• 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.
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
rohlfinator said:
It's even more funny because Romney's plan is expected to add more to the deficit unless he comes up with a way to pay for his added tax cuts and military expansion.
Click to expand...

It's not politically feasible for this to happen. You would have to step on virtually the entire lower and most of the middle classes shoulders in order to balance the budget with lower taxes and increased military spending.

Like closing down the entity of food stamps, and medicaid. Which would STILL not be enough. Cut funding to roads, education, public colleges, student loans.. and it would STILL not be enough. Perhaps by cutting Social Security funding and raiding that funding where people pay more into then they get out, and basically gut the entirety of medicare it would be possible.

So in Romney's world of a balanced budget, people would pay more into payroll taxes then they would get back out, but their income taxes would drop and they would have no support at all. You would have to get an off road vehicle since roads would start to deteriorate, and I would stop using bridges over the next few years.

But don't worry, the Military will still be in great shape, to protect whatever would be left of America.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
The moderate health care bill republicans would have supported a decade ago, with a major part (mandate) endorsed by the Heritage Foundation...only to be rejected as socialism after Obama agreed it was a good idea? Yes

There's no way the house would pass Rubio's bill if Obama not only endorsed it, but argued it would be a building block to bigger change.
Click to expand...
The only problem I could see is Hispanic interest groups seeing Obama as caving into the Republican position ahead of time.

Obama would literally have to preface every statement with "As a stepping stone to broader immigration reform..." before saying he supports Rubio's DREAM Act.
 
H

Hobbestetrician

Member
giga said:
What are the best places to see current polls of swing states and electoral votes?

Reuters has this one below: http://www.reuters.com/politics/elections-2012

The national polling on Gallup worries me, but it seems like Romney has to win a lot of swing states to even have a chance?
Click to expand...

Realclearpolitics.com is the site I look at. They have aggregate national polls and a nice electoral map that you can click on each state to see the recent polls for each.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
The only problem I could see is Hispanic interest groups seeing Obama as caving into the Republican position ahead of time.

Obama would literally have to preface every statement with "As a stepping stone to broader immigration reform..." before saying he supports Rubio's DREAM Act.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and my point. He should definitely point out the bill is far from perfect, but is a stepping stone to comprehensive change. That phrase alone would ensure the bill's death
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Agreed, and my point. He should definitely point out the bill is far from perfect, but is a stepping stone to comprehensive change. That phrase alone would ensure the bill's death
Click to expand...

If Obama comes out in support, it will be in tandem with pro-immigration groups. Which makes the possibility of Republicans supporting it even dimmer.

It would be brilliant. Bill would have a 50/50 chance in Senate with Most Democrats + 4-7 Republicans (Rubio, Collins, Snowe, Lisa, Couborn maybe, McCain maybe, Brown maybe) from GOP side being the only ones supporting it.

It would fail in house with almost all Democrats + only 10-15 Republicans supporting it.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
If Obama comes out in support, it will be in tandem with pro-immigration groups. Which makes the possibility of Republicans supporting it even dimmer.

It would be brilliant. Bill would have a 50/50 chance in Senate with Most Democrats + 4-7 Republicans (Rubio, Collins, Snowe, Lisa, Couborn maybe, McCain maybe, Brown maybe) from GOP side being the only ones supporting it.

It would fail in house with almost all Democrats + only 10-15 Republicans supporting it.
Click to expand...

It would drive a huge wedge between Romney and the House GOP too; I'm sure he would back the plan. And once it fails Obama can further argue that the republican has moved so far to the right that nothing can be achieved in Washington, and that anything he supports will automatically result in them attacking it.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Nothing shocking .. just info.



gr-pm-budget-462-03.jpg



http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
AlteredBeast said:
It is sort of shocking. Cold war military spending was INSANE.
Click to expand...

What should probably be most shocking to you is the amount of the budget that the government spends on interest. No more than it spent proportionally than in 1962. Still, this interest spending program is totally--or at least mostly--unnecessary. It's essentially a subsidy program for the financial industry (risk-free investment--so capitalist!).

Of course, this data only has limited usefulness since all it really shows is the priority of government spending over time. Defense spending was so high in 1962 mostly because the Medicaid and Medicare programs didn't exist at all. And Medicare's/Medicaid's proportional spending is only so high today because of irregularities in the private sector that the government refuses to address. (The new health insurance legislature makes an attempt but largely doesn't solve this problem.)

So if we pretend that LBJ's New Society never existed, defense spending would be over 30%. And "safety net" spending (defined as "unemployment compensation, food stamps and housing assistance") is presently high as a percentage of the budget only because of our current economic situation. (These are the "stabilizers" that economists point to as the reason why austerity during slow economies tends to increase budget deficits rather than reduce them.) Not counting that quite large increase, defense spending would be higher still as a proportion of the budget even today.
 
J

jaxword

Member
"I'm not familiar, precisely, with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."

— Mitt Romney, standing by his earlier comment that Obama wanted to make America "a less Christian nation."
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
"I'm not familiar, precisely, with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."

— Mitt Romney, standing by his earlier comment that he likes to fire people, that he's both for and against women's rights, that Detroit should go bankrupt, that he's for a healthcare mandate, but also against it, that it would be a mistake to take out Bin Ladin in another country, that immigrants should "self-deport," and that somebody, but we don't know who, let the dogs out.
 
K

KtSlime

Member
What I don't get is how one could not be familiar with one's own words. I get not recalling, or forgetting, but to not be familiar? He should just say "Well, that sure does sound like something I might have said." - As PantherLotus points out, this would be suitable for pretty much anything the spews from his mouth.
 
K

KtSlime

Member
jaxword said:
You're surprised politicians lie and will say anything if it benefits them at the time?
Click to expand...

Haha, that's certainly true. Not surprised he lies, in fact I expect him to. I just thought he'd be better at it.

Politicians: At least try to make a bit less obvious when you lie, thanks.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
jaxword said:
You're surprised politicians lie and will say anything if it benefits them at the time?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the depth of depravity required to say "no matter what I've said in the past, I stand by it." That quote will be the end of his political career.
 
J

jaxword

Member
You guys need to remember that "I forget what I said, but it was probably good" has been a tactic of politicians for decades.

"The simple truth is, 'I don't remember-period.'"
--President Reagan, responding to a question about when he authorized arms shipments to Iran, February 2, 1987


"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
--Reagan in a television address is forced to acknowledge "the facts and the evidence" uncovered by the commission that Reagan appointed to look into the matter, March 4, 1987



"Ah, Dave, you know I don’t remember what I was doing in 1981. I was living in Midland, Texas. I don’t remember my reaction that far back."

-- Bush when asked by NBC White House correspondent David Gregory whether he agreed with Israel’s decision to bomb the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981.



Note that's the year his daughters were born.

So yeah, "I forget" has been a politician's lie since forever. I can't find any democratic examples offhand but I'm sure Clinton did the same thing, so this is hardly one sided.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Somewhere between "I forget" and "I stand by whatever I've ever said" is a huge gulf filled with the careers of politicians that change their minds on whichever demo they're speaking to at the moment.

This isn't the same thing as what you mentioned at all, and you should feel bad for attempting to conflate the two.
 
J

jaxword

Member
PantherLotus said:
Somewhere between "I forget" and "I stand by whatever I've ever said" is a huge gulf filled with the careers of politicians that change their minds on whichever demo they're speaking to at the moment.

This isn't the same thing as what you mentioned at all, and you should feel bad for attempting to conflate the two.
Click to expand...

I don't feel bad at all, thanks. I was drawing a clear parallel at how forgetting things has been a very effective deflection tool for politicians for years. The public is more forgiving of forgetfulness than they are of flat out lying and contradicting. Romney's using the same tool by saying he's still right in what he said/did even if he "forgets".
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
jaxword said:
I don't feel bad at all, thanks. I was drawing a clear parallel at how forgetting things has been a very effective deflection tool for politicians for years. The public is more forgiving of forgetfulness than they are of flat out lying and contradicting. Romney's using the same tool by saying he's still right in what he said/did even if he "forgets".
Click to expand...

If that's a clear parallel to you, you're deluded. And I mean that respectfully.

He didn't say, "I forgot what I said and won't comment on it," he said, "I forgot what I said, but it was the right thing to say -- and I stand by it." If you don't understand either the difference or the implication to a political wet noodle like Romney saying this, we don't have a lot more to discuss. Just: it's bad, yo. And you will see it again.
 
V

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Kudos to you if you remember what you said or did 10 years ago, but it would be even more impressive if you were a politician constantly giving speeches, writing , etc. on all manner of things and you actually remember it still. Romney is running for president, he should be a lot more careful about what he asserts, since a candidate for that office has a daunting number of positions to take sides on and Romney has never been good at remembering which side he's supposed to be on.

I also don't think that it's a useful exercise to try to confuse or trap politicians running for president with questions about minor issues unlikely to ever be acted on by a sitting president. The problem with Romney is that he has trouble remembering his stance on rather important issues. I think that's as clear a sign as any that his stance on many of these issues are led by polling rather than conviction. This guy would be for gay marriage (again) if that's where the party stood, it's not an ideological or deeply held conviction for him to oppose gay marriage, and that shows when he fumbles through questions of which parts of civil union laws he supports. He doesn't know, because it's something he frankly doesn't care about, yet he has to take a side for political reasons.
 
T

thatbox

Banned
PantherLotus said:
"I'm not familiar, precisely, with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."

— Mitt Romney, standing by his earlier comment that he likes to fire people, that he's both for and against women's rights, that Detroit should go bankrupt, that he's for a healthcare mandate, but also against it, that it would be a mistake to take out Bin Ladin in another country, that immigrants should "self-deport," and that somebody, but we don't know who, let the dogs out.
Click to expand...

Got video/audio of this? Would love it.
 
E

eznark

Banned
I played soccer as a boy too. I wasn't ripping soccer it just looks like Obama could give two shits. (did he fill out a world cup bracket!?!)
 
C

Chichikov

Member
SomeDude said:
So will the 21st century be the american century? Both Obama and Romney have said it may be. Does anyone believe that?
Click to expand...
I think there's a good chance for that.
China is going to get fucked demographically, you think the baby boom retiring is bad, but this is nothing compared to what decades of one child policies will do to them.

I read somewhere (can't find it now) that in 2050, the US is going to be by far the youngest democracy in the world (this is mostly due to immigration and a relatively high birth rate).
Combine that with plentiful natural resources and space, plus a very good starting position - politically, economically and culturally, and I think think it's the US's century to lose.
But we're trying are best to do so.
 
S

SomeDude

Banned
Chichikov said:
I think there's a good chance for that.
China is going to get fucked demographically, you think the baby boom retiring is bad, but this is nothing compared to what decades of one child policies will do to them.

I read somewhere (can't find it now) that in 2050, the US is going to be by far the youngest democracy in the world (this is mostly due to immigration and a relatively high birth rate).
Combine that with plentiful natural resources and space, plus a very good starting position - politically, economically and culturally, and I think think it's the US's century to lose.
But we're trying are best to do so.
Click to expand...


just wondering, what state are you from?
 
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