el retorno
Member
The south is crazy and sometimes right wing. It isn't a proto fascist movement.
-
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 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
The south is crazy and sometimes right wing. It isn't a proto fascist movement.
speculawyer
Member
Bush got re-elected in 2004 and tried to change social security with his "mandate". And he still had a GOP Congress & Senate. That went no-where. They really can't cut social security & medicare. The hypocritical gray-hair base of the GOP all of a sudden becomes socialists when those things are concerned.
They just want to cut foreign aid and welfare to black people and latinos which make up 40% of the budget in their crazy-Fox-News-filled brains. Reality, of course, is very different.
empty vessel
Member
As I said, it is underestimated. We can hope it won't gain power, but the reality is that prominent elected politicians (including some from Wisconsin!) openly call for the repeal of Medicare. That's not something that has happened in the last 40 years of government and we shouldn't pretend like it's not a big deal.
This is 2012, not 2004. The right-wing base is far more radicalized.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The 2012 GOP is a lot lot different than 2004 GOP.
But they've come up with the perfect solution. They don't want to cut it for the hypocritical gray-hair base of the GOP. They want to cut it for people under 55 right now.
There's a part of me that actually wants to see how much debt and deficits would dominate the discussion if there was a Romney presidency. From everything I've observed, I would say not so much - the debt just seems to be a political whacking tool to slam the party in power with - but perhaps after the Great Recession maybe the Tea Party caucus will keep the debt an issue. However I would not be surprised if the issue went away entirely.
It's not Romney I'm worried about. It's the crazy-ass Congress that would get into office if he wins. Romney really doesn't give a shit about anything, or anyone (except his church). He'd roll over for whatever the tea party, GOP congress, and the right-wing media would want, and they in turn would be beholden to corporatists and billionaires in America and abroad.
Land invasions of Middle East will begin anew. Probably started by another major terrorist attack in a U.S. city. You know, because Obama failed at keeping us safe and stuff, just like Clinton.
Land invasions of Middle East will begin anew. Probably started by another major terrorist attack in a U.S. city. You know, because Obama failed at keeping us safe and stuff, just like Clinton.
Similar scenario. Gamespot gave Shenmue a 6.8, and then after nerd outcry "revised" their score to 7.8.
speculawyer
Member
The old people still collect social security and medicare. And old people are probably the GOP's biggest base. Yes, there are some purests that want to cut social security and medicare but they are generally the wealthy ones that don't need it much and there are few of them.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The same old people are going to vote for Romney over Obama who supports Paul Ryan's Medicare bill.
speculawyer
Member
Yes . . . they are stupid. But as soon as the GOP actually starts trying to change the programs they'll be deluged by phone calls, faxes, emails, angry letters, and face-to-face shouting from every old retired person that has got nothing better to do in their life than harass politicians about their benefits.
Except, again, aren't they trying to change them for people that are like 55 and younger? Why would these old retired people give a shit if the people after them are getting fucked. I think they've clearly demonstrated they don't.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think I need to bail on the poverty thread. I've just watched twenty minutes of five different videos of hyper-libertarians sitting in college classrooms and talking to each other over the internet discussing how the privatization of all military force is a good idea. I have no idea why I did.
Sirpopopop
Member
This is offering false hope to the forum poster.
The lack of government jobs isn't going to be fixed by the Obama administration. They aren't interested in spending the amount of money necessary to rectify the issue.
Instead, their idea is the American Jobs Act. What is that? Like $35 billion for actual jobs, and $50 billion for infrastructure. There's been about 636,000 state and local government jobs cut since Obama has taken over. (Link = http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/) That's not counting the amount of new hiring the government needs to hire in order to handle the needs of an expanding population.
$35 billion is nowhere near enough.
Rather, than offer false hope, you would be better off selling certain fear. Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney won't even try to bandage the gaping wound. He'll just try to enlarge it.
I watched a bit of it, but probably not as much as you. I still come away with the same impression I had before. Extreme libertarians remind me of extreme fundamentalist religious types. They just have this weird theory that everything will work out somehow, through some unseen force, despite most practical evidence pointing otherwise.
That's what I was about to get at until I realized that there is technically a hope that Romney would fix that problem... through war.
Same. The fact that people can come up
With these ideas as solutions is just crazy.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think they think that humans behave like agents in game theory, with a hefty human nature decrease in irrational desire for arbitrarily large amounts of wealth and power. Its the only explanation I can come up with.
Decoupling the command structure between the Government and the military is such a horrible idea. Besides, the private sector already plays a huge role in establishing an effective military (capability development, services, private contractors, etc.). The idea of having private military(ies) unaccountable to the Government is a horrific idea.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
No see its great because then it removes the ability of the government to be coercive. And hands it to those who have accumulated wealth instead. Who will certainly use it responsibly.
speculawyer
Member
That is exactly what it is. It is blind-faith economics. What would more likely happen is you'll end up with a few super-wealthy people and a lot of dirt poor people. Basically, like a lot of third world countries where they have little to no regulation and corruption is rampant. (And what we have been somewhat stumbling toward for the last 30 years.)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not to join in conspiracies but it's interesting most military bases are in the south, and the region tends to throw around words like "treason" and "un-American" whenever a member of the opposite party enters the White House
Ah, of course! I now see the error of my ways. It's like the veil of librul government propaganda has been lifted from my eyes!
speculawyer
Member
But now all the people that are old but still less than 55 will revolt against that plan. And many of the old people will have kids in their 30s & 40s that they don't want fucked over.
The biggest fear the right has about the ACA is that once it becomes established, it is virtually impossible to kill. They've been trying to kill social security for what . . . 70 years now? Hell, the Brits put a celebration of their National Health Service (NHS) right into their Olympic ceremony! (Maybe they did it to cheer up Romney. ;-) )
metalslimer
Member
I'm blown away how Republicans have been able to convince so many people that tax cuts for billionaires is in their best interest. Pure liberatarianism scares me even more.
Agreed - but they don't sell it like that. Instead they package it as "people know best how to spend their own money" which sounds like a reasonable and perfectly valid statement. It's just the money that gets returned back to the average joe is a pittance compared to what the wealthy get back.
speculawyer
Member
This is something hardcore Libertarians can't understand . . . their system is self-destructive. Their system would end up with so much wealth & power in a small minority who would then change the rules and throw out all the protection for the minorities, campaign finance regulation (oops, those mostly already got trashed), etc. The Libertopia would soon end up as a Corporatism-Feudalism type of system.
It is the same kind of worry that one has of Islamic-democracies . . . the Islamic part can destroy the democracy part. With a hardcore Libertarian system, the super-wealth/power could destroy the democracy part.
I guess you have way more faith in them than me. The thing is that the right has convinced them that this debt is what's going to fuck over their kids. They've also convinced them that medicare and social security will go bankrupt soon if we don't do anything. And, they've convinced them that the free market will make things totally awesome! So, in these old people's mind moving to a voucher system for medicare might actually help their kids. In fact I've seen these very arguments being made on right wing places, that these things need to be enacted for their future children's sake.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
It sounds reasonable and its completely wrong unfortunately. At least on the scale we're talking about. There's a reason why humans invented specialization of labor, and that includes specialization of decision making. I would not for an instant want to have to manually account for where every cent of my tax dollars goes. (nor would I trust myself, its close to literally impossible for me to become educated on every important aspect of every service I might pay for and still lead some kind of "life")
There are other people for that so that I can go on doing what I'm doing in my societal niche.
metalslimer
Member
Honestly libertarians are basically getting their wish with the current set up in congress. The republicans have moved so far to the right that no big legislation ever makes it through. If the Dems don't take the house back the next 4 years will just be partisan bickering. While I appreciate Obama spending his political capital on trying to fix the healthcare problem, I can't help but feel that an education overhaul chance was missed. It's also interesting that I used to consider myself an independent, but the right has gone so far in this country I'm pretty much a hippe liberal in their eyes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'll second that. O'Malley is pretty damn awesome.
The only thing I worry about is Cuomo vs. O'Malley becoming a proxy battle between Clinton and Obama, Cuomo representing the third way "pivot to the center" Clinton approach and O'Malley being closer to Obama's "repackage liberalism as a common sense philosophy" tactic. If Biden or Hillary runs though, they may as well be the incumbent.
That's my biggest problem with the philosophy. It'd be literally impossible to do this. And you mix in the power of good marketing and you're just fucked. Companies can get away with the shadiest of stuff and pay to have it covered up or market the shit out of it and they're golden. You'd be paying for not the best education for your kid, but whoever can market their school the best. Same with healthcare. Same with your food. And so on and so on.
Hillary 2016 is the safest bet.
speculawyer
Member
She's said she is done with politics.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Yeah, I think 2008 was Hilary's last shot.
It is extremely counterproductive to use the word protofascist without being able to specifically point out the traits constituting it. No, it doesn't have much to do with the South as it can be found in places like rural Washington, but an ultranationalist populist base riled up by demagogues and obsessed with reviving the "old America" that was free of liberalism and secularism.
When Palin pushed the 2008 campaign into an especially ugly direction, that was the destination.
When Palin pushed the 2008 campaign into an especially ugly direction, that was the destination.
Naw mayne. If she's back in the game in 2016, no one else in the primary would have a chance. Obama was a once in a generation kind of deal. Hillary will have no one in her way if she decides to run again, and she knows that. Bill knows that. Hell, he's practically back in that "making you think I'm neutral but really excited" mode that we saw in 2004-2006 and in 2007 leading up to her announcement that she's running.
slidewinder
Banned
Happened before, plenty. Patriots need to hit the gym.
Aaron Strife
Banned
"After seeing the extremism come from the Republican members of Congress this past year, I feel the need to step up and serve my country once more, this time as your President."
Bam. Honestly I think she'll make a run for it, it's just not as fun to speculate about.
The AJA is as follows:
The White House provided a fact sheet which summarizes the key provisions of the $447 billion bill.[15] Some of its elements include:
Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
$49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
$8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
$5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.[15]
Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed.
Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.
In total the legislation includes $253 billion in tax credits (56.6%) and $194 billion in spending and extension of unemployment benefits (43.4%).[15]
So yes, only $35B is specifically earmarked as state and local level public sector jobs, but if you think any state can take on ~$1B (each state's share of the $50B) in infrastructure overhauls, over $0.5B in school and community college overhauls, and the various other infrastructure projects in the AJA without:
1. needing to expand their own regulatory workforce
and
2. freeing up resources already committed to those infrastructure projects and the like that can then be turned back to the already cut public services
Then you're being rather obtuse.
The fact that it's over half tax cuts is dumb, but the ~$200B that isn't is going to the right kinds of things.
With all the talk of O'Malley, I just noticed that he started up his own PAC a few days ago. I'd say he definitely is considering a run.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-30/romney-courts-donors-before-leaving-israel
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-30/romney-courts-donors-before-leaving-israel
The cover is sensational (like they almost always are), but I agree with the general idea they're trying to get across. He absolutely is not comfortable in his own skin. He squirms when he has to talk about his wealth, he can't go into specifics about his time at Bain or in MA because he's afraid of his base and independents. His only major positive is his Olympics experience, but after last week people will be reminded of his blunder in London anytime it comes up. It's easy to blame his advisors, but I think most of this situation is his own fault.
RustyNails
Member
Wow at the successful culture comments...Get fucked, you ignorant piece of shit.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
ahahaha, holy shit
- Status