• 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.
F

FyreWulff

Member
The Technomancer said:
Christie's in an awkward position. I really don't think he fits the Democrat ideology. But he is also realizing just how utterly dysfunctional the current Republican party is.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much summarizes the position moderate Republicans are in right now.

- Your party is far gone.
- You can't switch to Dem because the ideology doesn't completely match
- Even if you did switch to Dem, the Dems are so weak in your state/area that you can't get anything done
- Even if you have a stronger Dem support, it's like herding cats
- Third party is useless because you can't get through the primaries.


And nobody wants to be the frontrunner of another Republican party splinter.
 
E

el retorno

Member
FyreWulff said:
I think that pretty much summarizes the position moderate Republicans are in right now.

- Your party is far gone.
- You can't switch to Dem because the ideology doesn't completely match
- Even if you did switch to Dem, the Dems are so weak in your state/area that you can't get anything done
- Even if you have a stronger Dem support, it's like herding cats
- Third party is useless because you can't get through the primaries.
Click to expand...

Why do people think that moderate republicans want or are going to become democrats?They're not. They just don't like the way their party is going they're not fans of the other party either. They'd rather fighting internally to get some sanity back.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
The Technomancer said:
I've never really understood this. Why is the debt going to be a problem for our children? Is the debt our grandparents acrued screwing us over now? If so, no-one's ever said anything about it.
Click to expand...

Especially since the bonds we own and will own in the future will either be paid to us or be passed down to the next generation. Our children will hold the debt!
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
el retorno de los sapos said:
Why do people think that moderate republicans want or are going to become democrats?They're not. They just don't like the way their party is going they're not fans of the other party either. They'd rather fighting internally to get some sanity back.
Click to expand...

Well, it helps that the Democratic party has tilted right. Obama's policies are basically moderate Republican policies from the 90's; we're in a weak post-recession recovery and the President is pushing for more deficit reduction. So alienated moderate GOP members in many ways are more ideologically aligned to the the other side. Whether then can or will shift is another question (as Fyrewulff pointed out).
 
Z

zargle

Member
Question: What would Boehner do if he lost the Speakership? Like, can you really just lose that position and go back to being a normal member of Congress or a committee chair? It's not like he would resign, so what else is there? Gingrich stepped down from Speaker and Congress almost at the same time, so its not really similar, I think.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Conservative spin on Sandy bill is pretty awesome:

"Good move by Boehner! The bill had pork in it. Unacceptable. The spending was also poorly defined! Bill was unacceptable!"

Based on that response, I wonder if this move was done in part to ensure that Boehner kept his speakership position. Denying aid seems to be working well with the Republican base.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
867-5309 said:
Question: What would Boehner do if he lost the Speakership? Like, can you really just lose that position and go back to being a normal member of Congress or a committee chair? It's not like he would resign, so what else is there? Gingrich stepped down from Speaker and Congress almost at the same time, so its not really similar, I think.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it's like being a demodded GAF member
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
RDreamer said:
Don't be silly, my children ain't gonna be no damned commie Chinese!
Click to expand...

I'm 99% positive that the average American thinks China is our largest debt holder and not just our largest foreign debt holder. Foreign debt is only something like 30% of the total as well, with the rest being owned internally.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
FyreWulff said:
I think that pretty much summarizes the position moderate Republicans are in right now.

- Your party is far gone.
- You can't switch to Dem because the ideology doesn't completely match
- Even if you did switch to Dem, the Dems are so weak in your state/area that you can't get anything done
- Even if you have a stronger Dem support, it's like herding cats
- Third party is useless because you can't get through the primaries.


And nobody wants to be the frontrunner of another Republican party splinter.
Click to expand...

Dems aren't weak in New Jersey. If you mean 'weak' in grabbing pork, and being completely united, then yeah. If you mean 'weak' as in lacking a machine, then no. That's just patently false. In fact, Christie has been able to be effective in NJ because he has paid off the New Jersey Southern Democrat political machine.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Fenderputty said:
I'm 99% positive that the average American thinks China is our largest debt holder and not just our largest foreign debt holder. Foreign debt is only something like 30% of the total as well, with the rest being owned internally.
Click to expand...

That's because hardly anyone bothers to make the distinction when talking about the debt.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
Really? Yes, it's true that some higher income brackets got their taxes hiked but in exchange the Dems lost the estate tax, and the capital gains/dividends tax, permanently. The latter in particular are huge wins for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

They didn't "lose" the estate tax. First off, Obama was seeking $3.5 million at 45% and got $5 million at 40% compared to the $5 million at 35%.

In 2009 at that same $3.5 mil and 45% number the US brought in roughly $20 billion. At the $5 mil number and 35% it was projected to bring in $12 billion. Now it will be between those two numbers, probably about $14 billion on average.

The Estate tax issue is a red herring. So little revenue is brought in from it at Obama's best case scenario, it wasn't really worth fighting hard over. Roughly $5 billion in revenues is not worth it. The Estate issue was a push.

Obama always seeked a 20% rate on capital gains. Only difference was instead of at $250k it starts at $450k, not a big deal. He gave back a bit on dividends but no one expected dividends to be at the actual income rate.

Making them permanent is a good thing, too. Non-permanent taxes are stupid (with the exception of temporary middle class tax cuts during downturns). If they have a time limit on them, it adversely affects behavior. It's why the Bush tax cuts performed even worse than they should have. You don't pass tax policy with an expiration date.

And they can always be changed at a moment's notice. Nothing is permanent.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Josh Marshall said:
Ha! TPM Reader SS sent me custom designed "please proceed, governor" tshirt. So awesome. Best gift ever
Click to expand...

A_oUuuXCIAAdkuk.jpg
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/286564319234236416/photo/1

Awesome.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
They didn't "lose" the estate tax. First off, Obama was seeking $3.5 million at 45% and got $5 million at 40% compared to the $5 million at 35%.

In 2009 at that same $3.5 mil and 45% number the US brought in roughly $20 billion. At the $5 mil number and 35% it was projected to bring in $12 billion. Now it will be between those two numbers, probably about $14 billion on average.

The Estate tax issue is a red herring. So little revenue is brought in from it at Obama's best case scenario, it wasn't really worth fighting hard over. Roughly $5 billion in revenues is not worth it. The Estate issue was a push.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why talking about taxes in terms of "revenue" is poisonous to progressives. The estate tax is very important not for raising revenue (no tax is important for that), but for maintaining basic intergenerational fairness in the games we play called the economy and the democracy. If you are looking at taxes only in terms of the irrelevant revenue they bring, you are doing it wrong and you are doing yourself a disservice. High rates at low estate values is important because it limits the immense advantages that some individuals get having nothing to do with merit or their individual contributions to society. Criticizing Democrats for countenancing a weak estate tax that allows the intergenerational transfer of large amounts of social wealth is valid criticism.

If we are facing a genuine inflation threat, then we can start judging tax proposals by the amount they will siphon out of the private sector.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
This is exactly why talking about taxes in terms of "revenue" is poisonous to progressives. The estate tax is very important not for raising revenue (no tax is important for that), but for maintaining basic intergenerational fairness in the games we play called the economy and the democracy. If you are looking at taxes only in terms of the irrelevant revenue they bring, you are doing it wrong and you are doing yourself a disservice. High rates at low estate values is important because it limits the immense advantages that some individuals get having nothing to do with merit or their individual contributions to society. Criticizing Democrats for countenancing a weak estate tax that allows the intergenerational transfer of large amounts of social wealth is valid criticism.

If we are facing a genuine inflation threat, then we can start judging tax proposals by the amount they will siphon out of the private sector.
Click to expand...

We went from very fucking weak estate tax to very very fucking weak estate tax. It's not worth claiming Obama caved.

You want to argue the estate tax should be much higher than Obama proposed, then that's fine. But Obama's initial proposal affected few estates. So when you measure whether Obama "caved," as it's claimed, you must address it against the backdrop of his initial offer along with the entire package. And yes, total revenues is one way to measure that.

I don't care about the mechanics of money when the only issue at hand is whether Obama caved or not.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
HOLY SHIT. Rumors flying Boehner resigning as speaker tonight.
Click to expand...

I sorta called this:

I actually don't think Boehner is that bad. He just has the worst job in the world right now. I don't even know why he wants to be Speaker. If I were him I'd retire.

Boehner can't control his caucus any more than Nurse Ratchett.

You could say Boehner's cacus uncontrollable
Click to expand...


After plan B failed I thought his days were numbered. Either he would be ousted or he would realize it's just not worth it to lead the party.

But this is bad news for the future of negotiations. He was more reasonable than anyone else that will be put up there, like McCarthy or Cantor.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
Hopefully team Obama's legal counsel revisits their opinion on the constitutional muster of the 14th amendment option.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Mike M said:
Hopefully team Obama's legal counsel revisits their opinion on the constitutional muster of the 14th amendment option.
Click to expand...

I'm confident they will. Obama would be a moron to not at the very least, seriously consider it.

One way or the other, the debt ceiling HAS to go. If the Republicans lose the fight this year, they'll try again next year...and the year after that...and so on.

Something has to give.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Boehner is the lesser of the Republican evils, but it's pretty sad how few House Republicans I could actually even think is better than him in the current environment. I mean ideologically I can think of a few, but they'd retain even less control of the House than Boehner does now.

Obama better stand his fucking ground on the debt ceiling, though, 'cause so much leverage disappeared after that Fiscal Cliff fiasco.
 
H

Hobbestetrician

Member
Jesus, Howard Fineman (Huffington Post) was on Tony Kornheiser's radio show today talking about the fiscal cliff and he actually said we didn't avert the cliff and just put if off to a much higher cliff in two months with the debt ceiling stuff. When Tony asked him what the debt ceiling was, he said, and I kid you not, they have to vote to raise the ceiling so we can borrow trillions of more dollars from the Chinese and from our children.

Isn't it this guy's job to understand this stuff? Fucking media.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
The problem with filibuster reform is that after every election, McConnell works in earnest to get something passed in the lame duck that enjoys broad bipartisan support, as if to say "See? We CAN work together!"

Then the day the rules are finalized he goes right back to his old tricks.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Black Mamba said:
After plan B failed I thought his days were numbered. Either he would be ousted or he would realize it's just not worth it to lead the party.

But this is bad news for the future of negotiations. He was more reasonable than anyone else that will be put up there, like McCarthy or Cantor.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm the only one that thinks this, but I don't think Cantor as Speaker would actually be bad for Democrats in negotiations. Not every House Republican is crazy. Many are like Boehner and are only working with the crazies to keep their coalition together. Continued establishment control of the House is a major goal of their current strategy. If part of why they've been willing to act crazy recently is to stave off an outright revolt, then they have much less reason to act crazy after an outright revolt.

I think that Cantor as Speaker makes it more possible to produce a majority in the House for a clean debt ceiling increase, even if it has to be brought to the floor with a discharge petition.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Gotchaye said:
I think that Cantor as Speaker makes it more possible to produce a majority in the House for a clean debt ceiling increase, even if it has to be brought to the floor with a discharge petition.
Click to expand...

This is more or less what I think too. Moderate/pragmatic Republicans (and there are still quite a few of them, judging by the cliff vote) can feel that Boehner is trying to represent them in negotiations. They won't have the same attitude about Cantor. This will just splinter the caucus even more, which is good for Democrats in the short and long term.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
pigeon said:
This is more or less what I think too. Moderate/pragmatic Republicans (and there are still quite a few of them, judging by the cliff vote) can feel that Boehner is trying to represent them in negotiations. They won't have the same attitude about Cantor. This will just splinter the caucus even more, which is good for Democrats in the short and long term.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right (and you often are). It's possible that if Cantor or whomever is too hardline the moderates will simply splinter off.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
Gotchaye said:
I guess I'm the only one that thinks this, but I don't think Cantor as Speaker would actually be bad for Democrats in negotiations. Not every House Republican is crazy. Many are like Boehner and are only working with the crazies to keep their coalition together. Continued establishment control of the House is a major goal of their current strategy. If part of why they've been willing to act crazy recently is to stave off an outright revolt, then they have much less reason to act crazy after an outright revolt.

I think that Cantor as Speaker makes it more possible to produce a majority in the House for a clean debt ceiling increase, even if it has to be brought to the floor with a discharge petition.
Click to expand...

But Cantor would still have the power to bring bills to the floor. Just like in the recent fiasco, it does not matter if there are enough votes for something to pass if the leadership does not support it.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So you guys are saying having a crazier speaker of the house will make for more Republican rebels?

I'm sorry but I'm not really seeing the logic behind that. Especially since the rebels right now are with Cantor. Of the majority that stayed with Cantor over the compromise none would break away from him, and of the minority that stayed with Boehner over the compromise, I'd imagine at least a few will follow party loyalty and just join Cantor's ranks.

Frank the Great said:
But Cantor would still have the power to bring bills to the floor. Just like in the recent fiasco, it does not matter if there are enough votes for something to pass if the leadership does not support it.
Click to expand...

Yeah there's also that.
 
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
944
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
846
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