el retorno
Member
If they had to talk for every filibuster they'd have time to do nothing else.
-
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
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Link
The Autumn Wind
Doesn't seem like they're doing anything else anyway.
speculawyer
Member
It is amazing how duplicitous he is. He includes things that Obama did which he actively campaigned against in his budget and as if he suddenly thinks they are good things.
Specifically, he includes the savings from Obamacare while eliminating the 'care' part. Not only is duplicitous, it won't even work. The people that lose their care will end up bloating medicare programs such that his budget is false.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Welp this will he interesting. Susan Rice said to be leading candidate to head NSA. Also ahe wouldnt even have to face confrmation. Lol McCain and Graham gonna be mad
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html
Isn't that what they are getting paid to do? Talk on behalf of the people?
adamsappel
Member
From the beginning of Obama's first term, Republicans and Democrats both were bitching about not being invited to WH dinners. The Obamas don't shmooze with the Beltway establishment the way they'd been accustomed. It might have helped way back when, but it's probably too late now.
el retorno
Member
They wouldn't be able to go give speeches and fundraise. The stuff that really matters
Rocket Scientist
Member
I would love someone to provide details on how many hours senators and house members spend on the floor or in their offices, committees and how many they spend giving speeches and going to fundraisers.
I'm glad Ryan and co. are doing something about this scary scary chart.
"A path to prosperity". Or, there will be prosperity, all right. For about 1% of the country. The rest get fucked.
Angry Fork
Member
This Paul Ryan objectivist stuff always seems to come up now and then, I fundamentally disagree with that outlook on how society should function and am the opposite of Ryan, but I want to be able to know more than just philosophical arguments against it and learn more real world facts/implications.
I want to know the justifications and ideas involved for A. pro-austerity, limited government/friedman/libertarian arguments, B. welfare state/keynesian/social democratic (still pro-capitalist) arguments, and C. some form of planning or anarchist/socialist ideas/Marxist/anti-capitalism arguments.
Where would you recommend someone start and what should be read from each group? I don't necessarily want explanations of their ideology I know where to go for that and have read a decent amount (although I know it's all intertwined so it's hard to separate) but I'm interested in pure economics, numbers, real world effects on production/transportation/healthcare etc.
Like what these groups of people say about taxes, trickle down, stimulus, for-profit business, the legitimate truth about debt/deficits etc. how they think these policies affects normal working people, statistics to say whether their claims are true or not etc. What books or sites are essential for all of this?
I want to know the justifications and ideas involved for A. pro-austerity, limited government/friedman/libertarian arguments, B. welfare state/keynesian/social democratic (still pro-capitalist) arguments, and C. some form of planning or anarchist/socialist ideas/Marxist/anti-capitalism arguments.
Where would you recommend someone start and what should be read from each group? I don't necessarily want explanations of their ideology I know where to go for that and have read a decent amount (although I know it's all intertwined so it's hard to separate) but I'm interested in pure economics, numbers, real world effects on production/transportation/healthcare etc.
Like what these groups of people say about taxes, trickle down, stimulus, for-profit business, the legitimate truth about debt/deficits etc. how they think these policies affects normal working people, statistics to say whether their claims are true or not etc. What books or sites are essential for all of this?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I laid some out in the post. As it stands, raising the medicare eligibility age wouldn't save much money over a ten year period; the same is true of chained CPI, which iirc saves around 110b over ten years. That money in no way justifies making people work longer or suffer more in old age. Whereas the Center for Economic and Policy Research says direct federal negotiations on drug prices could save from 240-500b over ten years. Yet only liberal senators and congressman talk about this, it's never discussed by the administration outside of vague SOTU nods here and there.
Instead the WH tries to propose moderate republican fixes while actual republicans demand far right hack-n-slash proposals. As I said, I really don't think there's any real interest on Obama's part to cut the deficit in a smart way that avoids benefit cuts and doesn't focus nearly entirely on tax revenue. I get the impression this is all about image and legacy, nothing more. It's no wonder the White House continually points to Reagan and Tip O'Neil "fixing" social security as a blueprint; if they fixed it, why do we need to cut benefits now?
speculawyer
Member
Even if you do agree it, it is irrelevant. People won't let it happen. People voted Bush 2 back into office for a second term but when he tried to 'spend his political capital' on a social security privatizing scheme, it flopped. Badly. The more he talked, the less popular it became. As the public sentiment became clear, Republican House & Senate members turned against it.
And that happened when the GOP held the presidency, House, and Senate! How in the fuck do they think it is relevant now?!?! It is politically dead. They ran on an austere plan in 2012 and lost. And now they think an even more austere plan is the way to go? What the fuck are they thinking?
Maybe Obama should just troll them and campaign for the Ryan budget. He should go out and tell old people that he is going to work hand & hand with Ryan and other Republicans in order to cut their social security and Medicare. I want to see what happens when he does that. Actually, that will just give the plan Obama cooties and the GOP will run from it.
Byakuya769
Member
I'm glad Ryan and co. are doing something about this scary scary chart.
That red stuff looks like the blood of patriots.
el retorno
Member
Nope. This stuff in abstract is popular in those seats. It shows seriousness™ and fiscal responsibility™
it wasn't as popular last election, and all you need is some sane person to come against it and get primaried by a tea party candidate.
spandexmonkey
Banned
I'm glad Ryan and co. are doing something about this scary scary chart.
Where's that comic strip about extropolating being a hobby?
Not really. It would be tough for the GOP to lose safe seats, but Medicare vouchers are one of the things that could do it if they got enough play, because the GOP base abhors the idea. That's why Ryan campaigns so hard against that label.
el retorno
Member
That's why I said in abstract.
These plans don't hurt them in a lot of those house seats because they're safe.
If they ever really would be explained yeah I think it could hurt but as polls showed voters don't believe that stuff is in the plan because they don't think politicians would actually do it.
All they see (at least the voters in these districts) is a "serious plan to reduce the deficit and save medicare and social security"
The thing is tea party candidates don't really hurt them in house seats as much because of the structure of the districts. You can point to Allen West and people like him but they were already in pretty mixed districts.
The Librarian
Banned
I guess that sinkhole is where all the money's been going! Har har har.
Looks like without a big turnaround Corbett has a real chance to go down as one of the few governors in PA history that couldn't win re-election. He is currently polling behind every single democrat he is polled against.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ett-losing-to-every-likely-Dem-candidate.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ett-losing-to-every-likely-Dem-candidate.html
el retorno
Member
These GOP Govs in blue states are horrible save for Christie who is smart enough to buck his party at times.
PhoenixDark
Banned
but I thought 2010 proved the public approved GOP ideas!
oh no doubt, 2010 should be a seared into ever democrats brain as a reason why you don't stay home.
Hows Kaisch in Ohio polling? Snyder is done in Michigan.
el retorno
Member
2010 is gonna be the last of that. Demographics are going to prevent that from happening again. The electorate gets 1% less white every 2 years. so its already 1.5% less white from 2010.
2010 was the last hurrah of that voting bloc. That's not to say the GOP can't win but they have to retool their message and platform, which the Ryan Budget shows they fully understand.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm confused. Even as whites diminish they'll still be the dominant group that shows up for mid term elections, at least for another 2-3 elections. Especially older white folks. 2010 isn't the last hurrah, but it will be the last "no show" from a demoralized based at least until the next recession.
Well, our health care system should be destroyed. But I have a feeling Paul Ryan doesn't exactly want to replace it with something better.
Rocket Scientist
Member
If the USA had mandatory voting, would it be liberal all the time? Australia seems to fluctuate, but they have more than two parties.
el retorno
Member
Yeah they'll still be the dominate group (70+%) but it means more of the white vote will have to go to the GOP to keep the same results.
The GOP would have to grow its margins in the white vote to win, if it stays the same dems will get better results even with the same turnout.
If the US had mandatory voting you wouldn't have the modern GOP. So you'd have saner parties and probably a bit more to the left with constant shifts in power from the conservative and liberal parties both more "liberal" than the Republican and Democratic parties today.
I don't like mandatory voting though and hope it never comes here
If the US had mandatory voting, we'd have at least 2 more viable parties and would have to change our current FPP voting system and electoral college
The Culture Vulture
Member
Would be interesting as long as there was a "none of the above" option. Make the ballots part of tax time, a yearly event when you should be thinking about the role of government and your elected officials.
Black Republican
Member
Kasich will probably be reelected because of the improving Economy alone. If Rick Scott squeaks by, Florida Dems will forever be a joke.
Black Mamba
Member
Paul Ryan is far and away my most disliked politician. There aren't enough bags of dicks in the world for him to eat.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Sounds like mandatory voting is just what the country needs.
Haha, I laughed at first because it's true, but then I felt sad, because it's true.
Edit: Anyone else seeing no avatars today? Just the unloaded image icon.
If the USA had mandatory voting, most of our current politicians would be out of a job, so we will never have such a thing. I bet we will have an amendment that will give us the Freedom from voting before we actually do something smart and helpful.
el retorno
Member
I hope crist runs. I'll vote for him
empty vessel
Member
There may not be an improving economy by the time the next election rolls around.
Aaron Strife
Banned
A majority of Obama's voting coalition was white.
Whites will continue to provide the GOP a baseline of 45% or so in national elections but as long as the minority population keeps growing, their chances of winning go down until they make real changes to their party (e.g. not "changing the box")
el retorno
Member
There will be. Nobody is proposing anything that will realistically cut spending enough to get to negative job growth and GDP growth.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm pretty sure Obama's job-killing tax hikes would fall under that category.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Nope, I think the US would still be primarily conservative, but have a very vocal liberal minority.
This post is confusing, since America's not really primarily conservative if the last few elections are any sign, but I will assume you're counting Obama as a conservative. If all the unregistered and unlikely voters had turned out for the last election, Obama would have won by double digits -- and third parties would have taken upwards of 8% of the vote. So there would, at the very least, be a big shift leftwards AND a significant movement towards viable third parties.
empty vessel
Member
Absolutely they are proposing--and enacting--things that will realistically reduce net spending enough to create a recession. Will it? I don't know, but it's certainly not an unrealistic possibility of ongoing congressional fiscal irresponsibility. Never mind that you don't need a formal, ongoing recession to have an economy that is unhelpful to incumbents. The government's current policy in any event is to retard economic improvement, not aid it.
Black Mamba
Member
i think you have it backwards.
Meanwhile, Yglesias has the scoop on the Democratic budget:
Further stimulus is frankly a political slam dunk in my opinion, so I'm glad we're on this train. Also a fan of the military spending cuts. Very interested to see the tax expenditures! I do wish they'd just lift the payroll tax cap already.
edit: dur http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/12/senate_democrats_deficit_reduction_plan.html
slate said:
Further stimulus is frankly a political slam dunk in my opinion, so I'm glad we're on this train. Also a fan of the military spending cuts. Very interested to see the tax expenditures! I do wish they'd just lift the payroll tax cap already.
edit: dur http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/12/senate_democrats_deficit_reduction_plan.html
zero shift
Banned
So how did the military tuition assistance program get cut exactly?
- Status