Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

Congress is like two brothers left alone while mom (the electorate) is at work. One of the brothers is a mouth breathing troublemaking retard who will smear feces on everything and set fire to the house because he thinks when mom comes back and finds the shit-smelling house in a pile of smoking ruins he can just point at his brother and say, 'we'll he was here too.'

 

[Rubenov]

So GAF, what are the chances of something getting passed this Sunday?? I'm short volatility in my investment portfolio and I'm getting killed.

 

[Sirpopopop]

So GAF, what are the chances of something getting passed this Sunday?? I'm short volatility in my investment portfolio and I'm getting killed.

Should've sold off a long ago if you're playing that game.

This is really a game of chicken with one very irrational actor who has no problem crashing his car into yours. Not the kind thing I would place a wager on. You just don't know the variables.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I'm trying to think of why your summary is wrong but all I can come with is "Well, the poor people won't actually starve." and "those 0.5% of people do get a tax cut but not on the income over $1M" (which makes it even worse).

Edit: That FB post must be a troll, no one is that stupid.

Lol, even I forget everyone gets a tax cut.

I feel like everyone is so scared of being accused of of being the "librul media" by Fox News and crew, that they don't even want to report reality anymore.

Exactly. It's frustrating.

 

[The Librarian]

Congress is like two brothers left alone while mom (the electorate) is at work. One of the brothers is a mouth breathing troublemaking retard who will smear feces on everything and set fire to the house because he thinks when mom comes back and finds the shit-smelling house in a pile of smoking ruins he can just point at his brother and say, 'we'll he was here too.'

I just got finished with Malcolm in the Middle, so this analogy reminded me of that. Reese would be the House right now, and Malcolm the Senate.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Re: Dick Armey exit from Freedom Works

In his latest interview with ABC News, posted online Saturday and conducted, apparently, “as he was winding down his Wii Fit workout,” Armey spoke about the agreement he struck with Richard Stephenson, the FreedomWorks board member and millionaire founder of the for-profit Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

Uhhh...

 

[Mike M]

Re: Dick Armey exit from Freedom Works



Uhhh...

I'm more flabbergasted at the notion that Cancer Treatment Centers of America is a for-profit outfit. I mean, I'm already cognizant that most of the healthcare sector is for-profit, but what kind of unfathomable chode looks at people dying of cancer and sees an unexploited market? Fuck.

 

[Black Mamba]

“This graph from S&P illustrates two key facts: health-care costs have decelerated over the past few years, and Medicare costs have decelerated more than other health costs. That pattern suggests at least part of the slowdown is structural (since if it were all just a reflection of economic weakness, we wouldn’t expect Medicare to slow down more than other health costs, but if it were partly structural, that’s exactly what we would expect). If this slower growth continues, the impact on our long-term fiscal gap will be much more meaningful than any plausible outcome of the fiscal cliff negotiations.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-orszag-chart-shows-medicare-costs-slowing-2012-12#ixzz2GTbD5dTq

 

[mavs]

So no matter what happens it looks like the issue of the debt ceiling will not be resolved through the fiscal cliff.

I now suspect the debt ceiling will be a major part, if not the center piece, of Obama's next State of the Union. Unless second-term Presidents don't get a State of the Union in the same year as their inauguration.

The debt ceiling is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the GOP's credibility breaks down. Obama could do the $1 trillion coin trick right now and steer the backlash against Republicans. By the time we actually hit the debt ceiling there might not even be any backlash.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Republicans will have less leverage on the debt ceiling considering there will be less tea party manics in the house, and 55 dems in the senate. Of course that won't stop Boehner from refusing to bring a vote to the floor, but I think he would after the initial tough talk. I also think republicans will refuse every fiscal deal Obama agrees to next year in anticipation of using the debt ceiling to extract more concessions.

The question is whether Obama will cave. He almost certainly will, although I don't think he'll offer the entire farm as he did in 2011; he's in a better position politically now. Still, he will break his word and negotiate on the ceiling, just watch.

 

[The Librarian]

Republicans will have less leverage on the debt ceiling considering there will be less tea party manics in the house, and 55 dems in the senate. Of course that won't stop Boehner from refusing to bring a vote to the floor, but I think he would after the initial tough talk. I also think republicans will refuse every fiscal deal Obama agrees to next year in anticipation of using the debt ceiling to extract more concessions.

The question is whether Obama will cave. He almost certainly will, although I don't think he'll offer the entire farm as he did in 2011; he's in a better position politically now. Still, he will break his word and negotiate on the ceiling, just watch.

Just like he offered Republicans a new threshold of 500K, an Obamacare cut, and more entitlement benefit cuts than chained CPI in their meeting yesterday?

 

[B-Dubs]

Just like he offered Republicans a new threshold of 500K, an Obamacare cut, and more entitlement benefits than chained CPI in their meeting yesterday?

Exactly! Obama is just waiting for the right time to cave into all their demands.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Republicans will have less leverage on the debt ceiling considering there will be less tea party manics in the house, and 55 dems in the senate. Of course that won't stop Boehner from refusing to bring a vote to the floor, but I think he would after the initial tough talk. I also think republicans will refuse every fiscal deal Obama agrees to next year in anticipation of using the debt ceiling to extract more concessions.

The question is whether Obama will cave. He almost certainly will, although I don't think he'll offer the entire farm as he did in 2011; he's in a better position politically now. Still, he will break his word and negotiate on the ceiling, just watch.

Do you ever wonder to yourself just how amazing it is that you've been wrong like EVERY SINGLE TIME? Seriously. I cannot recall any point in regards to Obama that you have been right.

 

[pigeon]

Do you ever wonder to yourself just how amazing it is that you've been wrong like EVERY SINGLE TIME? Seriously. I cannot recall any point in regards to Obama that you have been right.

He was correct to note that Obama was black*.




* Well, okay. He was half right.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Kyou no Ramirez-chan:

 

[PhoenixDark]

Do you ever wonder to yourself just how amazing it is that you've been wrong like EVERY SINGLE TIME? Seriously. I cannot recall any point in regards to Obama that you have been right.

Eh

Obama wants a big deal. He's offering a short term solution to get us past the cliff, at which point they'll get back to discussing a major deal. I'm not wrong until Obama proposes what he's willing to give up again.

 

[el retorno]

Eh

Obama wants a big deal. He's offering a short term solution to get us past the cliff, at which point they'll get back to discussing a major deal. I'm not wrong until Obama proposes what he's willing to give up again.

so you're not wrong till you're wrong?

Kyou no Ramirez-chan:

Unearned fame?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Unearned fame?

Unusually self-referential for a Ramirez toon.

 

[norinrad]

Eh

Obama wants a big deal. He's offering a short term solution to get us past the cliff, at which point they'll get back to discussing a major deal. I'm not wrong until Obama proposes what he's willing to give up again.

Hilary would have done so much better.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama officially reaches 51% as the final election results continue to come in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

 

[Black Mamba]

Obama officially reaches 51% as the final election results continue to come in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

Romney managed to swing 1 million votes. The other 3 million people stayed home or voted 3rd party. lol

 

[Link]

Obama officially reaches 51% as the final election results continue to come in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

Looks like his lead will grow to over five million, too.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Eh

Obama wants a big deal. He's offering a short term solution to get us past the cliff, at which point they'll get back to discussing a major deal. I'm not wrong until Obama proposes what he's willing to give up again.

AKA you're not wrong until you are wrong once again. Ok.

 

[makingmusic476]

Obama officially reaches 51% as the final election results continue to come in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=19

Do we have an update on the total House tally?

I know the Democrats had like a ~1 million vote lead as of the day after the election.'

I'd love to see the current gap and how gerrymandering really fucked them over.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama urging state lawmakers to legalize gay marriage in Illinois: Sun-Times exclusive

WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama is urging the Illinois General Assembly to legalize gay marriage in his home state as lawmakers are poised to take up the measure as early as this week in Springfield.

"While the president does not weigh in on every measure being considered by state legislatures, he believes in treating everyone fairly and equally, with dignity and respect," White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday.

"As he has said, his personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. Were the President still in the Illinois State Legislature, he would support this measure that would treat all Illinois couples equally." Inouye said.

The lead sponsors of the "Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act," state Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), intend to put the measure up for a vote during the upcoming January lame-duck session.

The toughest challenge for gay marriage backers will be winning passage in the Illinois House. Prospects for approval in the Illinois Senate--where Obama once served--are brighter.

The practical impact of Obama urging his home state to legalize gay marriage is to prod--and give political cover to--reluctant Democrats from conservative suburban and Downstate districts.

Both chambers in Springfield are controlled by Democrats. Republicans cannot be depended on for widespread gay marriage support. Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief Dave McKinney has reported that Steans and Harris predicted there would be some Republican backing.

Illinois passed a civil union law effective June 1, 2011. When lawmakers took up civil unions, only one Senate Republican voted for the bill--current Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford.

While Obama rarely gets involved in statehouse battles, he has voiced support for gay marriage measures in the past year, issuing--through his re-election campaign--statements of support for gay marriage ballot questions up last November in Maine, Maryland and Washington. Those initiatives won--and a Minnesota referendum to ban gay marriage--which Obama also publically opposed--lost.

Obama himself endorsed gay marriage in May after grappling with the issue for several years. "At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC's Robin Roberts.

The leading Democrats in Illinois--Gov. Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff, are urging lawmakers to send Quinn a gay marriage bill he can sign.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/obama_urging_state_lawmakers_t.html

 

[el retorno]

Obama urging state lawmakers to legalize gay marriage in Illinois: Sun-Times exclusive

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/obama_urging_state_lawmakers_t.html

Cool

 

[Byakuya769]

Kyou no Ramirez-chan:

Whatever. We're taking your guns.

 

[thefro]

Looks like his lead will grow to over five million, too.

It looks like all the state results are final certified totals except for New York & Hawaii, so they'd need to have 80k uncounted votes or so at least for Obama to net 34,000 and make it an even five million vote margin.

 

[speculawyer]

Kyou no Ramirez-chan:

What is his point? Even if we assume all those thing contributed (I think a few of them certainly did) . . . what is his point?

Does he have a plan for addressing all those points? Those problems will all continue to exist no matter what. Reducing guns will reduce gun deaths that stem from those things.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I'm more flabbergasted at the notion that Cancer Treatment Centers of America is a for-profit outfit. I mean, I'm already cognizant that most of the healthcare sector is for-profit, but what kind of unfathomable chode looks at people dying of cancer and sees an unexploited market? Fuck.

So, the type of medicine dictates whether they can profit or not? You can take this a step further. People do profit off of the hungry. They can't even get AIDS meds in certain places because of lol profits.
I don't think for-profit means taking advantage. Then we would have a lot of questions to answer. Profits on insurance cuz they know one of you will get into a terrible accident.

I don't see for-profit being inherently wrong. Hell, to survive and continue to provide a service, it almost seems like they have to be 'for-profit'.

 

[Mario]

What is his point? Even if we assume all those thing contributed (I think a few of them certainly did) . . . what is his point?

Does he have a plan for addressing all those points? Those problems will all continue to exist no matter what. Reducing guns will reduce gun deaths that stem from those things.

Yes. If you partnered this comic with one where the guy is holding a lollipop instead of a smoking assault rifle, he might find the point he is trying to make is somewhat undermined.

 

[RDreamer]

For the third year in a row, Medicare spending has significantly come in below estimates.

“This graph from S&P illustrates two key facts: health-care costs have decelerated over the past few years, and Medicare costs have decelerated more than other health costs. That pattern suggests at least part of the slowdown is structural (since if it were all just a reflection of economic weakness, we wouldn’t expect Medicare to slow down more than other health costs, but if it were partly structural, that’s exactly what we would expect). If this slower growth continues, the impact on our long-term fiscal gap will be much more meaningful than any plausible outcome of the fiscal cliff negotiations.”

 

[Bowdz]

Take this with a huge grain of salt, but a Jewish political blog and RightScoop.com are both reporting that the White House contacted leaders of various Jewish groups to tell them that Obama plans to nominate Chuck Hagel for defense on Monday.

http://gestetnerupdates.com/2012/12/29/sources-hagel-to-be-nominated-monday-for-defense-secretary/

http://www.therightscoop.com/source...ate-sen-chuck-hagel-for-secretary-of-defense/

Sources tell GestetnerUpdates.Com that the White House contacted key Jewish leaders this evening, informing them that former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel will be nominated this week, likely as early as Monday, to be America’s next Secretary of Defense.

Many Jewish leaders and voices expressed concern about and open opposition to a potential Hagel nomination due to some controversial statements that he made about “The Jewish Lobby” who “intimidates” people on the Hill. The cold reception to Hagel was visible last week Sunday on the ‘Morning Shows’ when leading Democrats – including NY Senator Schumer – were not at all coming to Hagel’s defense.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Take this with a huge grain of salt, but a Jewish political blog and RightScoop.com are both reporting that the White House contacted leaders of various Jewish groups to tell them that Obama plans to nominate Chuck Hagel for defense on Monday.

http://gestetnerupdates.com/2012/12/29/sources-hagel-to-be-nominated-monday-for-defense-secretary/

http://www.therightscoop.com/source...ate-sen-chuck-hagel-for-secretary-of-defense/

I don't believe it.

 

[speculawyer]

Many Jewish leaders and voices expressed concern about and open opposition to a potential Hagel nomination due to some controversial statements that he made about “The Jewish Lobby” who “intimidates” people on the Hill. The cold reception to Hagel was visible last week Sunday on the ‘Morning Shows’ when leading Democrats – including NY Senator Schumer – were not at all coming to Hagel’s defense.

So . . . aren't they proving that Hagel had a point?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I wouldn't be surprised if he's nominated, but I doubt it'll be as early as this monday. That sounds pretty fast to me.

Or this could be a way to drum up even more pre-emptive resistance to the pick. I hope he does pick Hagel, and when asked about Israel's concerns flatly says "I'm picking the Sec of Def for the United States of America, not for Israel."

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I wouldn't be surprised if he's nominated, but I doubt it'll be as early as this monday. That sounds pretty fast to me.

Or this could be a way to drum up even more pre-emptive resistance to the pick. I hope he does pick Hagel, and when asked about Israel's concerns flatly says "I'm picking the Sec of Def for the United States of America, not for Israel."

Obama doesnt nominate, he asks the GOP for permission.

 

[el retorno]

Take this with a huge grain of salt, but a Jewish political blog and RightScoop.com are both reporting that the White House contacted leaders of various Jewish groups to tell them that Obama plans to nominate Chuck Hagel for defense on Monday.

http://gestetnerupdates.com/2012/12/29/sources-hagel-to-be-nominated-monday-for-defense-secretary/

http://www.therightscoop.com/source...ate-sen-chuck-hagel-for-secretary-of-defense/

I hope this is true I want to see a fight, hes said nothing wrong besides the gay stuff. But that I chalk up to ignorance and won't affect his job.

 

[Mike M]

So, the type of medicine dictates whether they can profit or not? You can take this a step further. People do profit off of the hungry. They can't even get AIDS meds in certain places because of lol profits.
I don't think for-profit means taking advantage. Then we would have a lot of questions to answer. Profits on insurance cuz they know one of you will get into a terrible accident.

It's more simple than that even, I find for-profit healthcare to be ethically questionable at best, and the notion of monetizing terminally ill patients who would otherwise die to be morally reprehensible.

Healthcare is a unique industry, and not wholly analogous to any other. Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and the people needing it almost never have the ability to shop around, etc. Every benefit provided by the free market breaks down when applied here, and instead of lowering costs through competition become drivers of rising prices.

I don't see for-profit being inherently wrong. Hell, to survive and continue to provide a service, it almost seems like they have to be 'for-profit'.

Nonsense. How do you think any not-for-profit continues to exist then? Not-for-profit healthcare would simply recoup the costs of treatment and excise the unearned income that would otherwise be distributed to shareholders.

 

[Link]

It looks like all the state results are final certified totals except for New York & Hawaii, so they'd need to have 80k uncounted votes or so at least for Obama to net 34,000 and make it an even five million vote margin.

The remaining votes in NYC should be enough to put him over.

 

[makingmusic476]

Some dude posted that picture comparing the US budget to a household budget on Facebook with the caption "sums it up perfectly", to which I responded:

But it doesn't. Federal budgets are not comparable to household budgets in any way.

Ever dollar the US government has ever spent was created at some point by the US government. You can't run out of money you yourself create, and any "limit" on the amount of spending is an unnecessary and artificial barrier self-imposed by the government. This is quite unlike a household which spends dollars somebody else (the US government) creates. It is also quite unlike the member states of the Eurozone, which also spend money (Euros) somebody else created (the ECB).

A household couldn't get away with deficit spending consistently for over 150 years. A federal government can, because it is spending money created by itself.

Now, spending too much money at any time *can* be a problem in regards to inflation, but that's another matter entirely and has little to do with the size of our deficit and total debt at any given time. It is also something that we do not have to worry about at this time, as we've been flirting with deflation more often than anything even close to resembling hyperinflation. The money supply isn't increasing too fast at this moment, though many would have us believe otherwise given their own varying ulterior motives.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/04/why-does-uncle-sam-borrow.html
moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/the-fiscal-summit-counter-narrative-part-three-are-there-spending-constraints-on-governments-sovereign-in-their-currencies.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

To which he responded:

Good lord I'm scared for our future if people think like this...

 

[Particle Physicist]

Some dude posted that picture comparing the US budget to a household budget on Facebook with the caption "sums it up perfectly", to which I responded:



To which he responded:

Thank him for his well thought out, intelligent response.

 

[Link]

Some dude posted that picture comparing the US budget to a household budget on Facebook with the caption "sums it up perfectly", to which I responded:



To which he responded:

Ask him to explain the debt ceiling to you.

 

[B-Dubs]

Ask him to explain the debt ceiling to you.

Oh man, do this. It will be a barrel of laughs.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ask him to explain the debt ceiling to you.

Yes! Please.

 

[soul creator]

Ask him to explain the debt ceiling to you.

it's like a credit card limit that keeps getting raised, instead of you paying off the credit card like a responsible person!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

it's like a credit card limit that keeps getting raised, instead of you paying off the credit card like a responsible person!

And China would be Mastercard.

 

[RustyNails]

it's like a credit card limit that keeps getting raised, instead of you paying off the credit card like a responsible person!

More like borrowing money we can't afford from China and burdening our unborn children with it. Do u know how much debt u owe to China because of Big Government SPENDING? Of course you communist pigs won't know. It's $37,000!

 

[PhoenixDark]

I notice whenever I take a long time explaining reality to conservatives (or worse yet, libertarians) they ALWAYS respond with a short 1-2 sentence just like what makingmusic476 posted. Or they'll say "I agree, but -" at which point they say something that clearly doesn't agree with anything I just said.

 

[speculawyer]

To which he responded:

Well ask him where he thinks all the dollars that now exist came from if they did not exist in 1776 (when they did not exist).

What is even more scary is that many of these dollars are PRIVATELY created through fractional reserve banking . . . and that is even more scary than the just the government printing money.