• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gruco

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
The sad reality is that we have one party that fights any tax "increase" no matter what it is and we have another party that sees them as "easy stimulus" to help keep them elected. (Sorry for the sweeping generalizations. When I say 'party', I am inferring about those with the power to make decisions and influence others)
Click to expand...

This is probably pedantic (and arguably even wrong), but I think it's more fair to say that they're seen as a feasible resort in lieu of the challenges involved in passing anything more desirable, rather than "easy stimulus." At any rate, Obama's dream of only extending the lower-bracket rates is definitely not going to happen and dude needs to realize this and man up.

I'd be perfectly happy to see gridlock and intransigence force the hand on repealing the tax cuts and implementing the spending cut contingency as well, though I don't believe that will happen in any world other than the fantasy one where the economy starts running at a million miles an hour by the time everything is schedule to be enacted.

Mike M said:
Missouri Surprise: Rick Gets Rolled
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic story for so many reasons. It demonstrates how completely inept the Santorum campaign is, and this how amazing it is that it could even pose a challenge to Romney at all. It also demonstrates the extent to which Paul is really just dicking around to back Romney at this point, something I'm willing to bet most of his supporters didn't have in mind when they sent him money. I mean, I guess it was pretty smart of Romney to see Paul as a potential ally, but the whole thing just seems completely shameless on the part of Paul, to a point I never would have expected of him.

Unrelated - Obama needs to nominate a World Bank head soon. Kevin Drum suggested Tim Geithner, which is basically like the best idea ever, if only to get him the hell out of Treasury.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
RustyNails said:
How come Mitt hasn't fired the guy who made etch a sketch remark?
Click to expand...

Probably some calculus that the less they acknowledge it, the better off they will be.

Kinda surprised it's shaping up to be something that sticks to him. I guess calling him "Mr. Etch-A-Sketch" is punchier than "Mitt 'Not concerned about the poor' Romney".
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
RustyNails said:
How come Mitt hasn't fired the guy who made etch a sketch remark?
Click to expand...

Because he is a poor campaigner, and has equally poor handlers.

Edit: alternate answer is that he otherwise actually values that guy on his staff, or has a high level of loyalty to his staff. But this is Mitt "I like to fire people who provide me services" Romney so it seems unlikely to me
 
M

markatisu

Member
Mike M said:
Probably some calculus that the less they acknowledge it, the better off they will be.

Kinda surprised it's shaping up to be something that sticks to him. I guess calling him "Mr. Etch-A-Sketch" is punchier than "Mitt 'Not concerned about the poor' Romney".
Click to expand...

Really?? A politician who has notoriously flip flopped for years, and you are surprised a stupid comment by his campaign about not really meaning what he says and resetting his positions in the GE stuck lol
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
markatisu said:
Really?? A politician who has notoriously flip flopped for years, and you are surprised a stupid comment by his campaign about not really meaning what he says and resetting his positions in the GE stuck lol
Click to expand...

Doesn't strike me as any worse than anything else he's said, honestly.
 
M

markatisu

Member
Damn Santorum is really going after Romney with the etch a sketch, made me chuckle when he looked at the Etch and Sketch and said he was studying his opponents positions lol

I don't really think this will change anything, but if there was ever anything to prolong this stupid primary I think they may have found it
Mike M said:
Doesn't strike me as any worse than anything else he's said, honestly.
Click to expand...

No but it simplifies for it for those either too stupid to understand or those who have not noticed what he is like

Its one of those things where all politicians do it, but you are absolutely brain dead if you tell people you are doing it
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
sc0la said:
Because he is a poor campaigner, and has equally poor handlers.

Edit: alternate answer is that he otherwise actually values that guy on his staff, or has a high level of loyalty to his staff. But this is Mitt "I like to fire people who provide me services" Romney so it seems unlikely to me
Click to expand...


He fired the guy that helped him win that one debate, right after the debate. I doubt he has loyalty.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
I swear you just pull things out of your ass sometimes.



Obama's re-election effort is likely being aided by the improvement of the economy generally, and this is much more important the particular strengths or weaknesses of an admittedly flawed Republican field.
Click to expand...
This is a quality post. And I am not being sarcastic. Also, for additional research on economic voting and the dichotomous accountability of the presidency and Congress, check out these articles. The first is salient as it examines accountability during periods of divided government. And the second is intriguing because it expands the calculus beyond governmental institutions to include the private sector. The articles are gated. So if anyone is curious and lacks access, pm me for the ungated versions.
GhaleonEB said:
Jobless claims have a natural bottom of around 325,000 per week, so it's encouraging that we're slowly but surely approaching it.

Back at the start of Obama's term I spent a lot of time looking back at weekly jobless claim levels and what kind of monthly employment reports they correlated to. I have long since nuked the file, but my recollection is that ~350k new claims per week generally lined up with employment gains of ~250k per month, and ~325k claims per week with 300k+ new jobs per month.

That lines up with what we've seen so far, with three months of claims in this range and three months of 200k+ gains in employment. So continued improvement is good news.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, do you remember what model you employed? I'd imagine you included a lagged effect as there's probably a delay in the relationship, although I'm clueless as to how long the lag endures.
Gruco said:
Unrelated - Obama needs to nominate a World Bank head soon. Kevin Drum suggested Tim Geithner, which is basically like the best idea ever, if only to get him the hell out of Treasury.
Click to expand...
I have not seen Geithner posited as a candidate. I doubt he'd have difficulty being approved. And there are no clear front runners. A candidate from the developing world has no chance. Further, Clinton's disavowed any interest, and the Administration responded coolly to Sachs' public candidacy. From an operational perspective, I'm not terribly keen. Although, WB governance is a bit arcane, so I would not be too invested in opposing his candidacy.
 
M

markatisu

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
House GOP Plan to screw the Employment numbers and of course the MEDIA doesn't give a fuck

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/22/450216/gop-transportation-shutdown-jobs/

Fucking what the fuck
Click to expand...

Yeah that does not interest them, they would love employment to tank because that would make a better narrative for the election if it was close between Romney and Obama. I mean god look how hard they are pushing the GOP Primary Narrative despite it being a basic foregone conclusion Romney will win that.

The Media stinks, its not really a left or right issue anymore they all stink
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Jackson50 said:
Out of curiosity, do you remember what model you employed? I'd imagine you included a lagged effect as there's probably a delay in the relationship, although I'm clueless as to how long the lag endures.
Click to expand...

Not nearly that sophisticated, I'm afraid. I took the weekly claims data from the Department of Labor and created monthly averages, and then lined that up with the monthly job reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then noted which periods corresponded with recessions. Then I did some banding analysis, seeing what different levels of monthly employment gains and losses were associated with the monthly UI claims.

I just did a search now and didn't come up with it, so I must have (for some reason) really nuked it. But it would be easy to replicate, and I might do so.

cartoon_soldier said:
House GOP Plan to screw the Employment numbers and of course the MEDIA doesn't give a fuck

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/22/450216/gop-transportation-shutdown-jobs/

Fucking what the fuck
Click to expand...

Indeed. A spike in unemployment and economic disruption is exactly what they would like nothing more than to see.
 
G

Ghost_Protocol

Member
I cannot believe, cannot believe how hard Fox is harping on gas prices. Oreily, Hannity, and Greta have devoted entire segments to bitching about it every night, all week long.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
This is the graph of the Etch-a-Sketch company's stock price.

etchsketch.JPG
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
The republicans really don't think their obstructionism backfired. It did. People are watching them on gas and watching them on jobs. If they pull a job killing stunt, Romney won't recover from it. Blame Obama isn't working.

GhaleonEB said:
This is the graph of the Etch-a-Sketch company's stock price.

etchsketch.JPG
Click to expand...

mitt is a job creator! Oh, except Rachel Maddow found out Romney caused the Etch a Sketch company to outsource jobs to China.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
His answer didn't really apply to my question.

Nice link though.
Click to expand...
It did. You queried if voters would stick with Obama during a recession because of uncertainty over alternative candidates. Invisible_Insane referenced the political science literature which unequivocally demonstrates incumbent governments are sanctioned for poor economic performance. Essentially, it's decidedly unlikely voters would stick with Obama during a recession out of uncertainty regarding alternative candidates.

Now, I returned to your initial post and found your premise defective. First, we are not experiencing a recession. Rather, we've experienced numerous consecutive months of employment growth, and that has only accelerated over the past few months. Second, Obama's approval rating is fairly commensurate with his performance in the two polls you referenced. His approval rating has averaged over 48% the past few months. And although that's not exceptional, it's hardly in the gutter. Assuming a strong linear relationship between approval rating and vote share and accounting for undecided voters, I'd say he's performing to expectations in hypothetical polls.
GhaleonEB said:
Not nearly that sophisticated, I'm afraid. I took the weekly claims data from the Department of Labor and created monthly averages, and then lined that up with the monthly job reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then noted which periods corresponded with recessions. Then I did some banding analysis, seeing what different levels of monthly employment gains and losses were associated with the monthly UI claims.

I just did a search now and didn't come up with it, so I must have (for some reason) really nuked it. But it would be easy to replicate, and I might do so.
Click to expand...
If you have the time and ambition, I'm interested in the results. And I'd expect your results to be largely valid as both are functions of the same population.
OuterWorldVoice said:
The republicans really don't think their obstructionism backfired. It did. People are watching them on gas and watching them on jobs. If they pull a job killing stunt, Romney won't recover from it. Blame Obama isn't working.



mitt is a job creator! Oh, except Rachel Maddow found out Romney caused the Etch a Sketch company to outsource jobs to China.
Click to expand...
Oh, except there's still a multiplier from increased business activity. Mitt's done more the economy in one day than Obama has in three years.
 
A

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
I now know why American media is so obsessed with saying the guy is a Hussein-like Dictator.

Ahh. Has any country been successful with a NOC or any energy company?
Click to expand...

Why would they need to be? A country that has large, nationlized oil reserves can set whatever domestic price they want, I think it was like 25 cents/gallon in Iran.

ToxicAdam said:
Tony Soprano endorses Rick Santorum.

I smell a new campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

I don't think he'd be so happy about the JFK comment.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
speculawyer said:
Are you asking "Can Nationalizing an oil company increase drilling and thus reduce prices?" If so, the answer is a resounding "NO!" For a variety of reasons, National oil companies tend to produce oil MUCH SLOWER than private oil companies. This is what drives people on the right crazy about Hugo Chavez. That guy is sitting on some of the world's largest reserves but their oil production is dropping because they just don't reinvest enough. They divert the money to social programs. ...

But it is true all over . . . the IOCs (private) tend to produce faster and NOCs tend to produce slower. The NOCs just don't have the drive for profits, stock price, etc.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing the evidence that national oil companies produce oil more slowly than private oil companies. But I'm not sure there is a good way to compare this, even if the evidence exists, because comparing a rich industrialized country (in which oil companies tend to be private) to poor developing countries is not a fair comparison. Even if the data is as you say, it may only be observing the fact that richer countries produce oil faster than poorer countries. Which wouldn't be terribly surprising.
 
N

Narpas Sword0

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
...What?

My question was that since Obama's approval rating is so low why is he doing so well against other GOP candidates. If you have a low approval rating that means people (in theory) don't approve of the job you are doing in the White House. And while his approval rating has gone up recently, it is still low. So I'm wondering why despite his low approval rating are people not preferring alternatives.
Click to expand...

Liberals can disapprove of him too
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
lol, Mittens getting dumber every day, it seems:

After winning the Illinois primary on Tuesday, Mitt Romney's victory speech featured an unexpected argument. The former governor was trying to argue that "government" stands in the way of American progress, which led to this observation: "We once built the interstate highway system and the Hoover Dam. Today, we can't even build a pipeline."
Click to expand...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/22/10810874-hoover-dam-political-metaphor
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
Oblivion said:
lol, Mittens getting dumber every day, it seems:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...tical-metaphor
Click to expand...
This is the same sort of stupidity as Santorum decrying the welfare state while talking about growing up in public housing, which I talked about yesterday. Intellectual dishonesty this profound is a perpetual source of amazement to me. Someone should ask boomers how many of their fathers got to be middle class by way of the GI Bill. Ugh.
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
Jackson50 said:
It did. You queried if voters would stick with Obama during a recession because of uncertainty over alternative candidates. Invisible_Insane referenced the political science literature which unequivocally demonstrates incumbent governments are sanctioned for poor economic performance. Essentially, it's decidedly unlikely voters would stick with Obama during a recession out of uncertainty regarding alternative candidates.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why people keep misunderstanding my post.

My question: "Obama's approval rating are pretty mediocre compared to other presidents. Yet people still prefer him over any alternative candidates. Why is this?"


EDIT - I think I see the problem here. You people saw the word "recession" and thought that I referred to the economy still going down the drain (its improving). I meant the "recession" more as a known for the event of a financial downturn. Similar to how even parts of the 1930's FDR era could be referred to as the "depression". Thus that segment was "when the people are experiencing hard times, possibly they don't want to switch out leaders in fear of having a leader that could make things worse." Similar to those popular insurance commercials from a few years back.

I know Obama's rating has gone up due to the economy doing better but I'm slightly surprised that it hasn't been moving higher.

empty vessel said:
I would be interested in seeing the evidence that national oil companies produce oil more slowly than private oil companies. But I'm not sure there is a good way to compare this, even if the evidence exists, because comparing a rich industrialized country (in which oil companies tend to be private) to poor developing countries is not a fair comparison. Even if the data is as you say, it may only be observing the fact that richer countries produce oil faster than poorer countries. Which wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Click to expand...

Very good point.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Mike M said:
It doesn't help that the primary process in general is convoluted as fuck and no one knows what's going on. It doesn't help that they seemingly change the rules on a whim ("Santorum and Romney tied in Michigan? Our at-large delegates are now assigned to Romney! So now he wins!").
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. Maddow has run some stories on this. Iowa went Romney then later changed to Santorum. Maine announcing results before getting all the votes. MO running a contest that doesn't count. Virginia changing its enforcement such that only 2 candidates got on the ballot. Illinois having this crazy your vote for the candidate doesn't matter, you need to pick the delagate for that candidate if there is one. Paulites supposedly staying late and snatching up delegate spots by sheer persistence. Paul winning the Virgin Islands vote but getting less delegates than Romney. Florida getting 1/2 its delegates . . . or not? Crazy delegate splitting math.

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!?! Nobody fucking understands all this shit. It is so convoluted, gamed, incompetently run, corrupt, etc.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/as-governor-mitt-romney-raised-gas-taxes-by-400
Click to expand...

As Governor, Mitt Romney Raised A Gas Tax By 400%
The Republican Presidential frontrunner increased gas taxes in Massachusetts for an environmental fund. He then shifted the revenues into the general fund.

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been attacking President Obama for the high price of gas prices and calling on him to fire his administration's "gas hike trio." He's suggested Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson intentionally raised the price of gasoline.

But during his time as Governor, Romney actually increased the price of gasoline directly himself according to this 2010 News report from the Boston Fox affiliate. In 2003 Romney increased fees on gas by two cents a gallon to pay for environmental clean ups of leaking underground gas station fuel tanks. The fee increased the clean-up tax on drivers by 400% and hit consumers directly at the pump. The fund, which was originally only half-a-cent, was created in 1992 to aid gas station owners with clean-ups.

Two weeks after raising that tax, Romney eliminated the fund for gas station clean-ups entirely but kept the two cent increase. The money raised by Romney's tax increase now goes directly into Commonwealth's coffers for legislators to spend as they please.
Click to expand...

Well damn. I'm conflicted.
1) I think a higher gas tax is good policy . . . . .
2) But what a hypocritical bastard.

Well that is going to come out in the general.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
empty vessel said:
I would be interested in seeing the evidence that national oil companies produce oil more slowly than private oil companies. But I'm not sure there is a good way to compare this, even if the evidence exists, because comparing a rich industrialized country (in which oil companies tend to be private) to poor developing countries is not a fair comparison. Even if the data is as you say, it may only be observing the fact that richer countries produce oil faster than poorer countries. Which wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Click to expand...

Richer & poorer? OIL = MONEY. They can have as much money as they want to invest if they get rid of the guy who keeps nationalizing every project that decides that he wants to own.

List of countries by proven oil reserves
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of countries by proven oil reserves. Proved reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geological and engineering data, can be estimated with a high degree of confidence to be commercially recoverable from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under current economic conditions.
Country Reserves (bbl)
1 Venezuela (more information) (2010) [1] 296,500,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia (more information) (2011)[2] 264,600,000,000
3 Canada [3] (more information) (2008) 175,200,000,000
4 Iran (more information) [1] 150,600,000,000
5 Iraq (more information) (2010) 143,500,000,000

All that oil . . . yet their production is going down . . .

1_Venezuelan_oil_production[1]_0.png

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7361


How to Run an Oil Industry into the Ground (Venezuelan Oil Production)

It is pretty clear that Venezuela could be producing a LOT more oil if it was made high priority. But it just isn't. They alienate foreign oil developers who have the technology and can easily raise capital to invest.

But as I said before, I don't know if producing oil at a slower rate is really a bad thing . . . it all depends on how you prioritize things. Pumping less now may ultimately provide the Venezuelans with much more money since the oil in the ground is rapidly becoming more & more valuable. Oil in the ground is much MUCH more valuable than money in the bank! So why pump it if you don't really need it?

They are now getting help from the Chinese and that may increase their production . . . but I don't consider that socialist since it is more of the quasi-capitalist Chinese effect.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
I really don't understand why people keep misunderstanding my post.

My question: "Obama's approval rating are pretty mediocre compared to other presidents. Yet people still prefer him over any alternative candidates. Why is this?"


EDIT - I think I see the problem here. You people saw the word "recession" and thought that I referred to the economy still going down the drain (its improving). I meant the "recession" more as a known for the event of a financial downturn. Similar to how even parts of the 1930's FDR era could be referred to as the "depression". Thus that segment was "when the people are experiencing hard times, possibly they don't want to switch out leaders in fear of having a leader that could make things worse." Similar to those popular insurance commercials from a few years back.

I know Obama's rating has gone up due to the economy doing better but I'm slightly surprised that it hasn't been moving higher.
Click to expand...
I understand. Your queries were based on defective premises that employed a nonstandard definition of "recession." Still, we answered the questions. There's little more that can be explained. Obama's performance in the hypothetical polls is largely commensurate with his approval rating. Moreover, although times are hard, the economy is approving. And growth has only accelerated the past few months. Thus, he's not being saved, nor are voters flocking to him out of uncertainty. Rather, he's enjoying a boost from improved economic performance.
Invisible_Insane said:
This is the same sort of stupidity as Santorum decrying the welfare state while talking about growing up in public housing, which I talked about yesterday. Intellectual dishonesty this profound is a perpetual source of amazement to me. Someone should ask boomers how many of their fathers got to be middle class by way of the GI Bill. Ugh.
Click to expand...
Or Santorum decrying an intrusive government that diminishes liberty while advocating a ban on contraception and a war on pornography. It is pitifully dishonest.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
This is the same sort of stupidity as Santorum decrying the welfare state while talking about growing up in public housing, which I talked about yesterday. Intellectual dishonesty this profound is a perpetual source of amazement to me. Someone should ask boomers how many of their fathers got to be middle class by way of the GI Bill. Ugh.
Click to expand...

It's kind of like my dad. He has been told by his boss that literally the biggest reason he has his job right now is because, when he was injured the government put an incentive on companies to hire him for something. They paid, I'm pretty sure he said, about 50% of his salary at least for a good chunk of time. When I pointed out that government helped him out there, he got very angry at me. Somehow by pointing out that government helped him I was diminishing his actual work. He was pretty much livid, and told me he worked hard.

A lot of times it's really this "my case is the exception to the rule" sort of thing, too. People have a tendency to think they're special. Everyone else isn't working hard. But me, I am, so I deserve this.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
People really do feel like their case is an atypical, special one and that everyone else is getting a free ride, is lazy, etc.


Re: that Romney comment:

I dont see that comment as a complete abject failure, he must realize that the government provided the backing and impetus for those projects to begin and complete, but he is possibly stating that govt. bureaucracy nowadays refuses to allow itself to fulfill the big picture ideas out there, nor will it allow private businesses to do so, either.

OK... he probably is not making the connection there. :p

If the government really wanted to stop sucking, they would promote super high-speed rail criss-crossing the country within the next 20 years. Too bad infrastructure is one of the few places where the government doesn't want to pour the money fountain into.
 
L

leroidys

Member
A guy I work with who is on foodstamps was bitching about welfare the other day. He's ~37 and owns his own house with a couple dogs, and is going to school to work in the medical field. So, he has to take food stamps because he's "busting his ass" but everyone else should get off of welfare because "hey man, mcdonalds is hiring" (actual quotes).
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
leroidys said:
A guy I work with who is on foodstamps was bitching about welfare the other day. He's ~37 and owns his own house with a couple dogs, and is going to school to work in the medical field. So, he has to take food stamps because he's "busting his ass" but everyone else should get off of welfare because "hey man, mcdonalds is hiring" (actual quotes).
Click to expand...

Craziness.

My dad worked 2 jobs his whole life for us. We were dirt poor and never took foodstamps or welfare once. When my wife and I were first married we had major money troubles because we were both working retail garbage and our hours were getting cut.

We went down to the govt office, filled out the paperwork, stood in the lobby for a few minutes and I just couldn't do it, so I tore up the paper and went to the plasma clinic and sold that shit , instead (I wasn't using it, anyway!) and was able to make enough to make ends meet. Looking back, donating plasma was terrible, but I felt like I was at least doing everything I could to pay the bills at the time until we both found better employment.

I still don't look down necessarily on people who do take welfare, but I learned a valuable lesson for myself and my wife, and even though I help dozens of people with EBT cards every day, the only time I shake my head is when they have $200+ cable bills and they are bitching about being on a fixed income. :)
 
C

Chichikov

Member
speculawyer said:
Well damn. I'm conflicted.
1) I think a higher gas tax is good policy . . . . .
2) But what a hypocritical bastard.

Well that is going to come out in the general.
Click to expand...
The dems are going to win some short term (like newscycle short) political points but along the way concede the big policy issue, that taxation on gas is not a bad thing.
You know, business as usual.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Speculawyer,

Venwzuela vs Nigerians. One has socialized oil, one is all private. Which county has now waste ...hint check the Nigeria delta....which one would you rather live in?
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
I don't get it, why would you be proud of not using welfare or food stamps when you pay taxes and the system is in place to help people and ensure they don't have to do things like sell plasma to put food on the table? I mean, cool for you that you managed on your own, but you pay taxes and there's a system in place to help you... If I was ever in a situation where I really needed foodstamps or welfare or whatever, I would use them. As long as you're working or at least trying to find work or make money in a regular way, it seems just silly to not use a system that is there to help you.
RDreamer said:
It's kind of like my dad.
Click to expand...
Damn, it's too bad your dad feels that way =/

Am I misunderstanding or is this cartoon advocating Single Payer?

http://www.politico.com/wuerker/2012/03/march-2012/000007-000041.html

A self-proclaimed Republican posted this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom