Support NeoGAF

[Measley]

advice to Lewis, Farakhan, Smiley: Learn to read


http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff4/farrakhan-west-smiley-obama-poverty/

wtf

All three of those guys have axes to grind with Obama for a variety of reasons. Smiley is mad at Obama because he never came on his show. West is mad at Obama because he and his mother weren't invited to the inauguration. Farrakhan is mad at Obama because he killed Osama Bin Ladin, and is waging war against his butt-buddy Gaddafi.

Farrakhan's anger I can somewhat understand, but West and Smiley are just being childish.

 

[ToxicAdam]

TA, I think the article was referring to elected officials, not registered Republicans

I don't really see evidence of that, but it doesn't really matter.

Cantor open to closing loopholes.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Why is Jerry Brown doing this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/09/BAM11KKSPC.DTL


THIS WOULD BENEFIT REPUBLICANS YOU IDIOT.

I don't see how this benefits Republicans.

If a Republican got the popular vote, chances are they were going to win anyway.

 

[Enron]

What was he wrong about?

Mercury Fred thinks (like much of GAF I'm afraid) that anyone that leans even slightly to the right has no idea about fucking anything.

However, this is one area where I'm pretty convinced I know of which I speak.

 

[Plumbob]

I don't see how this benefits Republicans.

If a Republican got the popular vote, chances are they were going to win anyway.

And if they get the popular vote, there's no reason they shouldn't win...

 

[Enron]

All three of those guys have axes to grind with Obama for a variety of reasons. Smiley is mad at Obama because he never came on his show. West is mad at Obama because he and his mother weren't invited to the inauguration. Farrakhan is mad at Obama because he killed Osama Bin Ladin, and is waging war against his butt-buddy Gaddafi.

Farrakhan's anger I can somewhat understand, but West and Smiley are just being childish.

I didn't read the article, but is the "Smiley" in question Tavis Smiley? I have watched his show late at night on GPTV when nothing else was on, and each time I sit there in amazement that this guy somehow convinced someone that he should have a talk show.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/is-the-house-g-o-p-warming-to-tax-increases/?hp

Tax increases? or revenue increases? Two different things.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Why is Jerry Brown doing this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/09/BAM11KKSPC.DTL


THIS WOULD BENEFIT REPUBLICANS YOU IDIOT.

You should scroll back several pages, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly already.

 

[ToxicAdam]

and each time I sit there in amazement that this guy somehow convinced someone that he should have a talk show.

You can probably say that about 3/4 of the talk shows, tbh.

 

[Enron]

You can probably say that about 3/4 of the talk shows, tbh.

That's true, but at least most gab show hosts know how to host, even if they are dumb. Tavis is the opposite. A seemingly smart guy that severely lacks the communication skills to host a show like this.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Tax increases? or revenue increases? Two different things.

Not necessarily. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Stephen Colbert's Super PAC has started airing its first ads in Iowa.

Epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrygYmTsTfU&feature=player_embedded

 

[Sirpopopop]

I don't see how this benefits Republicans.

If a Republican got the popular vote, chances are they were going to win anyway.

More importantly, it's the right thing to do.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Mercury Fred thinks (like much of GAF I'm afraid) that anyone that leans even slightly to the right has no idea about fucking anything.

Oh sweet you're a mind reader now too.

As I said before, taking your own advice would do wonders for you.

 

[Blergmeister]

I don't really see evidence of that, but it doesn't really matter.

Cantor open to closing loopholes.

The simple evidence is to point to why some of the various deficit reduction proposals failed during the whole debt ceiling debacle along with the Republican Rhetoric during that time. Pretty much any of the proposals that didn't originate with the House Tea Party Caucus and the deal that was passed all included revenue due to tax reform focused on closing loopholes and lowering rates and that was the sticking point on all of them on the Republican side. Granted, it seemed that many Republicans were accepting concessions on this point but it proved too big of an obstacle for the party at large to accept a deal on.

 

[Enron]

Oh sweet you're a mind reader now too.

As I said before, taking your own advice would do wonders for you.

This exact same post could apply to you as well. If you have a problem with me, pm me or take it up with a mod. Otherwise, stop crapping up this thread with this kind of stuff. I won't be responding to it anymore.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Not necessarily. They aren't mutually exclusive.

No, but revenues as a % of gdp have remained pretty damn stable over the years no matter what the tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Oh sweet you're a mind reader now too.

As I said before, taking your own advice would do wonders for you.

To be fair, I have no idea about the history of either you or him but your passive-aggressive refusal to actually answer any question doesn't really make you look better than him.

 

[empty vessel]

Its so easy to listen for those keywords every time there is a republican talking in an article or on a show. I think they all just have a list of words they are supposed to say, as much as possible.

I guess they figure the more they repeat it, the more it is in public perception, and perception is reality. Although I think we get a clear view of that every day.

There is a reason that marketing is a billion dollar industry: it works.

 

[eznark]

It is a little weird to see an election where the Democrats gained two seats, in Republican leaning districts nonetheless, painted as a defeat for the Democrats. I understand why the national media does it, because they wanted to turn the elections into a referendum to fit into their overall narrative, but coming from other quarters it just seems like post-election spin.

Those Republican state sentators in those districts all survived 2008, a year in which the Republicans suffered otherwise historic losses. According to Nate Silver of 538, Scott Walker won the six districts targeted in the recall by an average of 13 percent. In Tuesday's elections, the Democrats cut that margin to 6 percent, which is in line with Scott Walker's margin in the rest of the state. These are all areas in which Republicans need to run up high margins of victory in order to have a chance in statewide elections. That is probably why Nate tweeted that Democrats would be crazy not to go ahead with their effort to recall Scott Walker.

Reguardless of what happens next week with the other recalls, one would have to resort to nebulous arguments like "momentum" and "narrative" or resort to playing the expectations game in order to portray an election in which the Democrats managed to make signifigant gains amoung the Republican's base as anything other than bad for Republicans. I doubt that Republican leaders are privately as confident as their public statements make them out to be, although they fact that they already got much of their agenda enacted must be of some comfort.

The district Kapanke lost in is hardly Republican leaning. It's a swing district that Kapanke won with 2% of the vote in 2008. In 2010, Kapanke lost in the same district (for a congressional seat) and Barrett lost the district by 0.7%. Obama got over 60%. GOP stronghold!

As for Hopper, the guy was cheating on his wife and no longer lived in the district. It's hilarious that the race was as close as it was.

The end of the day, the Democrats didn't make significant gains. Down 3 seats or down 1 seat, the Republicans still control the three branches and conservatives hold the state supreme court. All the sound and fury accomplished exactly nothing. Even these gains are likely to be short-lived if the redistricting maps are as partisan as believed.

Speaking of the nebulous-er issues though, once people realize the sky isn't falling as a result of the budget fix and see that there is a budget surplus...what's there to motivate a recall? Are there 500,000-600,000 union members in Wisconsin willing to drive the recall? Will the unions pour another $30m to counteract the dastardly Kock brothers again after gaining nothing in these elections? I doubt it. They'll have fights in states where the battle isn't so uphill.

Since the budget bill passed Prosser was re-elected and the GOP held the Senate. Unless the democrats decide to flee the state every time a controversial bill comes up, the margins are meaningless.

 

[Mercury Fred]

To be fair, I have no idea about the history of either you or him but your passive-aggressive refusal to actually answer any question doesn't really make you look better than him.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

 

[GaimeGuy]

No, but revenues as a % of gdp have remained pretty damn stable over the years no matter what the tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

yeah, uh,they're basically at their lowest points from 2008 through now since 48-51ish. Not sure how that chart proves your point.

Also, we had this discussion a few weeks back. Anyone have that chart which shows the share of federal revenues from different sources (Corporate, Payroll, income, and other taxes) over time? I think we need to continue posting that until people like Bulbo and drakesfortune stop spewing their lies (or less of them)


Bulbo, the reason you don't see changes (even though that's wrong) is because tax changes in one area tend to be offset in others. Reagan reduced income taxes and raised the hell out of payroll taxes, for instance. The only thing you've proven is that the tax burden has shifted, nothing about some magical Laffer Curve phenomenon.

 

[reggieandTFE]

People that do not know of what they speak should keep their mouths shut.

For those rugged individualists with fierce commitments to the "free" market and consumer "choice", I can understand the allure of defined contribution plans. The rational boot-strappers can choose where their money goes! They are no longer reliant on a company, a union or, God forbid, the government to make sound, long-term investments.

Down in the real world, the move away from defined benefit contribution plans over the last 20 years has transferred risk from Employers to workers, been an unprecedented boon for the financial middlemen on Wall Street and created mass retirement insecurity as millions realize that their Social Security doesn't cover the bills and their glorious 401(k)s are going to run out before they hit 67.

Even alarmist liberal rags like the WSJ are probing the harsh realities of 401(k)s.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

yeah, uh,they're basically at their lowest points from 2008 through now since 48-51ish. Not sure how that chart proves your point.

Also, we had this discussion a few weeks back. Anyone have that chart which shows the share of federal revenues from different sources (Corporate, Payroll, income, and other taxes) over time? I think we need to continue posting that until people like Bulbo and drakesfortune stop spewing their lies (or less of them)


Bulbo, the reason you don't see changes (even though that's wrong) is because tax changes in one area tend to be offset in others. Reagan reduced income taxes and raised the hell out of payroll taxes, for instance. The only thing you've proven is that the tax burden has shifted, nothing about some magical Laffer Curve phenomenon.

You mean this chart? So?

 

[planar1280]

What say you Republicans?

http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-want-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-no-entitlement-reform-in-super-committee-deal-2011-8

According to a CNN/ORC poll released today, by a 2-1 margin, Americans want the bipartisan joint deficit reduction committee to raise taxes on the wealthy while avoiding major entitlement changes.
Older Americans are most likely to oppose raising taxes, as well as any cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Those between 18-34 are split 50-50 on whether there should be major reforms to the programs.
The "Super Committee" is tasked with making at least $1.5 trillion in cuts to the federal deficit by Thanksgiving, and will be made up of 12 members of Congress — with three lawmakers selected from each party in both chambers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Senate Democrats' three picks yesterday, including the choice of Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the chair of their caucus' campaign arm, as co-chair of the Super Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have until Tuesday to make their selections, with Boehner choosing the other co-chair.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-want-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-no-entitlement-reform-in-super-committee-deal-2011-8#ixzz1Uf2hQBpc

 

[Zzoram]

What say you Republicans?

http://www.businessinsider.com/amer...tlement-reform-in-super-committee-deal-2011-8

Older Americans are most likely to oppose raising taxes, as well as any cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

So older Americans want nothing to be done whatsoever.

 

[GaimeGuy]

You mean this chart? So?

No, not that chart. There was a line graph with each line having a different color. Much easier to discern information from than a shaded area chart

 

[Clevinger]

So older Americans want nothing to be done whatsoever.

No, they just want to cut everything that doesn't effect them. Igotmine syndrome.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

No, not that chart. There was a line graph with each line having a different color. Much easier to discern information from than a shaded area chart

Well, they probably say the same thing. A decrease in corporate, excise and estate taxes, an increase in employment taxes and fairly steady individual income taxes. What have I said that is a lie? If you want to focus on individual income taxes and whether raising or lowering individual income tax rates always leads to a proportional increase in revenue, then let's talk.

 

[empty vessel]

No, not that chart. There was a line graph with each line having a different color. Much easier to discern information from than a shaded area chart

You can see it in that chart as well (although I agree it's harder visually, and it would be nice if it went back further). The orange (excise) and medium blue (corporate) shrink over time, and the light blue (payroll) expands. The dark blue (income) stays roughly the same, but remember there are shifts within the dark blue as well.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, but revenues as a % of gdp have remained pretty damn stable over the years no matter what the tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

There's a big difference in 16% of GDP and 19% of GDP when you are talking about Trillions of dollars. So I wouldn't so that stable.

 

[planar1280]

hmmmmmm


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/p-lobbies-congress-while-rating-government-credit-194044092.html

If recent events have made one thing clear, it's that the major ratings agencies, for good or ill, enjoy an enormous influence on government policy. Case in point: After Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating Friday, a slew of lawmakers rushed to say that the move might lead the congressional "Super Committee," created as part of the debt ceiling deal, to recommend even more measures aimed at immediate deficit reduction than the $1.4 trillion in its mandate.
But the ratings agencies also exert sway on policy the old-fashioned way: by lobbying. S&P's parent company, McGraw-Hill, has spent over $11 million on lobbying in the past 15 years,the Washington Post reports. And it lobbies the government while continuing to rate its creditworthiness.
S&P spent at least $1 million on legislation specifically related to its business. Recently, the firm and its fellow credit-rating agencies--Moody's and Fitch--have been fighting a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that makes it possible to sue ratings firms for negligence if they offer faulty ratings. The agencies want to go back to a world where investors who make decisions based on their ratings--like those AAA ratings they slapped on the non-prime mortgage securities that helped cause the financial crisis--are out of luck.
And these aren't just any lobbyists. S&P's stable of high-powered advocates includes Tony Podesta, a prominent Washington mover and shaker whose brother John ran the transition team for the Obama administration, and Douglas Nappi, who has worked for the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
All three agencies say their ratings and lobbying operations are kept separate from each other.

 

[mckmas8808]

hmmmmmm


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/p-lobbies-congress-while-rating-government-credit-194044092.html

Shitty shit is shitty. Crap this country is trying to ruin itself so bad.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Just saw what the Dow closed at today. Unstable or what? Also, I hope someone takes a cue from the Daily Show (although I'm certain many people had the same idea) to make super hero caricatures of super committee members. I'd do it myself but I'd struggle to just give my caricatures the comic book look.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

advice to Lewis, Farakhan, Smiley: Learn to read


http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff4/farrakhan-west-smiley-obama-poverty/

wtf

I love the term "entitlement programs". Its up there with "job creators".

Possible Cuts To Defense Spending


The closest split in the three polls is on the question of cuts to military spending. A slim majority opposed cuts to the Pentagon in the CNN poll, 53 - 47, and these cuts registered the same support in the Gallup poll: 47%. But in the Marist survey respondents actually approved defense cuts 50 - 46, which was outside the margin of error in the poll, and includes support from independent voters 53 - 45. Of course, there has already been a push by the Defense Department against any further budget reductions, and the White House hasn't exactly disagreed.

*facepalm*

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I love the term "entitlement programs". Its up there with "job creators".

One is a definition, one is nonsense. Your conflation of the two says a lot about you.

 

[Plinko]

All of these new polls showing how most Americans want tax increases on the rich are why the democrats win big in 2012.

There's no way the GOP starts running on that issue. No way.

 

[polyh3dron]

What America Wants From The Super Committee - By The Numbers
Kyle Leighton | August 10, 2011, 12:40PM

Dude, Max Baucus is one of the Dems in this super committee. A balanced approach is not in the cards here.

We're fucked.

 

[Stinkles]

One is a definition, one is nonsense. Your conflation of the two says a lot about you.

It's a preferred nomenclature for talking points because it "feels" negative. "Entitlement" has a negative connotation. Even more so than "welfare."

Conflation seems reasonable, regardless of accuracy.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It's a preferred nomenclature for talking points because it "feels" negative. "Entitlement" has a negative connotation. Even more so than "welfare."

Conflation seems reasonable, regardless of accuracy.

Exactly, its like using the word "marijuana" instead of weed or cannabis because it sounds so big and scary.

When i think of "entitlements" I certainly don't think of programs for people struggling to make ends meet.

 

[mckmas8808]

Dude, Max Baucus is one of the Dems in this super committee. A balanced approach is not in the cards here.

We're fucked.

Well Baucus has been caught stating that this debt deal needs to be balanced too.

 

[polyh3dron]

Well Baucus has been caught stating that this debt deal needs to be balanced too.

We already know what Baucus's idea of "balanced" is. Something between an already balanced approach and the GOP's extreme partisan approach. Most likely much closer to the GOP side even in that spectrum.

 

[besada]

I swear to god if we don't get a balanced approach this time, I might kick a bitch in the face! The DEMs and Obama have time and the polls on their side. Raise taxes on the rich and on businesses!

Better get your bitch-kicking shoes on, then. Getting Kyl and the others to agree to a tax increase is incredibly unlikely to happen. Can someone who cares more run the list for re-election dates? If there's anyone in the group running in 2012, you can know for sure no taxes are forthcoming.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well Baucus has been caught stating that this debt deal needs to be balanced too.

He has a history of appeasing republicans. Might as well say there's a 7 to 5 advantage for republicans on the council.

 

[RustyNails]

Stephen Colbert's Super PAC has started airing its first ads in Iowa.

Epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrygYmTsTfU&feature=player_embedded

Vote for Rick Parry? What the hell...

 

[mckmas8808]

He has a history of appeasing republicans. Might as well say there's a 6 to 5 advantage for republicans on the council.

UGH! You're probably right. Does anybody know who Nancy Pelosi is going to pick?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Vote for Rick Parry? What the hell...

I didn't get it either.

He has a history of appeasing republicans. Might as well say there's a 6 to 5 advantage for republicans on the council.

Baucus is the one I'm most worried about on the commission. It only takes one Dem in lockstep with the Republicans to move the recommendations to the floor. Given his history of being obsessed with finding common ground with people dead set against any common ground, I think his inclusion could prove disastrous.

 

[Jackson50]

Fareed appeared on television last night to discuss the slight change in our policy towards Syria. His sentiments were similar to mine. The single exception is that I think this is beginning of the end; unfortunately, with a protracted, destructive intervening period.

All of these new polls showing how most Americans want tax increases on the rich are why the democrats win big in 2012.

There's no way the GOP starts running on that issue. No way.

No. Sorry. Support for high-end tax increases will not propel the Democrats to victory. Not that the public opposes high-end increases. But it is not an important issue for the larger public.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Too bad Bernie Sanders wasn't applicable for the Super Committee. He would have been a great pick.

 

[GhaleonEB]

No. Sorry. Support for high-end tax increases will not propel the Democrats to victory. Not that the public opposes high-end increases. But it is not an important issue for the larger public.

Additionally, because the Democrats cannot run on the platform of raising taxes on the wealthy and so draw a contrast to the GOP. They were unable to bring about that kind of policy - such as the Bush tax cuts - back when they held large majorities in both houses of Congress. So why should someone who is a proponent of such a policy vote for Democrats? They won't do it either.