Support NeoGAF

[Sirpopopop]

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.

Sounds like you agree with me that Lautenberg is a known quantity whereas Booker is an unknown quantity. That was my point.

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 consider charter school pushing, Wall Street apologizers, union buster supporters to be solid liberal votes. I do consider them to be better than modern Republican alternatives. I do not consider them to be solid liberal votes.

I don't like the idea of pushing people of of the senate, but if your senator dies Christie replaces him with a republican.

That's not the issue at play here. If that's the issue you want to play, then give me Pallone, Buono, Codey, or Lesniak over Booker.

 

[fallagin]

But they're gonna split Pennsylvania's electoral votes

This is what I'm most worried about, the GOP is already getting pretty desperate.

Edit: our last line of defense will be state legislatures and governors.

 

[The Librarian]

But they're gonna split Pennsylvania's electoral votes

please don't remind him of oh god http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

 

[Jimothy]

I'm reading on another forum that the SS tax is getting increased? I thought it was only payroll that was going up...


nvm

 

[Jimothy]

That's what the payroll tax is.

Shit.

 

[sc0la]

Haha. Where were all the conservatives fighting to keep the employee portion of the payroll tax low before?

Answer:

Spoiler

nowhere

 

[Clevinger]

Haha. Where were all the conservatives fighting to keep the employee portion of the payroll tax low before?

Answer:

Spoiler

nowhere

Isn't that the only portion of the payroll tax?

 

[The Technomancer]

Isn't that the only portion of the payroll tax?

No, the payroll tax is split between employer and employee.

 

[sc0la]

Isn't that the only portion of the payroll tax?

Nope, employees and employers both have a portion. Self employed get owned.

I would like to see both eliminated in favor of adding additional income tax brackets and treating capital gains/ dividends as income. It's silly to put that as a drag on employment AND it is hugely regressive :/

EDIT: or just turn SS into a spending program instead of an earned benefit program. Abolish the payroll tax altogether.

 

[Oblivion]

Isn't that the only portion of the payroll tax?

I thought there was an employer portion included in that deal as well?

 

[fallagin]

Nope, employees and employers both have a portion. Self employed get owned.

I would like to see both eliminated in favor of adding additional income tax brackets and treating capital gains/ dividends as income. It's silly to put that as a drag on employment AND it is hugely regressive :/

EDIT: or just turn SS into a spending program instead of an earned benefit program. Abolish the payroll tax altogether.

I would like that, the payroll tax just doesn't seem smart to me.

 

[Seraphis Cain]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15

So guys, what is this and why would Serrano introduce it when he's gotta know that it has zero chance of ever passing?

EDIT: Ohhhh, right, Serrano's been trying to get people to pay attention to this since at least 1999. No reason to give it any attention. :lol

 

[RDreamer]

Nope, employees and employers both have a portion. Self employed get owned.

I would like to see both eliminated in favor of adding additional income tax brackets and treating capital gains/ dividends as income. It's silly to put that as a drag on employment AND it is hugely regressive :/

EDIT: or just turn SS into a spending program instead of an earned benefit program. Abolish the payroll tax altogether.

It would make so much more sense for it to be like that. I do wonder though if that would make it easier for Republicans to come after it, though. Right now the big defense that Democrats and liberals have is "It's a separate paid for program that doesn't contribute a dime to the debt." I mean, even with that republicans are coming after it, but without that it'd be much tougher to defend.

Unfortunately... Because, that, it's so regressive and stupid to tax lower income workers like that.

 

[Oblivion]

It would make so much more sense for it to be like that. I do wonder though if that would make it easier for Republicans to come after it, though. Right now the big defense that Democrats and liberals have is "It's a separate paid for program that doesn't contribute a dime to the debt." I mean, even with that republicans are coming after it, but without that it'd be much tougher to defend.

Unfortunately... Because, that, it's so regressive and stupid to tax lower income workers like that.

How do conservatives rationalize SS contributing to the deficit exactly?

 

[RDreamer]

How do conservatives rationalize SS contributing to the deficit exactly?

I'm not entirely sure they do. They just kind of lump it in with "entitlement cuts" that they demand must happen to make us solvent. I don't think their constituents really look at these things rationally and parse out how it doesn't. So they get away with it.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's not like that's a crazy position. The trust fund is an accounting fiction. The spending side of social security is still spending. And mostly the Republicans have been content to argue not for SS cuts, but for SS privatization. Wall Street can get a lot of commissions out of an effective 11.7% income tax. Their argument has typically been that returns would be higher. For obvious reasons they've been quiet about that since the financial crisis, and right now they're more than happy to take cuts to anything, SS included, instead of tax increases on the rich.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not entirely sure they do. They just kind of lump it in with "entitlement cuts" that they demand must happen to make us solvent. I don't think their constituents really look at these things rationally and parse out how it doesn't. So they get away with it.

If people did that then everyone would be asking why the GOP doesn't like the sequester cuts.

 

[sc0la]

Right now the big defense that Democrats and liberals have is "It's a separate paid for program that doesn't contribute a dime to the debt."

That is just an argument of convinience. Just make it a pure spending program, don't issue debt for SS spending, don't collect revenue. No debt, and there is no fictional trust fund to pillage.

If accompanying inflation is unacceptable then use a known counter inflationary measure like increasing taxes temporarily.

I feel like I am channeling EV this evening...

 

[RDreamer]

That is just an argument of convinience. Just make it a pure spending program, don't issue debt for SS spending, don't collect revenue. No debt, and there is no fictional trust fund to pillage.

If accompanying inflation is unacceptable then use a known counter inflationary measure like increasing taxes temporarily.

I feel like I am channeling EV this evening...

I know, and I agree. I just wonder how easily our dumb population would be swindled if we did it that way. Then again this way is our dumb working population getting swindled, so lol.

I feel like a lot more of us our turning slightly like EV lately too lol. Probably a good thing.

 

[Gotchaye]

That is just an argument of convinience. Just make it a pure spending program, don't issue debt for SS spending, don't collect revenue. No debt, and there is no fictional trust fund to pillage.

If accompanying inflation is unacceptable then use a known counter inflationary measure like increasing taxes temporarily.

I feel like I am channeling EV this evening...

I'm not sure it is. Hopefully someone here has a better grasp of the history here than I do, but there's presumably a reason that when Social Security was first enacted, it was enacted with these special payroll taxes rather than as an income tax. It's hard to see why that would have been done if not to make possible exactly the argument that you claim is one of convenience. It's a lot harder to cut a program that people think they've already paid for than one that they see as charity.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I'm not even sure Democrats should even bother fixing the deficit. We did that last time with all the hard work Clinton did. His tax increases swept the Republicans into power in 1994. All that heavy lifting just to see Bush waste it away with big tax cuts. Solving our deficits and then not getting a chance to do something with the money seems like a bad deal.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I'm not even sure Democrats should even bother fixing the deficit. We did that last time with all the hard work Clinton did. His tax increases swept the Republicans into power in 1994. All that heavy lifting just to see Bush waste it away with big tax cuts. Solving our deficits and then not getting a chance to do something with the money seems like a bad deal.

"I'm not sure if Obama should solve Healthcare even more. We did that last time and it swept the Republicans in power in 2010. All that political capital just to see Republicans waste away with trying to repeal Obamacare. Solving our Healthcare Issues and not getting the chance to do much more seems like a bad deal"

 

[speculawyer]

I feel like a lot more of us our turning slightly like EV lately too lol. Probably a good thing.

Not me. I was angry at Cheney asserting "deficits don't matter" and Obama does not get a pass either. We should raise taxes as needed and cut spending (largely wars and defense) to ensure a sane fiscal situation.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Not me. I was angry at Cheney asserting "deficits don't matter" and Obama does not get a pass either. We should raise taxes as needed and cut spending (largely wars and defense) to ensure a sane fiscal situation.

Hell no. Just move any defense spending "cuts" somewhere else that help stimulate the economy or directly benefit the people...like fucking Health Care.

 

[leroidys]

I'm not sure it is. Hopefully someone here has a better grasp of the history here than I do, but there's presumably a reason that when Social Security was first enacted, it was enacted with these special payroll taxes rather than as an income tax. It's hard to see why that would have been done if not to make possible exactly the argument that you claim is one of convenience. It's a lot harder to cut a program that people think they've already paid for than one that they see as charity.

I'm pretty sure I read that this is why FDR wanted it this way.

 

[Oblivion]

Not me. I was angry at Cheney asserting "deficits don't matter" and Obama does not get a pass either. We should raise taxes as needed and cut spending (largely wars and defense) to ensure a sane fiscal situation.

This is why liberals never win anything. Do you think Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist give a shit about consistency?

 

[Gotchaye]

"I'm not sure if Obama should solve Healthcare even more. We did that last time and it swept the Republicans in power in 2010. All that political capital just to see Republicans waste away with trying to repeal Obamacare. Solving our Healthcare Issues and not getting the chance to do much more seems like a bad deal"

That's not the argument being made. Plausibly, Democrats doing something about the deficit is pointless, because it makes them unpopular and only serves to give Republicans headroom to raise the deficit again, with the end result being no deficit reduction and a substantial shift in net spending in favor of Republicans. If Democrats fight for deficit reduction, and secure a compromise deal involving somewhat higher taxes and spending cuts (taken from mostly Democratic priorities), and then Republicans come into power and at the first opportunity (when the economy is booming, say) enact massive tax cuts for the rich and hugely increase military spending, then in hindsight the deficit reduction may have been a bad idea.

If Republicans had won in 2012 and succeeded in repealing Obamacare, then people would be saying that Democrats went wrong somewhere in there. There would have been no net gain in health care policy and substantial losses elsewhere going forward. Obviously we don't want to assume that what happened was inevitable, but looking back it seems clear that, once passed, the important parts of Obamacare were essentially immune to repeal, given only the Court not striking the whole thing down.

 

[The Librarian]

@samsteinhp: "This is an in your face nomination from the president" -- Sen. Graham on Hagel.

@BarackObama: "In your face, graham crackers!" --BO

Spoiler

Not an actual tweet by Barack Obama.

 

[codhand]

It's convenient none of the big name House Republicans made it to the talking head shows this morning.

 

[Oblivion]

 

[Amir0x]

oh my god

edit: no seriously, oh my god

 

[ZeroRay]

I'm 99% sure the cartoonist thinks West can secure the black vote too.

 

[Trouble]

I would looove West to the get Republican nom in 2016. For the lulz.

 

[Amir0x]

i mean, but, my god. the implications that Allen West would ever do anything that deserved a Lincoln-esque memorial. I mean, fuck. Fuck. My mind is...fuck.

 

[Trouble]

i mean, but, my god. the implications that Allen West would ever do anything that deserved a Lincoln-esque memorial. I mean, fuck. Fuck. My mind is...fuck.

Apparently West's 2012 campaign was on-par with Lincoln.

Edit: Also Lincoln was a one-term congressman by choice.

 

[Amir0x]

Apparently West's 2012 campaign was on-par with Lincoln.

i mean let's be generous and say he's just implying that he served one term and will go on to be a spectacular president of some kind, just like Lincoln

can you just imagine what an Allen West would have to do to deserve a memorial like this to the conservative movement?

 

[Trouble]

I'm 99% sure the cartoonist thinks West can secure the black vote too.

These people really do think that black people only voted for Obama because he's black.

i mean let's be generous and say he's just implying that he served one term and will go on to be a spectacular president of some kind, just like Lincoln

can you just imagine what an Allen West would have to do to deserve a memorial like this to the conservative movement?

Something that in reality would be disastrous. See: gold standard, ending income taxes, privatizing government agencies, preemptive war, etc

 

[Grakl]

http://i.imgur.com/KxVjt.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

*dead*

 

[speculawyer]

This is the kind of conservative cartoon I can get behind.

That's right . . . you run Allen West for President in 2016.

 

[RDreamer]

Allen West symbolizes the current Republican Party at the height of its delusion. It is in memorial to show its death throes in 2012, and questionable possibilities in 2016 and forward. It will either try yet again on this same path, or die forever.

A good cartoon.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

You guys is just jelly of his 40bux a year @reagan.com email address.

 

[Amir0x]

At least now the NRA will have a talking point that isn't totally based on a fabrication:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is weighing a far broader approach to curbing U.S. gun violence than just reinstating a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.

A working group led by Vice President Joseph Biden is seriously considering measures that would require universal background checks for gun buyers and track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, the newspaper said.

The measures would also strengthen mental health checks and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the Post said. The approach is backed by law enforcement leaders, it said.

Rest at Link

Over/Under on how fast this gets massacred in the jellybelly Congress we have now?

In case you need a help for your guess, here's a tip:

Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, an NRA member, said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" that the reported proposals were "way in extreme" and would not pass.

Pussies.

 

[Marvie_3]

This is the kind of conservative cartoon I can get behind.

That's right . . . you run Allen West for President in 2016.

This would be incredible.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Universal background checks are needed, but they're also quite vunerable to right wing FUD; government making a list with your name on it, makes it easier for them to track you, vets will be banned, and other nonsensical but effective arguments.

I'd rather this battle be fought with individual bills instead of a comprehensive bill, which will be more vunerable to attacks. A big bill that includes an assault weapons ban will not pass, and I'd rather let a seperate bill die than have the entire thing go up in flames. One for assault weapons ban, one for background checks (including gun show loophole closure), one for high capacity clips. I'd rather focus on addressing illegal guns than legal guns.

 

[speculawyer]

This is why liberals never win anything. Do you think Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist give a shit about consistency?

It is not about consistency it is about good policy. I'm not saying that we instantly balance the budget. We shouldn't do that. But we need to start taking steps in that direction. We've been running massive deficits for like 5 years now and we need to start moving in the other direction. People need to give on up the idea that we are going to have a magic recovery and we'll return the go-go days of rapid growth. Those days are over.

No matter how much people love the MMT here, that just doesn't fly with the rest of the world. The markets will punish the USA if we suddenly decide it is perfectly OK to print money as needed even if you think it works fine. Much of economics is based upon psychology and trust. And if the USA suddenly starts with the adoption of an unorthodox policy, it is just not going to work in practice even if it could work in theory (which is unproven).


The USA needs to face reality. We are no longer the global super-power of the 20th century. And it isn't that we've done much wrong, it is just at everyone else has been catching up to us. So it is time we scale back on empire.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Republicans will have Obama jumping through hoops on the deficit for four years, and when he's done unemployment will still be high with no end in sight. It's beyond time to move on, after this next spending cuts debate. We need to do something about unemployment.

I was watching the 1992 town hall debate last night and despite the US being in a recession, the entire debate revolved around debt. Not just Perot, but Clinton and Bush as well, with the same arguments being made then as they are now. If the economy is growing, the deficit will decline as more wealth is generated. It seems like the strategy here is to keep economic growth as low as possible to extend the focus on deficits, and the "tough" (middle and lower class) sacrifices required to lower them. And when things aren't going according to the plan, a self inflicted wound (debt ceiling) is used to slow things down again.

 

[speculawyer]

This picture just seems ridiculous.

I like the juxtaposition of Washington's optimistic palm up and Boehner's palm down "NO".

 

[RustyNails]

Republicans will have Obama jumping through hoops on the deficit for four years, and when he's done unemployment will still be high with no end in sight. It's beyond time to move on, after this next spending cuts debate. We need to do something about unemployment.

I was watching the 1992 town hall debate last night and despite the US being in a recession, the entire debate revolved around debt. Not just Perot, but Clinton and Bush as well, with the same arguments being made then as they are now. If the economy is growing, the deficit will decline as more wealth is generated. It seems like the strategy here is to keep economic growth as low as possible to extend the focus on deficits, and the "tough" (middle and lower class) sacrifices required to lower them. And when things aren't going according to the plan, a self inflicted wound (debt ceiling) is used to slow things down again.

Didn't Obama create 4 million jobs since he took over? What's there to suggest that he can't create equal, if not more in his second term, assuming the current job creation rate continues? Republicans tried every trick in their book and then some to stop or stifle job creation in US in order to make Obama one term president, even downgrading our credit rating. Jobs are still being created. Another 4-5 million jobs will put us in low 6 UE rate.

 

[RDreamer]

Another 4-5 million jobs will put us in low 6 UE rate.

Honestly that's still pretty shitty after so long...

 

[TacticalFox88]

Honestly that's still pretty shitty after so long...

Well, not really, considering how bad things COULD have gotten.

I shudder to think that if McCain had gotten in, we would've likely gone with Europe's austerity bullshit.

We'd be in the 14 percent unemployment most likely, if not higher. And that's me being generous.