• 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.
Random:

The guy that played Merv on the 90s Nickelodeon TV show "Welcome Freshmen" is a complete gun nut.

Like, teabagger to the letter.
As a theater major i always think it's weird when other actors are uber conservative.

The occasional libertarian, sure, but I can't comprehend the tea party republicans immersing themselves in the gayest industry on the planet. (That's not meant as a slight, I fully embrace and enjoy it) Like... what?
 
As a theater major i always think it's weird when other actors are uber conservative.

The occasional libertarian, sure, but I can't comprehend the tea party republicans immersing themselves in the gayest industry on the planet. (That's not meant as a slight, I fully embrace and enjoy it) Like... what?

The irony is that he lives in California. The red part of California, but it's still California.

http://www.facebook.com/david.rhoden.35
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here's a good article by Michael Calderone on the state of conservative journamalism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/conservative-media_n_2812517.html?1362520602

I enjoyed this part in particular:

"I look for aggression," Carlson said of his hiring process. "I'm not hiring wine stewards. I'm hiring journalists. I'm looking for someone who is single-mindedly focused on getting information." Carlson said he wanted drive "more than anything."

"I want that more than experience," he added. "I want that more than pedigree. I don't care if you've graduated from college or not. I've hired a number of people who didn’t graduate from college. I don't care. Why would a degree mean anything to me? It doesn’t. Trust me."

LOL. You don't say, Tucker.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
3GVBMlg.jpg
 

Chichikov

Member
Well, personally it doesnt really bother me because I'm not a very materialistic person. I don't like buying things since most of that crap I get very little enjoyment out of and just takes up space. early retirement and travel, on the other hand...

Thats basically why im saving a crap load now since if i can retire early and travel it would be totally worth giving up that new car, ipad, etc

As for your retirement number, take your average spending multiply that by how many years you want to spend in retirement and adjust for inflation. Bam, retirement number
How many years I want to spend in retirement?
This isn't Logan's Run, we have a rather limited ability to know when we'll die (not to mention that it can be pretty hard to know in advance all of your expenses in retirement, though probably not as hard as predicting inflation rates 30 years in the future).

And even if you're not a materialistic person (good on you by the way) it's still bad that you have to save too much, you could've worked less, you could've give more money to charity or send your kids to a better school, even something as mundane as spending more in local businesses in your town is better than giving it to Wall Street (even non materialistic people's spending tend to correlate with disposable income) seriously, anything is going to be better than giving it to Wall Street.

Think of it like insurance, if you're on your own, you need to have enough money saved for the worst case scenario, if you're sharing the risk with enough people, each have to save only to cover the average cost of retirement.
This is great for the people and bad for Wall Street.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Well, personally it doesnt really bother me because I'm not a very materialistic person. I don't like buying things since most of that crap I get very little enjoyment out of and just takes up space. early retirement and travel, on the other hand...

Thats basically why im saving a crap load now since if i can retire early and travel it would be totally worth giving up that new car, ipad, etc

As for your retirement number, take your average spending multiply that by how many years you want to spend in retirement and adjust for inflation. Bam, retirement number
I realize you are simplifying, but I've been doing a lot of retirement planning recently, and that is so very not the way to do retirement planning.

Different investment vehicles give you access to funds at different times (IRA vs. Social Security vs. pension, etc.). You need to stage and time those buckets so you have steady retirement income without penalties. This can get very complex. You also need to factor in health costs (wide variation), living costs (wide variation), retirement age (can vary widely), the income you get from investments, and more. Not to mention actually having the means to save enough, which is very difficult.

I agree about the need to teach basic finance to kids, though. I got almost nothing in high school.
 

Owzers

Member
Rand Paul on cspan 2....please run for president next time, please. Basically saying Obama is going to drone strike a grandmother for dialing the wrong number.
 

With their insistence of ridiculous spending on wars and defense, they have no right to claim to be the 'ant party'.

The only time when the GOP has been fiscally conservative in the last 40 years is when they are not in power. (With the exception of George HW Bush who they hated for actually being fiscally conservative.)
 
Here
President Obama is circumventing Republican leaders and reaching out directly to rank-and-file Senate GOP lawmakers in an early effort to build momentum for a grand bargain to avert sequestration and reduce the long-term deficit.

“He wants to do the big deal,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Graham told reporters Tuesday afternoon that Obama had just called him and the two spoke for 10 minutes about fiscal issues. He said the conversation was “incredibly encouraging.”

“I’m very encouraged by what I see from the president in terms of what I see in terms of substance and tone,” Graham said. “He’s calling people — this is how you solve our problems. He’s working the phones, talking about … how can we get more people in the mix.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said Obama called her on Tuesday and the two discussed budget and fiscal issues. She also came away cautiously encouraged.

“I think the important thing is, for the first time in a very long time, the president appears to be doing some outreach to both Republicans and Democrats, and that’s long overdue,” Collins told reporters on Wednesday.

Ordinarily the president would speak directly with leadership. But as the White House sees it, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have been unwilling to begin a discussion about averting the sequester in a balanced way. The two GOP leaders have repeatedly ruled out raising any new revenue. So Obama is searching for Republicans who are willing to engage.

As part of his outreach, Obama has invited a number of Republican senators to dinner on Wednesday night at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington. Those expected to attend, according to The Associated Press, are Sens. Graham, John McCain (AZ), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Roy Blunt (MO), Pat Toomey (PA), Rob Portman (OH), Bob Corker (TN) and Ron Johnson (WY).

Graham said the broad consensus is that the deficit must be reduced by cutting long-term entitlement spending and extracting revenues by reforming the tax code to eliminate deductions.

“I just think we know what to do. We know what the big deal should be made of,” he said. “Maybe because of sequestration, and frustration with the public, the time is right to act. And what I see from the president is probably the most encouraging engagement on a big issue I’ve seen since the early years of his presidency.”

Looks like Obama is looking forward to privatizing medicare and lowering taxes for the rich!
/PD
 

gcubed

Member
I can already see that meeting. Dominated by McCain and Graham saying "we won't vote for any deal until we find out what really happened in Benghazi"
 
And also, no new revenues. Unless it's to fund the Benghazi investigation.

Well lets be honest, we need to know what exactly happened in Benghazi. Perhaps one day Obama will be man enough and actually act in a way that is worthy of his office and tell the truth. Until then I will put my trust in John McClain. The true American hero, always and forever.
 

gcubed

Member
Rand Paul on cspan 2....please run for president next time, please. Basically saying Obama is going to drone strike a grandmother for dialing the wrong number.

Obama shouldn't be killing Americans without due process, and he sure as hell shouldn't be leaving a door open to do it on US soil. I agree with Rand Paul
 
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) is signaling that Democrats may revisit filibuster reform in the wake of high-profile Republican filibusters including the Chuck Hagel nomination, the plan to avert sequestration and the judicial nomination of Caitlin Halligan.

According to Roll Call, Durbin said the existing rules change agreement doesn't seem to be working.

“I hate to suggest this, but if this is an indication of where we’re headed, we need to revisit the rules again,” the Illinois Democrat said. “We need to go back to it again. I’m sorry to say it because I — was hopeful that a bipartisan approach to dealing with these issues would work.”

“It’s the best thing for this chamber, for the people serving here and the history of this institution,” Durbin said of the bipartisan arrangement. “But if this Caitlin Halligan nomination is an indication of things to come, we’ve got to revisit the rules.”

Good job Harry.
 

Chichikov

Member
It's about time someone realized that this shit was fucked up. Hopefully they can manage to do something this time.
Someone realized, fuck, everyone realized.
But not Harry Reid.

And you guys gave me shit when I said it would've been better if he lost his seat.
 
I don't think people realize democrats have no intention of changing the rules. They realize they'll be in the minority eventually and don't want to prevent themselves from being able to obstruct some things too. Same with many republicans; sure many would love to end filibusters, but there are plenty of Susan Collins types who realize the filibuster is what makes them matter in debates. Then there are senators on both sides with regional demands who would reserve the right to obstruct things (West Virginia senators and coal/energy bills, Michigan/Ohio senators and auto industry legislation, Virginia senators and defense contractors, etc).

You would need 51 liberal or conservative senators to do it, and a majority leader willing to put it up for vote. Warren, Merkley, and a few others aren't enough; you need a majority willing to stand firm. Last time the reform bloc lost many votes to McCain and Reid's shit compromise.
 
Someone realized, fuck, everyone realized.
But not Harry Reid.

And you guys gave me shit when I said it would've been better if he lost his seat.
Chuck Schumer would be a worse majority leader. I'm fine with Reid given the alternative, although Durbin isn't bad (and perhaps would be chosen with Obama's blessing).
 

Chichikov

Member
I don't think people realize democrats have no intention of changing the rules. They realize they'll be in the minority eventually and don't want to prevent themselves from being able to obstruct some things too. Same with many republicans; sure many would love to end filibusters, but there are plenty of Susan Collins types who realize the filibuster is what makes them matter in debates. Then there are senators on both sides with regional demands who would reserve the right to obstruct things (West Virginia senators and coal/energy bills, Michigan/Ohio senators and auto industry legislation, Virginia senators and defense contractors, etc).

You would need 51 liberal or conservative senators to do it, and a majority leader willing to put it up for vote. Warren, Merkley, and a few others aren't enough; you need a majority willing to stand firm. Last time the reform bloc lost many votes to McCain and Reid's shit compromise.
They're stupid, the GOP will go nuclear on their asses in a second, not to mention that the GOP doesn't really have popular positions on anything anymore, are they really concerned that they'll privatize social security?
Bush had both houses of congress and over 60% approval ratings and couldn't get it done.

And more broadly, in the long run, obstructionism help the party that resists change, i.e. the conservative party.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I don't think people realize democrats have no intention of changing the rules. They realize they'll be in the minority eventually and don't want to prevent themselves from being able to obstruct some things too. Same with many republicans; sure many would love to end filibusters, but there are plenty of Susan Collins types who realize the filibuster is what makes them matter in debates. Then there are senators on both sides with regional demands who would reserve the right to obstruct things (West Virginia senators and coal/energy bills, Michigan/Ohio senators and auto industry legislation, Virginia senators and defense contractors, etc).

You would need 51 liberal or conservative senators to do it, and a majority leader willing to put it up for vote. Warren, Merkley, and a few others aren't enough; you need a majority willing to stand firm. Last time the reform bloc lost many votes to McCain and Reid's shit compromise.
This is stupid logic. If the Republicans came into power, they would just change the rules anyway.
 
They're stupid, the GOP will go nuclear on their asses in a second, not to mention that the GOP doesn't really have popular positions on anything anymore, are they really concerned that they'll privatize social security?
Bush had both houses of congress and over 60% approval ratings and couldn't get it done.

And more broadly, in the long run, obstructionism help the party that resists change, i.e. the conservative party.
Yeah this. They should realize that they will never use it as much as the GOP uses it to fuck things up so just get rid of it.

What is the GOP going to push through that they want to filibuster?
A war? Like they would stop a war.
Persecution of a minority? Those days are largely over.
A big tax cut? Again, like they would stop that.

The only thing I could see them filibustering is certain extremist appointment nominees. That is a pretty small thing to give up considering that the GOP now literally filibusters almost EVERYTHING.
 
Rand Paul is now talking about eminent domain according to twitter. wtf

Anti-death penalty now....

Just pretty much called out McCain "hundred year war"
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
From Secrecy News*:

The hourly minimum wage reached its peak value in 1968, when it was worth $10.57 in real terms, the Congressional Research Service calculated in a new report. But although the nominal value of the minimum wage has increased over the years, it has not kept pace with the increase in consumer prices, and so its real value has fallen. See Inflation and the Real Minimum Wage: A Fact Sheet, February 26, 2013.

* Secrecy News sounds like a conspiracy site, but it's actually a site run by the Federation of American Scientists and that disseminates Congressional Research Service reports that aren't disseminated to the public by Congress.

Also, a sequester FAQ.

To be fair EV, isn't healthcare cost eating into wages nowadays compared to the 60's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom