Support NeoGAF

[ReBurn]

i agree, which is why we need to remove as many Republicans as we can from both the House and Senate. i'm hoping Obama he'll do so by Executive Order tonight.

Then he can bring peace to the Empire.

 

[RustyNails]

Our government is basically like high school on steroids. It's shameful. We as a nation are capable of so much greatness. But we are too foolish to take advantage of it.

It's not a republican problem, it's not a democrat problem. It's shameless self serving nature of those that get in power.

I used to think like you one time, then I started reading about what's actually going on. Nope, Republicans have been hamstringing the administration for the past 3 years, making everyone look bad in the process. You're a living proof to this fact. They said NO to removing $4b in subsidies to oil companies, NO to increasing tax on top 2%, NO to increasing the debt ceiling (unless they get their way), NO to ratifying START treaty with Russia just to defeat Obama politically, and that's just off the top of my head. Can you tell me the reasons why they're just as bad as Democrats? Talking about Congress of course.

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

I asked that question to garner your position on anything beyond "they both suck, fire the bums!" Sadly, it didn't work.

More directly: what's your policy desire for health care? How would you envision the system fixed?

I will readily admit that I don't know all the answers. I personally believe that certain measures should be tried in steps. Step one, in my opinion, would be to allow individuals and businesses to shop for insurance across state lines. That will allow for a TON more competition, which historically drives prices down, increases quality.

Step two: This is where I believe government should regulate, prescription pricing. It's out of control

Step three: We, as a country should realllllly keep a close eye on abuse of all public programs. That abuse costs us billions of dollars.

Again. I don't know everything, and don't claim to. But a single payer program for this country cannot be sustained. In a perfect world, I wish this wasn't an issue.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm going to have to cool down before I respond to that.

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

I used to think like you one time, then I started reading about what's actually going on. Nope, Republicans have been hamstringing the administration for the past 3 years, making everyone look bad in the process. You're a living proof to this fact. They said NO to removing $4b in subsidies to oil companies, NO to increasing tax on top 2%, NO to increasing the debt ceiling (unless they get their way), NO to ratifying START treaty with Russia just to defeat Obama politically, and that's just off the top of my head. Can you tell me the reasons why they're just as bad as Democrats? Talking about Congress of course.

Again, I don't know all the minutia. But from a lot of things I read about one party saying no, then being accused of being inhuman is that there is a lot of things that get shoved on to bills. Totally unrelated thing. There needs to be ZERO pork/tack ons for any bill. It needs to be only for the direct, main problem that is trying to be addressed.

Made up sample: Like, don't say you need 6 billion dollars for hurricane relief, then tack on 3 billion dollars of unrelated bullshit, get turned down and then cry "THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT HURRICANE VICTIMS."

It's dishonest, and happens with almost everything

 

[Cyan]

I will readily admit that I don't know all the answers. I personally believe that certain measures should be tried in steps. Step one, in my opinion, would be to allow individuals and businesses to shop for insurance across state lines. That will allow for a TON more competition, which historically drives prices down, increases quality.

Possible unintended consequence: insurance companies all move to whichever state has the loosest regulations on insurers (or: every insurance company not already there goes out of business). Everyone now has cheaper and much worse insurance as their only option.

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

Possible unintended consequence: insurance companies all move to whichever state has the loosest regulations on insurers (or: every insurance company not already there goes out of business). Everyone now has cheaper and much worse insurance as their only option.

And you see no unintended consequences for UHC?

 

[empty vessel]

And you see no unintended consequences for UHC?

A better world. That would surely be unintended.

 

[Mike M]

Possible unintended consequence: insurance companies all move to whichever state has the loosest regulations on insurers (or: every insurance company not already there goes out of business). Everyone now has cheaper and much worse insurance as their only option.

Possible consquence nothing, it's a known result (I.e. credit cards are almost universally headquartered in Delaware).

It's a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[Cyan]

And you see no unintended consequences for UHC?

What a bizarre conclusion to draw from that post.

... why don't you list some out?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

And? I don't give a shit about democrats either. If my not voting helps reps get in to office as you imply, that seems to be a problem with the Dems "base" not really believing in them either. At least no enough to get out and vote.

You also act like a Dem NOT being president is a bad thing

A Dem not being President is worse than a Republican being President. At least out of the current crop of players that we have.

Lets say for arguments sake that McCain won; here's where we most likely would've been:
-DADT still law of the land
-No financial regulatory reform, no matter how weak the reform that we did get was
-No consumer protection agency
-No health care reform no matter how weak the one we did get is
-Bin Laden may not have been caught since McCain may not have given the OK to go into Pakistan
-Draw down in Iraq? No
-More deregulation
-More tax cuts
-No student loan reform
-Possibly we wouldn't have helped with Libya
-More aggressive stance against Iran

So yea, as much as I rail against Obama, a McCain Presidency would've been much MUCH worse. So yes, a Dem not being President is worse than a Republican being President.

 

[Clevinger]

A shitty Democrat is still better than a Republican, since a shitty Democrat is pretty much just a moderate (ie, sane) Republican. There aren't many of those left.

 

[empty vessel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

 

[ToxicAdam]

I think people vastly overrate the power of a President. S/He's pretty much still at the mercy of whatever Congress he has. Even if the Congress controlled by his own party, it's still a struggle to get things done.

 

[HylianTom]

*interesting image*

I rail on and on about how the Election of 1980 was such a pivotal moment. Thanks for this graph. Good stuff.

 

[traveler]

Re:Republicans and the "fire them all!" mentality. I thought this quote from a former Republican staffer was particularly good at explaining it:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

 

[besada]

Again, I don't know all the minutia.

That you consider the important details of governance to be minutia suggests that you, sir, are the problem.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Pat Choate, author of Agents of Influence, gives the following levels of U.S. dependency on foreign suppliers for critical goods:

Medicines and pharmaceuticals: 72 percent

Metalworking machinery: 51 percent

Engines and power equipment: 56 percent

Computer equipment: 70 percent

Communications equipment: 67 percent

Semiconductors and electronics: 64 percent

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-us-industries-overly-reliant-on-japan-2011-03-30


The plus side, I suppose, is that we have cleaner air and rivers and more people freed up to chase their interests instead of working in a factory. We will just have to learn how to deal with chronic unemployment of the high school educated.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Perry's grab on Paul is amusing in a horrifying way---would be most pleased to see him continue to do that only for somebody to clock him square in the face, as is fitting and proper for would-be bullies.

 

[mckmas8808]

Fourth Circuit Court Throws Out Lawsuit Against Affordable Care Act
Benjy Sarlin | September 8, 2011, 11:58AM

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to President Obama's signature health law on Thursday, deciding that the plaintiffs in the case didn't have standing to contest the legislation.

Two of the three judges determined that lawsuits by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Jerry Falwell's Liberty University challenging the health care law's individual mandate should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In previous hearings, judges had expressed skepticism that the two had the standing to challenge the mandate section of the bill given that it applied to individuals and not institutions.

In Cuccinelli's case, the court decided that Virginia's claim that they would be harmed by the mandate because it conflicts with a state law barring the state from requiring citizens to obtain health insurance was insufficient to show standing. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Diana Gribbon Motz suggested that if Cuccinelli's suit were allowed to proceed, it could lead to an onslaught of politicized and frivolous legal challenges.

"Thus, if we were to adopt Virginia's standing theory, each state could become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts," she wrote. "No issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state's power to litigate in federal court."

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andre Davis wrote that he would have examined the law and upheld the mandate on the legal merits rather than dismiss the suit. All three judges in the case were appointed by Democrats, two by Obama.

Previously, the 11th Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional while the 6th Circuit determined the law was legally sound.

Legal observers don't expect the matter to be fully settled until the Supreme Court weighs in, perhaps next year.

Read the decision here.
​

###################


Well this thing keeps bouncing back and forth. It'll all really come down to the SC huh?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Possible unintended consequence: insurance companies all move to whichever state has the loosest regulations on insurers (or: every insurance company not already there goes out of business). Everyone now has cheaper and much worse insurance as their only option.

It's not just "possible"--anybody who has ever bemoaned the shitty behavior of credit card companies has policies like this to blame.

And as for you, JohnnyPhatsaqs: It is a testament to the power of willful ignorance that you would venture into this thread and warn us all against the pernicious unintended consequences of universal healthcare when virtually every empirical measure available indicates that countries with UHC spend less money on health care than we do, and get better results.

 

[reilo]

It's not just "possible"--anybody who has ever bemoaned the shitty behavior of credit card companies has policies like this to blame.

I never understood the mentality of, "give them more ways to fuck a consumer over, and it will benefit everyone in the longrun".

Businesses have shown time and time again that they will do everything possible to do good for their consumers, or something, I think.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Graphics from NY Times.

Interesting...

 

[empty vessel]

Businesses have shown time and time again that they will do everything possible to do good for their consumers, or something, I think.

If a society is going to have an economy based on capitalism (and that's fine), then the number one priority of the government in such a society after protecting the physical safety and security of its people (which, incidentally, includes health care) should be protecting people in their roles of (1) worker and (2) consumer.

 

[Cyan]

It's not just "possible"--anybody who has ever bemoaned the shitty behavior of credit card companies has policies like this to blame.

Well yes, I really should've said "probable."

 

[ReBurn]

If a society is going to have an economy based on capitalism (and that's fine), then the number one priority of the government in such a society after protecting the physical safety and security of its people (which, incidentally, includes health care) should be protecting people in their roles of (1) worker and (2) consumer.

Can't argue with that. Capitalism in and of itself isn't what is causing income disparity between classes. Government needs to make sure that it responds to the needs of its constituents.

As far as universal healthcare goes, i would gladly contribute the obscene premiums I must pay to an insurance company to the government in taxes if a single payer system could provide my family with adequate healthcare. The percentage of my income in premiums alone is already outrageous, and on top of that I still pay quite a bit out of pocket before the insurance company pays anything. There shouldn't be a profit motive involved in deciding whether people live or die. For boob jobs maybe, but not kidney transplants.

 

[Something Wicked]

And you see no unintended consequences for UHC?

Here's one:

Most pharmaceutical and medical device companies are located in the United States. European governments have deals with these companies to sell their products at lower prices for their UHC programs, in which companies do so since the governments order such large quantities.

If the US were to install a large UHC program, it will try to negotiate similar deals. This loss of revenue may very well be made up by the companies demanding the European pay higher prices.

Thus, the US obtaining a full-fledged UHC federal government system may lead to increased taxes in Europe and cause European countries to cut certain medical services from their UHC programs.

Also, the above would apply to the Canadian, Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand governments as well.

 

[reilo]

Here's one:

Most pharmaceutical and medical device companies are located in the United States. European governments have deals with these companies to sell their products at lower prices for their UHC programs, in which companies do so since the governments order such large quantities.

If the US were to install a large UHC program, it will try to negotiate similar deals. This loss of revenue may very well be made up by the companies demanding the European pay higher prices.

Thus, the US obtaining a full-fledged UHC federal government system may lead to increased taxes in Europe and cause European countries to cut certain medical services from their UHC programs.

Also, the above would apply to the Canadian, Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand governments as well.

lol

 

[Blergmeister]

Here's one:

Most pharmaceutical and medical device companies are located in the United States. European governments have deals with these companies to sell their products at lower prices for their UHC programs, in which companies do so since the governments order such large quantities.

If the US were to install a large UHC program, it will try to negotiate similar deals. This loss of revenue may very well be made up by the companies demanding the European pay higher prices.

Thus, the US obtaining a full-fledged UHC federal government system may lead to increased taxes in Europe and cause European countries to cut certain medical services from their UHC programs.

Also, the above would apply to the Canadian, Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand governments as well.

While that sucks for them I feel like my money, in the form of healthcare expenses both private and public, is giving them an uneeded subsidy.

Edit: Good example of an unintended side effect through!

 

[YoungHav]

Magneto should fuck Perry up.

 

[xbhaskarx]

 

[empty vessel]

Here's one:

Most pharmaceutical and medical device companies are located in the United States. European governments have deals with these companies to sell their products at lower prices for their UHC programs, in which companies do so since the governments order such large quantities.

If the US were to install a large UHC program, it will try to negotiate similar deals. This loss of revenue may very well be made up by the companies demanding the European pay higher prices.

Thus, the US obtaining a full-fledged UHC federal government system may lead to increased taxes in Europe and cause European countries to cut certain medical services from their UHC programs.

Also, the above would apply to the Canadian, Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand governments as well.

So you're saying it's better for Americans to subsidize the rest of the world's health care? You must be a non-American to hold that opinion.

 

[RustyNails]

Yesterday's Daily Show. Good stuff.

 

[scorcho]

So you're saying it's better for Americans to subsidize the rest of the world's health care? You must be a non-American to hold that opinion.

indeed. we're already subsidizing Europe's security through NATO and our bloated military budget. i'd rather not also do the same for their pharmaceuticals.

 

[speculawyer]

Wow. The certitude combined with ignorance is extremely dangerous.


Well, they know all they need to know . . . In the Bible God promised Noah that he wouldn't use another huge flood against mankind therefore climate change (and its predicted ocean level changes) is obviously false.

 

[Cyan]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110910_WOC571.gif[IMG]
[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow. Wrong and overconfident.

I'm pretty sure that combination is actually a common phenomenon, but I can't remember the name of it, so I can't find an article to link to. Bah.

 

[HyperionX]

Wow. Wrong and overconfident.

I'm pretty sure that combination is actually a common phenomenon, but I can't remember the name of it, so I can't find an article to link to. Bah.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[speculawyer]

Wow. Wrong and overconfident.

I'm pretty sure that combination is actually a common phenomenon, but I can't remember the name of it, so I can't find an article to link to. Bah.

Religion.

 

[Cyan]

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Thanks!

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Dunning-Kruger Effect

So dumb people think they are smarter then other people and smart people think they are dumber then other people

Great, just great

Also known as the "random message board poster is smarter then Obama" effect

 

[jamesinclair]

Where the polls at from last night guys?

I expected to see a parade of charts this morning. Poligaf has disappointed. Who won? Who lost?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Revkin had a good article on the language of global warming.

Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as ‘‘global warming’’ (44.0%) rather than ‘‘climate change’’ (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%). As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a ‘‘global warming’’ frame to 26.2 percentage points under a ‘‘climate change’’ frame.

Through the mid 2000s, the push by a lot of well-meaning people…to try to get this issue some traction, from Al Gore to many others, in some ways it was politicized at that point because there was an effort to attach the body of science to a particular suite of solutions. In other words, “Global warming is a crisis and this is what we need to do” — all in one sentence.

And that made it impossible for many Republicans, even if the had reasonable scientific education, to kind of take ownership of this concept of global warming because it was already sort of framed as a liberal or Democratic idea.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/can-clearer-language-clear-up-climate-disputes/

 

[Suikoguy]

Revkin had a good article on the language of global warming.







http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/can-clearer-language-clear-up-climate-disputes/

Back in the day you might see something to the effect of

Democrat: "Global warming is a problem and here is how we fix it"
Republican: "Yeah, we have a problem, but this may tackle the issue a bit better"
Democrat: "Ok, what if we include this in our plan, and change this, would you consider supporting it then?"
Republican: "Yes, as long as it's so and so"

Now, here is how it works:
Democrat: "Global warming is a problem and here is how we fix it"
Republican: "We can in no way support your idea, and Global Warming is not real anyways"

 

[RustyNails]

Again, I don't know all the minutia. But from a lot of things I read about one party saying no, then being accused of being inhuman is that there is a lot of things that get shoved on to bills. Totally unrelated thing. There needs to be ZERO pork/tack ons for any bill. It needs to be only for the direct, main problem that is trying to be addressed.

Made up sample: Like, don't say you need 6 billion dollars for hurricane relief, then tack on 3 billion dollars of unrelated bullshit, get turned down and then cry "THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT HURRICANE VICTIMS."

It's dishonest, and happens with almost everything

Can you list the pork with the bills I mentioned? I'll make it more simple: What was the pork with ratifying START treaty? Second question, what was the pork related with McConnel-Reid solution towards raising the debt deal?

There wasn't any. You need to move out of your theory bubbles/ "i know how congress works" theories and examine each and every detail with your own brain, rather than intentionally/unintentionally justifying partisan hackery. I understand you're mad, but so are we. We just know where to vent our frustration.

 

[jamesinclair]

The republicans are rampaging against the massive 1% the government spends on bike/walking funding from the transportation fund.

They suggest that this "enormous" one billion is the reason the highway trust fund is bankrupt, and must be completely eliminated.

Further note: When the tax was 30 cents a gallon, a gallon cost like $1, so the tax was 30%.

Today its 18 cents of $4. So the tax keeps going down in every way you can measure it.

 

[Dude Abides]

Fourth Circuit reverses District Judge who ruled "Obamacare" unconstitutional, because Virginia lacked standing.

Apolgies for Forbes' stupid spin, was the only article I could find.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...o-obamacare-challenges-on-procedural-grounds/

Link to opinion:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/111057.P.pdf

 

[jamesinclair]

Im just going to leave this here.

The state of Texas has been battling wildfires for almost a year now. The wildfire season began in November last year, and Gov. Rick Perry and cash-strapped state lawmakers took a stance against raising taxes and against putting their hands too deeply into the states rainy day fund.

So in order to save some money, Perry and GOP allies slashed funding for the agency responsible for fighting wildfires ‑ in the midst of a historic wildfire season that's seen more than 2 million acres burned by fire.

The Texas Forest Service is slapped with about $34 million in budget cuts over a two-year period, which is roughly a third of the agency's total budget. The Forest Service reportedly has about 200 firefighters and offers assistance grants to volunteer fire departments.

...

"We've seen budget cuts, but this is the worst time that we've ever seen," Chris Barron, executive director of the State Firemen's and Fire Marshal's Association of Texas told KVUE News back in March.

Baron also told KERA, a public media for north Texas that this legislative cuts means that fire departments will not be able to purchase new wildland gear and that they won't be able to purchase protective clothing and trucks.

Barron also added that cuts to that grant program will affect some departments' ability to respond to future fires.

"The Forest Service itself lost employees, and that means that there's going to be fewer of them out there to help us," Baron pointed out to KERA, which reported that 90 full-time positions were lost Sept. 1.

"That also means they're going to have to call upon national resources to assist, which is quite expensive to be bringing people from California to assist with these incidents," Baron said. "And you know, the bills are not cheap."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210...-firefighters-budget-texas-forest-service.htm

 

[jamesinclair]

AUSTIN, Texas Texas' volunteer firefighters are scrambling to pay their bills as they battle raging blazes, after deep state cuts that took effect last week added new pressures to budgets already strained by a prolonged fire season.

Texas' two-year budget decreased grants to volunteer fire departments by more than half, from slightly more than $30 million a year in the last cycle to slightly less than $15 million.

"It's just now kicking in, but they're feeling the ramifications of running their tails off since December," said Chris Barron, executive director of the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association of Texas.

....

Perry spoke with President Barack Obama on Wednesday, asking for an expanded disaster declaration to include fires that started in the state over the weekend. Perry also inquired if any Defense Department assets are available, Nashed said. The White House said the president pledged to assess new requests for help quickly and expressed condolences for deaths from the wildfires scarring Texas.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also weighed in, appealing for federal help.

"Because so many fires are burning across the state, our resources are spread pretty thin," Dewhurst said. "There are federal resources - including aircraft, bulldozers and other heavy equipment - that can and should be made available right away."

In this year's legislative session, state lawmakers shaved 31 percent from the overall budget of the Texas Forest Service.

...

In January, when lawmakers first proposed a $32.5 million cut to the state's wildfire and emergency program, the Legislative Budget Board said the 39 percent funding reduction would reduce training by firefighters and emergency responders to about 36,500 hours a year, from nearly 61,000 hours annually in the past budget cycle. The cut was adopted anyway.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/09/07/2174279/texas-fire-agencies-fight-red.html#ixzz1XOInzXgq


Cut the local budget, and run to the feds for money. Classic GOP.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Cut the local budget, and run to the feds for money. Classic GOP.

Spoiler

Don't forget the finishing move

Jesus jamesinclair, there you go, trying to score political points out of a natural disaster!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/09/07/2174279/texas-fire-agencies-fight-red.html#ixzz1XOInzXgq


Cut the local budget, and run to the feds for money. Classic GOP.

Pathetic. Still, this is not an abstract political debate: people's lives and livelihoods are in danger. I hope they get all the fed help they need. Oh and fuck Eric Cantor