• 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.
E

Escape Goat

Member
Is Boehner on the way out as Speaker? I dont think he'd willingly give up the job but if his own party is throwing fits obviously faith in his ability to whip the House is diminished.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
man this is so nice to hear from someone on the GOP side

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way," Brady said. "Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value - that the law should treat all citizens equally."
Click to expand...

Illinois state Republican Party Chair Pat Brady, via Link

I never understood why a true conservative wouldn't understand that allowing gay marriage is the only appropriate path for genuine small government values.
 
C

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Amir0x said:
I never understood why a true conservative wouldn't understand that allowing gay marriage is the only appropriate path for genuine small government values.
Click to expand...

The line I get from my family is that logically, they can't oppose the legality of gay marriage, but they can't stomach it. I think it is an issue where they know they are beat, but can't bring themselves to stop fighting.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
hydragonwarrior said:
So just wondering, but why was Obama so interested in compromise? Reid was definitely the opposite and wanting what was originally proposed and I would think Obama and Reid were in lockstep of what the other wanted.

Anything I'm missing here?

Edit: Kind of related: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/harry-reid-fiscal-cliff-fireplace_n_2396606.html?ref=topbar
Click to expand...

Because Obama is not an ideologue, and is also a horrible negotiator. Reid believed democrats were winning the issue, and could continue holding republicans feet to the fire until they got a better deal. Obama wanted to compromise because...that's who he is. I've seen some liberals blaming Biden for the deal, but the 400/450k rate was Obama's idea. Biden sold it to McConnell, and gave republicans some other stuff.

It's clear Reid wanted to fight, and does not trust Obama in the debt ceiling fight. He vehemently opposed the two month sequester delay because he has little faith in the White House's negotiation plan. We don't know where the country will be in two months. That was Reid's argument, and it's mine.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Ezra Klein hitting the nail on the head, basically saying what I've been saying:

1) The White House is right, and they’ll be able to enforce a roughly 1:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts in the next deal;

2) The Republicans are right, and they’ll be able to get major spending cuts solely in return for raising the debt ceiling;

3) Both sides are wrong, and we breach the debt ceiling, unleashing economic havoc.

Of these three possibilities, I see #1 as the likeliest, #3 as the second-most likely, and #2 as vanishing unlikely. That is to say, I think it’s far more plausible that we breach the debt ceiling than that the White House agrees to raise the debt ceiling as part of a deal that includes huge spending cuts but no significant tax increases. But likelier than either outcome is that Republicans agree to a deal that includes revenue-generating tax reform. Here’s why.

First, Republicans make a big show of being unreasonable, but they’re not nearly as crazy as the tea party would have you believe. In the end, they weren’t even willing to go over the fiscal cliff. The debt ceiling would do far more damage to the economy than the fiscal cliff, and Republicans would receive far more of the blame. Many thought President Obama actually wanted to go over the fiscal cliff in order to raise taxes, and so it was possible Republicans could’ve portrayed the breakdown in negotiations as a Democratic strategy. No one thinks that the White House wants to breach the debt ceiling, and so Republicans will take all the blame.

Second, there’s no evidence yet that the Republicans will even be able to name their price on the debt ceiling. House Speaker John Boehner has his dollar-for-dollar principle, which implies more than a trillion dollars in cuts to raise the debt ceiling through 2014. But Republicans haven’t named anywhere near a trillion dollars of further cuts in any of the fiscal cliff negotiations. They’ve been afraid to take direct aim at Social Security and Medicare, and while they can call for deep cuts to Medicaid, everyone knows that’s a nonstarter for the White House in the age of Obamacare. Meanwhile, domestic discretionary spending has already been cut to the bone, and Republicans want to increase defense spending. So what’s their demand going to be, exactly? Will they force America into default on behalf of spending cuts they can’t name?

Third, a consequence of the 2012 presidential election, in which Mitt Romney argued for capping deductions and exclusions to pay for his tax cuts, and of the early fiscal cliff negotiations, in which Boehner argued for raising revenue through tax reform, is that Republican policy elites, in my experience, really don’t hate revenue-raising tax reform all that much. Raising any revenues is a bit of a problem for them as it permits the growth of government, but it’s really raising tax rates where they’ve talked themselves into hardline opposition. So they may be willing to strike a deal on this.

Fourth, I don’t think the White House has a shred of credibility when they say they won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. They may not call what they’re about to do negotiating over the debt ceiling, but that’ll be what they’re doing. That said, I’m quite convinced that they don’t intend to be held hostage over the debt ceiling. As a former constitutional law professor, the president sees himself as a steward of the executive branch and is deeply hostile to setting the precedent that congressional minorities can hold presidents hostage through the debt ceiling. At some point in the coming talks, Boehner or McConnell or both are going to realize that the White House really, seriously will not accept a bargain in which what they “got” was an increase in the debt limit, and so they’re going to have to decide at that point whether to crash the global economy.

Fifth, the constellation of economic interest groups that converge on Washington understands the debt ceiling better than they did in 2011, are becoming more and more tired of congress’s tendency to negotiate by threatening to trigger economic catastrophes, and is getting better at knowing who to blame. It’s not a meaningless sign that John Engler, the former Republican Governor of Michigan who now leads the Business Roundtable, called for a five-year solution to the debt ceiling.

It’s worth keeping this in perspective: All it means is that the White House can potentially demand a perfectly reasonable compromise of one dollar in revenue-generating tax reform for every dollar in spending cuts. When you add in the fiscal cliff deal, and the 2011 Budget Control Act, that’ll still mean that the total deficit reduction enacted over the last few years tilts heavily towards spending, particularly once you account for reduced war costs.

But that is, arguably, another reason that the White House isn’t in such a bad position here: They’ve set up a definition of success that will sound reasonable to most people — a dollar in tax reform for a dollar in spending cuts — while the Republicans have a very unreasonable sounding definition, in which they get huge cuts to Medicare or they force the United States into default. So while it’s possible that the White House will crumble, rendering itself impotent in negotiations going forward, and while it’s possible that the we’ll breach the debt ceiling, both possibilities seem less likely than Republicans agreeing to a deal that pairs revenue-generating tax reform with spending cuts.
Click to expand...


Obama already got at least $620 billion of his $800 billion goal for tax revenues. He's going to get the rest in the sequester negotiations through tax reform (capping more deductions/loopholes, moving carried interest to income I hope, etc).

And now, because he got the $620billion already, he can do a 1 for 1 which will be more like a 2 for 1 in reality but since it's 2 months from now it won't look that way. And it's up to the GOP to go on record with cuts this time since Obama is on the other side of the coin. He doesn't have to ask for tax reform, he doesn't have to initiate negotiations.

Obama should tell Congress to create a package of spending cuts and tax reform and that then he'll negotiate it rather than give an offer himself. The GOP doesn't want the sequester for the military and they don't want to default. They were fucking scared of the fiscal cliff!


Because Obama is not an ideologue, and is also a horrible negotiator. Reid believed democrats were winning the issue, and could continue holding republicans feet to the fire until they got a better deal. Obama wanted to compromise because...that's who he is. I've seen some liberals blaming Biden for the deal, but the 400/450k rate was Obama's idea. Biden sold it to McConnell, and gave republicans some other stuff.

It's clear Reid wanted to fight, and does not trust Obama in the debt ceiling fight. He vehemently opposed the two month sequester delay because he has little faith in the White House's negotiation plan. We don't know where the country will be in two months. That was Reid's argument, and it's mine.
Click to expand...

And it's why Obama is a better politician than Reid has ever been (Reid, in fact, has been largely weak). It makes sense you'd align with him.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
Obama already got at least $620 billion of his $800 billion goal for tax revenues. He's going to get the rest in the sequester negotiations through tax reform (capping more deductions/loopholes, moving carried interest to income I hope, etc).

And now, because he got the $620billion already, he can do a 1 for 1 which will be more like a 2 for 1 in reality but since it's 2 months from now it won't look that way. And it's up to the GOP to go on record with cuts this time since Obama is on the other side of the coin. He doesn't have to ask for tax reform, he doesn't have to initiate negotiations.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem true to me. There is still $1.2 trillion in spending cuts on the books. The Democrats definitely have something to ask for. It's not tax reform, to be sure, but avoidance of significant cuts to programs, including subsidies that are part of the ACA. These cuts are far more important, to me, than a small tax increase on income over 400k.

The worst mistake the Democrats made was negotiating over the debt ceiling in the first fucking place. There should be no spending cuts. In fact, spending should increase. Too bad Democrats are every bit infected by the deficit hysteria as Republicans are. If there are large spending cuts in two months time, another recession is practically guaranteed.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
This doesn't seem true to me. There is still $1.2 trillion in spending cuts on the books. The Democrats definitely have something to ask for. It's not tax reform, to be sure, but avoidance of significant cuts to programs, including subsidies that are part of the ACA. These cuts are far more important, to me, than a small tax increase on income over 400k.

The worst mistake the Democrats made was negotiating over the debt ceiling in the first fucking place. There should be no spending cuts. In fact, spending should increase. Too bad Democrats are every bit infected by the deficit hysteria as Republicans are. If there are large spending cuts in two months time, another recession is practically guaranteed.
Click to expand...

yes yes, spending should increase. Key will be getting long term decreases rather than short term.

There won't be more than $1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years which with the tax raises will only equate to 1% of GDP, so it won't send us to recession. Just make things a lot harder.

Of course, if it's less cuts (or no cuts) right now and cuts in the future, it could spur growth faster if there's infrastructure spending (which i doubt).

Anyway, my point was that in the Grand Bargain Obama was going to get 1 for 1. But with the tax rates already out of the way, a 1 for 1 bargain in the future negotiations has 3 benefits.

1. The total package isn't 1 for 1, it's higher

2. the GOP won't be able to come up with 1 for 1 at 1 trillion.

3. It should force the GOP to actually go on record for their significant cuts and if they can't do it, there won't be significant cuts.


I still believe at the end of the day most cuts will be pushed back. Maybe they come to a long term deal of some kind, but doubt it. I'll believe the cuts when I actually see the cuts.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Amir0x said:
Current TV was purchased by Al Jazeera!?

Will the channel not suck ass now!?
Click to expand...

Just put Al jazeera english on plz. I hate having to watch it on my computer.

Looks like their looking to build a Al Jazeera America. I'll be watching. Suck it looks like Time Warner is going to drop them though they'll keep 60million households.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
el retorno de los sapos said:
Just put Al jazeera english on plz. I hate having to watch it on my computer.

Looks like their looking to build a Al Jazeera America. I'll be watching. Suck it looks like Time Warner is going to drop them though they'll keep 60million households.
Click to expand...

if I can get an Al Jazeera English Channel, I can finally stop suffering on the shit cable news channels that are currently on the air. Oh boy this is some good news
 
D

DragonSworne

Banned
Hopefully the up coming debate on spending cuts drives home the fact that our government isn't bloated or inefficient, well, outside of military spending of course.
 
D

DragonSworne

Banned
RDreamer said:
Not sure that's something g you could fix with cuts ;p
Click to expand...

Lines at the MVA here in Maryland are non existent due to online services, express locations throughout the state, and smart kiosks that direct and queue people to the proper lines.

It's really damn impressive.

But hey, cut spending so we don't get technological advances...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
el retorno de los sapos said:
Article about AJ and current

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...a-likely-500-million-deal-for-al-gore-and-co/


I'm excited. Screw what the crazies think, its a good news channel though like any it has its biases and stylistic differences which should be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Al Gore has mastered falling upwards since losing in 2000

Current will probably never be truly taken seriously with a foreign nation financing it. It's unfortunately because both companies have some good folks involved
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Meh. I don't see the big deal about what he said.

Oh, well. He'll be back.
Click to expand...

It's thread whining, which mods are particularly sensitive to at the moment due to the giant stickied thread at the top of that forum which says "no thread whining or meta discussion" :p That said, these types of bans are rarely very long ...unless it's repeated behavior.

Anyway, I hope they rebrand Current TV and that Blue Ridge Cable picks them up now that Al Jazeera is at the helm. Al Jazeera does some great stuff.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
The Kwanzaa stuff was brought up earlier in this topic. Even if the guy was right about Kwanzaa, was a stupid fucking thing to bring up as a politician. Like, why pick a fight with Kwanzaa? Who cares if some people want to celebrate it? Does it hurt you that some people still do?
 
F

fallagin

Member
Amir0x said:
The Kwanzaa stuff was brought up earlier in this topic. Even if the guy was right about Kwanzaa, was a stupid fucking thing to bring up as a politician. Like, why pick a fight with Kwanzaa? Who cares if some people want to celebrate it? Does it hurt you that some people still do?
Click to expand...

It is very interesting that he calls it "racist." I guess that collates with being against affirmative action. It is a very short sighted point of view.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Amir0x said:
Anyway, I hope they rebrand Current TV and that Blue Ridge Cable picks them up now that Al Jazeera is at the helm. Al Jazeera does some great stuff.
Click to expand...
I hope they just put Al Jazeera there.
It's a fucking joke that I still can't get them on my TV (without using a computer that is).
 
Z

Zabka

Member
After reading about AJE I found the channel on Time Warner Cable in NY just in time to see a camel get shot in the head.

It was an interesting story though. Similar to the deer overpopulation problem the US is facing.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Nah, I can't do things like that with shitty DSL. Maybe if one day something better arrives and also doesn't have a bandwidth cap per month I'd totally set that up
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Zabka said:
After reading about AJE I found the channel on Time Warner Cable in NY just in time to see a camel get shot in the head.

It was an interesting story though. Similar to the deer overpopulation problem the US is facing.
Click to expand...
Yeah man, this has been going on for a while.

iLLNbTaU8ornr.gif
 
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