Support NeoGAF

[thefro]

I love this sequester.

We're on the verge of having Republicans, say out loud, that not only should we continue to spend money, but that we shouldn't be trying to gut the size of government.

All part of the 11th-dimensional chess master plan.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Same. They've gotten a bit pricey so we go there less often than we used to, but they're a real treat. Great salad bar, then soup and cheesy bread until I'm ready to be rolled out of the place.

haha

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Never went to the smokehouse as a kid, bit pricey.


Soup Plantation made a comeback. I remember going as a kid too and loved it but they disappeared for a while. Now it's all hip and shit. I've gone a couple times with my little cousins and it's always packed with families. Most of the soups and stuff are mediocre, but salad is salad and can't fuck it up if it's fresh (which it is). It's only like $10 per adult or something close to that, which is probably why it's so packed.

I love salad but for some reason I only like Ranch Dressing in restaurants so I kind of indulge myself at salad bars with it, heh.

It's still there. You should go there just to get garlic bread. You can order it out.

 

[Incognito]

Email making the rounds this morning from Army Medicine:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Team Army Medicine,

On Wednesday, DoD provided Congress notification that, should furlough actions prove to be necessary, we will implement a 176 hour/22 discontinuous day furlough beginning in late April 2013. National unions were also notified. After careful consideration and discussions with the sequestration planning workgroup, I have directed the following action: "all civilian employees will participate in a furlough one day a week through the end of the current fiscal year".

Effective immediately, you will begin notifying local unions of the intent to implement the furlough. The decision to furlough is an inherent management right and non-negotiable; however, the implementation of furlough is subject to impact and implementation bargaining when a union submits a negotiable proposal, unless the issue of furlough is already covered in collective bargaining agreements. Senior Leaders are required to provide all civilian employees with individual 30-day advance written notification; however, bargaining unit employees may not be notified until union notification has occurred. Upon completion of union notification, you will begin notifying all employees in writing. I highly encourage you to engage and include the local CPAC Labor Relations Specialist in furlough discussions with unions.

Although Congress and National Unions were notified that furloughs would be begin in late April 2013, a firm effective date has not been established. You will receive additional guidance on a firm effective date through MEDCOM G1 channels, as well as additional labor relations guidance.

As we go through these trying times, we will do it together and with complete transparency. The DCOMM Team has set up a sequestration site on our Army Medicine webpage which will be updated as the situation develops. Moreover, I ask that each of you endeavor to keep the lines of communication open with our civilian employees, and for your continued support as we negotiate the requisite rigors of sequestration. Please know that our entire team is working this issue aggressively. Rest assured that the Army Medicine Family will weather this storm and continue to live out our motto - Serving to Heal...Honored to Serve.

 

[RoninChaos]

Well, that attitude of yours just make people so eager to talk with you!

Oh come on. Everybody was piling on the guy.

In regards to what prepares you for being president, a lot of folks think running a company does prep you for the decision making that you have to take on, and I think that's a fair comparison. What isn't is the idea that just because you're a business man, that means you can run the government like a business. The Government stands in contrast to businesses because not everything that we need (roads, police, social services) are designed to generate money. Not sure why the right is so adamant to the point of being rabid, that the government needs to be run like a business. Some clown on the news today was talking about a hiring freeze that would save 1.4 million and save more "important" jobs. Of course, he completely disregarded that 1.4 million isn't SHIT in comparison tot he whole sequester.

 

[FLEABttn]

Email making the rounds this morning from Army Medicine:

Heard the same unofficially late last week, I'd believe that to be a correct statement not only for Army Medicine but other branches as well.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh come on. Everybody was piling on the guy.

In regards to what prepares you for being president, a lot of folks think running a company does prep you for the decision making that you have to take on, and I think that's a fair comparison. What isn't is the idea that just because you're a business man, that means you can run the government like a business. The Government stands in contrast to businesses because not everything that we need (roads, police, social services) are designed to generate money. Not sure why the right is so adamant to the point of being rabid, that the government needs to be run like a business. Some clown on the news today was talking about a hiring freeze that would save 1.4 million and save more "important" jobs. Of course, he completely disregarded that 1.4 million isn't SHIT in comparison tot he whole sequester.

My main problem with the business analogy is that most businessmen in politics seem to be autocrats. Not that all businessmen are, but these are guys who manage with a great deal of unimpeded control of things. That's pretty much the opposite of what a President does, who has to work with political coalitions and other branches of government.

 

[Chichikov]

Email making the rounds this morning from Army Medicine:

Yeah, we can't scale down the f35, we can't scrap an aircraft carrier, it always start with shit like "health services for our heroes".
Israeli army always do the same, whenever they threaten with cuts they go "okay, enlisted soldiers will have to start pay for the train travel" or shit like that.

For once, I want someone to stand up to the pentagon and demand answer about this is the highest priority cut.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So Eric Erickson is coming to my class tomorrow and he also posted a new piece on the fact that in his opinion Bob McDonald is now a RINO.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/25/virginias-governor-bob-mcdonnell-thinks-youre-an-idiot/

I can not grasp statements like this when basic facts contradict them

Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.”

Also this statement is absurd when he states a portion of the legislature voted against it. It also is contradicted by polling which shows even these tea partiers don't support everything people like EE want out of the conservative movement (supporting medicare and SS)

In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

Another thing. When people say things like this and talk about "saving taxpayers money"

What tells you that Bob McDonnell isn’t really a conservative is that there was never any interest on the part of his administration in finding funding for roads through cuts or privatizing state services. Contrast this with what a real conservative does, like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker – when a state commission recommended he raise the gas tax to pay for roads, he said he’d sell off state property and privatize other functions to pay for it rather than raise taxes. McDonnell was never interested in doing that.

Why does nobody point out that tax payers aren't saving money, they'll be "taxed" by private corporations who will now charge them (or the loss in economic productivity will be a "tax"). It doesn't save money, it transfers money from the public to private. Same with charter and voucher schools and anything else that is privatized. It saves the government from having to run a deficit or cut something else but it doesn't save any money for the taxpayers anything. Things still need to be paid for.

 

[PhoenixDark]

oh boy, this is gonna be a fun year

Ken Cuccinelli ripped by business leaders

wo prominent northern Virginia business leaders got into a heated exchange with Virginia Republican gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli in front of a few hundred top GOP donors at a closed-door meeting Friday, multiple sources told POLITICO.

Bobbie Kilberg, a longtime Republican donor and CEO of Northern Virginia Technology Council, and Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Arlington-based Consumer Electronics Association, stood up separately to confront Cuccinelli about what is on the minds of many Virginia and national Republicans: whether the Tea Party-backed attorney general can, or wants to, run a pragmatic campaign in the increasingly moderate Old Dominion.

The face-off took place at a meeting of the Republican Governor’s Association’s “Executive Roundtable,” a group of national CEOs and business leaders, Friday morning at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington. The event was meant to showcase Cuccinelli as one of two Republican gubernatorial candidates this year.

But instead of simply making his pitch and picking up a few business cards from potential donors, Cuccinelli was all but dressed down by two fellow Virginians.

Kilberg, who is close with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, spoke first and noted that the state has become “purple.” She pointed out that McDonnell has sought to govern in the mainstream. But then she wondered aloud if Cuccinelli’s crusading brand fits Virginia’s present political and demographic reality.

Shapiro spoke up next and was even tougher on Cuccinelli. As a hushed room looked on, Shapiro, who sits on the board of the influential Northern Virginia Technology Council, said the state’s centrist-oriented business community won’t back the Republican standard-bearer because he’s out of the mainstream.

“Gary just slammed him,” said one attendee.

High-level Republicans have privately worried for the past two months that Cuccinelli was not taking steps to mount the sort of campaign — focused on jobs, roads and schools — that McDonnell ran on with great success in 2009. The attorney general has discussed contraception with an Iowa conservative talk radio show host and was a no-show at both McDonnell’s State of the Commonwealth speech and a major fundraiser a few weeks ago in Richmond attended by McDonnell, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and RGA Chairman and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

And most recently, Cuccinelli has been on a publicity tour for his new book chronicling his battles with the Democratic president who has twice carried Virginia.

But it was his opposition to McDonnell’s transportation legislation — a legacy bill for the outgoing governor that includes new taxes — that has many establishment Republicans at their wit’s end. Cuccinelli not only publicly stated his opposition to the measure, which passed the legislature in a dramatic weekend session, but rushed an overnight legal opinion out early Saturday morning that McDonnell loyalists saw as an unambiguous attempt to torpedo the bill.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-by-business-leaders-88034.html#ixzz2LwIT7nlM

Meanwhile Red State has a piece up slamming McDonnell for raising taxes (by a small margin) in his transportation bill.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Meanwhile Red State has a piece up slamming McDonnell for raising taxes (by a small margin) in his transportation bill.

See above

I love the photo though

 

[speculawyer]

But it's not like Michelle crashed an episode of Ponderosa. The Emmys are Liberal Central, full of the actors conservatives say they'll never support or watch. 70% of the people in that room gave maximum donations to Obama, yet conservatives are only butthurt about Michelle? I'm hearing people say they stopped watching the minute she appeared on screen, as if the show was all American and freedom before the liberal woman of the world appeared with her weave of abortion.

But it is a sour grapes kind of bitterness. Many people feel that Breitbart was driven by such feelings. He grew up in the area but could never get into the Hollywood scene and instead decided to just hate it and bash it at every opportunity. His un-ending hatred may have driven him to an early grave. Such an angry guy.

 

[gcubed]

oh boy, this is gonna be a fun year



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-by-business-leaders-88034.html#ixzz2LwIT7nlM

Meanwhile Red State has a piece up slamming McDonnell for raising taxes (by a small margin) in his transportation bill.

definitely will be a fun lead up to midterms and governor races with the GOP infighting

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Literally appearing is enough to troll the Republicans, who shouldn't have even known she was on the Oscars, since they would never watch a liberal show like that, right?

Also, Seth was great.

 

[gcubed]

So Eric Erickson is coming to my class tomorrow and he also posted a new piece on the fact that in his opinion Bob McDonald is now a RINO.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/25/virginias-governor-bob-mcdonnell-thinks-youre-an-idiot/

I can not grasp statements like this when basic facts contradict them



Also this statement is absurd when he states a portion of the legislature voted against it. It also is contradicted by polling which shows even these tea partiers don't support everything people like EE want out of the conservative movement (supporting medicare and SS)


Another thing. When people say things like this and talk about "saving taxpayers money"

Why does nobody point out that tax payers aren't saving money, they'll be "taxed" by private corporations who will now charge them (or the loss in economic productivity will be a "tax"). It doesn't save money, it transfers money from the public to private. Same with charter and voucher schools and anything else that is privatized. It saves the government from having to run a deficit or cut something else but it doesn't save any money for the taxpayers anything. Things still need to be paid for.

as long as the money isn't going to the government, its a win. The net gain or loss is irrelevant

 

[speculawyer]

Contrast this with what a real conservative does, like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker – when a state commission recommended he raise the gas tax to pay for roads, he said he’d sell off state property and privatize other functions to pay for it rather than raise taxes..

Some things are just stupid. Sell off state property to pay for roads? What happens when you run out of property? Abandon the roads? Turn all roads into toll roads?

People that oppose gas taxes for road repair are just illogical. What is wrong with getting the people that use a service to pay for it? That is great free-market economics. (And yes, EVs should pay too.)

 

[kehs]

What is wrong with getting the people that use a service to pay for it? That is great free-market economics. (And yes, EVs should pay too.)

They'll pay for it at every gas fill up.

:jnc:

 

[thefro]

Some things are just stupid. Sell off state property to pay for roads? What happens when you run out of property? Abandon the roads? Turn all roads into toll roads?

People that oppose gas taxes for road repair are just illogical. What is wrong with getting the people that use a service to pay for it? That is great free-market economics. (And yes, EVs should pay too.)

There's a big fight in Indiana brewing between Mike Pence (who wants to spend part of the budget surplus on lowering income taxes) and the Republican House/Senate (who want to restore education funding & spend more money on building roads/infrastructure). It's basically like bizarro world compared to DC (granted they do have a bunch of stupid social issue bills on other stuff, bills to go after the teachers unions, etc in the works).

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not sure liberals would have been particularly pissed if Laura Bush showed up at the Oscars in 2005.

I am.
Laura Bush was in the 2002 Academy Awards and you didn't even remember it.

 

[Nert]

People that oppose gas taxes for road repair are just illogical. What is wrong with getting the people that use a service to pay for it? That is great free-market economics. (And yes, EVs should pay too.)

It's actually a very silly linkage if you care about fuel efficiency standards and climate change. The primary purpose for placing a tax on gas (or carbon emissions, more ideally) is that you set a market price for the pollution to capture the negative externality, hopefully leading to less pollution. If the tax is successful and people end up buying less gas for their cars, then less revenue is raised for infrastructure projects. You're essentially linking a bad outcome (less funds for infrastructure projects) to an outcome that you want (less fuel being used by cars) for no real reason.

It's the same reason why I think that using "sin taxes," like cigarette taxes, to fund something like child health care is silly. Having less people smoke is good from a public health standpoint, but if the taxes make people less likely to smoke, there will be less revenue available for something that's important.

 

[Byakuya769]

It's actually a very silly linkage if you care about fuel efficiency standards and climate change. The primary purpose for placing a tax on gas (or carbon emissions, more ideally) is that you set a market price for the pollution to capture the negative externality, hopefully leading to less pollution. If the tax is successful and people end up buying less gas for their cars, then less revenue is raised for infrastructure projects. You're essentially linking a bad outcome (less funds for infrastructure projects) to an outcome that you want (less fuel being used by cars) for no real reason.

It's the same reason why I think that using "sin taxes," like cigarette taxes, to fund something like child health care is silly. Having less people smoke is good from a public health standpoint, but if the taxes make people less likely to smoke, there will be less revenue available for something that's important.

Your analysis is logical, but I think you create some constructs that aren't realistic. You don't impose a tax to continually have the underlying asset/activity/commodity grow in use, you just impose it to fund something. If gas usage goes down as a positive externality, you can always raise the rate or adjust to another taxing strategy. With that sort of tax you will always be chasing a target, but that's the nature of taxing in general. Are preposing that state income taxes are better and more efficient for road service?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Some things are just stupid. Sell off state property to pay for roads? What happens when you run out of property? Abandon the roads? Turn all roads into toll roads?

People that oppose gas taxes for road repair are just illogical. What is wrong with getting the people that use a service to pay for it? That is great free-market economics. (And yes, EVs should pay too.)

Gas taxes don't make sense to me as a funder of roads. As fuel efficiency increases, then the amount of funding for roads decreases, even if the roads end up being used just as much (or even more).

Road usage != gas usage.

The roads should be maintained through normal taxes.

 

[Nert]

Your analysis is logical, but I think you create some constructs that aren't realistic. You don't impose a tax to continually have the underlying asset/activity/commodity grow in use, you just impose it to fund something. If gas usage goes down as a positive externality, you can always raise the rate or adjust to another taxing strategy. With that sort of tax you will always be chasing a target, but that's the nature of taxing in general. Are preposing that state income taxes are better and more efficient for road service?

I guess it depends if we're talking about what's politically feasible or what's more efficient. In an academic sense, I thinking that linking tax X to policy Y is something that should be avoided in general. I'll use another example to demonstrate my point: property taxes to fund schools. Why does that make sense? Why should schools receive less funding if housing sales or prices drop? Do we see investment in public education as being beneficial only if the housing market is doing well?

I think that every source of revenue should go into a single pool and then that pool should be allocated to whatever policy outlays we choose. Carbon taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on would be the revenues brought in and whatever policies we pursue would make up the outlays. If revenues being received (plus some amount of borrowing, if necessary) are not sufficient to fund all of the policies that we think are desirable, then we should take some set of measures to make the pool bigger.

In political terms, of course, comprehensive tax reform will never happen because the current state of Congress is dismal (and many state legislatures are even worse). Republicans tend to oppose linking gas taxes to things like infrastructure spends because they hate apparently hate infrastructure spending and "big government," not because they think the tax code is inefficient and likely to lead to undesirable outcomes.

Edit: I'm a little verbose and abstract with this stuff. There's a short Freakonomics Radio podcast episode about this very subject titled "The Downside of More Miles Per Gallon."

 

[LegendofJoe]

Gas taxes don't make sense to me as a funder of roads. As fuel efficiency increases, then the amount of funding for roads decreases, even if the roads end up being used just as much (or even more).

Road usage != gas usage.

The roads should be maintained through normal taxes.

Say hello to hybrid/Ev specific fees for this very reason, I believe Virginia just passed it.

 

[sc0la]

Gas taxes don't make sense to me as a funder of roads. As fuel efficiency increases, then the amount of funding for roads decreases, even if the roads end up being used just as much (or even more).

Road usage != gas usage.

The roads should be maintained through normal taxes.

yep. Gas taxes should probably be used entirely to fund carbon or other environmental remediation at this point.

Edit: though they do continue providing an economic motivation to continue improving fuel efficiency and alternative auto designs, I don't support their complete removal.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Say hello to hybrid/Ev specific fees for this very reason, I believe Virginia just passed it.

Someone smack the virginia politicians for completely missing the problem, please.

 

[Black Mamba]

I guess it depends if we're talking about what's politically feasible and what's more efficient. In an academic sense, I thinking that linking tax X to policy Y is something that should be avoided in general. I'll use another example to demonstrate my point: property taxes to fund schools. Why does that make sense? Why should schools receive less funding if housing sales or prices drop? Do we see investment in public education as being beneficial only if the housing market is doing well?

I think that every source of revenue should go into a single pool and then that pool should be allocated to whatever policy outlays we choose. Carbon taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on would be the revenues brought in and whatever policies we pursue would make up the outlays. If revenues being received (plus some amount of borrowing, if necessary) are not sufficient to fund all of the policies that we think are desirable, then we should take some set of measures to make the pool bigger.

In political terms, of course, comprehensive tax reform will never happen because the current state of Congress is dismal (and many state legislatures are even worse). Republicans tend to oppose linking gas taxes to things like infrastructure spends because they hate apparently hate infrastructure spending and "big government," not because they think the tax code if inefficient and likely to lead to undesirable outcomes.

Edit: I'm a little verbose and abstract with this stuff. There's a very short Freakonomics Radio podcast episode about this very subject titled "The Downside of More Miles Per Gallon."

If we could change the conversation so that everyone understands all taxes are equal (in terms of the actual revenue, not process) it would help so much. It's all in a single pool.

I'm with you 100%. All taxes should be looked simply as dollars received and have nothing to do with anyone else but the numerical value. Stop tying it to shit.

 

[Chichikov]

Gas taxes don't make sense to me as a funder of roads. As fuel efficiency increases, then the amount of funding for roads decreases, even if the roads end up being used just as much (or even more).

Road usage != gas usage.

The roads should be maintained through normal taxes.

Everything should be maintained through "normal taxes", when you force the government to manage few different pools of money you're just making the government less efficient and flexible.

 

[speculawyer]

It's actually a very silly linkage if you care about fuel efficiency standards and climate change. The primary purpose for placing a tax on gas (or carbon emissions, more ideally) is that you set a market price for the pollution to capture the negative externality, hopefully leading to less pollution. If the tax is successful and people end up buying less gas for their cars, then less revenue is raised for infrastructure projects. You're essentially linking a bad outcome (less funds for infrastructure projects) to an outcome that you want (less fuel being used by cars) for no real reason.

It's the same reason why I think that using "sin taxes," like cigarette taxes, to fund something like child health care is silly. Having less people smoke is good from a public health standpoint, but if the taxes make people less likely to smoke, there will be less revenue available for something that's important.

No. The primary purpose for the CURRENT tax on gas/diesel is to pay for roads. The gas tax was established many years before anyone started worrying about climate change. What you are arguing for is MORE taxes on gas . . . which they should indeed do. But that just won't happen with the US electorate.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I gotta say the GOP's "Obamasequestration" shit has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever witnessed. Not just in politics but marketing in general. This party is fucking clueless

 

[speculawyer]

Gas taxes don't make sense to me as a funder of roads. As fuel efficiency increases, then the amount of funding for roads decreases, even if the roads end up being used just as much (or even more).

Road usage != gas usage.

The roads should be maintained through normal taxes.

Road usage is roughly proportional to gas usage except that more efficient vehicles (which is something we want to encourage!) will pay less. If it is not bringing in enough money then raise the tax. And, trucks should pay extra based on their weight since it is big trucks that destroy roads.

(And EVs should pay a road fee. For now, a $100/year annual fee is fine . . . when there are more of them on the road, a more percise scheme should be added.)

 

[GaimeGuy]

Road usage is roughly proportional to gas usage except that more efficient vehicles (which is something we want to encourage!) will pay less. If it is not bringing in enough money then raise the tax. And, trucks should pay extra based on their weight since it is big trucks that destroy roads.

(And EVs should pay a road fee. For now, a $100/year annual fee is fine . . . when there are more of them on the road, a more percise scheme should be added.)

Why in the world should EVs and hybrids have a surcharge added to them? I own a hybrid but I guarantee that I drive less than 99% of people with cars. 2000 miles after 5-6 months. If the argument isthat roads should be funded based on usage, then go by miles driven * weight or something like that. Not your fuel economy/ fuel consumption.

 

[Nert]

No. The primary purpose for the CURRENT tax on gas/diesel is to pay for roads. The gas tax was established many years before anyone started worrying about climate change. What you are arguing for is MORE taxes on gas . . . which they should indeed do. But that just won't happen with the US electorate.

Well, I tend to argue for a carbon tax instead of a gasoline tax (a given amount of carbon emissions from gasoline isn't more harmful than the same amount of carbon emissions from any other activity), but that's beside the point.

I'll concede that the gasoline tax was originally pitched as a mechanism to fund highway construction and maintenance. I should have used phrasing like "the primary purpose should be" when responding to you. Having said that, I still believe that it's an inefficient and silly link. You said that "People that oppose gas taxes for road repair are just illogical" and I laid out my argument against that.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.pewstates.org/research/d...cliff-on-the-states-sequestration-85899435504

 

[Aaron Strife]

I gotta say the GOP's "Obamasequestration" shit has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever witnessed. Not just in politics but marketing in general. This party is fucking clueless

Sounds like the perfect campaign to me.

 

[Link]

But it's not like Michelle crashed an episode of Ponderosa. The Emmys are Liberal Central, full of the actors conservatives say they'll never support or watch. 70% of the people in that room gave maximum donations to Obama, yet conservatives are only butthurt about Michelle? I'm hearing people say they stopped watching the minute she appeared on screen, as if the show was all American and freedom before the liberal woman of the world appeared with her weave of abortion.

Remember that chart that was posted a little while ago (sorry, I can't locate it at the moment) that showed Republicans support Obama's own policies more when his name isn't attached to them? Same situation here.

 

[Fuchsdh]

If we could change the conversation so that everyone understands all taxes are equal (in terms of the actual revenue, not process) it would help so much. It's all in a single pool.

I'm with you 100%. All taxes should be looked simply as dollars received and have nothing to do with anyone else but the numerical value. Stop tying it to shit.

The idiocy of "slot machine revenue goes to education funding" is part of the reason Marylanders keep okaying more slots. There's a reason they do it.

Also the federal government should always tie some strings to funds it gives the states so they can't completely misuse it. Block grants are usually a bad thing.

 

[speculawyer]

Why in the world should EVs and hybrids have a surcharge added to them? I own a hybrid but I guarantee that I drive less than 99% of people with cars. 2000 miles after 5-6 months. If the argument isthat roads should be funded based on usage, then go by miles driven * weight or something like that. Not your fuel economy/ fuel consumption.

Hybrids should NOT have an extra charge. They buy gas. I agree that the hybrid charge is complete bullshit. But EVs buy no gas at all yet use the roads. They should help pay for road repair. So charge them a $100/year for now and adjust the system when there are more EVs on the road to merit a more complex scheme.

 

[speculawyer]

Remember that chart that was posted a little while ago (sorry, I can't locate it at the moment) that showed Republicans support Obama's own policies more when his name isn't attached to them? Same situation here.

Yeah, I'm starting to conclude that America reall wasn't ready for a black president. Yes, most of the country was ready and elected him. But there is a deep amount of outright and latent racism that makes it hard for him to get stuff done. I'm certain that if Bill Clinton had pushed the exact same policies as Obama has, many more of them would have been enacted because there would have been less knee-jerk reaction from the a-holes.

Speaking of gas taxes, Clinton got a gas tax passed. Could you imagine the outcry if Obama dared to even raise the idea?

 

[Black Mamba]

Remember the Ides [plus twelve] of March!

Ever since Senate Democrats unveiled their plan to avert the sequester with a mix of new revenues and spending cuts, there has been no negotiations between the Democratic and Republican leadership offices in the Senate about it, a senior Senate Democratic aide tells me. No discussions about any potential compromises. No signal to Harry Reid’s office of any kind from Mitch McConnell that Republicans may be open to even discussing new revenues.

That’s not terribly surprising, given that Republicans are adamantly opposed to asking for even a penny in new revenues from the wealthy in order to avert a sequester that they themselves say will damage the military and the economy. But it highlights the emerging view among Democratic aides about how this is likely to play out.

Democrats believe the real action on the sequester has yet to come, and will ramp up in earnest in March. Which means, of course, that the cuts will kick in. Democrats no longer see the sequester as sufficient to force Republicans to cave on new revenues; rather, they increasingly see the looming government shutdown deadline of March 27th as the real means for them to force a GOP surrender.

The idea is that the sequester isn’t as dramatic a deadline as the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling deadlines were. And in any case, Dems believe Republicans plainly need to mount a stand against new revenues, and not back down, in order to give conservatives a “victory,” if you can call it that. Once that happens, Dems hope, and the sequester begins kicking in during the month of March, the looming government shutdown deadline — combined with increasing uneasiness about the sequester among GOP-aligned constituencies, such as defense contractors — will be the one that will ultimately force some Republican concessions on revenues.

“The sequester doesn’t have that immediate shock value,” a senior Senate Democratic aide tells me. “It’s not the kind of thing where people wake up on March 1st and realize it happened. It doesn’t have the sort of acute impact that the fiscal cliff or debt ceiling did. We need a harder backstop to really force this fight.”

That “harder backstop” is the threat of a government shutdown, which gets the attention of the public — and with the GOP brand in trouble, Dems hope, it will be hard for Republicans to cling to their no-revenues-at-any-costs stance. “March is the month where negotiations will really ramp up,” the aide says.

There is simply no endgame in which Dems cave and accept only spending cuts to offset the sequester, the aide insists. That’s because no set of spending cuts is preferable to the sequester, from the point of view of Dems, so there’s no incentive to make such a deal.
“There is no other formulation of the sequester that is more appealing to us than the current formulation,” the aide says, referring to formulations that only include cuts. “The hit in defense is not any worse for us than the hits we would take from our base from agreeing to non defense discretionary cuts. That’s why at the end of the day there has to be revenues.”

So the sequester is all but certain to hit. And then the fighting will really intensify in March. Fun times!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-past-sequester-to-government-shutdown-fight/

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I gotta say the GOP's "Obamasequestration" shit has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever witnessed. Not just in politics but marketing in general. This party is fucking clueless

Shocking! I'd have figured you'd be all for it and even argue that it would force Obama to capitulate into the full privatization of medicare.

 

[Jooney]

At this stage I feel like Michelle Obama could come out for something called “Firemen’s Appreciation Day” and the next day there will be a photo-op with Republican Congressman consoling the families of victims who have died in a house fire.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

At this stage I feel like Michelle Obama could come out for something called “Firemen’s Appreciation Day” and the next day there will be a photo-op with Republican Congressman consoling the families of victims who have died in a house fire.

That'd be about as lame as Paul Ryan pretending to wipe clean dishes at a soup kitchen.

 

[Byakuya769]

So Ben Carson is a thing now because of that prayer breakfast stuff. Mmmm, tokenism in the morning.

 

[thezerofire]

The garlic bread was great but not better than SmokeHouse in Burbank. Best garlic cheese bread anywhere.

Slso, remember Soup Plantation? Use to love it there.

there's two souplantations within like 20 miles of my house, they're still around

But it's not like Michelle crashed an episode of Ponderosa. The Emmys are Liberal Central, full of the actors conservatives say they'll never support or watch. 70% of the people in that room gave maximum donations to Obama, yet conservatives are only butthurt about Michelle? I'm hearing people say they stopped watching the minute she appeared on screen, as if the show was all American and freedom before the liberal woman of the world appeared with her weave of abortion.

I have a few family members who refused to see Django Unchained because of something Jamie Foxx said, but I have no idea what it was.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So graham is saying now he's open to more revenue (to the tune of $600 billion) if Obama is serious about entitlement reform?

I really hope Obama doesn't take him up on the offer because entitlement reform isn't worth that IMO especially when you have health care costs coming down or at least not rising as fast. There's no need to "reform" these programs even if you buy into the deficit hysteria. Its cutting the social safety net for no reason and it doesn't help economically or fiscally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/u...per&_r=0&gwh=7804375A7CF267A51308A8AC9CA2D8BE

In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare would cost $6.5 trillion from 2012 to 2020. A few months later, a deficit reduction panel appointed by Mr. Obama called those spending levels unsustainable.

But the budget office’s latest projections have pegged Medicare spending over the same period at $6.1 trillion. That $400 billion decline exceeds the $303 billion in savings over that period recommended in 2010 by the panel, which was led by former Senator Alan K. Simpson, a Republican, and Erskine B. Bowles, who served as a chief of staff under President Bill Clinton.

 

[Averon]

The rightwing whining about Michelle's appearance at the Oscars is quite amusing. They all think Hollywood is a liberal/Marxist/Socialist utopia, and that the Obamas are liberal/Marxist/Socialists themselves. So why are they bitching that a supposed liberal/Marxist/Socialist appears at the biggest liberal/Marxist/Socialist event of Hollywood?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The right whining about Michelle appearance at the Oscars is quite amusing. They all think Hollywood is a liberal/Marxist/Socialist utopia, and that the Obamas are liberal/Marxist/Socialists themselves. So why are they bitching that a supposed liberal/Marxist/Socialist appears at the biggest liberal/Marxist/Socialist event of Hollywood?

The funnist complaint I saw didn't have to do with Michelle but the fact that they had Barbra Streisand sing "The Way We Were" because the movie is about a real marxist.

 

[zargle]

The right whining about Michelle appearance at the Oscars is quite amusing. They all think Hollywood is a liberal/Marxist/Socialist utopia, and that the Obamas are liberal/Marxist/Socialists themselves. So why are they bitching that a supposed liberal/Marxist/Socialist appears at the biggest liberal/Marxist/Socialist event of Hollywood?

The theme of the complaints I saw is that Michelle Obama believes she is 'entitled' to appear at the Oscars and can do anything she wants because she is the queen.

 

[RDreamer]

I have a few family members who refused to see Django Unchained because of something Jamie Foxx said, but I have no idea what it was.

He called Obama "Lord and savior"