-
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
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
those cuts make me embarrassed. What the hell!! They didnt even cut enough (or agree to raise taxes, but I guess this time the bush cuts actually will expire) to avoid having to raise the debt ceiling longer than next year. 
empty vessel
Member
ToxicAdam said:
My point is that I don't take S&P at its word, so what it says doesn't carry much weight with me.
ToxicAdam said:Austerity? You mean this?
With much of these cuts coming from the winding down of the wars.
That's 5.5%. If an economy contracted by 5.5%, would you think that was a significant contraction?
AlteredBeast said:those cuts make me embarrassed. What the hell!! They didnt even cut enough (or agree to raise taxes, but I guess this time the bush cuts actually will expire) to avoid having to raise the debt ceiling longer than next year.
Short term solutions are the American way.
RustyNails
Member
So I guess his prayer thing last weekend was just a shameless attempt at grabbing religious bloc/evangelicals in south? I know Mitt Romney isn't really popular with "conservative Christians", but this was a blatant attempt at currying favor with the religious on Perry's part. I feel Romney's fate is sealed in the south.SolKane said:
NCLB being circumvented
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...no-child-law/2011/08/08/gIQAfZBJ3I_story.html
I agree. But, my point still remains that their actions were based (partly) upon our likelihood to raise further revenues (either through legislation or economic growth).
If almost half of that contraction was surrounding some bullshit wars that should have ended years ago, no I wouldn't see that as significant. It would be a magnificent trade-off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...no-child-law/2011/08/08/gIQAfZBJ3I_story.html
empty vessel said:
I agree. But, my point still remains that their actions were based (partly) upon our likelihood to raise further revenues (either through legislation or economic growth).
If almost half of that contraction was surrounding some bullshit wars that should have ended years ago, no I wouldn't see that as significant. It would be a magnificent trade-off.
I've been thinking about this today, and I hope Hillary runs against Obama in 2012. I like Obama personally and I think he is a very smart guy, but imo he is a bad leader and negotiator. At the same time, I don't think voting in a republican is the brightest idea either.
So politically, the best outcome is Hillary winning in 2012 imo.
So politically, the best outcome is Hillary winning in 2012 imo.
TacticalFox88
Banned
You want someone to run against Obama in the Primaries? That's like ASKING for the GOP to "Hey!? Want the White House? Here it is!"Snipes424 said:
RustyNails said:
That, as well as a publicity stunt to rile up the other side and the media. Perry knew from the outset he couldn't be touched from a legal stand-point (not acting in any official capacity of his office), so not only was it an effective appeal to the fundamentalists, but it also bolstered an image of him as being a stalwart leader who can't be barked down by "media elites." The FFRF fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I'd just like to point out that the last time oil was around $75 a barrel was in late September of 2010 and we were paying about $2.50-$2.75 per gallon.
Oil is plummeting and around $75 a barrel. I'm going to take a wild guess and say we don't see gas prices get below $3.15
Oil is plummeting and around $75 a barrel. I'm going to take a wild guess and say we don't see gas prices get below $3.15
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Plinko said:
Doubtful. Prices have to come down, or the economy keeps sucking. Like anything else, low demand = low prices. If they want to keep prices higher than demand warrants, it will just shrink demand further, causing bigger loses.
The funny thing is how high oil prices are choking the economy since the past few years. It was easy to predict that the economy would go back down just by looking at the price of oil.
It doesn't have to go as high as it once did to choke the economy, since the economy is already weakened. And again, if we get any sort of illusion trick played to prop up the markets, oil will rise, only to choke the economy even sooner, at a lower price than the last height.
The 200$ a barrel for oil in times of recessions is a LIE.
Oblivion said:
Seems to make sense, if the administration is going to hand out waivers only to the states that are aggressively trying to reform lagging schools. Only time will tell if that will be the case or will it just be a way to take the teeth out of the law and disregard it?
shadowsdarknes
Member
Isn't part D the prescription plans?Technosteve said:
Part B involves non emergency care that you have to pay into, correct?
planar1280
Banned
got into an argument with some conservative friends they were going around in circles.
They kept bringing 7 points:
1. My point of rich paying their fare share of taxes is socialism
2. Why should the rich pay more taxes when they worked hard to earn the cash
3. If you work hard enough, you won't be poor or middle class and instead get a good education and get rich
4. US has the best healthcare that is why it is so expensive
5. people complaining about expensive universities should go to community colleges as they are cheap and good at the same time.
6. paying more taxes by rich is slavery for rich as it is forced money from their hand. it is robery
7. less government on every point
How do i reason with these folks my head is spinning with the ignorance. I mean they were middle class themselves. what do I tell them
They kept bringing 7 points:
1. My point of rich paying their fare share of taxes is socialism
2. Why should the rich pay more taxes when they worked hard to earn the cash
3. If you work hard enough, you won't be poor or middle class and instead get a good education and get rich
4. US has the best healthcare that is why it is so expensive
5. people complaining about expensive universities should go to community colleges as they are cheap and good at the same time.
6. paying more taxes by rich is slavery for rich as it is forced money from their hand. it is robery
7. less government on every point
How do i reason with these folks my head is spinning with the ignorance. I mean they were middle class themselves. what do I tell them
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Your friends are idiots.
BTW I believe that the markets actually want governments to pass a bunch of "New Deals". Everyone knows this is how the economy will get restarted. The more governments follow the conservative policies of anti-tax, anti-spend and deregulation, the less likely it is that the economy will rebound.
Any sane mind knows this, even conservatives.
So it is coming. I predict it. You'll start seeing some throwing the towel about the stupid debts bullshit. Everyone knows what kind of medicine needs to be taken. It's the only one that will be left in the cupboard.
I think it is inevitable. Much like an alcoholic eventually has to accept that he has a problem and stop drinking. I'm hoping it won't take another four years for people to realize this.
BTW I believe that the markets actually want governments to pass a bunch of "New Deals". Everyone knows this is how the economy will get restarted. The more governments follow the conservative policies of anti-tax, anti-spend and deregulation, the less likely it is that the economy will rebound.
Any sane mind knows this, even conservatives.
So it is coming. I predict it. You'll start seeing some throwing the towel about the stupid debts bullshit. Everyone knows what kind of medicine needs to be taken. It's the only one that will be left in the cupboard.
I think it is inevitable. Much like an alcoholic eventually has to accept that he has a problem and stop drinking. I'm hoping it won't take another four years for people to realize this.
Fusion Pizza
Member
I'm going to vote for the guy that will end the bush tax cuts, close the loopholes for corporations, strip corporations of being legal persons, end the wars EVERYWHERE, (seriously, the defense budget is obscene, and thats not even counting the discretionary war spending AND the black budget) but you know what, I don't think such a person exists in either political party.
Vestal
Junior Member
planar1280 said:
Holy fuck dude, they seem scary as fuck..
1. Bring up that the rich are now paying less than ever. That they have a choke hold on the wealth of this country.
2. This is a bullshit statement. Who works harder a construction worker or a CEO.. A Programmer or a Hedge fund manager?
3. Alot of people who are middle class bust their asses every day to just survive.. Do they think people like being unemployed or earning less than whats necessary to have a good life?
4. HORSE FUCKING SHIT.. The most exepensive healthcare system because it is corrupt to the CORE.
5. The quality of education at a University and the credit that comes with it is a necessity nowadays. Education costs are too high due to the abundance of Private Loan institutions willing to fuck people over.
6. They are making their money in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.. It is their duty to pay their fair share. Since they hold the vast majority of the wealth and are not willing to invest it in Job creation instead send it overseas and use every loophole in the book to pay less taxes.
7. Tell them to take a history lesson in the Great Depression.. The only way we got out of the Depression was More spending more government.. Tell them to look at why 2008 happened. It was because of the lack of regulation and the Idea of FREE Market that banks started getting greedy as FUCK.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Yeah, what he/she said.Vestal said:
planar1280
Banned
thanks. next session, they are still my friends i won't abandon them for their political ideology. I have a mix of both liberals and conservatives.
That chart actually has probably the lowest estimate of the cost of the bush tax cuts I've seen.
Most estimates I've seen put it at around $3.5-$4T, not $1.8T. And that was before they were extended through 2012 (another $960B)
Most estimates I've seen put it at around $3.5-$4T, not $1.8T. And that was before they were extended through 2012 (another $960B)
planar1280 said:
As for health care, have them listen to these two podcasts
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/391/more-is-less
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money
If they refuse, call them a bunch of little chicken shits who are unwilling to challenge their positions. If they still refuse, fling monkey poo at them
Here's the difference that many on the left seem to ignore:
This could be a rosy estimation as this is based on the CBO's projection that the economy will grow 3 percent, every year, for the next 5 years. Anyone feel confident of that?
Obama HAS TO let the tax cuts expire. For everybody! You can't have 40+ percent of the people not paying federal income taxes. Historically, that figure has been around 22 percent (from WWII-Clinton) They are absolutely ruinous to the federal government as we know it. To make matters worse, he signed them along with another extension of unemployment benefits.
http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-O...ojections-A-Deteriorating-Fiscal-Outlook.aspx
Time to eat some peas.
This could be a rosy estimation as this is based on the CBO's projection that the economy will grow 3 percent, every year, for the next 5 years. Anyone feel confident of that?
Obama HAS TO let the tax cuts expire. For everybody! You can't have 40+ percent of the people not paying federal income taxes. Historically, that figure has been around 22 percent (from WWII-Clinton) They are absolutely ruinous to the federal government as we know it. To make matters worse, he signed them along with another extension of unemployment benefits.
CBO said:
http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-O...ojections-A-Deteriorating-Fiscal-Outlook.aspx
Time to eat some peas.
RumblingRosco
Member
Serious question here, the theory behind these tax cuts are that they'll spur spending and job creation. Is there anyway to show what effect(s), if any, these tax cuts had? I'm just saying, while clearing spending is overall down by consumers right now compared to 8 years ago, is it possible it would be even lower if these tax cuts were not in place?
I doubt it's enough to offset the tax cuts, but it might make that $1.8 trillion look a bit better.
I doubt it's enough to offset the tax cuts, but it might make that $1.8 trillion look a bit better.
Invisible_Insane
Member
As I recall, the Supreme Court very recently struck down some Arizona public election financing scheme as being unconstitutional. I don't remember the details, I think it was more of this nonsense about money being equal to speech, and I know that the ruling has put some other implementations of public election financing in jeopardy--New York's, for one. So I'm not sure that public financing is as straightforward a solution as we would like it to be.besada said:
I have to agree with you on term limits, though. Focusing on term limits is mostly treating a symptom of the problems caused by the absence of robust public financing.
Soka said:
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe tax cuts have shown to provide a short-term stimulative effect (which is why they were included in Obama's stimulus bill), but long-term they are bad. Taking those revenues and placing them into infrastructure, etc etc is a more efficient use of the money in the long-term for growth.
I believe that's the prevailing theory of most economists.
1. So? The U.S. is and has been full of socialist systems for a long time. Any central planning, any government welfare is socialism. The question isn't whether to engage in socialist practices, the question is where you set the sliders. We're already a socialist nation, we just like to pretend we aren't.planar1280 said:
2. Because the rich derive more benefit from the economy than the poor. This is self evident. People who own businesses, or make their money off of businesses, benefit disproportionately from government spending, particularly infrastructure spending. It takes roads and internets and telephones to do business. It takes courts to enforce contract law. Who uses courts more, individuals or corporations?
3. Not borne out by any sort of evidence. The best predictor of wealth is to start wealthy. After that, it's education, which costs money. Working hard may get you ahead, and may leave you living on the street.
4. Except for a few limited areas, the U.S. doesn't have the best healthcare. A lot of this depends on how one defines best. It's pretty much dead last in coverage versus cost per person, and not that great in a host of different areas. Not only aren't we the best, but many countries with better overall outcomes pay a fraction of what we pay.
5. State university costs have exploded dramatically, along with private universities. Nearly all are considerably more expensive than their counterparts elsewhere.
6. You should slap them in the fucking mouth. Slavery and theft have meanings, and taxation fits neither. They are welcome to pick their asses up and find themselves a country with kinder tax laws whenever they feel like it. Of course, to do that they'll likely have to live in a place with little government (which answers the next question), no protection from the predators that would like to take their money, no courts to protect their assets, and no infrastructure to speak of.
You know, I was thinking when I posted it that the new money=speech meme might be a hurdle, so I wouldn't be surprised. I suspect you could still get over with voluntary public financing, but so long as people can douse politicians in money, it's hard to believe they'll go along with it. It's bad game theory to expect no one to reach for the big cash pot, and at that point you'd have to be stupid to stay on public financing.Invisible_Insane said:
Or we could set fire to the Supreme Court. They're old and can't run very fast.
You guys don't understand. See, while some might view what the Tea Partiers say and do as crazy and stupid but you have to give props to their ability to come together as a group within the main Republican Party. Not only that, but their Senator Mike Lee from Utah is an exceptionally bright and well articulated person.
To see something like this happen with a party maybe perhaps losing traction or stranglehold on its members is amazing, almost like seeing a new group rise and an old one fall perhaps? I don't know, it's not nice to think that the political landscape in America will be a 2 party one forever. I like reading the politics about the past in America. Really shows you the stark differences in candidates and how candidates were chosen. Not only that, but shows you that real people were elected to office, not manufactured candidates.
To see something like this happen with a party maybe perhaps losing traction or stranglehold on its members is amazing, almost like seeing a new group rise and an old one fall perhaps? I don't know, it's not nice to think that the political landscape in America will be a 2 party one forever. I like reading the politics about the past in America. Really shows you the stark differences in candidates and how candidates were chosen. Not only that, but shows you that real people were elected to office, not manufactured candidates.
Actually, if you read the chart, it's a projection for Obama from 2009-2017. For the Bush side, it shows 2002-2009, both of which are 7 years.LQX said:
One point I want to make. Just take another look of the OP's graph and just think about with out that Bush tax cuts section either.........Yeah, I don't know too much about economics, but I'm pretty sure we would be in a better situation without that shit.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Stephen Colbert said:
You mean if Obama was campaigning in 2002. Obama says a lot of stuff.
HOPED
teacupcopter
Banned
Why aren't you including Libya spending in this chart?
Another thing this chart neglects is that TARP only cost us 25 billion dollars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905453.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905453.html
That was not the only reason. Foremost, they intended to wed the state governments to the nascent national government. Otherwise, you are correct. They also intended to shield the Senate from electoral politics and provide institutional stability. But that was not entirely successful. After the Era of Good Feelings, increased partisanship rendered some Senate elections contentious affairs. Rather than being beholden to electoral politics, they were beholden to state politics. Moreover, it did not facilitate institutional stability. Absent a fixed date for electing Senators, vacancies would persist for months. And some persisted for years. Really, I do not think the benefits are compelling enough.tanod said:
- Status