• 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.
S

soul creator

Member
speculawyer said:
Again, I'm always happy to have another person on board but I don't think he's gonna sway many religious people with that (2) argument. It is not a good argument and, worse, it is not relevant. But I guess he needs to pander.
Click to expand...

Heh, this is probably a better way of phrasing all the stuff I typed.

Though it'd actually be interesting to see a poll of something like "if you've changed your opinion on gay rights in the past 5 years, what caused the change?" Then we could at least have some data on what's the best approach to "convert" someone.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
empty vessel said:
He's an idiot. And, amazingly, that exercise in economic fraud was heavily promoted by the New York Times editorial staff. This country is a fucking circus.
Click to expand...

Chichikov said:
He's not an economist.
He's a failed budget director who parlayed it into a super lucrative Wall Street career, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Black Mamba said:
He isn't an economist. He's just a politician.
Click to expand...

I was watching The Cycle today and everyone, including the three supposed liberals were starstruck with the dude.

Edit: Just found out Roger Ebert died. Man, that sucks. :(

He made some great take downs of right wingers like Palin. He'll be missed. R.I.P.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
speculawyer said:
With the full context it is clear that he's being a politician. He's trying to have it both ways . . . both (1) the constitution demands equal rights (bold) and (2) god gave us rights and gays so they are cool (underline).

I wish he would just go with the bold constitutional rights. He's a senator not a Pastor. He represents constituents from all religions.

Again, I'm always happy to have another person on board but I don't think he's gonna sway many religious people with that (2) argument. It is not a good argument and, worse, it is not relevant. But I guess he needs to pander.
Click to expand...

I really don't see why you care about this. It's a pretty simple argument, I see no point in clouding it with poor analogies ("god created murderers too"). If gay people are made gay, just as straight people are made straight, they deserve equal rights in the sight of men (as in the sight of god). Why is that a problematic argument?
 
R

remist

Member
PhoenixPause said:
I really don't see why you care about this. It's a pretty simple argument, I see no point in clouding it with poor analogies ("god created murderers too"). If gay people are made gay, just as straight people are made straight, they deserve equal rights in the sight of men (as in the sight of god). Why is that a problematic argument?
Click to expand...

I don't think he should be validating the use of arbitrary interpretations of the christian God's will in order to justify policy decisions that effect the lives of others. Especially considering it's a pretty poor argument theologically and not likely convince believers who are on the fence.

Obviously it is better that he is for gay marriage than against, it's just disappointing that politicians still have to pander like this when it comes to social issues.

APKmetsfan said:
I think people should try to get people to change their viewpoints but we shouldn't be evangelizing "rational secular thinking" in politics (in education and science class I think this is important). We need to target the different things that people use to justify their beliefs to get agreement on issues. If people want to use science to approve of homosexuality or god's love I don't see the problem as long as people realize homophobia is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what your argument is for separating politics from education and science. Do you have a problem with rational secular thinking in politics or is it just the evangelizing you have a problem with?
 
M

Mackenzie 92

Member
has this been posted?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...orts-obama-to-propose-cuts-in-social-programs

Reports: Obama To Propose Cuts In Social Programs

There's breaking budget news from several places this morning:

— "President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say." ()

— "President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1." ()

— "President Barack Obama will offer cuts to Social Security and other entitlement programs in a budget proposal aimed at swaying Republicans to compromise on a deficit-reduction deal, a senior administration official said." ()

— "President Barack Obama's budget will include the final deficit reduction offer he made to House Speaker John Boehner in December, including cuts to both Medicare and Social Security, according to a senior administration official." ()

Politico adds that "the administration hopes including the cuts — adopting the chained CPI for Social Security and slashing about $400 billion from Medicare over the next decade — can persuade Republicans to roll back the cuts in the sequester and agree to further revenue hikes."

In July 2011, NPR's Scott Horsley about how using the "chained CPI" to measure inflation might help reduce the deficit because it could mean lower increases in payments to those who get some federal benefits.
Click to expand...
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Joe Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp both just came out for gay marriage.

This really has the feel of the 2008 election unveiling of the superdelegates by Obama's team.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
GhaleonEB said:
UI claims are spiking up again, up to 385k this week, highest level of the year. The timing with the sequester is hard to discount.

http://bloomberg.econoday.com/bysho...mberg-us&year=2013&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top
Click to expand...

Not really related to this particular article but economists that are quoted in bloomberg, forbes, WSJ, etc are so schizophrenic. Relax until the end of 2Q/beginning of 3Q. Then we'll know definitively whether the cumulative effect of our fiscal policy is no big deal because you know auto sales and nobody cares about the dysfunction in DC. Sequestration was just Obama trying to scare folks.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
This is exactly the trap that Boehner has been begging Obama to walk into. The end result will be the cuts and not the taxes, with Obama owning them.

Good grief.
Click to expand...

I think Obama is relying on the Senate to prevent that from happening. Since they have their own budget, they have a pretext to kill anything that gets to them if they don't like it.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
Not really related to this particular article but economists that are quoted in bloomberg, forbes, WSJ, etc are so schizophrenic. Relax until the end of 2Q/beginning of 3Q. Then we'll know definitively whether the cumulative effect of our fiscal policy is no big deal because you know auto sales and nobody cares about the dysfunction in DC. Sequestration was just Obama trying to scare folks.
Click to expand...
GOP's response to 88k job numbers is actually blaming Obama's stimulus plan...no joke.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Chichikov said:
I'm all for marriage equality, but that's some stupid reasoning.
God also created murderers and child rapists, saying something is okay because it exists is pretty much a rejection of morality.

I know he didn't mean it like that, but maybe that why you shouldn't use such pandering framing.
Click to expand...

You left off the second part of his statement, "why should I I discriminate?"

There are good reasons to discriminate against murderers and child rapists.

I like the statement becuase while atheist, it provides the religious people the viewpoint which is most moral and makes the most sense.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
So I am pretty confident that Obama won't give in to chained CPI without getting significant revenue in return and we know the GOP will refuse. The problem is that during 2014 campaigns the GOP will run on Obama is trying to cut social security while Republicans are trying to extend and modernize it so it's stronger. You'd think that in 4+ years of playing this shitty game the administration would be keen enough to not fall into the GOP's quicksand. You'd think...

jamesinclair said:
Obama is going to have quite the legacy, all the way down there with bush
Click to expand...

And you wonder why people troll the shit out of you.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I hate being right most of the time.

Chained CPI is a slap in the face to liberal ideals; even most corporatist democrats don't support this nonsense. It saves a small amount of money over ten years in a program that doesn't contribute to the fucking deficit. I don't like the deficit game, but I'd much rather play it with two playing fields instead of one. Obama continues to reinforce the idea that we have limited choices: cut entitlements, including benefits, and raise taxes. No one is talking about lowering prescription drug costs, or eliminating the income cap on social security, etc; ideas that strengthen benefit programs while lowering prices/deficits. They probably wouldn't pass but I doubt chained CPI will either.

And on the sequester, that Bush tax compromise looks worse and worse. I bet Reid is still pissed about the utter nonsense of giving sequestration to republicans as a bargaining chip.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
I hate being right most of the time.

Chained CPI is a slap in the face to liberal ideals; even most corporatist democrats don't support this nonsense. It saves a small amount of money over ten years in a program that doesn't contribute to the fucking deficit. I don't like the deficit game, but I'd much rather play it with two playing fields instead of one. Obama continues to reinforce the idea that we have limited choices: cut entitlements, including benefits, and raise taxes. No one is talking about lowering prescription drug costs, or eliminating the income cap on social security, etc; ideas that strengthen benefit programs while lowering prices/deficits. They probably wouldn't pass but I doubt chained CPI will either.

And on the sequester, that Bush tax compromise looks worse and worse. I bet Reid is still pissed about the utter nonsense of giving sequestration to republicans as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

Well I'm pissed that Reid is a fuckwad and didn't gut the filibuster so meh.
 
A

Aaron

Member
Someone needs to tell Obama he doesn't have to run for reelection again. Throw the compromise bullshit in the trash already. Stop giving everything and getting nothing in return.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
So will OFA be campaigning for this shit? Maybe the Koch brothers will send an anonymous check.

This is nothing more than legacy politics and a bad read on republicans/voters. Obama has long maintained a grand bargain will fix "uncertainty" and set our fiscal house straight, but the real intention seems to be aimed at joining the Very Serious People club alongside David Brooks and his Beltway ilk. There is no policy justification for this, it barely generates money at the expense of cutting old people's income. The only explanation is that this has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. Nor do I believe regular people will watch this and say "Obama wants to cut Mom's benefits too? Thank god."

And with the sequester slowly strangling the economy this will be a fun year. This guy has been president for five years and hasn't learned a single thing from republicans, how they operate, or what they truly want: him to propose specific cuts so they can campaign against them in the whiter, older midterms. Good luck with that.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Welp here we go

Left Furious With Obama For Backing Social Security Cuts

Liberals are mounting strong criticisms of President Obama amid news that his budget will include a Social Security benefit cut — an official endorsement of a policy compromise he’s offered Republicans for years — and warning Democrats not to dare vote to cut the cherished retirement program.

A trio of progressive advocacy groups issued scathing statements Friday in response to reports that Obama’s proposal will include a policy called “Chained CPI,” which would re-index Social Security cost of living increases to a lower rate of inflation — a benefit cut the president has included in deficit offers to Republicans since 2011.

“President Obama’s plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives,” said MoveOn.org’s executive director Anna Galland. “That’s unconscionable. It’s even more outrageous given that Republicans in Congress aren’t even asking for this Social Security cut. This time, the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.”

Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee accused Obama of “proposing to steal thousands of dollars from grandparents and veterans” and threatened to subject any Democrat who votes for a Social Security benefit cut to a primary challenge.

“You can’t call yourself a Democrat and support Social Security benefit cuts,” Taylor said in a statement. “The President has no mandate to cut these benefits, and progressives will do everything possible to stop him.”

Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy For America, called the reports a “profoundly disturbing shot across the bow for the progressives who called their neighbors, spent weekends knocking doors and donated millions to reelect [President Obama].”

Obama’s decision to include Chained CPI in his budget, which is expected to be unveiled April 10, reflects his latest effort to entice Republicans into a grand budget deal that stabilizes the national debt at a level where it’s growing more slowly than the economy. Republicans have demanded Obama support significant entitlement cuts but have refrained from proposing such policies themselves. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) responded Friday that Obama shouldn’t hold entitlement cuts “hostage” to tax increases, but Obama has steadfastly insisted that such cuts must be accompanied by higher taxes on the wealthy, to spread the burden of deficit reduction more evenly. Part of the administration’s calculus is that backing these cuts will illustrate Obama’s willingness to compromise and bring the GOP’s obstinacy to light.

Not surprisingly, Social Security advocates aren’t on board with the president’s approach.

“Social Security is too important to the economic security of the American people to be used as a bargaining chip,” said Nancy Altman, who leads the advocacy group Social Security Works.
Click to expand...
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Why aren't we talking about the economy slamming on the brakes?

If obamas sequester pushes us into a new recession.....

2014 will be a blood bath. The gop would take the senate.
 
T

Trurl

Banned
I don't get the "calculus" of bringing GOP obstinacy into light. People will just see Obama as proposing something awful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
943
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
517
11K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
843
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom