• 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.
One thing the crazies are right about is that tax hikes on the current payers won't cover the spread. The US needs more revenue all around.

The US doesn't need more revenue until its economy is at full employment. Until then, all of that unused labor represents fiscal space into which the government may safely spend.
 

KingK

Member
It's rather irritating how the conversation isn't about stimulus vs cuts, but rather shitty cuts vs really shitty cuts. They keep this shit up, and the dems are going to get stuck with the label of being anti growth when republicans turn on a dime decide to start supporting all their special interest groups wanting to spend money to build tank factories instead of spending it on infrastructure.

Agreed, it's very irritating. I understand the political strategy behind Obama's decision to buy into the deficit scare. He wanted higher taxes on the rich, and scaring people about the deficit made it much easier to raise their taxes than it would if you admit the deficit is really a non-issue right now.

I do think it was a big mistake though. I don't think cutting social programs, neglecting the unemployment problem, and encouraging the electorate's economic illiteracy (the government is just like a household budget!) are worth the trade off, even if I really want higher taxes on the rich.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
As a heroic industrialist, let me just say that I'd rather work on a farm the rest of my life than let a small part of my tax money help you go to college!
It's not my fault I couldn't get a full time job at 12 that pays enough to live on and save up while also preparing for college!
 
If by anti-bush you mean using military means properly, then sure.

How's the closing of Guantanamo going?

How many bankers were punished for destroying the global economy?

Why did Obama raid the monsato boards to hire the people who decide our good policy?

Where's the infrastructure stimulus?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
How's the closing of Guantanamo going?

How many bankers were punished for destroying the global economy?

Why did Obama raid the monsato boards to hire the people who decide our good policy?

Where's the infrastructure stimulus?

The bolded you can blame on Congress almost exclusively. Obama ordered Guantanamo closed but Congress refused to fund it/put them anywhere else while it was all sorted out.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
How's the closing of Guantanamo going?

How many bankers were punished for destroying the global economy?

Why did Obama raid the monsato boards to hire the people who decide our good policy?

Where's the infrastructure stimulus?
You lived through Bush's term. I lived through Bush's term. Hell, I'm pretty sure we all did. Let's not reduce it to such trite comparisons.

Obama certainly disappoints in multiple ways, but the sheer level of incompetence and mendacity of the Bush Administration has yet to be even approached. Remember that it didn't even function as a policy-making organization.
 
You lived through Bush's term. I lived through Bush's term. Hell, I'm pretty sure we all did. Let's not reduce it to such trite comparisons.

Obama certainly disappoints in multiple ways, but the sheer level of incompetence and mendacity of the Bush Administration has yet to be even approached. Remember that it didn't even function as a policy-making organization.

I'm not talking about competence, I'm talking policy.

But w is still a touchy topic since he's so recent.

Let's look at this. Outside of modern social issues like gay marriage, Obama is to the right of bush sr on what he does. That's a fact.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I'm not talking about competence, I'm talking policy.

But w is still a touchy topic since he's so recent.

Let's look at this. Outside of modern social issues like gay marriage, Obama is to the right of bush sr on what he does. That's a fact.

You gotta be more specific that that, because I can list a host of issues where this is not the case, starting with the most obvious: tax policy.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Let's look at this. Outside of modern social issues like gay marriage, Obama is to the right of bush sr on what he does. That's a fact.
This does not equate to additional terms for Bush 43. You want to talk policy? Bush wanted to privatize social security and his health plan was individual saving accounts. He started two wars when he only had the duty to wage one, while keeping the expenses outside the official budget. He started NCLB. He cut taxes to levels Obama fought to pull up from. His vice president declared himself unaccountable to anyone. He withheld funding to the EPA and put politics into general science funding.

It goes on, and in no way does your anger about monsanto or guantanimo justify equating the two.
 
Meanwhile on Politico

President Barack Obama’s approval rating in New York fell precipitously in the past month, according to a poll released Monday, and three-fifths of the state’s registered voters now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

bad news?

Obama’s approval rating remains high in New York, at 56 percent, with 41 percent disapproving, according to the Siena College poll.

oh wait

But the president’s approval rating was at 66 percent last month, with only 32 percent disapproval — so the change is a net 19 point decline.

....

Why is this an article.
 
How's the closing of Guantanamo going?

How many bankers were punished for destroying the global economy?

Why did Obama raid the monsato boards to hire the people who decide our good policy?

Where's the infrastructure stimulus?

How is Obama going to close Guantanamo without Congress and states accepting the prisoners?

Infrastructure? Do you not know the limits on the President?

Ugh.

Can we talk about copper shortages again?

Well copper shortages will be the undoing of our entire civilization so we probably should.
 
Obama is the worst king ever :(

We have to do something to overthrow his monarchy!

Easy peasy. Lets horde the copper which will set off societal breakdown as we know it leading to demand for revolution which ultimately will create a leftist purification that will scare King Obama into boarding AirForce One with Iran as his destination making sure he is never a threat to us again.
 
This does not equate to additional terms for Bush 43. You want to talk policy? Bush wanted to privatize social security and his health plan was individual saving accounts. He started two wars when he only had the duty to wage one, while keeping the expenses outside the official budget. He started NCLB. He cut taxes to levels Obama fought to pull up from. His vice president declared himself unaccountable to anyone. He withheld funding to the EPA and put politics into general science funding.

It goes on, and in no way does your anger about monsanto or guantanimo justify equating the two.

Bush said a lot of things, just like Obama says a lot of things.

On both ends they say things for their base they have no intention of following up on.

Look at high speed rail. Blame Congress? Not really. In 2009 they were proposing large sums of cash, Obama said no, lower it please, and so they did

Then once the house went gop Obama proposes 100bn knowing full well it wouldn't happen.

I doubt many of the far right bush proposals would have happened had he the opportunity. Remember, he too had both houses.
 

kehs

Banned
Bush said a lot of things, just like Obama says a lot of things.

On both ends they say things for their base they have no intention of following up on.

Look at high speed rail. Blame Congress? Not really. In 2009 they were proposing large sums of cash, Obama said no, lower it please, and so they did

Then once the house went gop Obama proposes 100bn knowing full well it wouldn't happen.

I doubt many of the far right bush proposals would have happened had he the opportunity. Remember, he too had both houses.

Da fuck? No, they wanted more money for the high speed rail, but they couldn't get it past the dipshits in congress calling for austerity as a response to the recession.
 
I'm sorry I'm not obsessed with the 2016 election and want to discuss policy.

if you're not interested stop derailing the conversation and move elsewhere

Policy that is built and based on conspiracy theories and ignorance? Yea, no thanks. I greatly enjoy discussing policy unfortunately half the time when you're discussing policy it's not built on reality. Ergo this idea of Obama being worse than Bush by bringing up Guantanamo and lack of infrastructure improvement? Both of which are 100% dependent upon Congress.
 
If there's one thing that annoys me more than far right republicans its people ignorant of how government works and why a president (or any politician for that matter) can't just get every single thing done he'd like.

I just wanted to know more about the copper monopoly Obama is planning. :(
Don't we all
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
The bolded you can blame on Congress almost exclusively. Obama ordered Guantanamo closed but Congress refused to fund it/put them anywhere else while it was all sorted out.

Day one, actually.

He ordered it closed. Congress swiftly banned the use of any funds for closing the complex or transferring guantanamo bay prisoners to the civilian system.

It's literally illegal for federal prosecutors to put the people in guantanamo bay on trial, or for the facility to be closed. Trying to do so would get anyone involved felony charges. Obama would certainly be impeached and removed from office and face years behind bars.
 
Day one, actually.

He ordered it closed. Congress swiftly banned the use of any funds for closing the complex or transferring guantanamo bay prisoners to the civilian system.

It's literally illegal for federal prosecutors to put the people in guantanamo bay on trial, or for the facility to be closed. Trying to do so would get anyone involved felony charges. Obama would certainly be impeached and removed from office and face years behind bars.

But King Obama is worse than Bush on Guantanamo :(

That is the shit that annoys me to no end. If you're going to try and make legitimate points at least understand what is actually taking place. You may as well argue that both sides are equally to blame for not getting anything done.
 
Bush said a lot of things, just like Obama says a lot of things.

On both ends they say things for their base they have no intention of following up on.

Look at high speed rail. Blame Congress? Not really. In 2009 they were proposing large sums of cash, Obama said no, lower it please, and so they did

Then once the house went gop Obama proposes 100bn knowing full well it wouldn't happen.

I doubt many of the far right bush proposals would have happened had he the opportunity. Remember, he too had both houses.

Wheee, look at those goalposts move!

Two of your four points shot down, and now Obama is the Worst President becuase he failed to get hsr through while he was busy pushing ACA?
 
A New York state judge on Monday threw out a ban on large sugary drinks set to go into effect in New York City on Tuesday, calling the new regulation “arbitrary and capricious.”
Championed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a way to fight the city's growing obesity epidemic, the new regulation was to limit the sale of sugary beverages including non-diet sodas, fruit drinks, sweetened teas and other high-calorie drinks to just 16 ounces.
But the American Beverage Association and other business groups representing bars, restaurants and bodegas had sued to stop the new law, arguing, in part, that it would create an uneven playing field for businesses.

In his ruling, New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling agreed with that argument, calling the new regulation "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.
"The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole," Tingling said. "The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/judge-throws-nyc-ban-large-sugary-drinks-193247946--politics.html

lol @ Judge Tingling
 
This does not equate to additional terms for Bush 43. You want to talk policy? Bush wanted to privatize social security and his health plan was individual saving accounts. He started two wars when he only had the duty to wage one, while keeping the expenses outside the official budget. He started NCLB. He cut taxes to levels Obama fought to pull up from. His vice president declared himself unaccountable to anyone. He withheld funding to the EPA and put politics into general science funding.

It goes on, and in no way does your anger about monsanto or guantanimo justify equating the two.
Those are all good points but it sounds like you were talking about Bush junior whereas he said Bush senior.

But mentioning Bush senior is a bit irrelevant these days. His type have been run out of the GOP and replaced with Tea Partiers.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs

Honestly I doubt many people actually care about it. Sure if you ask someone they'll have an opinion, but the soda ban was like flag burning. No one likes it but no one really cares either(outside libertarians and drink companies). At least that's what I've found. If it didn't get struck down no one was going to be running on getting rid of it.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Those are all good points but it sounds like you were talking about Bush junior whereas he said Bush senior.

But mentioning Bush senior is a bit irrelevant these days. His type have been run out of the GOP and replaced with Tea Partiers.

Also, Bush 41 had a good amount of good policies.
 
"I would argue against your premise that we lost this issue in the campaign," Ryan told Wallace. "We won the senior vote."

Wait, what does the senior vote have to do with Obamacare? Most of the ACA deals with non-seniors...

edit:

Breitbart.com ridiculed Paul Krugman for filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in a since-deleted post whose claims originated with a satire website. Just last month, Breitbart.com castigated a news outlet for running with a story from that same website.

In the March 11 post, Breitbart.com editor at large Larry O'Connor mocked the Nobel Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist for his alleged financial mismanagement. Unfortunately for O'Connor, the report that Krugman went bankrupt is clearly a joke and originated from the satirical website The Daily Currant. O'Connor has since deleted the post without explanation. (Update: O'Connor tweeted, saying he "trusted Boston.com as the source for that Krugman piece, but they were duped by Daily Currant, therefore, so was I!")

In his post, O'Connor jabbed Krugman for supposedly spending "$84,000 in one month" on Portuguese wines and "a dress from the Victorian period," and concluded that "apparently this Keynsian [sic] thing doesn't really work on the micro level." O'Connor sourced the report to a Boston.com post written by "Prudent Investor." The post by "Prudent Investor" sources an Austrian website, which reprinted the original Daily Currant story. (Update: Boston.com appears to have deleted the story.)

LMAO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom