Support NeoGAF

[East Lake]

The line of thought only works if you don't like the ACA. In theory they could take any position they like and blame the president for the shutdown no matter how absurd it is.

Lets say I'm leading the tea party and I want to end the fed and go back to the gold standard. Obama can agree or shut down the government. His choice! Not my responsibility!

 

[Wilsongt]

Uh oh. Obama's going on vacation. Cue the talk about how he should be running the country/BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI/Russia/Budget/IRSGate

 

[pigeon]

Well, this should put a smile on everyone's face:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/old_folks_turning_away_from_go046289.php

You know what this means?

I'm not ready to believe this yet -- it's just too tempting. Cook's original article showed that even if we buy the senior shift, the GOP leads by a point among likely 2014 voters, so it doesn't mean we get the House, although hopefully it would help protect the Senate. But I guess we'll see.

 

[zero shift]

Does anybody know the link that shows voting patterns of people born in certain decades? That tracks whether people who were 18-24 voted Republican or Democrat in 1980 and looked at how they voted in 2000 as well as the 18-24, 24-30 year olds that year and etc.?

 

[Black Mamba]

So how do you guys respond to that sort of quote.

Obamacare is the law.

"ban abortions at 20 weeks or gov't shutdown"

"cut taxes for wealthy or gov't shutdown"

"repeal Dodd-Frank or gov't shutdown"

"eliminate SS or gov't shutdown."

Etc.

It is hostage taking and Americans don't negotiate with terrorists

Spoiler

I know in reality we do

Does anybody know the link that shows voting patterns of people born in certain decades? That tracks whether people who were 18-24 voted Republican or Democrat in 1980 and looked at how they voted in 2000 as well as the 18-24, 24-30 year olds that year and etc.?

This?

http://www.people-press.org/topics/generations-and-age/

edit: er I mean this: http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/

 

[Gallbaro]

It looks like Edward Snowden is going to have to find a new email service as the one he supposedly used -- Lavabit -- has abruptly closed its doors. The company's owner, Ladar Levison, posted an open letter on the site today, saying, "I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit." Levison also claimed to be unable to speak to the specifics surrounding the situation, stating that a Congressionally approved gag order prevented him from doing so. While Lavabit's situation seems pretty dire, it might not be curtains just yet. In his message, Levison stated that he would take his fight to reinstate Lavabit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. To read the missive in full, head on over to the source link below

.

Could for him fighting this bullshit.

 

[Wilsongt]

I hope he's not costing the country $200 MM a day like his last vacation.

Nope. $400 million... per hour.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm not ready to believe this yet -- it's just too tempting. Cook's original article showed that even if we buy the senior shift, the GOP leads by a point among likely 2014 voters, so it doesn't mean we get the House, although hopefully it would help protect the Senate. But I guess we'll see.

There definitely has to be some shift from 4 years ago. How many 80-100 year olds, who tend to be the most conservative, will have died by November 2014? A good chunk, I imagine. They will be replaced by people who were 61-64 in 2010 who are less conservative.

So there just has to be some kind of shift. Of course, this doesn't explain all of it. For one, it's a year too soon and we won't know better til next summer. For another, maybe some old conservatives are tired and feel defeated (unlike their younger conservative counterparts) after the 2012 election?

And with that shift, the GOP being +1 seems interesting. With that kind of elderly shift, that shouldn't be possible. Regardless, it's way too early to really be concerned with polling on this issue right now.

 

[Chichikov]

I really don't. That's literally the rhetoric used by hostage takers and abusers to control people. I would prefer just not to engage with it, because doing so is just allowing the speaker to define the battlefield. I'm happy to let public opinion be the judge of who's right.

Yeah, this is nothing new in American politics either, as Lincoln said in his cooper union speech:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"​

 

[zero shift]

This?

http://www.people-press.org/topics/generations-and-age/
edit: er I mean this: http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/

Its sort of like that, but its more interactive and has more voting data. I think the mod with the home movies avatar posted it.

That being said the conclusion of the data on that site is confusing. It says odd things such as saying the silent generation switched from being very liberal to very conservative when they have always voted Republican except when they first turned 18.

 

[kingkitty]

On Fox News, Megyn Kelly gets a 9pm show.

And according to Mediaite, MSNBC has given Alec Baldwin the 10pm slot on Fridays.

 

[Aaron Strife]

There have been plenty of polls showing, for example, gay marriage support is a majority position among every age group besides 65+ Which means it's majority support for 50-64, who will be replacing some of those seniors in 2016.

I mean, that's only issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 50-64 range is more liberal on a host of issues.

 

[BertramCooper]

Well, speaking of wondering how the right got so right to propose shutting down the government over this, here is an article posted in the Wall Street Journal written by one of our friends down at the Heritage Foundation.

In some ways I can see where this line of thought is coming from, even though that line of thinking just feels so very wrong for some reason that I can't quite put to the right words.

If a live grenade lands near two people, and one person needs to jump on it to save the other, whose fault do the deaths of the two people lie on should neither choose to jump on the grenade. Obviously it's still whoever threw the damn grenade. So basically whoever started this issue should carry all the blame, and who started it seems obvious but I don't know how I would go about proving that Republicans started this.

I mean the Democrats have never said anything but that they'd rather let the government shut down than to defund ACA, and their position on that probably does predate Republicans wondering if they should take the same line of reasoning replacing the word defund with fund.

So how do you guys respond to that sort of quote.

The GOP can spin it around all they want, but if the government shuts down, the public is going to blame them for it - just like the public blamed them for the debt ceiling clusterfuck and the subsequent credit rating downgrade.

 

[RustyNails]

Pretty sharp change. I'd love to know the exact reason for it. Obviously some old people died and some people officially became a senior to replace those. Still seems like a larger shift than just from that.

Superpac money hasnt reached them yet.

 

[TheHeretic]

There definitely has to be some shift from 4 years ago. How many 80-100 year olds, who tend to be the most conservative, will have died by November 2014? A good chunk, I imagine. They will be replaced by people who were 61-64 in 2010 who are less conservative.

So there just has to be some kind of shift. Of course, this doesn't explain all of it. For one, it's a year too soon and we won't know better til next summer. For another, maybe some old conservatives are tired and feel defeated (unlike their younger conservative counterparts) after the 2012 election?

And with that shift, the GOP being +1 seems interesting. With that kind of elderly shift, that shouldn't be possible. Regardless, it's way too early to really be concerned with polling on this issue right now.

The primary shift in voting if you study the data is the retirement age group becoming just as conservative as the silent generation before them. That was the primary reason for the landslide in the 2010 election.

 

[Black Mamba]

The primary shift in voting if you study the data is the retirement age group becoming just as conservative as the silent generation before them. That was the primary reason for the landslide in the 2010 election.

No, I mean the 2013 shift according to the polling Dax posted.

 

[PhoenixDark]

GOP is going to have real trouble on their hands when they're no longer running against a black man.

Depends on the economy. A favorable economic bust while dems control government would put them back in charge. That's their only hope, hence why they're sabataging the economy.

 

[Gotchaye]

So how do you guys respond to that sort of quote.

So, sure, for every hostage situation you're always going to be able to frame it as a choice being made by a third party. Who's actually the hostage-taker depends on your understanding of what the default position is. If the default outcome is for the hostage to get shot, then the guy with the gun is actually offering to compromise to avoid that horrible result. But obviously that's not the default outcome.

Here, for Republicans to be justified, the principle at work has to be something like "if any part of the current government objects to an existing law, that law should be repealed (or not enforced or not funded or whatever)". But of course Republicans don't actually believe this. If Obama threatened a government shutdown unless Congress repealed all of DOMA, they would be denouncing him as a hostage-taker. Same for the Senate. They could only rescue the principle by gerrymandering it pretty obviously, to something like "if the House doesn't like an existing law, the law should be repealed".

So the problem with the position is that it's inconsistent. This is not how anyone actually thinks the government should work, and it's purely ideological bias and partisanship that allow people to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

Even if someone did manage to hold to something like this consistently, only pretty extreme libertarians would be happy with it. It means that, when everything works as it should, divided government results in a huge number of laws getting repealed. Anything anyone controlling a veto point doesn't like is gone, or else there's a government shutdown.

 

[Jimothy]

well this guy is just a joy to listen to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM

 

[Chichikov]

well this guy is just a joy to listen to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM

So the argument here is that trickle down economics works because LOOK DEMOCRATS ARE ALSO HELPING THE RICH!

Man, conservative Ira Glass sucks.

 

[Black Mamba]

well this guy is just a joy to listen to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM

Boy is this guy dumb. The Fed buying gov't or mortgage securities isn't "free money." They are buying something that those banks actually paid for. They didn't just give them $1 trillion for nothing. The firms spent money to acquire those assets...

Oh god, his Austerity video is amazingly stupid.

 

[thepotatoman]

So the argument here is that trickle down economics works because LOOK DEMOCRATS ARE ALSO HELPING THE RICH!

Man, conservative Ira Glass sucks.

Maybe I missed it but I don't think he ever said trickle down economics works in that video. He's just arguing this other form of trickle down economics by the use of inflation is just as bad, and I actually agree with him on that issue.

Here's how I see it. Basically economists decided that a steady, medium sized inflation rate is key to a good economy because it encourages buying while deflation encourages selling, and a buyers market best encourages healthy cash flow. But our economic policies brought about by Bernanke and endorsed by Obama do make it so that the richest benefit most from that inflation.

Let's look at Bernanke's favorite way to combat deflation with very low federal reserve interest rates. The concept is pretty simple. Banks take out a federal loan at near 0% interest rates, use that money to buy a barrel of oil on speculation that the price will increase, which in itself increases the price, and inflation is achieved.

Now lets look at the results of that inflation. The Fed gets paid back the money with none to very little interest rates and thus no personal benefits of that inflation, while the bankers and other investors get to keep all the benefits of the inflation that occurred from the value of a barrel of oil going from 80 dollars to 100 dollars. Meanwhile the poor see an increase in the price of gasoline and the only benefits they get is whatever trickles down.

It's completely a supply side inflation strategy and Obama does deserve to be called out on it if he's going to deride supply side economics.

Now from his tone in the video I'm guessing he's anti-inflation period, which I do disagree with. I just think we need to have more demand side inflation economics instead. Minimum wage hikes and tax credits would very much encourage demand side inflation, as so kindly pointed out by conservatives every time those issues come up.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Depends on the economy. A favorable economic bust while dems control government would put them back in charge. That's their only hope, hence why they're sabotaging the economy.

Here's the thing about that they don't seem to realize. Even in the unlikely event that the plan to sabotage the economy to get back control of the Fed. Gov't works, it still leaves one unquestionable fact: THEY will have to fix the ridiculous mess they created which will arguably be just as bad, if not worse than 2008! And considering how batshit insane they are and how they have a hard on for austerity they will get blamed again for the dragged economy, and they're right back to square one when Americans inevitably vote the Dems back in.

 

[gcubed]

Depends on the economy. A favorable economic bust while dems control government would put them back in charge. That's their only hope, hence why they're sabataging the economy.

yes, but they don't have enough power to stop the economy from growing, if even at a trickle pace. A shutdown over Obamacare would, for me, send the chances of the Dems retaking the house in 2014 skyrocketing

 

[PhoenixDark]

yes, but they don't have enough power to stop the economy from growing, if even at a trickle pace. A shutdown over Obamacare would, for me, send the chances of the Dems retaking the house in 2014 skyrocketing

They haven't managed to wreck it but they have lowered our credit rating (with help from Obama being a poor negotiator tbh) and are starving economic growth to maximize suffering. People are hurting, good jobs are scarce. I've long felt republicans wanted to make Obama the democrat Bush: a hyper partisan bad president associated with failure. A few more years of stagnated growth followed by an economic crash could still achieve that, but it's a longshot. Basically they want to write off Bush's failures by pointing to his democrat equal, thus returning in 2016 with a "new" conservative.

The frustrating thing is that senators and congressmen aren't even coming up with their own plans to address the economy, outside of pie in the sky stuff. Leadership won't come from republican leaders or the White House. Maybe John McCain and a democrat can come to an agreement on small business tax cuts, some infrastructure spending, and fair deficit cutting (ie no accounting gimmicks or taking food out poor people's mouths) to pay for it. Playing games with the corporate tax rate isn't helping. As I said earlier, companies won't give up loopholes for a tax cut because it would effectively raise their taxes, and everyone knows it.

 

[gcubed]

They haven't managed to wreck it but they have lowered our credit rating (with help from Obama being a poor negotiator tbh) and are starving economic growth to maximize suffering. People are hurting, good jobs are scarce. I've long felt republicans wanted to make Obama the democrat Bush: a hyper partisan bad president associated with failure. A few more years of stagnated growth followed by an economic crash could still achieve that, but it's a longshot. Basically they want to write off Bush's failures by pointing to his democrat equal, thus returning in 2016 with a "new" conservative.

The frustrating thing is that senators and congressmen aren't even coming up with their own plans to address the economy, outside of pie in the sky stuff. Leadership won't come from republican leaders or the White House. Maybe John McCain and a democrat can come to an agreement on small business tax cuts, some infrastructure spending, and fair deficit cutting (ie no accounting gimmicks or taking food out poor people's mouths) to pay for it. Playing games with the corporate tax rate isn't helping. As I said earlier, companies won't give up loopholes for a tax cut because it would effectively raise their taxes, and everyone knows it.

the general public cares less about our credit rating then they do about NSA spying. I dont think they can have stagnated growth with another crash, it would have to be high inflationary growth to precipitate the crash. Screwing around with Fannie/Freddie while at the same time we start raising interest rates would quickly kill the housing market recovery, though. I don't get Obama.

Its much easier to get 7-10 GOP votes in the Senate then any semblence of a majority in the house, if the dems retook the house you'd have immigration reform, some small business projects, etc would start to flow

 

[Wilsongt]

GOP Town Hall Explodes With Anger: ‘We’re Losing The Country’ So Quit Being ‘Nice Guys’!

If one Maryland town hall is any indication, Republican voters are not happy with how little Republican politicians are doing to reign in the government. Greta Van Susteren took viewers to a town hall where Congressman Andy Harris was confronted by constituents angry about NSA surveillance, the Obama administration, and Republicans not doing enough for them. One man scolded Harris, “We’re dying out here because you guys are being nice guys!”

One man complained about NSA spying, saying Congress needs to “come clean” with the public about the government’s secret interpretation of the law. Harris assured him that he’s personally outraged by NSA surveillance, adding that they have “not seen the end of” investigations into Benghazi and the IRS scandals.

Another man piped up, “Innocent people… are getting slammed by partisan politics.” Maryland resident Ed Hunter confronted Hunter directly, telling him John Boehner needs to start “defying” Obama and threatening him with impeachment if he doesn’t “start obeying the laws!” Hunter continued, “Listen, we’re dying out here because you guys are being nice guys!”, adding, “We’re losing the country! I want to see more defiance!”

 

[jamesinclair]

The primary shift in voting if you study the data is the retirement age group becoming just as conservative as the silent generation before them. That was the primary reason for the landslide in the 2010 election.

More so, id say.

Theres no one more bitter than an aging baby boomer. They got theres, now fuck you.

 

[Tamanon]

GOP Town Hall Explodes With Anger: ‘We’re Losing The Country’ So Quit Being ‘Nice Guys’!

I like that he took legitimate questions about the NSA(something all branches would have to answer for) and linked it to made up scandals.

 

[Wilsongt]

I like that he took legitimate questions about the NSA(something all branches would have to answer for) and linked it to made up scandals.

Gotta get those talking points out there at all costs.

 

[Link]

GOP Town Hall Explodes With Anger: ‘We’re Losing The Country’ So Quit Being ‘Nice Guys’!

So they think this has been Republicans being nice? Now that's a scary thought.

 

[Crisco]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

ObamaCare will destroy the private-insurance market, incentivize businesses to cancel current health coverage for their employees, create physician shortages, and force Americans and states into total dependency on the federal government. After all that, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the free market to resurrect a private health-care system built on doctor/patient decision-making.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

If people are going to lose their insurance, how will it cause doctor shortages?

 

[The Technomancer]

I asked this in the "far left economic views" thread but haven't gotten an answer yet, maybe someone here can enlighten me.

I get the idea behind "spending is bad/needs to be heavily controlled because inflation is bad" argument. I disagree with it, but I can see what chain of thoughts might lead a person to that conclusion.

But where does "cutting spending in a slum will actively help the economy" come from? Is there any coherent (even if inaccurate) chain of steps linking those two, or is it literally no deeper then "they just are"?

 

[Wilsongt]

If people are going to lose their insurance, how will it cause doctor shortages?

Doctors wont get paid. No way to pay off those ridiculous student loans. No one will want to go to med schhol. Don't you see?! We are doomed! Doooooooned!

Thanks, Obama.

 

[kehs]

I asked this in the "far left economic views" thread but haven't gotten an answer yet, maybe someone here can enlighten me.

I get the idea behind "spending is bad/needs to be heavily controlled because inflation is bad" argument. I disagree with it, but I can see what chain of thoughts might lead a person to that conclusion.

But where does "cutting spending in a slum will actively help the economy" come from? Is there any coherent (even if inaccurate) chain of steps linking those two, or is it literally no deeper then "they just are"?

"Starving the beast".

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

The quicker insurance gets decoupled from employment the better.

The right's point about this making it impossible to go back to the status quo ante is true. This bill will pave the way for single payer or generous financial support for health insurance.

 

[Gotchaye]

I asked this in the "far left economic views" thread but haven't gotten an answer yet, maybe someone here can enlighten me.

I get the idea behind "spending is bad/needs to be heavily controlled because inflation is bad" argument. I disagree with it, but I can see what chain of thoughts might lead a person to that conclusion.

But where does "cutting spending in a slum will actively help the economy" come from? Is there any coherent (even if inaccurate) chain of steps linking those two, or is it literally no deeper then "they just are"?

I've heard arguments about a "crowding out" effect. There's also a confidence fairy argument which is popular with certain sorts of people. I've also heard it argued that slumps are signs that something needs to be fixed, structurally, and that government spending, while it does lessen the immediate impact of the slump, only serves to stretch out the pain and is worse in the long run because of how it prevents the sorts of reorganization that we badly need.

 

[The Librarian]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

God, I hope that ends up being the case. Wooo single-payer!

 

[Link]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

Saw it was behind a pay wall, then read the name Jim DeMint and decided I didn't want to read it anyway, especially since I see everything in that quoted paragraph as a good thing.

 

[@____@]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

I don't see what's so funny. For a piece that's suppose to be satire it's not that great.

....

Oh... it's not satire =/

 

[Black Republican]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

Hasnt Obama said time and time again he believes in the free market?

 

[B-Dubs]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

I need an aspirin...

 

[FLEABttn]

How are you guys reading that? All I get is the title at the WSJ page.

 

[Mike M]

How are you guys reading that? All I get is the title at the WSJ page.

I think WSJ's paywall is ridiculously easy to circumvent. Like literally only a matter of google searching the title.

 

[Oblivion]

This is the funniest thing I've read all week,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654592286139464.html

Forcing people to buy private insurance will kill the private insurance market?

Dat 11th dimensional chess.

I asked this in the "far left economic views" thread but haven't gotten an answer yet, maybe someone here can enlighten me.

I get the idea behind "spending is bad/needs to be heavily controlled because inflation is bad" argument. I disagree with it, but I can see what chain of thoughts might lead a person to that conclusion.

But where does "cutting spending in a slum will actively help the economy" come from? Is there any coherent (even if inaccurate) chain of steps linking those two, or is it literally no deeper then "they just are"?

The only time I can remember growth occurring after cutting spending was in the 90s. Of course, that doesn't mean those spending cuts CAUSED that growth, but that's what conservatives like to point to, when trying to use that argument.



By the way. Remember that report written by those Austerians which was debunked when some college student found an error in the excel spreadsheet? Does anyone know why it took so long to find out about this? The report was written in like 2009/2010. NO ONE who looked at that noticed any issues with it?

 

[B-Dubs]

I think WSJ's paywall is ridiculously easy to circumvent. Like literally only a matter of google searching the title.

The NYTimes was easier until someone told them about it...

Forcing people to buy private insurance will kill the private insurance market?

Dat 11th dimensional chess.



The only time I can remember growth occurring after cutting spending was in the 90s. Of course, that doesn't mean those spending cuts CAUSED that growth, but that's what conservatives like to point to, when trying to use that argument.



By the way. Remember that report written by those Austerians which was debunked when some college student found an error in the excel spreadsheet? Does anyone know why it took so long to find out about this? The report was written in like 2009/2010. NO ONE who looked at that noticed any issues with it?

Their work hadn't been looked at that closely until that point. It hadn't really been peer reviewed at all from what I remember.

 

[FLEABttn]

I think WSJ's paywall is ridiculously easy to circumvent. Like literally only a matter of google searching the title.

I can't believe that worked...and this article is stupid, wow.

 

[KingK]

By the way. Remember that report written by those Austerians which was debunked when some college student found an error in the excel spreadsheet? Does anyone know why it took so long to find out about this? The report was written in like 2009/2010. NO ONE who looked at that noticed any issues with it?

They didn't release the study for peer review. The student who found the error had to contact them personally to get access to their data since he was doing a final paper or thesis on it, iirc.

edit: Stephen Colbert had the student who found the error on his show back when the story broke.

 

[Oblivion]

Their work hadn't been looked at that closely until that point. It hadn't really been peer reviewed at all from what I remember.

They didn't release the study for peer review. The student who found the error had to contact them personally to get access to their data since he was doing a final paper or thesis on it, iirc.

WHAT.

It wasn't released for peer review?? How the fuck do you do that? And despite this, it was pretty much accepted as gospel? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, but seriously, what the fuck?