Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
mckmas8808 said:
Nope. I'm in the middle of a move, periodically checking the interwebs for news. What did she say?
-
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
Nope. I'm in the middle of a move, periodically checking the interwebs for news. What did she say?
Dems cave...again
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/reid-could-accept-gop-terms-on-faa-shutdown.php?ref=fpblg
Reid Could Accept GOP Terms On FAA Shutdown
Do the GOP even need to win elections with this kind of "opposition"?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/reid-could-accept-gop-terms-on-faa-shutdown.php?ref=fpblg
Reid Could Accept GOP Terms On FAA Shutdown
Do the GOP even need to win elections with this kind of "opposition"?
polyh3dron
Banned
Batman can't beat the Joker because the Joker isn't bound by the same rules that Batman adheres to. Some thing with Republicans and Democrats.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Pelosi: My Deficit Committee Members Will Oppose All Entitlement Benefit Cuts
Brian Beutler | August 2, 2011, 2:32PM
The debt limit fight is over, but the fight over entitlement programs will continue for months. In the weeks ahead, the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate will name three members each to a new committee tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
The ultimate makeup of that committee is key. It will determine whether this Congress will pass further fiscal legislation, and, thus, what the major themes of the 2012 election will be.
At a pre-recess press conference Tuesday afternoon, TPM asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) whether the people she appoints to the committee will make the same stand she made during the debt limit fight -- that entitlement benefits -- as opposed to provider payments, waste and other Medicare spending -- should be off limits.
In short, yes.
"That is a priority for us," Pelosi said. "But let me say it is more than a priority - it is a value... it's an ethic for the American people. It is one that all of the members of our caucus share. So that I know that whoever's at that table will be someone who will fight to protect those benefits."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will also appoint three members to the committee. And if even a single one of them is willing to cut into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, then this doesn't really matter -- the committee's report can be approved by a bare majority of its 12 members.
But this is an important part of any potential firewall. And that's especially true if Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appoint people to the committee who pledge not to allow net revenue increases.
So far Republican leaders have not responded to inquiries about whether that will be a requirement.
################
Lets get it started in here!
Brian Beutler | August 2, 2011, 2:32PM
The debt limit fight is over, but the fight over entitlement programs will continue for months. In the weeks ahead, the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate will name three members each to a new committee tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
The ultimate makeup of that committee is key. It will determine whether this Congress will pass further fiscal legislation, and, thus, what the major themes of the 2012 election will be.
At a pre-recess press conference Tuesday afternoon, TPM asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) whether the people she appoints to the committee will make the same stand she made during the debt limit fight -- that entitlement benefits -- as opposed to provider payments, waste and other Medicare spending -- should be off limits.
In short, yes.
"That is a priority for us," Pelosi said. "But let me say it is more than a priority - it is a value... it's an ethic for the American people. It is one that all of the members of our caucus share. So that I know that whoever's at that table will be someone who will fight to protect those benefits."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will also appoint three members to the committee. And if even a single one of them is willing to cut into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, then this doesn't really matter -- the committee's report can be approved by a bare majority of its 12 members.
But this is an important part of any potential firewall. And that's especially true if Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appoint people to the committee who pledge not to allow net revenue increases.
So far Republican leaders have not responded to inquiries about whether that will be a requirement.
################
Lets get it started in here!
I don't know what is with democrats but all these battles will end with them caving in and letting their principles dwindle one by one. That's how I see that "super" committee or whatever occurring. Pelosi can say that entitlements won't be on the table or Reid can say that revenues has to be there or else defense gets the axe... but honestly, democrats don't fight for their principles as hard as republicans do. So I see the same thing repeating again a few months from now.
Joel Was Right
Member
Did anyone see The Daily Show last night where they showed an excerpt from December where during a press conference in the White House with President Obama one of those in attendance warned him about the leverage the GOP would have when it came to the debt debate?
ViperVisor
Member
This isn't a "challenge" at all. The repubs will have no problem with cutting provider benefits too. There's going to come a day when taking on Medicare patients just won't be feasible for doctors anymore.mckmas8808 said:Pelosi: My Deficit Committee Members Will Oppose All Entitlement Benefit Cuts
Brian Beutler | August 2, 2011, 2:32PM
The debt limit fight is over, but the fight over entitlement programs will continue for months. In the weeks ahead, the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate will name three members each to a new committee tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
The ultimate makeup of that committee is key. It will determine whether this Congress will pass further fiscal legislation, and, thus, what the major themes of the 2012 election will be.
At a pre-recess press conference Tuesday afternoon, TPM asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) whether the people she appoints to the committee will make the same stand she made during the debt limit fight -- that entitlement benefits -- as opposed to provider payments, waste and other Medicare spending -- should be off limits.
In short, yes.
"That is a priority for us," Pelosi said. "But let me say it is more than a priority - it is a value... it's an ethic for the American people. It is one that all of the members of our caucus share. So that I know that whoever's at that table will be someone who will fight to protect those benefits."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will also appoint three members to the committee. And if even a single one of them is willing to cut into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, then this doesn't really matter -- the committee's report can be approved by a bare majority of its 12 members.
But this is an important part of any potential firewall. And that's especially true if Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appoint people to the committee who pledge not to allow net revenue increases.
So far Republican leaders have not responded to inquiries about whether that will be a requirement.
################
Lets get it started in here!
Pelosi and Reid can say this or that, but when push comes to shove, Dems have proven time and again to fold under GOP pressure. What makes them think this will be any different? Hell, with the prospect of deep entitlement cuts, Dems are even more likely to cave into GOP demands, not less.
Rand Paul will never let that happen!SoulPlaya said:
He's disciplined, serious and stuff.
Damn, we really must cut social security.ToxicAdam said:
polyh3dron
Banned
Lawrence O'Donnell predicted it on election night. Lots of other people did too.Meus Renaissance said:
empty vessel
Member
SoulPlaya said:
That is why, while Medicare helps keeps costs down, a monopsony is essential to rein in health care costs. Give them no choice, and they will submit. (By the same token, we should also subsidize medical school.)
Being a near-monopsony is the very thing that earns WalMart so much praise for "keeping prices low." Of course, a corporation should not have such power (it's anti-competitive), but democratic governments are ideal and intended for such things.
That was an article more than a year old. I'll admit that I'm hoping to one day be a doctor, but we already have a system in place that cuts provider payments, in addition to the ones put in place by the Healthcare act. It's shown that it doesn't actually cut healthcare costs, because it doesn't address underlying costs. Things like medical school cost, malpractice (which leads to billions in unnecessary tests, just so that doctors can "cover all of their bases" in case of a lawsuit), America's addiction to medication, patients not seeking treatment until things require expensive care. These things drive costs, and cutting provider payments will just mean that doctors will stop taking in Medicare patients, because they can't afford it.Chichikov said:
timetokill
Banned
Meus Renaissance said:
Yeo, and it just shows how inept or naive Obama is. The fact that he said "oh that'll never happen, pshaw" was hilarious. And depressing.
aronnov reborn
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
sweet... especially since law and order and the protection of citizens is the ONLY responsibility of the government...
oh wait.. Harry Reid said creating jobs was today...
My favorite new phrase of the day: "The Mittness Protection Program.
mckmas8808 said:Pelosi: My Deficit Committee Members Will Oppose All Entitlement Benefit Cuts
Brian Beutler | August 2, 2011, 2:32PM
The debt limit fight is over, but the fight over entitlement programs will continue for months. In the weeks ahead, the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate will name three members each to a new committee tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.
The ultimate makeup of that committee is key. It will determine whether this Congress will pass further fiscal legislation, and, thus, what the major themes of the 2012 election will be.
At a pre-recess press conference Tuesday afternoon, TPM asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) whether the people she appoints to the committee will make the same stand she made during the debt limit fight -- that entitlement benefits -- as opposed to provider payments, waste and other Medicare spending -- should be off limits.
In short, yes.
"That is a priority for us," Pelosi said. "But let me say it is more than a priority - it is a value... it's an ethic for the American people. It is one that all of the members of our caucus share. So that I know that whoever's at that table will be someone who will fight to protect those benefits."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will also appoint three members to the committee. And if even a single one of them is willing to cut into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, then this doesn't really matter -- the committee's report can be approved by a bare majority of its 12 members.
But this is an important part of any potential firewall. And that's especially true if Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appoint people to the committee who pledge not to allow net revenue increases.
So far Republican leaders have not responded to inquiries about whether that will be a requirement.
################
Lets get it started in here!
Yeah, dude, the dems will never cave! Not like they've caved recently. For anything. Keep fighting the good fight.
Worked great.
Oh, surprise. Iraq is gradually moving towards a renewed pact that permits American troops to remain past 2011. Apparently, prominent political leaders permitted the government to negotiate a new SOFA. Granted, the Iraqi Parliament could reject a pact. Yet that is unlikely since the government has already been permitted to negotiate a new agreement. I surmise the Sadrist List and its coalition partners assented. Otherwise, the negotiations would be a great political risk.
Byakuya769
Member
aronnov reborn said:
What is this.. I don't even..
TacticalFox88
Banned
Son of BITCH!Jackson50 said:
Read your own post. You accused Dude of wanting to reward Republicans, because he was making a complaint. It's nowhere near the first time you've done it. Give me post history back and I'll give you a wall of similar responses.quadriplegicjon said:
Maybe you're just generalizing about some mythical person who is going to go vote for Republicans, but you made the comment in direct response, and named Dude by name. Either you aren't aware of what you're writing, or you're just being dishonest.
Let me quote the post I already quoted and that you're responding to:
quadriplegicjon said:
Can you show me where DudeAbides said he wanted to reward Republicans? Again, fight for your viewpoint all you want, but quit putting motivations and words in other people's mouths. You're certainly not the only one who does it, but you definitely do it frequently.
Did this guy on Colebert just call Medicare the reason for the "vast majority of our deficit", when everything I've seen has indicated that defense is? http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...outworked-democrats-in-debt-fight.php?ref=fpa
Study: Tea Partiers Outworked Democrats In Debt Fight
Study: Tea Partiers Outworked Democrats In Debt Fight
what i took away from this was not that this man predicted what happen but when faced with the hypothetical situation obama literally said "i will take john boehner's word that he will act in good faith" and thus didn't see the need to use bush tax cuts as a chip in debt ceiling talks.ViperVisor said:
empty vessel
Member
SoulPlaya said:
The reasons for the vast majority of our deficit (i.e., our current yearly excess of spending over revenue) are the Bush tax cuts, two wars, and Wall Street's crashing of the economy. The main culprit, however, is simply insufficient taxation of income and corporations (exacerbated by the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue to still further unsustainable levels).
The rise in health care costs will cause federal spending on Medicare to increase in the long-term, but it's got nothing to do with either Medicare or the deficit per se. Military spending is too high, but has been for decades.
besada said:
True. I was more referring to my observation that most of the people and groups who push ideas traditionally associated with liberalism in the news usually refer to themselves, and are referred to as, progressives, rather than liberals. There is a "progressive caucus" in congress, after all, but I don't know of any "liberal caucus". I guess you could make the same argument about the word "conservative" as it applies to groups like the Tea Party, but it still seems like organizations like that are much more attached to the conservative label than progressive groups are attached to the liberal label. I've even seen individuals commenting on progressive blogs derisively refer to policies that they don't like as "neo-liberal".
I realize that there is a whole history behind those labels, in other words there is a reason why liberals in the post-war era claimed the mantle of classical liberalism when conservatives and libertarians, at least when it comes to economic issues, advocated policies much closer to those of classical liberalism. I just think that, if you started to pay attention to politics past a certain point, say the mid nineties, it is a debate that is somewhat lost to history.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
besada said:
Uh, that doesn't mean he is a closeted Republican. I meant that his actions, or inactions would reward republicans.
besada said:
I'm not going to go through DudeAbides post history, but he was basically laying down an argument as to why Liberals should not vote for Democrats.. that is basically what Republicans want, and thus would reward them for their shittastic behavior.
RustyNails
Member
Something something rise of the tea party. Anyway, I don't see the graph moving in any which way. Since 1992, the gap has remained pretty much static.ToxicAdam said:
speculawyer
Member
Well the stock market sure LOVED that debt deal.
Ah fuck politics for a while.
Ah fuck politics for a while.
Letter from the RNC chair. My head hurts:
These fucking guys. They state outright that Obama raised taxes... are they talking about on cigarettes and tanning salons? TARP and Cash for Clunkers are "oppressive" spending? They've got their base so riled up with fear of a Communist America that they can get away with saying anything.
As long as they keep the bad people rich and the good people scared, no one will touch them.
These fucking guys. They state outright that Obama raised taxes... are they talking about on cigarettes and tanning salons? TARP and Cash for Clunkers are "oppressive" spending? They've got their base so riled up with fear of a Communist America that they can get away with saying anything.
As long as they keep the bad people rich and the good people scared, no one will touch them.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Holy shit. The amount of misinformation and bold face fucking LIES in that letter boggle my mind. These guys should be rounded up for fucking treason.Puddles said:
slidewinder
Banned
So-called "liberals" need to realize they're not dealing with a "loyal opposition" or anything like that. "Oh, but if I you'd just listen, you'd understand..." Please. Stop and think for a minute.
slidewinder
Banned
Shut the fuck up.
teruterubozu
Member
ToxicAdam said:
It's all about influencing the moderates. American politics doesn't give a fuck about conservatives or liberals; they're just goal posts.
- Status