• 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.
C

Chumly

Member
FyreWulff said:
It's possible to not want the corrupt and/or broken unions without agreeing with Wal Mart. Sorry.

The ones that actually care about the workers and do more than just collect dues are few and far between these days. Especially bullshit like certain unions trying to get rid of the secret ballot and forcing them in with carding only.

Workers need to demand organizations that will actually stand up for worker's rights everywhere, all the time, and not just optimizing dues money payouts.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious how do you know that the ones that help workers are "few and far between today". Unions are constantly demonized and to a point that everyone believes it no matter what the actual facts say about them.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
RustyNails said:
Why are idiots blaming Clinton for what he said? I saw the whole thing, and what he said was precisely true. He said Romney had a sterling record at Bain, which is completely true. He became a multi-millionaire at Bain and made truckloads of money for himself and his buddies. Yeah, he shafted the little guys and sharked businesses but he made tons of profit for his company. He may have the moral fiber of an apricot, but that is definition of a good businessman. The perfect CEO for his shareholders. Don't chew on Clinton for this.
Click to expand...

But he's the business equivalent - or rather Bain is - of a card counter - and the cards are always stacked in his favor. In that environment aggressive mediocrity can be wildly successful.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
The argument has never been that Romney was a successful businessman, it was all being used to keep him from establishing an image as a job-creator. To blunt that thought.
 
D

dabig2

Member
Tamanon said:
The argument has never been that Romney was a successful businessman, it was all being used to keep him from establishing an image as a job-creator. To blunt that thought.
Click to expand...

Aye. If we view it only in terms of money, Romney and Bain were very successful. A company is a "moral imbecile" and the CEO should only be making his shareholders happy. Both of these represent Bain and Romney.

BUT, Bain /= America and shareholders /= the American people. So using Bain's success in the business world as a positive for running the country (and creating 100000 jobs) is asinine and that's what the attacks are hoping to do.

We'll see if the average American person (or politician for that matter) can read between the lines here, but I'm pretty pessimistic that they won't, unfortunately.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Media...needs to do a better job when talking about Soylandra

http://bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1061136009&position=0

A Bay State solar panel developer that landed a state loan from Mitt Romney when he was Massachusetts governor has gone belly up — a day after the GOP presidential hopeful ripped President Obama’s green-energy investments.

Lowell-based Konarka Technologies announced late yesterday that it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and will cease operations, lay off its 85 workers and liquidate.
Click to expand...

I don't think loans for green tech development should be stopped. But considering Romney is attacking Obama non-stop for the Soylandra mess, we should realize that TWO companies like Soylandra that received loans from Romney have also gone bankrupt.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
S

Skiptastic

Member
It's a fair question to ask. Though a company taking 1.5 million from Romney nine years ago finally going belly up (even though it also had 170 million in private funding) versus a company getting 500+ million from Obama and going under before his first term is up...kinda different situations.

But like cartoon said, it helps Romney's argument more that the loans should stop. Mitt can say he made a mistake that cost less than two million, not five hundred plus million, and that he vows not to do it if he's president.
 
A

Arrowgigantic

Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Romney is our next President. I'm putting that down in writing right here on June 2, 2012.
The scale has already tilted far enough that Obama can't recover.
Click to expand...

movieposter.jpg
 
D

Diablos

Member
Wow, PoliGAF folds pretty easily, no?

And people call me a worrywort? I agree that the latest numbers are sobering to say the least... but we're giving up?

Bill Clinton can go fuck off. He's full of shit. In interviews leading up to the 2008 election he told everyone that Hillary should "act like you are going to lose" because assuming you have the nom locked down is what will bite you in the ass. Yet Hillary did JUST THAT. She marched around the country thinking she was entitled to victory and she paid dearly for it. They are eating their own words and have no one but themselves to blame.

I continue to lose respect. He wasn't even that great of a President. He got his dick sucked while the economy just happened to get better and rolled over for the House GOP, enacting legislation that gave the Republicans an excuse to run even more to the right.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Skiptastic said:
It's a fair question to ask. Though a company taking 1.5 million from Romney nine years ago finally going belly up (even though it also had 170 million in private funding) versus a company getting 500+ million from Obama and going under before his first term is up...kinda different situations.

But like cartoon said, it helps Romney's argument more that the loans should stop. Mitt can say he made a mistake that cost less than two million, not five hundred plus million, and that he vows not to do it if he's president.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the reason they went under is the same. Cheap Chinese alternatives.

BTW, the Solyndra thing is a fair attack IF they just blame Obama's DoE for giving the loan (even though it was on track since the Bush admin). Where is becomes ridiculous is saying Obama did it to payback big donors. Unfortunately the media repeats the second charge w/o adding the details that show it's clearly bogus
 
C

Centurion

Banned
I don't see the harm in what Clinton said, except for the fact that people can twist it around to make it seem like Romney will be a successful president because of that record. But Clinton doesn't say that, he acknowledged Romney is a successful business man, but I'm pretty sure I remember him also saying that it doesn't equate to being a good president. Which is being ignored.

You don't want to vilify his record at Bain. It won't change the minds of the right, it will probably drive some moderates towards the Republican side if anything. They just need to inform the public on why that makes bad policy in the white house.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Centurion: It doesn't matter. What Obama was trying to do is smear Romney. Create a narrative. The kind of stuff the GOP and, oh yes, Clinton know about all too well. What he said is essentially code for "I'm trolling Obama's re-election bid by discrediting his first smear campaign against Romney." He knows how words can be taken out of context, and what he said is gold for the GOP. He knows this. He lives and breathes this stuff.
 
C

Centurion

Banned
Diablos said:
Centurion: It doesn't matter. What Obama was trying to do is smear Romney. Create a narrative. The kind of stuff the GOP and, oh yes, Clinton know about all too well. What he said is essentially code for "I'm trolling Obama's re-election bid by discrediting his first smear campaign against Romney." He knows how words can be taken out of context, and what he said is gold for the GOP. He knows this. He lives and breathes this stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. This is Clinton's way of saying don't go that route, as dumb as it might have been to say it in public.


I can already imagine the ads Romney will be running one month leading up to the election. Showing nothing but a bunch of Democrats praising Romney's record. He already has two of the Dems golden boys "backing him up".
 
D

Diablos

Member
He doesn't care if it's dumb or not, he's clearly bitter that wifey didn't get to be President. The same wife he cheated on all the time. What a fucking awful human being he is.

He got to be President in the 90's for two terms, Bill should take his ball and go home.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Clinton REALLY seemed like he was salivating at the chance to appear more "centrist" when he was president after he lost the Dem majorities in congress. I wonder if things would have been much different if he wasn't so accommodating to fucks like Gingrich.
 
C

Centurion

Banned
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I've been drinking a little but it's made me realize that Romney is going to win this one. All signs point to Yes!
Click to expand...

if you really believe that, put your avatar on the line for good, not just a short term avatar bet. I think even you realize that's not true deep down inside.

Edit: why's the UK-PoliGAF thread in OT, but this one is sentenced to the armpit of NeoGAF.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
A smarter person would evaluate the changes in her negatives.
Click to expand...
A smarter person would, so I guess I'll do that for you.

The last Suffolk poll had her favorable at 35, unfav at 28. It's now 43/33. So it actually improved from +7 to +10.

Last WNEC poll had her at 37/20, which did narrow to 41/30, from +17 to +11.

So basically, it's meaningless.

So who likes good news about voting? All 67 Florida election supervisors are ignoring Rick Scott's voter purge. Sad that it goes without saying, this is good news for Democrats.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Question about PPACA getting struck down: Would it in effect prevent states from starting their own single payer health care system as the ruling would basically say that it's illegal? Or is it limited to just the law itself and not what states would do on their own?
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Diablos said:
Question about PPACA getting struck down: Would it in effect prevent states from starting their own single payer health care system as the ruling would basically say that it's illegal? Or is it limited to just the law itself and not what states would do on their own?
Click to expand...

The ruling would invalidate a forced purchase from private entities (the mandate). That other dumb fuck question presented they threw in there about the spending clause should virtually invalidate medicaid completely, so I don't understand where they're going with that.

The blow for single payer systems would be the loss of funds that the PPACA was going to provide to the states for higher levels of coverage. States would still be completely within their constitutional rights to create single payer systems, they just probably couldn't afford to if the whole bill is struck down.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Diablos said:
Question about PPACA getting struck down: Would it in effect prevent states from starting their own single payer health care system as the ruling would basically say that it's illegal? Or is it limited to just the law itself and not what states would do on their own?
Click to expand...
If the single-payer system is funded through a payroll tax (which I imagine how Vermont will do it), then it shouldn't prohibit states' efforts. If the individual mandate is struck down (and only that), that means Medicare is still constitutional, and that's funded through a payroll tax. There's no way they're going to rule Medicare unconstitutional.

Edit: I highly doubt they're going to throw out the entire law. Also, ^^^ I hadn't read anything that would dampen Vermont's efforts to go single-payer through a lack of funds from PPACA when the bill was being passed.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Dax01 said:
If the single-payer system is funded through a payroll tax (which I imagine how Vermont will do it), then it shouldn't prohibit states' efforts. If the individual mandate is struck down (and only that), that means Medicare is still constitutional, and that's funded through a payroll tax. There's no way they're going to rule Medicare unconstitutional.

Edit: I highly doubt they're going to throw out the entire law. Also, ^^^ I hadn't read anything that would dampen Vermont's efforts to go single-payer through a lack of funds from PPACA when the bill was being passed.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's a gambit to privatize Medicare.

That's actually the main reason why I don't think they'll throw out the whole law - or more accurately, they wouldn't rule that the entire law is unconstitutional. That would open up a huge can of worms starting with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

If they throw out the entire law, it'd be on the basis of finding the mandate unconstitutional and they'd just say they wouldn't invalidate just one part while letting the rest stand. Or something. But they've invalidated parts of laws while letting the rest stand before, right? And plenty of PPACA (Medicaid expansion, Medicare reforms, coverage under age 26 etc.) can stand on its own. IIRC, Citizens United didn't even fully repeal McCain-Feingold, though it severely weakened it.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Dax01 said:
If the single-payer system is funded through a payroll tax (which I imagine how Vermont will do it), then it shouldn't prohibit states' efforts. If the individual mandate is struck down (and only that), that means Medicare is still constitutional, and that's funded through a payroll tax. There's no way they're going to rule Medicare unconstitutional.

Edit: I highly doubt they're going to throw out the entire law. Also, ^^^ I hadn't read anything that would dampen Vermont's efforts to go single-payer through a lack of funds from PPACA when the bill was being passed.
Click to expand...

Is Vermont close to actually getting a single-payer system passed?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Tom Barrett's latest internal has him down 1 to Scott Walker.

Not 1%. 1 vote.

Some fairly respectable Dem pollsters are really putting their reputations on the line if Walker wins this comfortably, like the public polls are indicating.

But I would say that if Walker is really only leading by 1 vote, he's probably going to lose by a similarly slim margin. Undecideds tend to break toward the challenger.
 
J

jaxword

Member
Man, I was so sure Romney was going to win, but who knew California/Ohio/Florida would be so stupid? Whatever, I'm still right when I said Romney was going to win earlier this year. I say Romney actually won and it was just the stupid swing states that screwed things up, GG Democrats hope you enjoy a bigger debt.



This post brought to you from November 2012.
 
B

blahblah...blah

Member
Cyan said:
Stimulus spending actually harms the economy. This is pretty well known. Econ 101, as Kevitivity might say.

Let's take a look at the inputs to GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + X - M

Or, in plainer terms, GDP is equal to total Cuts in government services for the period, plus top percentile Income, plus Government paydown of debt, plus taX cuts, minus total Mouths on the government teat, i.e. welfare recipients.

You can see that stimulus spending affects several of these inputs. It decreases C because it raises rather than cuts government services, that's a negative. It has little to no effect on top percentile income. It decreases G by causing a rise in government debt rather than a paydown, another negative. And it increases M, the number of people on welfare, a third negative since that's subtracted. It can potentially increase X if it's in the form of a tax cut.

You can see that the only acceptable form of stimulus is a tax cut on the highest earners combined with a cut on government spending, as that increases C, I, and X. Though it also decreases G, which is why a tax cut stimulus isn't always effective.

And thus we see that Obamacare's "stimulus" richly deserves the scare quotes: it actively harms GDP, and all it really stimulates is popular sentiment against deserving job creators, by promoting class warfare.

Plus most of the "stimulus" went to Solyndra.
Click to expand...

I was furious up until you started defining terms, and then I finally caught on :p
 
kingkaiser

kingkaiser

Member
Wow, i just heard about Obama's "polish death camps" gaffe a few minutes ago, and as a polish born i am outraged, truly outraged about it! How can a president be so ignorant and after this even so arrogant while trying to apologize?

Now all i can do is hope that the american people will kick his ass out of the office in November.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
kingkaiser said:
Wow, i just heard about Obama's "polish death camps" gaffe a few minutes ago, and as a polish born i am outraged, truly outraged about it! How can a president be so ignorant and after this even so arrogant while trying to apologize?

Now all i can do is hope that the american people will kick his ass out of the office in November.
Click to expand...

What?
 
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