• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RDreamer

Member
Guess which plan to avert the sequester polls better

Most Republicans don't actually support the House Republican plan to avert the spending cuts known as the sequester, according to a new poll conducted for Business Insider by our partner SurveyMonkey.

The poll asked participants to consider the core points of three sequester replacement proposals in Congress, without telling them the partisan affiliation of those plans. It found that in some cases, both Democrats and Republicans actually opposed their own party's plans and/or backed their adversaries' proposal.

Here are the three plans we tested:
The Senate Democratic plan cancels the $85.3 billion in 2013 sequester cuts and replaces them with a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes. The plan saves $27.5 billion by cutting farm subsidies and raises $55 billion by cutting tax deductions for oil companies and by implementing the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum tax rate for incomes over $1 million.
The 2012 House Republican plan would cancel the $55 billion in sequester defense cuts for 2013 and replace them by shrinking funding to food stamp programs, cutting $11.4 billion from the public health fund in the Affordable Care Act, and cutting the Social Services Block Grant program, among others.

The House Progressive Caucus plan replaces the entire sequester with a new plan with equivalent savings. It accomplishes this by ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies, closing several tax loopholes, cutting the corporate meal and entertainment tax deduction at 25 percent, and enacting a 28 percent limit on certain tax deductions and extensions.
Surveys have found that asking people about just titles of plans or telling people who proposed policy, changes the results, so the point of this poll was to see what people thought of the plans when they were fully explained, but also stripped of partisan labels.

SurveyMonkey's poll, which surveyed 550 people, focused on congressional proposals exclusively. Here are some interesting findings of the poll:

Surprisingly, the plan that polled the strongest was the House Progressive Caucus plan. More than half of respondents supported it compared to sequestration and just a fifth of respondents were opposed.

A plurality of people — 28 percent — believed the House Progressive Caucus Plan would have the least financial impact on them personally. This makes the most sense, as only 14 percent of respondents reported having income over $150,000.

Shockingly, 47 percent of Republicans preferred the House Progressive plan to the sequester. This means that Republicans supported the House Progressive plan just as much as they supported their own party's plan.

Support for the Senate Democrat plan was weak, with just fewer than half of respondents preferring that plan compared with the sequester.

Opposition to the House Republican plan was strong, with 57 percent preferring the sequester to that plan.

Twice as many Republicans supported sequestration as Democrats.
One-fifth of Democrats prefer the sequester when compared to the Senate Democrats' sequestration replacement plan. About one-quarter of Republicans prefer the Senate Democrat plan to the implementation of the sequester. =
Click to expand...
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
15fiBsN.png


This motherfucker.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
lol, Ed Schultz's is gonna have George Takei to talk about Obama's "jedi mind meld" gaffe.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
RDreamer said:
Guess which plan to avert the sequester polls better
Click to expand...

The most amazing thing about this is this:

The Senate Democratic plan cancels the $85.3 billion in 2013 sequester cuts and replaces them with a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes. The plan saves $27.5 billion by cutting farm subsidies and raises $55 billion by cutting tax deductions for oil companies and by implementing the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum tax rate for incomes over $1 million.

The 2012 House Republican plan would cancel the $55 billion in sequester defense cuts for 2013 and replace them by shrinking funding to food stamp programs, cutting $11.4 billion from the public health fund in the Affordable Care Act, and cutting the Social Services Block Grant program, among others.

The House Progressive Caucus plan replaces the entire sequester with a new plan with equivalent savings. It accomplishes this by ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies, closing several tax loopholes, cutting the corporate meal and entertainment tax deduction at 25 percent, and enacting a 28 percent limit on certain tax deductions and extensions.
Click to expand...

The entire spectrum of elected government is offering a plan to increase unemployment! Not a single element of the government is offering to create job growth or economic growth. Fucking astounding.

Bunch of assholes.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
empty vessel said:
The most amazing thing about this is this:



The entire spectrum of elected government is offering a plan to increase unemployment! Not a single element of the government is offering to create job growth or economic growth. Fucking astounding.

Bunch of assholes.
Click to expand...
Except they'll not all lead to unemployment
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I always thought libertarian came because the left in america (that was more pro-government) adopted the term liberalism and took it away from the classical liberalists. Liberitarian isn't really big outside of america. They're just liberals, believers in liberty
Click to expand...

Basically this, progressives "stole" the term liberal that traditionally meant something different. So classical liberals "stole" the word libertarian from the anarchists and co-opted it
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
empty vessel said:
The most amazing thing about this is this:



The entire spectrum of elected government is offering a plan to increase unemployment! Not a single element of the government is offering to create job growth or economic growth. Fucking astounding.

Bunch of assholes.
Click to expand...
The progressive caucus is usually pretty good about jobs plans. In 2011 when Obama was trying to get a grand bargain, their plan reduced deficits by 5.8 trillion dollars gross (mostly revenue and military) but then reinvested 1.8 trillion or so of that directly into jobs programs, refunding schools and public services, and tax credits to encourage hiring. It also contained some Medicaid/Medicare/SS/Obamacare reforms that would actually expand the programs to more people while not cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

Of course, it was never given any serious consideration.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
The progressive caucus is usually pretty good about jobs plans. In 2011 when Obama was trying to get a grand bargain, their plan reduced deficits by 5.8 trillion dollars gross (mostly revenue and military) but then reinvested 1.8 trillion or so of that directly into jobs programs, refunding schools and public services, and tax credits to encourage hiring. It also contained some Medicaid/Medicare/SS/Obamacare reforms that would actually expand the programs to more people while not cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

Of course, it was never given any serious consideration.
Click to expand...

They did it again recently.

But, hey. Bunch of assholes.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Dax01 said:
They did it again recently.

But, hey. Bunch of assholes.
Click to expand...
The unfortunate thing is that even if Democrats picked up 5 seats in the Senate and 50 in the House next year, this would assuredly not be the framework for any Obama-led deficit reduction proposal. But by then the wars would be over so he could simply declare there is no need to deal with the deficit anymore.
 
E

Ember128

Member
The XL Pipeline will lead to hundred of jobs. Hundreds!

That and the money pipeline that will be built beside it that will funnel cash into my home province of Alberta.
 
Rhomega Beta

Rhomega Beta

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
Call me a masochist but I read Redstate.com and just HAD to post this.

Agenda-chart-2-620x301.jpg
Click to expand...

I've seen a similar diagram before. Apparently it was the old political spectrum and was supported by the Founding Fathers, who created a three-headed eagle to make sure we don't go too far left or right, as well as an analogy for checks and balances.

three-headed-eagle-chart.jpg


The central head of the eagle was considered the law-making or legislative head of the eagle with it’s two eyes being the House and Senate. The House and Senate need to see eye to eye to create law. The second head looking to the side was considered the executive head of the eagle with one person (the president) acting with limited power. The third head, looking to the other side, was considered the judiciary head and it’s job was to protect the constitution as written and designed by the founders. All three of these heads are connected by one neck, showing how each head is dependent on the other and that they need each other to function.

The three headed eagle has two wings, each with a different representation or meaning. The first wing is considered the problem solving wing, which wants to fulfill the needs of the people and create plans to solve problems. The second wing is called the conservation wing, and has the job of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. The second wing looks at the first wing’s plans to determine if we can afford the plan, and if it encroaches on the people’s freedoms and rights.
If both wings do their job the eagle will fly straight and stay on course. If the first wing is not kept in check the eagle will veer off course towards tyranny. In contrast, if the first wing does not do it’s job and the second wing allows the people to do as the wish then the eagle will veer off towards anarchy.
Click to expand...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Good. Pipeline=jobs
Click to expand...

Pfft. Not many and not for long. But I guess some jobs is better than none.

The funny thing is that pipeline is going to fuck-over those in the mountain red-states. Right now, states like Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, etc. are getting artificially low gasoline because that Canadian tar-sands oil is stranded and they have to sell it to regional refiners for cut-rate prices. When that oil can easily flow down to the LA & Texas oil hub then they can sell it on world markets for much higher prices. So the price of gas in Cheney territory is going to go UP once it is built.

And a lot of the suckers up there think it will bring the price of gas down. They are in for a rude awakening. Just the standard high-end biz GOPers screwing over their base of true-believers.


The 2012 House Republican plan would cancel the $55 billion in sequester defense cuts for 2013 and replace them by shrinking funding to food stamp programs, cutting $11.4 billion from the public health fund in the Affordable Care Act, and cutting the Social Services Block Grant program, among others.
Click to expand...
Was that really their plan? More cartoon evil. Let's take food away from hungry kids and medical care away from sick people and give that money to people that deal death.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
codhand said:
it took shutdown last time, for what a week?, to come to an agreement. i think under clinton you had more factors at play, with all the distractions his presidency dealt with. we'll see but we have been down this road before youre right.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not quite sure I understand your post, but I wasn't being sarcastic if that's how it came across o_O I was just wondering what you meant exactly with everything stops in April.
 
kingkaiser

kingkaiser

Member
From the legendary Onion article

"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
Click to expand...

Bud Crandall = empty vessel confirmed
 
C

codhand

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
Oh, I'm not quite sure I understand your post, but I wasn't being sarcastic if that's how it came across o_O I was just wondering what you meant exactly with everything stops in April.
Click to expand...

well i think govt will stop, not for long, just maybe enough to reiterate our political disfunction to the world, my point i guess is even if we shut down govt we will have congress, and they will allow spending to resume, and we're right back to where we were
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
codhand said:
well i think govt will stop, not for long, just maybe enough to reiterate our political disfunction to the world, my point i guess is even if we shut down govt we will have congress, and they will allow spending to resume, and we're right back to where we were
Click to expand...
Indeed and hopefully Republicans will catch most of the heat again.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
kingkaiser said:
From the legendary Onion article

Bud Crandall = empty vessel confirmed
Click to expand...

Ha. I like the idea that an Onion article trying to achieve satire inadvertently invented a citizen-character grounded in reality. It's true that paying off the debt would be economically disastrous (and quite frankly would simply be impossible, because the economy would keep crashing). Bob Crandall was right to be concerned for the welfare of his children with a government that attempted to maintain surpluses while running a trade deficit for 10 years. That would be fiscally irresponsible.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Hasn't slept around with our best friend's gf/wife like Newsome did back when he was mayor? Surely that shouldn't stop him from running for higher office. I hear his new book is fantastic, btw. And he's the Lt. Governor, now.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
I'm going on a self-imposed perma-ban, dudes. This place is too much of a timesink and I've got so many other things going on in my life that I could do without checking this forum constantly.

If you want to keep up with me, follow me on Twitter.

These threads have been great. I wish everyone the best. Papa Joe is signing off. He'll be listening to this all day.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Aaron Strife said:
The progressive caucus is usually pretty good about jobs plans. In 2011 when Obama was trying to get a grand bargain, their plan reduced deficits by 5.8 trillion dollars gross (mostly revenue and military) but then reinvested 1.8 trillion or so of that directly into jobs programs, refunding schools and public services, and tax credits to encourage hiring. It also contained some Medicaid/Medicare/SS/Obamacare reforms that would actually expand the programs to more people while not cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

Of course, it was never given any serious consideration.
Click to expand...

The number isn't plausible because proposals like the grand bargain and fiscal cliff, which projected $7.1T in deficit reduction, assumes that we will return shortly to full employment and have a robust economic recovery with those cuts and tax hikes in place. There's no fiscal policy that we have planned that indicates that will be the case. We've empirically observed for years now in Europe that you can raise taxes and cut spending all you want. However, your deficits will still fluctuate like a pendulum and never go down to zero. Furthermore, you'll repeatedly miss your projected deficit targets and your debt will correspondingly soar. 1.8T or so redirected into public investment and tax credits will not offset what you took out of the economy via tax hikes and military spending cuts. Additionally, the austerity would be cumulative. We've done other things since the economic recovery started that acted as a drag on the economy. So it shouldn't be given any serious consideration because you don't reduce unemployment, decrease the usage of automatic stabilizers, and significantly increase economic growth by cutting spending and raising taxes in isolation. It's simply not going to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
5K
Agent_Nobody replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
948
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
520
11K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
850
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Top Bottom