Hippie handband and a circa 1967 Lou Reed sunglasses?
Damn, they know liberals too well.
-
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
Damn, they know liberals too well.
speculawyer
Member
The Librarian
Banned
Debates don't matter.
So I was curious. I don't think the debt ceiling will not be raised, but hypothetically, if that happened, what if Obama said that he'd prioritize our spending obligations by depriving red states of SS checks and medicare reimbursement payments? Obama could go on T.V. and say that since the Reps wanted him to cut entitlements, he figures the best way would be to do so with those who complain about overbearing government programs to begin with.
Would love to see that happen.
Would love to see that happen.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
That is not going to happen though.
That's ridiculous. There's good people in red states too, you know?
TacticalFox88
Banned
Big Baybee
Member
naw.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Good that he lost money, piece of shit. I'm sure it's legal, but I mean it more in a ''wtf why are politicians allowed to gamble with the well being of our country?'' kind of way. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to gamble on stockmarkets and the like.
SpeedySwaf
Member
Yeah, you don't want to ever set a precedent where it's okay to fuck some states but not others just because of how they voted.
That would look and be petty and cruel, because he wouldn't be hurting those politicians but their constituents, many of whom didn't even vote for them.
Well, I'm not saying Obama should go through with that idea, just give them people a good scare. After that, I'm sure some republican congressman getting attacked by seniors carrying baseball bats riding their mobile scooters would change their votes pretty quickly.
The Librarian
Banned
Your idea is horrible in every concievable way.
Giant Panda
Member
We may have the best military, but we got it through hugely inefficient spending. Just look at the F-35. It's the most expensive military project in the history of the United States, and all reports so far say that it's not even that good of a plane.
Lautenberg is 88? Why on earth does he plan on running again anyway? Damn people that old have no business running the government.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Give them a good scare? You do realize that people in the blue states would call for his head too, no? And some people have family that live in both colors?
The Librarian
Banned
Obama can't say he'll specifically target the constituencies of Republicans, but he *can* say that he can't guarantee SS checks will come in the mail, like he did last time.
TacticalFox88
Banned
It's only not that good of a plane by 5th generation standards. Despite popular belief, testing is about three months ahead of schedule, and if all goes well, we'll be purchasing a good chunk of them in the 2016-2024 timeframe.
The primary reason the F-35 hasn't been introduced sooner was because so many different countries wanted to it for its own use. Essentially Lockheed had to not only please the USAF, USN, and USMC, but about a dozen other countries all who had different agendas, specifications, and needs.
Were it like the F-22 and solely and American plane, I highly doubt it would've cost half its initial price if that.
Until the European fiscal stuff is completely resolved, I think it was a mistake to expire payroll tax cuts. Lots of American companies are profitable right now and can afford to hire more and budget regular salary increases, but they choose not to due to economic forecasts. Lots of people's wages are stagnating and inflation continues at 1% (though it may increase to 3% average or more soon).
If Europe does something stupid, we may enter a recession. Those tax cuts could have mitigated that.
Maybe a good compromise would have been to reinstate the taxes in 2 phases. 1% per year.
If Europe does something stupid, we may enter a recession. Those tax cuts could have mitigated that.
Maybe a good compromise would have been to reinstate the taxes in 2 phases. 1% per year.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I agree Republicans won't shoot the hostage, but they are more than willing to wait until the last possible minute to cave. I don't believe Obama is willing to wait that long, and continue to believe he'll blink; that's simply based on his behavior over the last four years. You can't draw lines in the sand, constantly erase them, and expect people to believe you the next time.
Boehner certainly has less leverage now given the fiscal cliff fiasco. It's clear he has at least 30-50 sane republicans on his side for a vote on the debt ceiling, including himself; that's more than enough to prevent default. In fact, the only way we'd default is if Boehner refused to put the bill on the floor, and I don't believe he is crazy enough to do that.
The problem is that the media will go into full "both sides" bullshit mode, and most Americans already support the idea of equal tax cuts and spending cuts; if it seems like Obama isn't willing to cut spending, his public leverage will drop and people will ask why he's not being reasonable; it's at that point that I'd expect the WH to contact republicans on a deal. Republicans have no incentive to accept any cuts of deals until the debt ceiling debate starts.
Boehner certainly has less leverage now given the fiscal cliff fiasco. It's clear he has at least 30-50 sane republicans on his side for a vote on the debt ceiling, including himself; that's more than enough to prevent default. In fact, the only way we'd default is if Boehner refused to put the bill on the floor, and I don't believe he is crazy enough to do that.
The problem is that the media will go into full "both sides" bullshit mode, and most Americans already support the idea of equal tax cuts and spending cuts; if it seems like Obama isn't willing to cut spending, his public leverage will drop and people will ask why he's not being reasonable; it's at that point that I'd expect the WH to contact republicans on a deal. Republicans have no incentive to accept any cuts of deals until the debt ceiling debate starts.
Sirpopopop
Member
I prefer Lautenberg over Booker.
As to why:
NY Times Article:
His record isn't the greatest. It's not any better than Lautenberg's record. At the very least, Lautenberg can at least be counted on to be a good friend to the institutions in New Jersey that most need federal support (state universities, rail systems). I don't get that same feeling from Chris Christie's buddy.
But Obama's position is that the deficit should be reduced with 1:1 tax hikes and spending cuts. And people absolutely were not going to hold both sides equally accountable for failing to come to a fiscal cliff deal. Republican obstruction has been going on long enough that people are aware of it, and they'll even assume it. I don't see that there's any reason at all to think that Democrats will look nearly as bad as Republicans if there's a fight over this.
You're saying that Boehner's going to go to Obama and say "well, you and I both know that I'll eventually cave on a clean debt ceiling increase if you hold the line, but you should give me spending cuts so that I can have a political victory and we can raise the ceiling without having a drawn-out fight". I really don't see why Obama agrees to that.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Him being Christie's friend has little to do with anything; he's liberal with federal funds and will give the state what it wants in that regard. The issue is that his city is still not improving in many aspects, yet he has time to answer people's minor problems on twitter; schools being fucked up is more of a problem than helping someone get their keys out of a locked car. He's the black Carcetti
Granted he doesn't get the state money he needs, but perhaps he might if he wasn't promoting himself all the time. He had a good record a few years ago and could perhaps have used it to get more money from Christie.
Granted he doesn't get the state money he needs, but perhaps he might if he wasn't promoting himself all the time. He had a good record a few years ago and could perhaps have used it to get more money from Christie.
Well, to stop this debt ceiling idiocy from recurring constantly, he is either going to have to call their bluff or do the 14th amendment/kajilion dollar coin thing
Sirpopopop
Member
Can you point to me how Cory Booker has supported institutions such as Rutgers-New Brunswick (the state's primary research institution)? Can you point to me the work Cory Booker has done to secure federal funds for Rail Stations in New Jersey?
I can do that with Lautenberg. I know Lautenberg. I have no idea how Booker will act on the National Stage.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Booker is a mayor, he's not a governor or senator. But it's not illogical to assume that as a democrat senator from NJ he will give you the pork and federal funds NJ wants.
I'm not picking sides, I don't like Booker much. But I don't understand your argument against him. He'll be a solid liberal vote on spending in his state, just like most senators are regardless of party.
I don't like the idea of pushing people of of the senate, but if your senator dies Christie replaces him with a republican.
speculawyer
Member
The have shot the hostage. They shot the hostage thus causing the USA's credit rating to drop. And they'll do it again.
And this is not some Nixon mad-man theory where he is faking it. These are simply retards. They think women have magic contraception that activates upon rape. They think climate change is a hoax created by liberal scientists. They write laws saying the Lord's prayer should be be recited by public schools.
Giant Panda
Member
I don't really have an opinion of Booker, I was merely commenting that Lautenberg is too old to be in government. He should be replaced. (Unless he's one of those guys whose health is that of someone 20 years younger.)
PhoenixDark
Banned
That isn't shooting the hostage. They purposely damaged the economy in the short term, but I don't believe they would default the country. I'd imagine some business folks figured a default scare might hurt their profits initially but help ensure an Obama loss in the election; it didn't work out like that. There will be pushback from the business and corporate community this time, and if Obama holds firm we'll get a last minute increase. Sadly I'd imagine the increase will ensure another battle right before the midterms.
TacticalFox88
Banned
You don't believe they'll default the country?
We're talking about a party whose done practically everything they can to sabotage the American economy from 08 to the Present simply because they have undying hatred for ONE man.
You're beginning to sound like an apologist.
The GOP are economic terrorists who would, literally, do ANYTHING so long as it meant that Obama's legacy is tarnished in the long run.
You cannot reason with these people. They've take a Terminator like stance on working with Obama.
What does the payroll tax cut have to do with hiring and salary increases? The tax cut was only on the employee-side of the Social Security tax. Employers paid the same rate before, during, and after the payroll tax cut.
I want to point out that this isn't a good argument. If you believe that the GOP, as a whole, is willing to destroy the economy, then we have to negotiate with them. The whole point is that they aren't actually willing to do that, except for an extremist rump, and so we don't have to negotiate. The GOP have a strategic interest in appearing as crazy as possible for just this reason, but it's important to recognize that it's a front -- most Republicans are more like Boehner than Bachmann.
speculawyer
Member
I don't think they'll shoot all the hostages but they are definitely willing to cut off fingers and mail them with ransom notes and they'll shoot one or two hostages. If they cause a temporary default they'll just blame it all on Obama for not agreeing to their terms and the entire right-wing echo chamber will agree and push that view.
That's why I said we needed to go over the cliff. That was a situation wherein it would hurt the country less than the debt ceiling. Obama needed to show that he'll play the mad-man game too. But he always blinks too to quick.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Exactly. As I said earlier, as long as Boehner puts a vote on the floor - which he will - it will pass. Boehner lets the Hassert rule give the public front that he can't possibly get anything done unless the WH gives in to the demands of crazy people, but the fiscal cliff debate proved that to be false; when push comes to shove, he will bend.
There may have been an incentive to harm the economy in 2011, and I do believe many business folks were fine with it given the potential payoff (President Romney). But now corporate establishment types will make sure they aren't fucked over by a minority of crazy republicans (basically the 67 who voted against Sandy aid)
Black Mamba
Member
The fiscal cliff proved they aren't willing to default. If they were, they never would have agreed to the bill. They essentially voted to kill the bill in conference or put it to a vote and they decided to vote on it. And a decent amount of them voter for the bill, including their leader.
If we were still over the cliff right now, maybe you'd be right. But Obama won that fight and we aren't over the cliff. And if they weren't willing to hurt the economy over tax cuts for the rich, what makes you think they're willing to destroy the worldwide economy to get massive spending cuts that they won't even list?
The only only only thing that could cause the GOP to possibly do this is Obama blames such a ridiculous game of hardball (essentially saying he won't negotiate on anything at all and will just wait for the debt limit increase) it may make them go insane enough to do it but it should be noted the optics would hurt Obama.
Obama bought political capital in the fiscal cliff by not just winning but also by compromising. If he compromises even slightly in the debt ceiling stuff, the public will back him immensely should the GOP try to crater the economy. It would be the GOP committing seppuku for all to see. The death of the party. There are some factions in the GOP willing to stand on ideological grounds over practical ones but these are not great in number. The Senate will pass bipartisan reform and the GOP's hands will be tied in general. 50-70 members won't be enough and the same members, which outrank them at least 2-1, will bring do everything to prevent a default on US debt.
I guarantee you we will not default.
edit: I'd also like to mention that big business will be in the ear of everyone on this one (including Dems). Cantor is straight up out of wall street. Like he's going to let us default!?
empty vessel
Member
The purpose of military spending is basically just economic stimulus. The government has to spend money into the economy. A lot of it is diverted to military because it directly helps so few people that way. I know that sounds weird but it's true. If the government spent money in ways that benefited people more (e.g., health care) instead of military spending, then it would give labor more bargaining power against business. That is always to be avoided so that employers can better suppress wages. Best to funnel it into the economy through the private defense industry.
All this to say, if the military budget were slashed, the government would have to (and ought to) spend the money elsewhere. But spend it must.
Giant Panda
Member
I'm sorry but this sounds just absolutely crazy. Maybe a few crazy tea-party types think like this but I'm pretty sure 90% of officials don't.
empty vessel
Member
No politician 'thinks' like this, because politicians, by and large, don't think anything. It's just the product of the business interests that bear upon them.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not sure how those two things are related? Obviously that 60% aren't going to be replaced with aeroplanes, but they don't make up 60% of the miles driven, obviously. I think you have to be really spoiling for an argument to deny that the US uses internal flights in a way that most other countries both don't and couldn't, practically, because it's so large. The more alternatives to roads that there are, the less economic sense it makes to invest in them. Which isn't the same as there not being any economic sense in investing in them, but my whole point was that European roads tend to be better because they tend to be busier than US roads, thus increasing their economic function. I really didn't think it was a particularly controversial point to make.
Why not? Reductio ad absurdum, if you have two roads of equal disrepair, one which carries 5 people a day and the other carries 50,000, which are you going to prioritise getting fixed? Density defines, to a large extent, the use of a road. I don't understand why it's controversial to say that roads that get used more, and with less alternatives, offer a greater incentive to be kept well maintained. Which is all I was saying.
:'(
Having a facespace argument and I am about to give up with the guy. If anyone wants to destroy an argument please have at it right now:
"You boys have been having fun while I was away. There has not always been a national debt David but your right, there almost always have been. Where your off is saying its mostly increased. It has decreased many times, throughout the history of this country it's decreased more that its increased. It usually skyrockets for a war then comes down in the years and decades after.
The problem with the debt is that the government uses its income to pay for things right? Paying for things, like a government workers salary for example, takes actual money. Now as the debt increases that means the government is continuously spending more money than it actually has. And some point that "meaningless number" you pointed out has to be actual currency. If all they had to do was print more money and it wouldn't cause hyper inflation as you earlier claimed then why does the government need to keep taking more money from the people? If they could just print money with no repercussions and the debt was some imaginary number why is the government even worried about how to make more revenue? We could just not pay any taxes, the government would plummet deeper into debt but according to your theory that would be a good thing for everyone."
"You boys have been having fun while I was away. There has not always been a national debt David but your right, there almost always have been. Where your off is saying its mostly increased. It has decreased many times, throughout the history of this country it's decreased more that its increased. It usually skyrockets for a war then comes down in the years and decades after.
The problem with the debt is that the government uses its income to pay for things right? Paying for things, like a government workers salary for example, takes actual money. Now as the debt increases that means the government is continuously spending more money than it actually has. And some point that "meaningless number" you pointed out has to be actual currency. If all they had to do was print more money and it wouldn't cause hyper inflation as you earlier claimed then why does the government need to keep taking more money from the people? If they could just print money with no repercussions and the debt was some imaginary number why is the government even worried about how to make more revenue? We could just not pay any taxes, the government would plummet deeper into debt but according to your theory that would be a good thing for everyone."
Black Mamba
Member
Or do the French and Norwegian flags offset it? haha
edit: I guess Abra is quite different from a bald eagle as well.
speculawyer
Member
That wasn't your claim. What Dax was responding to, which Dax bolded and quoted, was "My point was that they invest less because of the lowered density". You weren't saying major highways were going to be given priority over country roads; you were saying that countries with higher population densities had a reason to spend more on road maintenance. But here you're talking about how well-kept roads will be. There's a big difference because countries with higher population densities have fewer roads, and spending the same amount results in higher quality per mile.
Regardless of the availability of intranational flights, Americans drive more than Europeans, so we probably get greater returns on road quality. We also have more miles of road, so we have to spend more on road maintenance to get the same gain in average road quality. If we're all in a regime where there are diminishing returns to road quality, then you'd expect us to be spending more, not less, on road maintenance. If we didn't drive more, you'd also expect our roads to be somewhat worse-kept, but we do, so it's hard to say whether or not we expect our roads to be better or worse than European roads.
As someone just said, our debt rarely goes down. Debt to GDP ratio fluctuates, but that's because of growth, not actual debt. Deficits skyrocket for a war, then go down after, yes, but that's a bit different. I think he doesn't realize the difference.
You should also ask him where this "actual money" comes from, and why the government wouldn't have it.
Taxes are needed to curb inflation, an inequality, and also to give fiat money value. If no one pays taxes, then there's no need to use our specific currency, and also money stagnated in the economy and could inflate things. Tell him Inflation is the key, not the debt number.
Wish I wasn't on a phone or I could do this better
If salaries stagnate and costs go up and fewer people have jobs, people are going to cut spending. If Europe goes bad and consumer spending is really low, we could go into a deep recession.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well shit. I guess we're going to default then.
The Librarian
Banned
goddammit pd
Wish I wasn't on a phone or I could do this better
Thank you. Living in Mississippi, you can imagine my facebook news feed anytime something political happens. I try my best, but sometimes it gets overwhelming.
Plus you guys are smarter than me(I did say I live in MS, of course).
Say what?
Now that Obama has been re-elected I am not too worried about what happens next. Lots of drama but the intent will be different as they know the potential for a GOP WH being right around the corner is gone for the next 3.5 years.
RustyNails
Member
But they're gonna split Pennsylvania's electoral votes
- Status