• 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.
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.

But other Democrats do.

I think some of the budget cutting is being done for political reasons. If they just bloat the deficit then they are going to get booted out of office as 'big spenders'. I realize many of you disagree with this as policy but sometimes you have to temper your policy based on what is politically viable. If they get booted out of office, then they can't do anything.
 

pigeon

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.

The WaPo actually thinks that this is the payroll tax cut, not the sequester. Personally, I'm inclined to suspect some upward revision here, but even so, I don't see much reason to believe that Obama will take the blame for the sequester. It's going to be yet another story of Congressional obstructionism. The GOP loses that story.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
While it's obvious part of the plan it's a shitty plan that can have terrible repercussions.

Yeah, I feel like this is a script we've seen before.

I still remember reading the first leaks on Obama's stimulus proposal from 2008, which was 1/3 tax cuts to entice Republican votes on more simulative spending. And here we are 4+ years later.

I can't expect better outcomes than we've seen in the past given the shift in the GOP in that time and the degree to which Obama seems eager for a "grand bargain". Now, if he drew some lines in the sand (a veto marker or two would be nice) it would help. Otherwise I see this playing out as we've seen before.
 
This is part of the plan. Liberal pressure "proves" that Obama is being bipartisan and makes it clear that cuts without taxes won't be able to pass.
Are you Greg Sargent? That spin is quite weak. Of course liberals will freak out, how does that convince the senate to pass a grand bargain with these cuts. If anything, we'll see these quotes in republican attack ads, similar to how Obama used Gingrich's comment on Ryan's budget.

Graham and McCain have suggested they'd support tax revenue if paired with entitlement cuts but obviously their word isn't worth too much; plus what's to stop them from demanding more cuts. Meanwhile it's hard to see Elizabeth Warren and the other liberal democrats supporting this; then you have democrats with 2014 races who would be scared off. This probably needs nearly 10 republican votes to pass the senate.
 
The WaPo actually thinks that this is the payroll tax cut, not the sequester. Personally, I'm inclined to suspect some upward revision here, but even so, I don't see much reason to believe that Obama will take the blame for the sequester. It's going to be yet another story of Congressional obstructionism. The GOP loses that story.
And yet Obama's numbers have been falling for nearly two months. Presidents get the blame for a bad economy, which is what we have and it'll only get worse due to sequestration.
 
Are you Greg Sargent? That spin is quite weak. Of course liberals will freak out, how does that convince the senate to pass a grand bargain with these cuts. If anything, we'll see these quotes in republican attack ads, similar to how Obama used Gingrich's comment on Ryan's budget.

Graham and McCain have suggested they'd support tax revenue if paired with entitlement cuts but obviously their word isn't worth too much; plus what's to stop them from demanding more cuts. Meanwhile it's hard to see Elizabeth Warren and the other liberal democrats supporting this; then you have democrats with 2014 races who would be scared off. This probably needs nearly 10 republican votes to pass the senate.

Pretty much. For certain Dems in 2014 races it will allow them to go back to their constituents and say 'I refused to budge on SS cuts! See!!!' which can help them but for others they will be connected to Obama's willingness to include cuts. It's Obama playing the short game once again. Let's just say that the GOP gives in on revenue (lol) then what? Obama gets his grand bargain but he is also the first Democratic President to go on record as supporting social security cuts. Shit would have long lasting affects for every single election going forward. Idiot move.
 
The WaPo actually thinks that this is the payroll tax cut, not the sequester. Personally, I'm inclined to suspect some upward revision here, but even so, I don't see much reason to believe that Obama will take the blame for the sequester. It's going to be yet another story of Congressional obstructionism. The GOP loses that story.

if the economy starts to shrink, it's Obama, not the idiots in Congress that get the blame.

You know what the messaging will be....

The obamacare tax hikes and obamacare uncertainty are killing jeeeeeeerbs!
 
This is part of the plan. Liberal pressure "proves" that Obama is being bipartisan and makes it clear that cuts without taxes won't be able to pass.
I'm unconvinced this is the right plan. I don't think Obama should go on record on these cuts. If he gets them he owns them. If not, nothing changes except maybe GOP runs on protecting against those cuts.

I don't see how they win. Everyone already accepts the GOP obstructs. No sense in trying to prove it more on such a critical issue.
 
Way too much PD and jamesinclair doombringing on this page.

Feel free to place your hands over your ears and make loud noises.

Doesnt make reality any better.

Theres been no movement on the sequester front. If March was bad, April numbers may very well be in the negatives.
 

RDreamer

Member
I just have to rant a little. Seriously, fuck this nation's stupid healthcare system. My wife had a some abnormal results on something and had a follow up thing. It was a 10-15 minute procedure. I figured we'd have enough in our HRA and with health insurance it'd be mostly covered. Well today we get like 3 things in the mail detailing all this crap and apparently we owe $600... I think. I can't make heads or tails of any of this horse shit. It's filled with so much fucking jargon I don't know who paid what or what's going where or what came out of our HRA already. It looks like the total for everything was about 3 fucking grand, of which about 500 came out of our account (so, already out of our pocket) and we owe 600 more. For a 15 minute procedure. Yeah...

This stuff is crazy, though. How does anyone read this stuff? How does anyone think this is a real market? It's practically gibberish to me and I'm a pretty educated guy. Everything's all convoluted when you have a HRA thing, too, because things show up as $0, but you're realistically paying for it (since it's coming out of your account). And, again, it was, to us, one big transaction, but we're getting like 3 different claims reports of it all split into stuff.

I really don't get how people can defend this stuff. I don't, and I never will.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I just have to rant a little. Seriously, fuck this nation's stupid healthcare system. My wife had a some abnormal results on something and had a follow up thing. It was a 10-15 minute procedure. I figured we'd have enough in our HRA and with health insurance it'd be mostly covered. Well today we get like 3 things in the mail detailing all this crap and apparently we owe $600... I think. I can't make heads or tails of any of this horse shit. It's filled with so much fucking jargon I don't know who paid what or what's going where or what came out of our HRA already. It looks like the total for everything was about 3 fucking grand, of which about 500 came out of our account (so, already out of our pocket) and we owe 600 more. For a 15 minute procedure. Yeah...

This stuff is crazy, though. How does anyone read this stuff? How does anyone think this is a real market? It's practically gibberish to me and I'm a pretty educated guy. Everything's all convoluted when you have a HRA thing, too, because things show up as $0, but you're realistically paying for it (since it's coming out of your account). And, again, it was, to us, one big transaction, but we're getting like 3 different claims reports of it all split into stuff.

I really don't get how people can defend this stuff. I don't, and I never will.

You can't defend it. You are damn right that it's all bullshit. We need a serious overhaul to how we look at paying for healthcare. The ACA was a start but we need to start moving a lot faster on this, a LOT FASTER. At the very least we need some sort of reform in the pricing department, hospitals just make up prices at random. It's bullshit and there needs to be some sort of control over it.
 

Marvie_3

Banned
You can't defend it. You are damn right that it's all bullshit. We need a serious overhaul to how we look at paying for healthcare. The ACA was a start but we need to start moving a lot faster on this, a LOT FASTER. At the very least we need some sort of reform in the pricing department, hospitals just make up prices at random. It's bullshit and there needs to be some sort of control over it.
Hopefully the changes can happen at the rate opinions over same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization have been changing.
 

RDreamer

Member
You can't defend it. You are damn right that it's all bullshit. We need a serious overhaul to how we look at paying for healthcare. The ACA was a start but we need to start moving a lot faster on this, a LOT FASTER. At the very least we need some sort of reform in the pricing department, hospitals just make up prices at random. It's bullshit and there needs to be some sort of control over it.

Even reform in the pricing department isn't enough. The whole thing is useless and needs to be thrown out.

There's no choice here. There's no market. Before she got this done I had tried to ask how much this all would cost, so we could expect it and put some away. No one could give me an answer on anything, because no one fucking knows. Yet this is a free market?

On top of that I don't even have any choice on my actual insurance provider anyway, really. The only real choice I have is whether to put her on my insurance or both of us go separate, and that's a shitty choice since putting her on my (better) insurance costs an arm and a leg per month.
 

Milchjon

Member
Is there an actual uproar about Obama's attorney general comment in the US?

Are we really at a point where every compliment in connection to looks is automatically sexist?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Even reform in the pricing department isn't enough. The whole thing is useless and needs to be thrown out.

There's no choice here. There's no market. Before she got this done I had tried to ask how much this all would cost, so we could expect it and put some away. No one could give me an answer on anything, because no one fucking knows. Yet this is a free market?

On top of that I don't even have any choice on my actual insurance provider anyway, really. The only real choice I have is whether to put her on my insurance or both of us go separate, and that's a shitty choice since putting her on my (better) insurance costs an arm and a leg per month.

Yea, the whole way we do things is messed up. The reason no one could tell you is that the guy who does the pricing probably hadn't decided yet. Yes there is literally a guy, in some room in the hospital, coming up with prices for all the procedures in the hospital off the top of his head. There is no check on this guy, what he decides goes as far as the cost of a procedure. I am not kidding when I say that, it's true and it's why no one could tell you what it would cost. At the very least that needs to change and we need some sort of uniform pricing. You aren't wrong about needing to tear down the whole thing and just start over though.

Is there an actual uproar about Obama's attorney general comment in the US?

Are we really at a point where every compliment in connection to looks is automatically sexist?

Yes. But weirdly enough Fox and Friends defended him.
 
Even reform in the pricing department isn't enough. The whole thing is useless and needs to be thrown out.

There's no choice here. There's no market. Before she got this done I had tried to ask how much this all would cost, so we could expect it and put some away. No one could give me an answer on anything, because no one fucking knows. Yet this is a free market?

On top of that I don't even have any choice on my actual insurance provider anyway, really. The only real choice I have is whether to put her on my insurance or both of us go separate, and that's a shitty choice since putting her on my (better) insurance costs an arm and a leg per month.

Wanna hear something funny. We took my grandmother off of prescription drug plans with insurance and she now pays a lot less for the same prescription drugs.

Wait, that's not funny, it's sad.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
And yet Obama's numbers have been falling for nearly two months. Presidents get the blame for a bad economy, which is what we have and it'll only get worse due to sequestration.

FWIW, his numbers fell right when he started the whole charm offensive with the GOP. I haven't looked at the internals, but I think his approval droped with Dems and didn't move with those who already didn't like his performance.

It nicely mirrors the outcomes of such efforts.
 

KtSlime

Member
That took me a minute to figure out that word. I'm assuming that's a portmanteau of ghetto and retard, if so that's pretty fucking offensive.
 
I figured it was a good entry into the daily "random dumb shit seen on facebook" category.

Took a general "hey, let's all get involved in making a better future for our children" notion and turned it into "she wants to put your kids in concentration camps!"
 
The AARP reveals that 70 percent of voters age 50-plus oppose the use of the chained CPI to cut benefits, and two-thirds of them—including 60 percent of Republicans—say they would be “considerably less likely” to support a congressional candidate if he or she backed a new way of calculating consumer prices. And 84 percent of voters over 50 say Social Security has no place in budget-deficit discussions, since it is self-financed. [...]

“The chained CPI reduction snowballs over time and would increase taxes for most taxpayers — at the same time that it cuts benefits for children, veterans, widows, retirees, and people with disabilities,” said AARP executive vice president Nancy LeaMond in a statement. “As this survey shows, older Americans oppose the chained CPI and they’ve historically made their opinions known to their elected officials.” [emphasis added]
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/new_poll_shows_many_hate_chained_cpi/

please proceed, democrats
 
That took me a minute to figure out that word. I'm assuming that's a portmanteau of ghetto and retard, if so that's pretty fucking offensive.
Yeah, as much as GOP politicians clean up their act they are probably still going to be crippled by a base that alienates minorities.

I guess that is why many of the minority Republicans are the hardest of the hardcore right-wingers (Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Allen West, etc.). They agree with the conservative philosophy so much that they are willing to ignore the racism within the base that may turn off others.
 
If they do these cuts, how does it really hurt them? Most of the old people vote GOP anyway. And are the few old people that vote Dem going to switch to voting for the GOP who are even more in favor of these cuts?

The dems absolutely suck at messaging.

GOP has fox news and friends.

So yes, they will vote for GOP.
 

pigeon

Banned
Are you Greg Sargent? That spin is quite weak. Of course liberals will freak out, how does that convince the senate to pass a grand bargain with these cuts.

It doesn't? What makes you think that the purpose of this budget is to be passed? If there's no chance of it passing, then it's just Obama continuing to try to position himself as the reasonable one. I don't really think it's spin, I think it's actually supremely obvious. Unless your theory is that Obama is an idiot, he obviously knows that the left will attack his move here, so you have to assume he's expecting us to do so.

I'm unconvinced this is the right plan. I don't think Obama should go on record on these cuts. If he gets them he owns them. If not, nothing changes except maybe GOP runs on protecting against those cuts.

I don't see how they win. Everyone already accepts the GOP obstructs. No sense in trying to prove it more on such a critical issue.

This is a more reasonable criticism, and I basically wish he wouldn't do this. I think Beutler is right and the reality is that Obama really does personally believe in a Grand Bargain. But, at the same time, before you criticize Obama for always trying to appear reasonable, keep in mind that he DID win reelection by appearing reasonable.

if the economy starts to shrink, it's Obama, not the idiots in Congress that get the blame.

You know what the messaging will be....

The obamacare tax hikes and obamacare uncertainty are killing jeeeeeeerbs!

This has been their messaging for four years and it hasn't worked. What makes you think people are suddenly going to start listening?

The dems absolutely suck at messaging.

GOP has fox news and friends.

So yes, they will vote for GOP.

So, basically, you're Diablos but with worse capitalization.
 
If they do these cuts, how does it really hurt them? Most of the old people vote GOP anyway. And are the few old people that vote Dem going to switch to voting for the GOP who are even more in favor of these cuts?

Having a democrat president support benefit cuts for social security hurts House democrats in moderate districts. Instead of going completely on the offensive against republicans who blindly voted for Ryan's budget, democrats will be forced to run away from the president and play defense with older voters. This could also deflate democrat voter turnout; check out Daily Kos and other liberal blogs right now, people are imploding.

So chained CPI probably won't even pass, but the airwaves will remind everyone that Obama wants to cut your SS checks. Pathetic.
 

Tamanon

Banned
I still wouldn't be completely surprised if the budget didn't include what the early articles state. Wouldn't be the first time there was a huge liberal backlash about something that didn't actually exist in an Obama proposal.
 
Take Social Security. For years, pension experts have spoken of the “three-legged stool” of retirement savings: Social Security, employer pensions and private savings. In recent years, however, that stool has begun to wobble, and today, Social Security is basically the only leg holding it up.

In 1980, about 40 percent of private-sector workers had a guaranteed pension. By 2006, that had fallen to 15 percent. Today, the 401(k) reigns supreme, with a trajectory that is almost the precise reverse of guaranteed pensions: In 1979, 17 percent of workers had a 401(k). Today, 42 percent do.

Those 401(k)s, however, are woefully underfunded. In 2010, 75 percent of workers nearing retirement had less than $30,000 in their 401(k). Sixty percent of low-income households are at risk of being unable to maintain their already modest living standards in retirement.

Individual savings don’t look much better. About a third of households don’t have a savings account at all. More than 40 percent don’t have enough to cover basic expenses if they lost their main source of income. In a vicious cycle, the need for savings is so great that many workers are tapping into their 401(k)s early: In 2010, contributions to defined-benefit pensions totaled $176 billion, while early withdrawals — which carry heavy penalties — totaled $60 billion.

Today, Social Security provides 37 percent of the income for all Americans over 65, and about 80 percent of the income for seniors in the bottom half of the income distribution. Given the state of private and employer pensions, those numbers will have to rise in the coming years, or else the standard of living for seniors will fall.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ents-are-the-problem-maybe-theyre-the-answer/

And yet the national conversation revolves around cutting Social Security?
 
It doesn't? What makes you think that the purpose of this budget is to be passed? If there's no chance of it passing, then it's just Obama continuing to try to position himself as the reasonable one. I don't really think it's spin, I think it's actually supremely obvious. Unless your theory is that Obama is an idiot, he obviously knows that the left will attack his move here, so you have to assume he's expecting us to do so.
What does he gain by that? The public already views him as the most sensible person in the room, and he has already shown he's willing to cut entitlements without impacting benefits (Medicare cuts in Obamacare). Republicans aren't going to raise taxes, so we're back to square one of Obama In Washington: Obama negotiating with himself.

And with respect to Beutler, I agree Obama really wants the Grand Bargain, but would argue it has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. I don't get any impression Obama is serious about any of this, after all if he was he wouldn't be championing something as un-serious as chained CPI (which cuts benefits and minimally cuts the deficit over 10 years). He's boxed himself by getting in bed with Pharma, so he can't propose anything that actually would cut the deficit and help people (like oh I don't know, Medicare negotiating prescription prices). So we get these Beltway games instead.
 
At least the media can stop lying about Obama's "unseriousness" towards entitlements, even though he's already proposed these cuts before. Too bad pundits don't know how to use the fucking internet.
 

Chichikov

Member
At least the media can stop lying about Obama's "unseriousness" towards entitlements, even though he's already proposed these cuts before. Too bad pundits don't know how to use the fucking internet.
I don't think chained CPI is what's standing between our media and serious reporting.

I'm seriously struggling to understand why he's doing this, assuming that Obama doesn't think that's a good policy, and if he does, I have more pressing issues with him than his negotiation skills.
 
Having a democrat president support benefit cuts for social security hurts House democrats in moderate districts. Instead of going completely on the offensive against republicans who blindly voted for Ryan's budget, democrats will be forced to run away from the president and play defense with older voters. This could also deflate democrat voter turnout; check out Daily Kos and other liberal blogs right now, people are imploding.

So chained CPI probably won't even pass, but the airwaves will remind everyone that Obama wants to cut your SS checks. Pathetic.

Not buying it. This is like Romney saying it is OK to have abortion exceptions for the health and life of the mother. That is not going to make the hardcore Republicans suddenly vote for Obama. Obama supporting some cuts is not going to make people vote for the people who want to even deeper cuts. Will some fools get tricked? A small number. Some will flip the other way too.


And as you point out, it is not likely going to pass . . . but now they can't say "Obama won't make ANY CONCESSIONS ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS AT ALL BECAUSE HE IS AN OUT OF CONTROL SPENDER!" Obama comes out as the moderate willing to compromise. The Republicans are the hardcore unable to take "yes" for answer.
 
Not buying it. This is like Romney saying it is OK to have abortion exceptions for the health and life of the mother. That is not going to make the hardcore Republicans suddenly vote for Obama. Obama supporting some cuts is not going to make people vote for the people who want to even deeper cuts. Will some fools get tricked? A small number. Some will flip the other way too.


And as you point out, it is not likely going to pass . . . but now they can't say "Obama won't make ANY CONCESSIONS ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS AT ALL BECAUSE HE IS AN OUT OF CONTROL SPENDER!" Obama comes out as the moderate willing to compromise. The Republicans are the hardcore unable to take "yes" for answer.

I'm of this opinion. It takes away (or at least tries to) and attack and democrats opposing this look like they're not kowtowing to whatever the white house says.

And can Chris Mathews shut up about Clinton running? EVERY DAY he has to mention it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom