polyh3dron
Banned
Just got my first paycheck for the year, got a raise but I take home less now due to the new taxesfeels bad man
Payroll tax increase, something the GOP wanted instead of raising income tax on income above $250,000 a year.
-
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
Payroll tax increase, something the GOP wanted instead of raising income tax on income above $250,000 a year.
Black Republican
Member
You didnt think the 1st black president would give up the job that easy now?
RustyNails
Member
Aren't there lot of drawbacks to having a low-skilled immigration program?
I don't know if even obama exactly wants it. I don't think there is anyway a path to citizenships for hispanics would ever pass the congress even with alot of democratic support tbh. He can push it and come back and blame congress for it failing.
Like what? Every new immigrant makes their particular field a tiny bit more crowded, but by adding consumer spending they make every field a tiny bit more productive. That's why if we're going to have better immigration laws they should be broad in scope instead of targeted.
It's also important to remember that a huge number of these people are already here and already competing for work, except without legal protections and services. Making them citizens will make their labor effectively more expensive, which will level the playing field and actually help low-skilled Americans compete.
lol. Heritage made their yearly list of the top "freest" countries in the world, and the top 9 all have UHC:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...t-run-health-care-as-compatible-with-freedom/
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...t-run-health-care-as-compatible-with-freedom/
Aaron Strife
Banned
V many? That's like 50 years!
I wonder if anyone's pointed this out to them? Their brains would probably explode.
Expanding on this: this is a big deal. Many measures meant to reduce the number of low-wage jobs lost to illegal immigrants or illegal immigrant crime just make the problems worse.
Primarily enforcing immigration law on the immigrant side of things actually makes using immigrant labor more appealing to employers. Employers are de facto exempt from workplace regulations, because no one's going to report them. Wages are below minimum, conditions are awful (but cheap), and sexual harassment is a big problem.
Workplace regulation should be entirely separate from immigration enforcement. If employers actually had to pay minimum wage and taxes on illegal immigrant employees, there wouldn't be a competitive advantage to illegal labor except in cases where the immigrant is actually just better or more willing to do the job. It's easy to tweak this further by levying a specific tax on hiring an illegal immigrant, ratcheting up the relative competitiveness of domestic labor. But to make anything like this work, all employees have to be willing to report violations. Offer an immediate green card to anyone who can prove that they were hired and paid less than minimum wage, and then throw the employer in jail, and watch how quickly immigrant pay goes up and competitiveness goes down.
zero shift
Banned
It just blows my mind that there are so many alternatives to healthcare and America just seems to ignore what direction to go.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Canada is on that list.
Fucking Canada.
The cognitive dissonance conservatives engage in to try and prove that America sucks is astounding. America is the greatest country in the world, unless we're talking about how America is the worst country in the world (because of liberals, of course), then every other country is the greatest country in the world. Doesn't even matter if it's true, at least Australia's president believes in GOD.
el retorno
Member
Do you guys not realize Heritage is US institution and cares about one thing, US policy? The fact they ignore socialism in other countries isn't surprising. They want the US to feel bad so they can pressure them into more "business friendly" policies
At #4 on the list, New Zealand not only has universal health care, but it also has
- higher personal and corporate taxes than the US
- much stricter gun laws
- has had 2 female prime ministers, openly atheist prime ministers, and openly gay and transgender ministers
Rocket Scientist
Member
Both the overal tax burden and government spending as a percentage of gdp are higher in new Zealand too. Makes you really wonder whether they know they're peddling bullshit with the conservative fiscal policies.
That is glorious.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
He's the GOP Obama, well, the closest thing to it at least. Seems like such a long shot but he's got youth and charisma on his side. After two old boring white dudes (Gore, Kerry/McCain, Romney) lost they are either gonna go even more to the right or have a bitter internal bloodbath over why Rubio is the most viable guy. And if they decide he is the money will follow. If he can sponsor a bill helping young Latinos in pretty much any way and it passes with the establishment GOP's blessing, it will give him tons of perceived credibility among his base which could expand into something more tangible depending on how Latinos react to it in the coming years.
Manmademan
Member
Rubio is cuban, and as such carries almost no pull with latinos outside of florida. (Cubans are automatically granted citizenship and avoid the immigration issue entirely.) He's one of those candidates that sounds better than he is on paper until you read the fine print.
And what if, say, the electoral votes in some of the following: OH, PA, WI, MI, etc. get gerrymandered, but FL's doesn't? Then it becomes the most important swing state of all time. I'm sure the GOPers have already considered the importance of Rubio being at the top of the ticket if Republican Govs across the nation really do gerrymander the EV's in some big states.
Hobbestetrician
Member
He's baaaaaaaaack...
The Librarian
Banned
Hey! WHOA! We still have to worry about the 2014 midterms. Come on. You can't skip around and worry like that! You need to worry in a linear manner.
OK, wow let's chill out a little until we actually hear some real news about the GOP Governors actually pushing to do this and put it up to a vote.
The Librarian
Banned
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the electoral votes!
Avon Barksdale
Member
http://www.politico.com/blogs/polit...-dark-vein-of-intolerance-154019.html?ml=po_r
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
They'll read over the policies.......then wipe their asses with them.
worldrunover
Member
They already have those issues covered: charter schools, electric fences, and God hugging us closer.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
How can you gerrymander electoral votes? Split them? That'll cause some push back.
Award the electoral votes to the candidates who win the congressional districts. They're gerrymandered to hell and back for the GOP.
I'm not convinced it will happen much (PoliGAF talked me down from that one a while back). Might see a state or two go there, to much public push back.
Depending on where they try it it may become a national issue. If they even try and look at a swing state wrong when talking about this then it'll start a shitstorm.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...se-gop-eyes-default-shutdown-86116.html?hp=t1
Some talk of House GOP wanting to default or shut down the government. I seriously don't understand the idea that old people have it too easy, we need to cut spending, but don't touch the already ridiculously inflated military budget, and we'll shutdown government if necessary to prove our point.
Some talk of House GOP wanting to default or shut down the government. I seriously don't understand the idea that old people have it too easy, we need to cut spending, but don't touch the already ridiculously inflated military budget, and we'll shutdown government if necessary to prove our point.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It sounds like Boehner will trade the conservatives a government shutdown in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The talk of a three month debt ceiling raise is pure crazy land talk...
These people are literally insane. I believe there are enough republicans to raise the ceiling when push comes to shove, but clearly republicans are also intent on wrecking the economy as much as possible until 2014.
Already happened with Nebraska. They gerrymandered the Omaha district to separate it it's suburbs into separate districts to prevent Obama splitting it again. And it worked.
Only 3 years ago the Republican party was all about trying to make Nebraska winner-take-all. Suddenly, they're fine with split electoral votes being split. Hmm.
That's because you aren't insane like much of the GOP.
Right. But with respect, that's Nebraska. Michigan and Pennsylvania will be far more consequential, and create much more of an uproar than disenfranchising Omaha.
I almost wanted them to win their original fight. Because in a short amount of years, their want to deny Obama a single vote by consolidating our electoral votes would have backfired when Omaha finally became large enough in population to outvote the rest of the state and flip it's votes entirely Democrat. As it is, Neb will start giving 3 votes to Dems and 2 to Republicans (Omaha's district + population int he state, and then the other two districts will award their single votes to the GOP since they're hilariously Republican)
And yes, it's definitely more of a problem in the bigger electoral states.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Splitting electoral votes can only play out really in one election. As soon as you start messing with the current system, you open it up for further changes. If Democrats keep winning the popular vote and losing because Pennsylvania and Michigan split their EVs, then there will be a real up roar. Let's look at history. Only four times has a president won while losing the popular vote:
1824 John Quincy Adams (4 way contest, Jackson got screwed)
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (The South traded for the end of Reconstruction, and Republicans got the presidency)
1888 Benjamin Harrison (Cleveland came back 4 years later to win the presidency a second time)
2000 George W. Bush (We all know this one)
I don't think Democrats will sit on their ass while the Republicans win EVs but consistently lose the popular vote. We don't live in 1776 anymore, and the Connecticut Compromise is dead.
1824 John Quincy Adams (4 way contest, Jackson got screwed)
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (The South traded for the end of Reconstruction, and Republicans got the presidency)
1888 Benjamin Harrison (Cleveland came back 4 years later to win the presidency a second time)
2000 George W. Bush (We all know this one)
I don't think Democrats will sit on their ass while the Republicans win EVs but consistently lose the popular vote. We don't live in 1776 anymore, and the Connecticut Compromise is dead.
makingmusic476
Member
But what do you do?
I mean, the only hope is that people get pissed and start voting in Dems at the local level who can then fix things, but on a federal level Republicans will have control locked down.
And in many gerrymandered districts the Tea Partiers may be powerful enough to just be like "lol fuck democracy, we're winning!" and not change a thing.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
It's like the platinum coin idea. Sure it might win you this battle, but it's hard to put the genie back into the bottle after you let it out. Do you think people will just sit by while their votes get thrown to the side. Imagine Romney winning last November even though he is down by 5 million votes. It's like exposing the Wizard of Oz for the first time. There will be real negative consequences if that happens consistently.
Angry Fork
Member
In 2015 the Obama administration petitions to get rid of term limits so he can run a 3rd term.
How badly I would love to see that just for the reaction.
How badly I would love to see that just for the reaction.
Nothing will happen. Republicans will kill any reform, conservatives will cry about the "freedom" to kill, and life will go on as it always has. People will continue to die in gun-related accidents and murders day after day without a peep, and then there will be a mass killing at a mall, school, or amusement park somewhere, and the entire country will wonder how something like that could happen, and then things will start from the top again.
Pretty much.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Sadly.
you can't have gun controls in the US until you ban all guns. Every shootings have shown in the past that the shooter comes from a wide spectrum of life.
Unless mandatory mental testing is done for every citizen, you're gonna have this. Or that lady who pushes people off the platform of train stations.
You can't just ban guns in america either. The second amendment was to protect citizens from its own government. You can't go "ban automatic weapons!" (especially because pretty much every gun outside of a musket is semi-automatic) and "no one needs an assault rifle" doesn't really work. Do you think if the USA ever decided to impose on its people that they would come at us with muskets and bayonets? No they wont.
Additionally, the government wont impose themselves militarily on its own citizens when they know they're all well armed. You take that away and what happens 6 months after? A year? 50 years? Thinking "oh the government will never do that" is wishful thinking. No one should ever fully trust their own government.
Guns aren't the thing that needs to change, it is our approval and integration of mental healthcare.
Additionally, the government wont impose themselves militarily on its own citizens when they know they're all well armed. You take that away and what happens 6 months after? A year? 50 years? Thinking "oh the government will never do that" is wishful thinking. No one should ever fully trust their own government.
Guns aren't the thing that needs to change, it is our approval and integration of mental healthcare.
The American people are not well armed compared to the military.
No, but it's our right to have a militia, its part of our constitution. Also in the same situation, it would be likely people in the military would not unanimously follow an order to shoot on their own turf.
- Status