel like this should go in the OP. Maybe w/ the definition of marginal utility.

How do people in the top 20% pay less in state and local taxes compared to the third and fourth quintile? My mind is boggled. (Oh, effective tax rates, I'm guessing?)

 

[Puddles]

debatable

Constitutional ambiguity is nothing. Will is everything. The will to act.

 

[ToxicAdam]

problem with that is the system will be gamed. People will find a way to get the start up money with creating a few jobs as possible. Either that or they'll spend all the time to curry favor to get start up money and take it and run. It's the same reason communism doesn't work. The problem is people.
.

Seems like it could be a glaring problem.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Constitutional ambiguity is nothing. Will is everything. The will to act.

I have a Mr. Nietzsche on the line for you?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Meanwhile, in Ohio ...



Link


What you say Poligaf? Bold move? Careless way to gamble taxpayer money? Unconstitutional?

Sounds interesting. I echo some of the critisms of it but its at least nice to see a new idea and actually governance. I don't like Kasich and don't agree to much with him but let the voters sort this out come election time. And if things are really that bad then tell people and run a campaign on that.

Kasich and Christie I think are what people should look at for what a republican win next year would look like.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

“As for the Republicans—how can one regard seriously a frightened, greedy, nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers who shut their eyes to history and science, steel their emotions against decent human sympathy, cling to sordid and provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materially-shrewd, dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultural-handicraft world, and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical ‘American heritage’…) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience? Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead.”

Been thinking of this quote lately...

 

[Milabrega]

Meanwhile, in Ohio ...Link?

A shining example of Nepotism and Corporatism at work, leading inevitably to corruption. So a private corporation filled with wealthy CEO's and friends of Kasich, one from his old firm Lehman Brothers, will receive public funds to invest in private firms, while receiving a partial or whole ownership stake in firms they invest in. No accountability or transparency to the voter/tax payer in Ohio for how the public funds will be used, just the broad objective of jobs. So public funds it, eats the loss end of the risk in investing in a new firm if things go south, but the board at JobsOhio (all CEO's and friends of Kasich) gets all the ROI from their ownership stakes? Scam.

 

[Ember128]

Canada is becoming a serious option for me in the near future.

Alberta has a 5.6% or so unemployment rate, and the Provincial Government is estimated to be short 77,000 jobs over the next decade. Oil, Healthcare, Finance, and assorted Government jobs are some big fields. Hop on by.

 

[Jackson50]

From what I read defense is only increased under Obama due to him not separating the funds for the wars from the actual defense unlike Bush.

Notwithstanding war appropriations, defense spending has still increased. I think the average annual real growth rate in base defense spending has been ~4%.

Post

Notwithstanding the limited sample size, they have done a remarkable job at explaining the variation in presidential elections. Although conditions and personalities change, voter behavior remains mostly consistent. Moreover, each subsequent election largely validates them. Indeed, he is in trouble. But as I have noted previously, there is much time until election. Fundamentals can change in the intervening months. Thus, I tend to be cautious when employing voting models facing such uncertainty.

I understand why it seems especially unusual. Nevertheless, I do not think the parties are unprecedentedly polarized. Polarization began in the 80s, accelerated in the 90s, and leveled in 2000. There have been slight increases, but it has been mostly consistent for the preceding 15 years. Also, I would differentiate between the party in government and the party in the electorate. It is the former where the polarization has become glaringly noticeable; I think this could be a function of the dissolution of institutional norms. Otherwise, polarization in the public has been fairly consistent. Nevertheless, my point was not to dispute that the circumstances were unprecedented. It was that such circumstances are inconsequential. Notwithstanding, there have been other elections arising from somewhat unprecedented circumstances, yet voters still behaved typically. And I do not expect that to change.

I do not foresee a nominee being hampered merely by partisan affiliation. If the prospective nominee is not perceived as an extremist, he/she should overcome any negative connotations associated with Republicans. Furthermore, those potential problems will pale in comparison to Obama's economic problem. Making a credible claim to fix the economy is not as important as continually noting the poor state of the economy. Again, presidential elections are largely retrospective.

I do not think his prospects are bleak. Yet, at least. If the economy sputters and does not improve by next November, then they would be bleak. Otherwise, if low-to-moderate growth persists, it will be close.

 

[Diablos]

heh heh heh

 

[Oblivion]

Matt Kibbe of Freedomworks apparently didn't think that he got owned hard enough on Bill Maher's show:

http://alphanovus.org/?p=599

 

[eznark]

Meanwhile, in Ohio ...



Link


What you say Poligaf? Bold move? Careless way to gamble taxpayer money? Unconstitutional?

Thanks, now I have something to research on my downtime today!

Either way, hate it or love it, it's interesting and I eagerly await the results.

Indiana has/had a similar investment fund (The 21 Fund) which acted as a VC for nascent high tech firms. Results seem to have been mixed and the administration is now changing it's focus to second stage investments.

 

[Vicetrailia]

A lot of info and talking points here so I shouldn't post it all.

8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance.

 

[StevieP]

Hate to say it, but you dems need a leader like Bush. The vitriol was high during his presidency, too, but he got pretty much everything he wanted. And I say this as someone who would've voted for Obama had I been American and was caught up by his breathtaking election campaign, saying things like "finally, a leader that will do some good for the country to the south of me".

Even his healthcare bill sucked ass. This bill was a travesty. "Compromise" is what they're calling it (even on Canadian networks) but I don't see it.

 

[eznark]

Hate to say it, but you dems need a leader like Bush. The vitriol was high during his presidency, too, but he got pretty much everything he wanted.

Outside of tax cuts his domestic agenda was DOA.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Outside of tax cuts his domestic agenda was DOA.

NCLB? Medicare Part D? PATRIOT Act?

 

[eznark]

NCLB? Medicare Part D? PATRIOT Act?

NCLB: 91-8
PATRIOT: 99-1 (I think?)

Do you really count those when we talk about a "leader" getting his agenda through? They had zero opposition. It's like crediting a small town mayor for getting his council to vote unanimously on a "this town is neat" proclamation. Such brave leadership!

 

[Chichikov]

Hate to say it, but you dems need a leader like Bush. The vitriol was high during his presidency, too, but he got pretty much everything he wanted.

He didn't manage to privatize social security, and not for lack of trying.

NCLB: 91-8
PATRIOT: 99-1 (I think?)

Isn't that the definition of getting things done?

 

[Luckyman]

@HansRosling
Hans Rosling
Sweden collects 50% of GDP in tax & has 5% growth, US collects 25% & has 1% growth. Is tax good for growth or who explains the paradox?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

NCLB: 91-8
PATRIOT: 99-1 (I think?)

Do you really count those when we talk about a "leader" getting his agenda through? They had zero opposition. It's like crediting a small town mayor for getting his council to vote unanimously on a "this town is neat" proclamation. Such brave leadership!

You said his domestic agenda was dead on arrival, which was the claim I was disputing. More broadly, though, I don't think Bush's being in favor of enacting generally popular legislation should count against favorably rating his effectiveness as a leader.

 

[StevieP]

@HansRosling
Hans Rosling
Sweden collects 50% of GDP in tax & has 5% growth, US collects 25% & has 1% growth. Is tax good for growth or who explains the paradox?

For once I agree with you (or, Hans. lol)

Outside of tax cuts his domestic agenda was DOA.

He certainly got more of what he wanted than Obama has.

 

[ToxicAdam]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans cut back on their spending in June for the first time in nearly two years and their incomes grew by the smallest amount in nine months, a troubling sign for an economy that is barely growing.

Consumer spending dropped 0.2 percent in June, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. Some of the decline was caused by declining food and energy prices, which had spiked in recent months. When excluding spending on those items, consumer spending was flat.

Incomes rose 0.1 percent, the weakest growth since September. Many people are responding by saving more. The personal savings rate rose to 5.4 percent of after-tax incomes, the highest level since August 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/americans-cut-spending-first-time-20-months-123819626.html

 

[eznark]

He didn't manage to privatize social security, and not for lack of trying.

Isn't that the definition of getting things done?

The vitriol was high during his presidency, too, but he got pretty much everything he wanted.

My response was to this point specifically. Bush didn't get any large, controversial domestic bills passed outside of tax cuts. He came in looking to reform social security, the tax code, the department of defense, cut spending (lol).

He didn't fight through vitriol to get his agenda passed. He abandoned the difficult stuff, picked the low hanging fruit and then took us to war. Now, had 9/11 not happened I think it would have been different and Bush would have picked those fights. I have no idea if he could have pushed through his agenda, but he never even tried. After the "mandate" in 2004 he didn't even pay much more than lip-service to fiscal issues.

More broadly, though, I don't think Bush's being in favor of enacting generally popular legislation should count against favorably rating his effectiveness as a leader.

So you just want Obama to not even bother with stuff he knows won't be rubber stamped in Congress? I find that difficult to believe.

Give me the leader who boldly fails over the one who meekly hides and barely survives.

 

[mckmas8808]

What would you do if your company made $11.5 billion in profits in a 6 month period?


If you chose "fire 30,000 employees" then a bonus for you!




http://news.yahoo.com/hsbc-posts-surprise-profit-rise-shares-jump-083415574.html

WTF is wrong with this planet?

This is what happens when corporations get greedy. Why some conservatives want to protect them is beyond me.

 

[loosus]

A lot of info and talking points here so I shouldn't post it all.

8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance.

Excuses excuses excuses. The generation of excuses. And not only do they make excuses, but we have older generations helping them out by creating new excuses.

This shit isn't even hard. Nobody is asking them to take a Level III Calculus class. Nobody is asking them to learn to be medical doctors. Just do some basic research between your time on the cell phone and fucking vote, you cunts.

 

[Dude Abides]

Excuses excuses excuses. The generation of excuses. And not only do they make excuses, but we have older generations helping them out by creating new excuses.

This shit isn't even hard. Nobody is asking them to take a Level III Calculus class. Nobody is asking them to learn to be medical doctors. Just do some basic research between your time on the cell phone and fucking vote, you cunts.

Why should they vote? When they vote, they end up with Obama.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I didn't see this get much play yesterday as we were rather preoccupied, but HHS is requiring birth control to be insured without copays and the like, which is a mostly good thing.

I do have one broad philosophical objection to the way this issue is discussed, and it's with the Democratic talking point that being a woman shouldn't be a pre-existing condition. It is. Biological realities make it so. Having acknowledged that, I think it would be unconscionable to force women to pay more because of those biological realities, but we shouldn't pretend that they aren't there.

 

[Novid]

There is a reason why after this year i will not continue my master degree program in IT. I already love the job(s) im in - and there is really no need to go forward in education.

Trust me, they set the trip wire. And when it all comes down - well yall saw it on friday night.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hate to say it, but you dems need a leader like Bush. The vitriol was high during his presidency, too, but he got pretty much everything he wanted. And I say this as someone who would've voted for Obama had I been American and was caught up by his breathtaking election campaign, saying things like "finally, a leader that will do some good for the country to the south of me".

Even his healthcare bill sucked ass. This bill was a travesty. "Compromise" is what they're calling it (even on Canadian networks) but I don't see it.

The bold is so false that it needs to be repeated that Bush DID NOT get everything he wanted. This myth surprisingly is pushed mostly by progressives. There were many important things that Bush didn't get.

And many progressives seem to forget that the DEMs helped vote in lots of the things that Bush did get. Bush got more help from the DEMs, than Obama is getting from the GOP. And compared to your Canadian healthcare the bill does suck, but compared to what we had during the Bush years (and prior) it is clearly better.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why should they vote? When they vote, they end up with Obama.

So yeah they shouldn't vote and end up with McCain/Palin or Romney. Did we already forget that Obama and the DEMs increased Pell Grants and passed Student Loan reform?

Something that McCain wouldn't have done and the GOP is looking to change?

 

[Dude Abides]

So yeah they shouldn't vote and end up with McCain/Palin or Romney. Did we already forget that Obama and the DEMs increased Pell Grants and passed Student Loan reform?

Something that McCain wouldn't have done and the GOP is looking to change?

And then turned around and agreed to eliminate Stafford Loan subsidies. "Vote for me, I'm slightly less bad!" is not a very compelling message.

 

[Jackson50]

My response was to this point specifically. Bush didn't get any large, controversial domestic bills passed outside of tax cuts. He came in looking to reform social security, the tax code, the department of defense, cut spending (lol).

He didn't fight through vitriol to get his agenda passed. He abandoned the difficult stuff, picked the low hanging fruit and then took us to war. Now, had 9/11 not happened I think it would have been different and Bush would have picked those fights. I have no idea if he could have pushed through his agenda, but he never even tried. After the "mandate" in 2004 he didn't even pay much more than lip-service to fiscal issues.


So you just want Obama to not even bother with stuff he knows won't be rubber stamped in Congress? I find that difficult to believe.

Give me the leader who boldly fails over the one who meekly hides and barely survives.

I largely agree with you about Bush. He punted on Social Security and immigration reform. Really, he abandoned the more contentious domestic initiatives he supported.

 

[mj1108]

http://news.yahoo.com/americans-cut-spending-first-time-20-months-123819626.html

....and the Republicans celebrate.

 

[StevieP]

And many progressives seem to forget that the DEMs helped vote in lots of the things that Bush did get. Bush got more help from the DEMs, than Obama is getting from the GOP. And compared to your Canadian healthcare the bill does suck, but compared to what we had during the Bush years (and prior) it is clearly better.

Who's fault is that?
And when there is a lack of a public option (option being the key word), the bill failed in my and many other's lies. Not to worry, as soon as the right gets control of everything in 2012, the little in the health care bill that did get passed will be repealed, as per their platform. Let's not even talk about the bank regulation reform that just got de-balled.

 

[mckmas8808]

And then turned around and agreed to eliminate Stafford Loan subsidies. "Vote for me, I'm slightly less bad!" is not a very compelling message.

Not entirely true. Stafford Loan subsidies still exist for most college people. And it wasn't Obama that ended it for grads. It was the GOP that got voted in, in huge numbers in 2010 when the 20 something vote % sucked.

Get the right perspective.

 

[stldave2]

Mitch and Harry need to STFU already, we know you both hate each others party.

Just vote so I can get on with my day.

 

[mckmas8808]

Who's fault is that?
And when there is a lack of a public option (option being the key word), the bill failed in my and many other's lies. Not to worry, as soon as the right gets control of everything in 2012, the little in the health care bill that did get passed will be repealed, as per their platform. Let's not even talk about the bank regulation reform that just got de-balled.

I'd blame DEMs that were in office with Bush that helped him get the things that he did get. But at the same time, a lot of them weren't controversial so the DEMs signed on to them in high enough numbers for them to pass.

And the healthcare reform bill is WAY bigger than the public option. But we have been having that conversation since 2009.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Not entirely true. Stafford Loan subsidies still exist for most college people. And it wasn't Obama that ended it for grads. It was the GOP that got voted in, in huge numbers in 2010 when the 20 something vote % sucked.

Get the right perspective.

Exactly.. I don't get that sentiment. The republicans are the ones doing this shit, but people like the Dude seem to want to reward them even more for this crap.

 

[StevieP]

I'd blame DEMs that were in office with Bush that helped him get the things that he did get. But at the same time, a lot of them weren't controversial so the DEMs signed on to them in high enough numbers for them to pass.

And the healthcare reform bill is WAY bigger than the public option. But we have been having that conversation since 2009.

If the politicians in your country were smart and not all blatant corporatists, there would ONLY be a public option. That's the whole point. THAT would be reform.

 

[gkryhewy]

Not entirely true. Stafford Loan subsidies still exist for most college people. And it wasn't Obama that ended it for grads. It was the GOP that got voted in, in huge numbers in 2010 when the 20 something vote % sucked.

Get the right perspective.

The stafford loan change is a piece of shit, no matter how you slice it. I don't think grad staffords for more Pell grants was a good trade, particularly since undergrad expenses are already much more heavily subsidized than grad expenses (through, for example, much lower stafford interest rates for undergrads -- 3% vs. 6.8%).

 

[Dude Abides]

Exactly.. I don't get that sentiment. The republicans are the ones doing this shit, but people like the Dude seem to want to reward them even more for this crap.

And the Dems are letting them. I don't want to reward them, I'm just explaining to those of you who are mystified for some reason about why young people aren't excited to vote for Dems.