speculawyer
Member
Oh it depends. If you buy a house and then re-do the kitchen & bathrooms and fix up the garden and then put it on the market, then you added value by improving the home.GaimeGuy said:
-
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
RoninChaos
Member
Puddles said:
The people that watch fox news would much rather blame our black president for our problems instead of actually looking at some facts and forming some opinions. It's a lot easier to point at somebody and go "It's his fault!" instead of actually trying to figure some shit out. And Fox news knows that.
jamesinclair
Banned
ToxicAdam said:
If you run on a platform that says:
Low taxes!
No regulation!
= growth, growth, growth!
And then we find out that
Low Taxes!
No Regulation!
= Water crisis
You have a problem.
"the governor of Texas is one of the weakest executives in the Union"
Thats funny. Does he put up this little asterix when he claims he created the Texas miracle?
Again, cant have it both ways.
Some happy polling from PPP.
GG, Bams.
Obama's Base Problem
There's been plenty of bad news for Barack Obama this month in the form of his approval numbers, but our polling finds that his problems go deeper than that. Democratic enthusiasm about voting in next year's election has hit a record low this month.
Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%.
In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.
It had seemed earlier in the year like Democrats had overcome the 'enthusiasm gap' that caused so much of their trouble in last year's elections. But now 54% of Republicans say they're 'very excited' about casting their ballots next year, indicating that the problem may be back.
The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem.
In Colorado it's 59/31 overall and 55/33 with independents for more taxes. In North Carolina it's 53/32 overall and 56/31 with independents for more taxes. And in Ohio it's 54/37 overall and 55/37 with independents for more taxes. It's obviously not like these voters want more taxes- no one does. But they do see them as necessary and Obama antagonized his base with the deal he cut on this issue without doing anything to help himself with independents or Republicans.
It's a long way until November 2012 and Obama certainly has time to redeem himself but for the first time in his Presidency I really do think he has an issue with the Democratic base.
There's been plenty of bad news for Barack Obama this month in the form of his approval numbers, but our polling finds that his problems go deeper than that. Democratic enthusiasm about voting in next year's election has hit a record low this month.
Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%.
In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.
It had seemed earlier in the year like Democrats had overcome the 'enthusiasm gap' that caused so much of their trouble in last year's elections. But now 54% of Republicans say they're 'very excited' about casting their ballots next year, indicating that the problem may be back.
The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem.
In Colorado it's 59/31 overall and 55/33 with independents for more taxes. In North Carolina it's 53/32 overall and 56/31 with independents for more taxes. And in Ohio it's 54/37 overall and 55/37 with independents for more taxes. It's obviously not like these voters want more taxes- no one does. But they do see them as necessary and Obama antagonized his base with the deal he cut on this issue without doing anything to help himself with independents or Republicans.
It's a long way until November 2012 and Obama certainly has time to redeem himself but for the first time in his Presidency I really do think he has an issue with the Democratic base.
GG, Bams.
Puddles said:
Both. What he is calling for will have absolutely zero effect on him, but it will make it significantly more difficult for people to achieve his level of super-wealth in the future. He is pulling up that ladder after making it to the top, basically. Also, if this was truly more than political bluster meant to give his side talking points, he would be finding ways to make the government money. For instance, while it's inefficient to just write the government a check for what he feels he owes, why doesn't he start up a "save the country" index, invest what he feels he truly should have given the government over the years, and provide an annual % of those profits.
There is literally nothing stopping Warren Buffet from paying his "fair share" it just happens that it isn't really what he is calling for. He doesn't want to give the government more money, he just wanted the guys chasing him to have to give the government more money. It's lobbying to hamstring the competition, and Buffet gets lauded for it. Gross.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Plinko said:
I'm confused, how do you come to that conclusion based on the article?
Chichikov said:
I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying if he truly wanted to make a difference and sacrifice (as people lauding his editorial are claiming) then he easily could, and do so in an incredibly efficient and highly beneficial manor. When someone calls for change that they themselves could easily implement, yet don't because they aren't forced to, I find it rings completely hollow.
It's no different than Bill Gate and education. He isn't just calling on politicians to fix the education system, he is also pouring millions of his own dollars into enacting change.
Shit or get off the pot, says I.
Your first point is a fair point, and since I just decided to take that angle while I was typing I have yet to form a rebuttal. *eatspie*
It's not Obama's fault the deal passed without tax increases. Teatards threw a shitfit and everyone else was powerless to stop them. Obama cannot force the hand of the House when it's in GOP control.GhaleonEB said:
The option was the shitty "deal" we got or default. Wonder what the "base" would have thought of Obama after that.
GG, teatards and ignorant voters.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
The US was not going to default. I refuse to believe that. Obama caved pure and simple
Chichikov said:
Of course he is allowed to have an opinion. I don't recall once saying he (or anyone else ever in history for that matter) should be silenced? I assume you're ok with me having an opinion on his opinion, since I am perfectly fine with you having an opinion on my opinion on his opinion.
For the record I don't have a problem with anyone thinking anything, except for those my little pony guys. Big problems with them.
Boehner and Obama had a deal. The Tea Party who have basically championed the idea of allowing the US to default threw a wrench in it. They would have let it happen. Obama would have either done nothing or used the 14th, both of which I think would have had extremely dire consequences not only for him politically but for the country as a whole.PhoenixDark said:
It's much easier to say "Obama caved" then have to deal with the realities that we face. The Tea Party is getting exactly what they wanted. Obama's the last person you should be mad at. But, it's working, and we're well on our way to at least another four years of GOP rule across the board in Washington.
American electorate = trolled by the tea party. Sad.
i had this really really weird dream where boehner convinced all republicans to identify as democrats, so that current democrats would have no choice but to switch to a more left party in order to marginalize them or something.
fortunately, it was just a news article i read, and boehner himself wasn't actually in the dream.
fortunately, it was just a news article i read, and boehner himself wasn't actually in the dream.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
That's simply not true. The final days of the dealmaking proved how little control the tea party had on anything. It was going to be raised. Obama gave up the farm for nothing.
A President Romney with a divided congress wouldn't be bad. The only thing that makes me not want that is SC nominees.
Both Boehner and McConnell had said, publicly and privately, that they would not allow a default. That gave Obama leverage, which he chose to throw away.Diablos said:
But I mostly blame Obama for how he handled the debate. He held a national press conference in which he argued at length for a balanced approach, on both fiscal and moral grounds. And then immidiately negotiated a bill that gave him none of what he said he wanted. You can't set up public expectations like that and then turn around and ignore them and expect the base that is most tuned in will be happy about it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Because Republicans were fine with having the country default, Boehner might not have been but his comrades were. Obama's options were 1. Default 2. Negotiate and he choose not to let the country default.
PhoenixDark
Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
Maybe 20 tea partiers were, but not enough to sabotage a last minute "pass or die" bill.
cartoon_soldier
Member
PhoenixDark said:
More than 20. Obama was dealing with a bunch of bat shit crazy insane people who had believed their own rhetoric that default wouldn't cause anything bad.
With the position he was in, the negotiated deal isn't that bad. And with the super committee gridlock happening as expected Medicare or SS won't be affected.
There would have been enough votes for a clean bill at the last moment.cartoon_soldier said:
It's important to listen to Mitch McConnell, because he has the tendancy to telegraph exactly what he thinks, and exactly what he intends to do. He's often well ahead of the curve. Remember when he was destroyed for his proposal to give Obama authority to raise the debt ceiling in phases, so long as he could hang the vote around Democrats? And that got baked into the final bill, despite rumors it would never pass the House? Yeah.
Before that one came out, his plan was to just let Dems in the Senate raise the limit. No filibuster, no GOP support, no cost cutting. Just a political victory. Obama rejected that because he wanted debt cuts attached. That kind of last minute bill would have passed the House because there were enough GOPers in the House to support it, along with nearly all Dems. Had that come through at the last minute, it would have passed, no questions asked.
Obama didn't want it. So, he didn't get it.
Byakuya769
Member
The public negotiations should have started with a clean raising of the debt ceiling and separate debt negotiations. Anything else was implicitly a cave from the get go.
He played the game horribly, again.
He played the game horribly, again.
haha. Baucus will break the deadlock and cut benefits for social security and medicare, giving the republicans everything they want.cartoon_soldier said:
It's going to end up exactly like the health care shit where things the republcans would have proposed in the mid 90s will be too extreme leftist, and baucus will side with the republicans and get their far right bullshit passed. Which they will then demonize as the work of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama as liberal anti-middle class communism.
polyh3dron
Banned
Yep, Obama's problem has always been to start with a pre-compromised position, usually utilizing positions from past Republicans with the expectation that there is no way they could not be happy with it. Said position is framed as being hyper partisan and that he should do exactly what the GOP wants with their extreme position. He then meets them half way and the GOP gets exactly what they wanted in the first place.
That's exactly my point. What I don't think you realize is that your attempts at making money by buying an selling houses without doing anything to them makes it more difficult and more financially burdensome for people to get into homes, and that's why I think flipping houses is so pathetic. Or maybe you realize that, and you don't give a shit about what you do to other people as long as you get a few extra bucks.eznark said:
Some things are more important than money.
teruterubozu
Member
GaimeGuy said:
Flipped houses are such an infinitesimal percentage of the overall housing market. It's hardly the beast that broke the camel's back.
Has this been posted yet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8712701/US-troops-may-stay-in-Afghanistan-until-2024.html
wtf is this shit?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8712701/US-troops-may-stay-in-Afghanistan-until-2024.html
wtf is this shit?
speculawyer
Member
I'm certain that you and all other conservatives that want to simplify the tax code have never take the home mortgage deduction. There is nothing requiring you to take the deduction (or other deductions).eznark said:
That's a stupid fucking argument and I expect better from you.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hootie said:
Special forces and military trainers. I'm fine with that, as it was always unlikely "every" troop would leave. We never leave like that.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
PhoenixDark said:
Because I think Obama and the democrats will push taxing the rich HARD this election cycle.
I give the GOP a 0% chance of adopting that platform. Americans want it, and the worse the economy gets the more they'll want it. They realize that companies aren't using this money to provide jobs--they're sitting on hoards of cash.
timetokill
Banned
Hootie said:
You know when you're fucking, and it goes against all instinct to pull out, so its hard to do it even though you know if you don't you're risking ruining your life?
...Anyway we're never leaving that hellhole.
Tea Party now less popular than atheists and Muslims? Let's hope so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=3
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like atheists and Muslims. Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=3
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like atheists and Muslims. Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
Probably old, but I just saw this and it's pretty funny (sad) recap of the debt ceiling negotiations...
http://havoconthehill.com/2011/07/28/9/
http://havoconthehill.com/2011/07/28/9/
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
eznark said:
Exactly. People say it could be because he's more "right" then we thought. But I think him really having that far away of an ideology (especially with his history as a senator) is a stretch.
Jeels said:
I won't be satisfied until the "party" is nearly universally hated.
speculawyer
Member
Swinging the big darker dick. ;-)ToxicAdam said:--- /// ---
CIC
In a post Citizen's United world, he had better get out there and raise as much fucking money as he can.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...eated-segment-tell-me-obama-walked-into-hell/
I imagine this should be amusing to watch when I get home.
I imagine this should be amusing to watch when I get home.
- Status