Support NeoGAF

[ElectricBlue187]

he didn't have much choice, but this is all i will say perhaps wer should bring this discourse back to our official topic?

Buwhat? Didn't he have a supermajority? Seems like he could've passed any goddamn thing he wanted

 

[ToxicAdam]

The Most Powerful Man on Earth?

Various reporters tried to elicit more information about Obama’s economic plans and deficit-reduction proposals, but Carney declined again to take the lead.

“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”

That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.

from the comments:

It's going to be hard to forget that in a time of multiple crises, Dems passed up highly experienced presidential candidates in 2008 to nominate this young, inexperienced empty suit.

In 2012 it's going to be hard to choose between some crazy fundamentalist tea bagger who will likely bag the Republican nomination, and this sadly impotent experiment in chief executive affirmative action that Obama seems to be.

Damn, that's cold.

 

[speculawyer]

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.
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.

Excellent answers.

On (1), I'd just point to objective history. Was Eisenhower a Communists? Was Nixon a socialist? Was Truman a Marxist? Was Kennedy a collectivist? For our entire modern history we have always had higher taxes than now except a few times when we fucked up and made it so low that the government would go bankrupt if we didn't raise it. In fact the current rates are rates that will bankrupt us. And anyone that says "government is too big" needs to prove it by getting elected, cutting government, and surviving an election. If they cannot do that, then government is not too big according to the will of the people.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Good point. Everyone says "the government is too big" then, when cuts to their social programs are proposed, they turn nasty.

I am all for cutting the social programs I currently receive. I will work that much harder to make up the difference, if it means making the government's budget more in line with their revenues.

Tea Partiers are hypocrites, but so are pretty much all people. Old people vote republican, then get pissed when they start talking about cutting medicare, SSI, etc.

 

[jamesinclair]

I feel like the last few days of conversation has been like shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.

The economy is shit. I dont understand the optimism over the last few years. The DOW made no sense. Companies expanding made no sense. The billions in profits made no sense.

Every single day, no exaggeration, I read in the local paper of another local business closing.

Downtown cafe
Baby store
Furniture Store
Sonic franchise
Obviously Borders

and so on and so forth.

Hell, I passed not one but TWO closed and fenced off Shell gas stations today. Gas stations!

How the fuck does a gas station close?


And to top it all off, the second the China bubble bursts...it's over. Oil and China are the only two things holding the global economy up, and theyre both mirages.

 

[Plinko]

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

In response to this:

Brent crude is up $7 off lows earlier tonight (back over $100 a barrel) and US crude is up $4.

Because the outlook on the economy has brightened so much overnight, apparently. We're not going to see any changes in gas prices.

 

[gkryhewy]

In response to this:

Brent crude is up $7 off lows earlier tonight (back over $100 a barrel) and US crude is up $4.

Because the outlook on the economy has brightened so much overnight, apparently. We're not going to see any changes in gas prices.

You seem obsessed with gas prices. I suspect the next five-ten years are going to be very stressful for you.

 

[gcubed]

You seem obsessed with gas prices. I suspect the next five-ten years are going to be very stressful for you.

High oil and gas prices in a bad economy with high unemployment doesn't make sense and also strangles the recovery

 

[Plinko]

You seem obsessed with gas prices. I suspect the next five-ten years are going to be very stressful for you.

I'm concerned for the exact reason gcubed gave. It's an economy-killer and there's no way a country like the United States, a country with crumbling infrastructure and that is behind the times on public transportation, can recover with high oil/gas prices.

Plus, when you've got several contacts in the industry saying how ridiculous it is that prices are as high as they are, it gets irritating.

 

[ReBurn]

LoL@ the myth that people are rich because they work hard.

How hard is Paris Hilton working these days?

Anderson Cooper is a damn Vanderbilt. I'm sure he got that cushy CNN job because of his incredible resume.

Ok, now please list every other rich person and how they earned their money. Two down, lots to go!

 

[eznark]

Heres Hoping Wisconsin Turns the table on the Republicans tomorrow.. It could send a fucking shock wave through Washington much like Scott Brown did back in 2k10.

I doubt that's the case unless the numbers are truly staggering for the Democrats. State senatorial races sending a "shock wave" to Washington? First time for everything I guess.

 

[gkryhewy]

High oil and gas prices in a bad economy with high unemployment doesn't make sense and also strangles the recovery

I'm not advocating for high gas prices, but complaining about them smacks of "old man yells at cloud."

You can blame China, blame OPEC, blame speculators, blame whatever, but at the end of the day, prices are not coming down, and if that means we're fucked because our entire pattern of development depends on cheap oil, then I guess we're fucked.

 

[Byakuya769]

Damn, that's cold.

Nah, just racist.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I doubt that's the case unless the numbers are truly staggering for the Democrats. State senatorial races sending a "shock wave" to Washington? First time for everything I guess.

I believe some election in New York State did that, didn't it?

I believe it was my district's state representative or something. We kicked out a Conservative and put in a Democrat, and it was on national news

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The Most Powerful Man on Earth?





from the comments:




Damn, that's cold.

Why should Obama lead this? He can lead what's happening in the US, he doesn't need to lead what's happening in Europe.

And whatever he leads with and proposes in the US will be instantly opposed by the Republicans who control the House and enough Senate to block everything.

 

[Snaku]

You can blame China, blame OPEC, blame speculators, blame whatever, but at the end of the day, prices are not coming down, and if that means we're fucked because our entire pattern of development depends on cheap oil, then I guess we're fucked.

Yeah, we're boned.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I bet if we let the gas tax expire that the price of gas does not come down.

They'll just pocket the money

 

[gcubed]

I bet if we let the gas tax expire that the price of gas does not come down.

They'll just pocket the money

why would you ever say that? What kind of proof do you have that such of thing ever would happen? The free market would fix it, just look at the FAA situ... oh wait.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I bet if we let the gas tax expire that the price of gas does not come down.

They'll just pocket the money

Hey, if it worked for the airline industry...
beaten.

 

[gcubed]

what realistically will happen is that gas will be 3.40, the taxes will expire, gas will drop for 1 day, then be back to 3.40, then the taxes will get passed, and gas will go up to 3.40 + taxes.

 

[eznark]

I believe some election in New York State did that, didn't it?

I believe it was my district's state representative or something. We kicked out a Conservative and put in a Democrat, and it was on national news

I thought that was a special congressional election and the campaign hinged on ObamaCare? Regardless....how did that work out? Did the Democrat winning the seat give the Democrats the back bone they were looking for?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I thought that was a special congressional election and the campaign hinged on ObamaCare? Regardless....how did that work out? Did the Democrat winning the seat give the Democrats the back bone they were looking for?

Pretty sure the Democrats focused on the Ryan budget in that election? We are talking about NY-26, yes?

 

[eznark]

Pretty sure the Democrats focused on the Ryan budget in that election? We are talking about NY-26, yes?

Oh yeah, I think that's what it was. But it was a congressional seat right?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Oh yeah, I think that's what it was. But it was a congressional seat right?

Yep. I think it may be news for a day if the Wisconsin Senate flips, but I think it's a much bigger deal to junkies like us than it will be to anyone else.

 

[Dude Abides]

The Most Powerful Man on Earth?





from the comments:




Damn, that's cold.

I like the affirmative action reference. Everyone on the WaPo Op-Ed page knows black people never achieve anything on the merits.

 

[Jackson50]

I doubt that's the case unless the numbers are truly staggering for the Democrats. State senatorial races sending a "shock wave" to Washington? First time for everything I guess.

Yeah. Also, I am awaiting the media to mistakenly extrapolate a broader national narrative from the results. They consistently commit that error with off-year elections.

 

[planar1280]

Oh Hai!

DOW: 11,045.41 +235.56 (2.18%)

 

[eznark]

Yep. I think it may be news for a day if the Wisconsin Senate flips, but I think it's a much bigger deal to junkies like us than it will be to anyone else.

Well, the reason it isn't a big deal is because it's mostly meaningless. It's symbolic and great and wonderful for the Democrats who got absolutely destroyed in the state in 2010...but for them that was absolutely the worst possible year to get destroyed what with redistricting and all. I don't think any of the people who flip seats will hold their seat in 2012.

The one seat that I think the GOP really, really wants to hold on to and would be disappointed to lose is Alberta Darling's. The rest (especially Olsen, Kapanke and Hopper) they'd just as soon get beaten.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There's going to be an extended interview on the movement to ban Shariah law in the US on Fresh Air today. I expect it'll be well worth the hour if you've time to listen. (Fresh Air streams from WNYC at 3PM if that works better for you.)

 

[planar1280]

There's going to be an extended interview on the movement to ban Shariah law in the US on Fresh Air today. I expect it'll be well worth the hour if you've time to listen. (Fresh Air streams from WNYC at 3PM if that works better for you.)

The US constitution is already Shariah Law.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

The US constitution is already Shariah Law.

We're too late!

One more public radio plug (this one's special for you, Jackson50): Leonard Lopate on the age-old conflict between the Departments of State and Defense. Streams at noon.

I don't work for WNYC or anything, I just really enjoy their stuff.

 

[Mike M]

Heard on NPR on the way into work that Jerry Brown just signed a law allocating California's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Still processing that one. On the one hand, it feels wrong somehow, but not as wrong as the electoral college circumventing the popular vote...

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Apparently voters in WI are being told by people posing as officials, they need more ID than they legally require, turning away people who are legally allowed to vote.

 

[eznark]

Heard on NPR on the way into work that Jerry Brown just signed a law allocating California's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Still processing that one. On the one hand, it feels wrong somehow, but not as wrong as the electoral college circumventing the popular vote...

...........why?

I could see a Republican governor signing this but why would Brown??

Apparently voters in WI are being told by people posing as officials, they need more ID than they legally require, turning away people who are legally allowed to vote.

Poll workers are supposed to be asking for id's but allowing them to vote with or without them.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Heard on NPR on the way into work that Jerry Brown just signed a law allocating California's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Still processing that one. On the one hand, it feels wrong somehow, but not as wrong as the electoral college circumventing the popular vote...

what? wait...
What?!

This seems worse than the electoral college. It's easy enough to imagine a scenario where a Republican wins the popular vote, and a majority of California voters vote Democratic but the Republican takes the electoral votes anyway? What the shit.

Edit: LA Times editorial on the issue. I understand the intention of the law, but the design is pretty awful and in the scenario I sketched above, leads to a state's electoral votes going to a candidate the state's voters don't want. If what's required to change the electoral college is 270 electoral votes, then the states should be opting for a plan that actually will represent the desires of their state's voters.

 

[eznark]

what? wait...
What?!

This seems worse than the electoral college. It's easy enough to imagine a scenario where a Republican wins the popular vote, and a majority of California voters vote Democratic but the Republican takes the electoral votes anyway? What the shit.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-joins-popular-vote-charade_588096.html

Sounds like an abject waste of time and money.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Apparently voters in WI are being told by people posing as officials, they need more ID than they legally require, turning away people who are legally allowed to vote.

Latest in a series of dirty tactics there. I'm accustomed to reading about that kind of stuff, but the GOP has taken a kitchen sink approach to the recalls.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I cant wrap my head around that California thing. Can someone please explain why that at all makes sense.

 

[Jackson50]

We're too late!

One more public radio plug (this one's special for you, Jackson50): Leonard Lopate on the age-old conflict between the Departments of State and Defense. Streams at noon.

I don't work for WNYC or anything, I just really enjoy their stuff.

I may purchase his book. The reviews are positive. Really, it is lamentable that the DoD has replaced the State Department as our primary agent of foreign policy. Oh, and thanks for the heads up.

 

[ToxicAdam]

what? wait...
What?!

This seems worse than the electoral college. It's easy enough to imagine a scenario where a Republican wins the popular vote, and a majority of California voters vote Democratic but the Republican takes the electoral votes anyway? What the shit.

Here's the website for the group behind the movement.


The shocker was that 7 states already have it as a law.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Poll workers are supposed to be asking for id's but allowing them to vote with or without them.

People posing as workers are turning people away if they don't have ID saying they're not allowed to vote

 

[gcubed]

Oh Hai!

DOW: 11,045.41 +235.56 (2.18%)

the dow dropped ~2000 points in 2 weeks. People are going to try to get deals. We aren't AS fundamentally f'ed as we were in 2008. Its less "Shit we are in financial ruin" and more "well, we ran up the stock market on good feelings that are going away, lets go back to reality"

 

[Byakuya769]

Seems like a slow crawl to strictly a popular vote for Presidential elections. That's a good thing.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Seems like a slow crawl to strictly a popular vote for Presidential elections. That's a good thing.

Small states with the population of a square mile of the larger states probably won't go for the idea that they only have .001% say in the Presidential election

At least now they've got 3 electoral college members. If it was strictly popular vote based, there would be no point campaigning in North Dakota.

 

[ToxicAdam]

At least now they've got 3 electoral college members. If it was strictly popular vote based, there would be no point campaigning in North Dakota.

What percentage is 3 of 538?

 

[gcubed]

Small states with the population of a square mile of the larger states probably won't go for the idea that they only have .001% say in the Presidential election

At least now they've got 3 electoral college members. If it was strictly popular vote based, there would be no point campaigning in North Dakota.

there is no point in campaigning in North Dakota today

 

[GhaleonEB]

0.56%

Do people campaign in North Dakota now? I haven't seen it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

well okay I guess

 

[PhoenixDark]

People posing as workers are turning people away if they don't have ID saying they're not allowed to vote

I just hope Wisconsin dems take a page out of Obama's 08 strat and have election lawyers on site, especially in areas with heavy college and minority demographics

 

[besada]

There's going to be an extended interview on the movement to ban Shariah law in the US on Fresh Air today. I expect it'll be well worth the hour if you've time to listen. (Fresh Air streams from WNYC at 3PM if that works better for you.)

This is one of those issues that frustrates me so much I find it difficult to listen to. Down here in Texas, where we allow gypsy courts, Christian and Talmudic mediation, and the like, it particularly makes my blood boil.

Heard on NPR on the way into work that Jerry Brown just signed a law allocating California's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Still processing that one. On the one hand, it feels wrong somehow, but not as wrong as the electoral college circumventing the popular vote...

Wha? So if the people of California vote for Candidate X, and Candidate Y is the winner of the national popular vote, the California electors give their votes to Candidate Y? Are you sure that's what he signed?