Now, student fees. That's another story.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
I've never denied Hillary would have a tough time, my argument is that she would expect it and not waste time. The love-fest she received a couple years ago was simply a divide and conquer ploy; the minute republicans smelled blood in the water (Benghazi) they pounced with the same vitriol and hatred they displayed in the 90s.
Personally I'm still marveling that the White House still doesn't "get it" with respect to the obstruction, and continues to waste time chasing hollow accomplishments (like gun control) instead of switching up the strategy.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Republicans are shit scared of Hillary running for President.
Gun control is not a "hollow accomplishment", what's happening to you :\
PhoenixDark
Banned
Because it was a gimmick bill that didn't address the problem effectively?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It will save lives. That's not a gimmick.
Aaron Strife
Banned
What else would you have him do? Republicans still control the House. And they will NOT pass anything he proposes. It doesn't matter what it is, how he presents it, anything. He could submit a bill tomorrow that legislates Ted Cruz's entire agenda and it would be shot down by Republicans.
There's hope for the Senate - with tweaks he could have gotten background checks, and immigration passed with broad support. The House however is literally ungovernable. That's not going to change. Obama's proposals lately are ones that enjoy 60-70% support and the GOP refuses to take it up.
Like Hilary matters. Demographics are shifting in a way that by 2016 Republicans would lose to a block of wood. They need to change with the demo, but that risks eroding their base at the local levels.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
There's a lot of people who die to gun violence every day. But they aren't dying to assault weapons. They're dying to handguns.
zero shift
Banned
I recall that my school had all of its programs and sports teams were on the table, a lot of programs got cut or underfunded due to increasing spending on sports.
well, did you go to a private university? I dont know what they do with sport funding. As for your school, if it was a public university, your football and basketball program could have simply been making a lot of money resulting in greater funding for sports. Your state funding and tuition could have been lacking so thats why programs could have been cut
Unless you went to school in a stupid state that cares more about sports than education, I can't imagine that the state government would allow money to be spent on sports that was supposed to go to education. I am pretty sure you are remembering it wrong
I agree with PD that Obama’s first couple of years where he had a majority in Congress (but not a filibuster-proof majority, I know) could have been more forceful. He actually seemed sincere in wanting to change the tone in Washington, but didn’t change course when the other team weren’t playing ball. Salmon Rushdie had a great quote where he said in other countries “when you win the election, you run the country”. Obama had an opportunity after the financial crisis to really dictate terms and run the country in a manner fitting of the Democratic Party, but instead seemed far too conciliatory and pragmatic and wanting to govern from the centre-right.
What I would have liked to have seen in the first couple of years:
- Structural reforms of the financial sector that eliminate TBTF (the complete opposite has happened, with greater concentration of money in fewer banks)
- Bigger stimulus, or at least a greater proportion of the stimulus being allocated to spending and not tax cuts
- Greater push for a public option, or at least a better sale of the ACA to the public (this could be argued is still lacking today)
- Better messaging of the role of Government in the handling of a financial crises – instead of co-opting the debt and deficits talk coming from the Republicans. For someone who is meant to be a great communicator, he lost the messaging war to conservatives on the debt which is why he got steamrolled in 2010.
Where I disagree with PD though is how Obama can get things done in the current climate. The problem is much bigger than the Republican’s not wanting to work with Obama. They want to deny any legislative victory for the Democratic party and in doing so, have completely abdicated their responsibility in helping to govern the country through a crisis. Harry Reid could push a bill with tax relief for small business owners and a payroll tax holiday and it wouldn’t get past the House.
The Manchin-Toomey bill was a straight up Background Check expansion coupled with harsh penalties for any government official setting up a Gun Registry. It would almost certainly save lives in the long run.
What I would have liked to have seen in the first couple of years:
- Structural reforms of the financial sector that eliminate TBTF (the complete opposite has happened, with greater concentration of money in fewer banks)
- Bigger stimulus, or at least a greater proportion of the stimulus being allocated to spending and not tax cuts
- Greater push for a public option, or at least a better sale of the ACA to the public (this could be argued is still lacking today)
- Better messaging of the role of Government in the handling of a financial crises – instead of co-opting the debt and deficits talk coming from the Republicans. For someone who is meant to be a great communicator, he lost the messaging war to conservatives on the debt which is why he got steamrolled in 2010.
Where I disagree with PD though is how Obama can get things done in the current climate. The problem is much bigger than the Republican’s not wanting to work with Obama. They want to deny any legislative victory for the Democratic party and in doing so, have completely abdicated their responsibility in helping to govern the country through a crisis. Harry Reid could push a bill with tax relief for small business owners and a payroll tax holiday and it wouldn’t get past the House.
The Manchin-Toomey bill was a straight up Background Check expansion coupled with harsh penalties for any government official setting up a Gun Registry. It would almost certainly save lives in the long run.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Why am I watching this Hannity special on the health care law? So much FUD being spread. It's seriously scares me that so much objectively false information spreads to easily in the country.
The congress exemption irks me the most since it's pretty much the opposite of the truth
The congress exemption irks me the most since it's pretty much the opposite of the truth
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And the law Obama pushed was a background check. And an assault ban would save lives too.
Yes. Thank you. This gets my goat. After all the deliberation, the final bill was a straight up background check bill. All the limits on assault weapons and ammo restrictions were compromised away leaving just a simple yes/no answer to whether or not the current background check system should cover the additional 40% of gun sales that currently occur outside the system. It irks me no end that Obama's involvement in this bill is what poised this bill when in reality, it's a spineless GOP who won't even take the most modest of steps to recognize a problem and take common-sense steps to help mitigate at least some of the violence gripping the country.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Background checks do nothing to address the major driver of violent gun crime: illegal handguns. IE guns people buy underground or at gun shows through straw purchases. And the mechanism in of itself was flawed, and could be outright ignored by 2nd amendment fanatic gun shop owners. It was a watered down band-aid. I get it, it was the best shot at passing any type of gun control. But the idea of that bill passing and Obama taking a victory lap (and the media hailing it as a "win") truly disgusts me. It's a half measure.
I'm very critical of Cory Booker on a variety of issues, but few mainstream politicians "get" the issue more than him. If you want to fight gun violence you need to heavily crack down on trafficking. Illinois has some pretty tough gun control laws, which conservatives love pointing to when discussing Chicago. But Chicago is a warzone because guns are smuggled in through Indiana and surrounding states with lax gun laws. They're then bought underground or at gun shows, and flood the streets. Background checks and banning AR-15s won't do a thing to address that.
Automatic weapons are a scapegoat, and another reminder that some lives are more important than others. Shooting up suburban areas once every few years with an automatic weapon is somehow more of a call to action than hundreds of men, women, and kids being gunned down daily in inner cities by cheaper, slower weapons. Yet nobody will ever go after handguns, and therefore the AR-15 becomes the avatar of public disapproval.
I'm very critical of Cory Booker on a variety of issues, but few mainstream politicians "get" the issue more than him. If you want to fight gun violence you need to heavily crack down on trafficking. Illinois has some pretty tough gun control laws, which conservatives love pointing to when discussing Chicago. But Chicago is a warzone because guns are smuggled in through Indiana and surrounding states with lax gun laws. They're then bought underground or at gun shows, and flood the streets. Background checks and banning AR-15s won't do a thing to address that.
Automatic weapons are a scapegoat, and another reminder that some lives are more important than others. Shooting up suburban areas once every few years with an automatic weapon is somehow more of a call to action than hundreds of men, women, and kids being gunned down daily in inner cities by cheaper, slower weapons. Yet nobody will ever go after handguns, and therefore the AR-15 becomes the avatar of public disapproval.
zero shift
Banned
No I am not. I'm 100% certain of this as I am friends with people in the school government and they were complaining all the time about it. This did happen after Walker took office.
zero shift
Banned
What happened to Nicaragua anyway? What went wrong with the revolution?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Civil wars suck and tend to bring out bad people and actions.
Well, I will never underestimate the stupidity of Wisconsinites so you are probably right
I don't disagree with any particular point here, and yes, I am on the same page vis a vis the impact of hanguns vs. other firearms. I also get the frustration that the constant violence in Chicago is deemed less important that the spikes in violence caused by gun massacres, because the victims are different.
But let me explore this: doesn't fighting trafficking involve having gun laws on the books in the first place? Which is a state issue? Obama can't change the gun laws in Indiana, but he can at least put in place national standards like a background check to provide a first line of defence from ineligible people from obtaining firearms.
Let me put this to you: what laws can the federal government put in place? Or are you convinced that the Federal government can't do anything to address gun violence (in all its forms - not just massacres).
JesseEwiak
Member
Can everybody who believes Hillary would have a better first term than Obama please explain to me how Ben Nelson would behave differently, Ted Kennedy would'lve lived longer, Al Franken would've been confirmed as the winner of his election, and Max Baucus not decide to waste months in a Gang of 6 with Chuck Grassley and Friends?
I'm not sure I understand this exactly. I absolutely do think it's privileged to suggest that we should have abandoned gay marriage and Obamacare in preference for voting for a third-party candidate out of concern for civil liberties. I will happily argue that if you think that, it's because you don't understand the importance of what has actually been accomplished under Obama's tenure, and that privilege is probably the charitable assumption for why you might not.
I'm not suggesting you're a sadist at all. I'm just trying to understand your position, which seems to encompass the following points:
* Americans getting civil rights advances and major social programs is relatively unimportant...
* compared to nebulous and unidentified but apparently enormous and intolerable civil liberties concerns...
* which won't really matter or affect anybody for many years, and even then...
* don't apply to you anyway, since you're Canadian, except that...
* you're concerned it will lead to Canadian politicians adopting similar policies and/or Canada merging with the United States.
It's quite hard for me to read that in any way other than you honestly not getting the importance of what Obama has accomplished thus far and the depth to which it will affect the lives of underprivileged and marginalized Americans.
Alright, I'm going to spell this out as clearly as I can: I do not regard civil rights advances and social programs like the ACA as unimportant. The closest analogues in Canada have been necessary and furthermore effective, and I can confidently say my quality of life would be hovering right above 0 without them.
However, I would be anything but happy to be handed that quality of life with the catch that it was going to be increasingly poked and prodded and receded by an overreaching security apparatus driven overzealous by fear of terrorism. That threat is not nebulous, but simply a matter of time until the privilege is abused, as it already has been on numerous occasions (though as yet for nothing more sinister than researching love interests, giving data to trusted foreign powers, and violating civil protections to obtain probable cause). Before these barrages of leaks, I wouldn't have thought things had already gotten that far out of hand. They have, that much is not in question. I would certainly be gratified if abuses suddenly stopped there, but that flies in the face of what I can realistically expect of human nature.
And legislative creep isn't something I invented for sake of argument, whether or not one thinks fusion between the two states is coming. Whether it be internment of Japanese citizens or a sudden prison craze, what happens in America frequently arrives north of the parallel in a quaint Canadian echo (whether or not such changes take hold).
I haven't been coy about that utmost peril lying many years removed from here, but I think it nonetheless bears being outspoken about, even in light of Obama's accomplishment in other avenues. I really do "get" why these programs are important, for people like me they mean the difference between recovery and simply hanging on and hoping for a break. My praise is nonetheless tempered by the administration playing with fire in other respects. If I haven't adequately communicated the conflict for me, I hope at least some sense of it carries now. So much recklessness accompanying so much good is the heart of the issue.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh God, Sarah Palin. Please throw your support behind primary challengers in Kentucky and Maine. Make 2014 a repeat of 2012 - general consensus starts out with Democrats losing the Senate, then they gain 2.LULZ:
I'm so scared!!!!11111
TacticalFox88
Banned
So what would you all think of a highly regulated government agency being created for the sole purpose was to curb and track illegal handguns, rifles, shotguns, ARs, etc, in any way they can within the law and hunt down and prosecute those who defy any regulations the agency sets forth? They work with law enforcement when they can, but since police and FBI have to deal with murder, theft, tickets, court dates, etc, it'd somewhat free them up since this agency's sole job is for weapons tracking and gun related issues. Sort of like the TSA being created after 9/11 to illustrate a better point of how everything was set up.
The Librarian
Banned
I have a couple of nitpicks with what you're saying here. Deficits and debt weren't the primary motivation for the shellacking in 2010, a bigger stimulus would have likely been impossible especially when needing Republican support, and Harry Reid was far less likely to change the filibuster than he is now.
And even considering all you just said, you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the 111th was one of the most productive sessions of Congress in US history.
...
NYT profile on Bill de Blasio.
I just looked at polling for the Senate, it looks pretty good for Dems in most states...
Remove the F from the ATF?
TacticalFox88
Banned
If it comes down to it, yes.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm fine with the ATF the way it is. I don't think there is a place for an agency just for guns. Just actually fund it and allow it to do it's job.
Didn't it just get a director?
Didn't it just get a director?
What you're describing is the ATF. Yes, they do more than just firearms, but lets be honest, firearms are their biggest priority.
If we would just fund the ATF, they'd be able to do all of those things (it's amazing they finally have a full time director, even).
Isn't Susan Nunn doing surprisingly well in Georgia? While the GOP is having trouble fielding any credible candidate?
Didn't the NRA help neuter the ATF several years ago?
I know they helped kill funding for research into gun violence, but seem to recall something about the ATF too. Or maybe it was some other agency?
Yes.
The Librarian
Banned
You all should read Brian Beutler's article on why you need health insurance.
he sounds like my kinda guy. Can't believe he was able to win with a past like that.
The Librarian
Banned
In an op-ed this morning, Cruz told House Republicans that if his defund crusade doesn't jam the Senate, he wants the House to pass piecemiel legislation funding the government one part at a time.
This dude is something else :lol
This dude is something else :lol
That's probably what they'll end up doing... what other options do they have (besides acting rationally of course, but that'll never happen).
PhoenixDark
Banned
And when it comes to the Senate they'll just add other funding and send it back. How he acknowledges the Senate will change the House CR while pretending the Senate can't do the same to piecemiel bills is beyond me.
He didn't acknowledge the Senate could change the House CR until it was actually passed, remember? Cruz's strategy is to keep changing the lie every time it's about to get disproven.
New year, new quiz time!
Democrats 90%
on domestic policy, economic, environmental, foreign policy, science, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
Green Party 68%
on environmental, foreign policy, science, economic, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
Socialist 24%
on economic, social, environmental, immigration, and healthcare issues
Libertarians 3%
on immigration issues
3%
Republicans
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Democrats 90%
on domestic policy, economic, environmental, foreign policy, science, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
Green Party 68%
on environmental, foreign policy, science, economic, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
Socialist 24%
on economic, social, environmental, immigration, and healthcare issues
Libertarians 3%
on immigration issues
3%
Republicans
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
shadowsdarknes
Member
Parties you side with...
95%
Green Party
Green Party
on economic, healthcare, environmental, science, immigration, social, and foreign policy issues
92%
Democrats
Democrats
on economic, healthcare, environmental, science, immigration, and social issues
81%
Socialist
Socialist
on economic, healthcare, immigration, science, and social issues
13%
Libertarians
Libertarians
on foreign policy issues
1%
Republicans
Republicans
The Librarian
Banned
My former Congressman -- you know, before I got redistricted -- has written an op-ed on Politico about the collapse of the appropriations process.
David Price is the man.
As Congress refocuses its attention on the looming fiscal battles, with both sides steeling for a fight over the debt limit and a potential government shutdown, a development with greater implications for our nation’s future is unfolding with far less notice. The appropriations process — that hallmark of Congress’s constitutional authority and wellspring of our power to conduct oversight and set national priorities — is on life support and in danger of total collapse.
With just four legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year, not one of the 12 funding bills required to keep the government open has been enacted into law. House Republicans have struggled to pass even a continuing resolution to keep the government running for a few weeks while appeasing their red-meat conservatives. This is hardly the first time Congress has failed to conclude its annual budget process in a timely and orderly fashion, but this year’s implosion offers the most vivid example yet of the reason behind the process’s demise: the surrender of Congress’s constitutional power of the purse to the politics of a polarized, hyperpartisan House.
Historically, the Appropriations Committee has displayed restrained partisanship as Congress’s instrument for holding the executive, of whatever party, accountable. To the extent that the process is overcome by the partisan or ideological conflicts of the moment, it loses credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness.
While partisanship has been trickling into the appropriations process for years, the dam was burst by this year’s House budget resolution, which locked into place sequestration — the drastic, indiscriminate cuts that were triggered by Congress’s failure to act on the real drivers of the deficit, tax expenditures and entitlement spending. The budget then doubled down on sequestration by setting allocations for most domestic bills even lower in order to restore funds for defense and security. This left Republican appropriators with a number of bills they could neither defend nor pass.
The impact was on full display the week Congress left for its August recess when two major appropriations bills imploded. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill was pulled from the House floor when Republican leaders realized that many of their own members, as well as most Democrats, would very likely vote against its drastic cuts, while the Interior and Environment bill was suspended indefinitely amid a contentious and protracted committee markup.
Even Homeland Security, traditionally the low-hanging fruit of the appropriations process, has become a victim of the political crossfire. The 27 hours it took to pass my first bill as subcommittee chairman in 2007 — thanks to desultory amendments and procedural obstruction by rank-and-file Republicans, with their leaders standing idly by — gave a foretaste of what was to come. For the past two years, I and successive Homeland Security subcommittee chairmen have consciously striven to maintain a cooperative process and have brought bipartisan bills to the floor. In both instances, however, the work of months was blown up by incendiary amendments on immigration that spelled the end of bipartisan support. This year, Republican leaders tried to dissuade the main perpetrator, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), from offering his poison-pill amendment targeting so-called dreamers for deportation. But when he persisted, all but six Republicans voted for it — a striking sign of what the Republican Party has become, and of the near-total defeat of appropriations bipartisanship by broader political forces.
With just four legislative days left before the end of the fiscal year, not one of the 12 funding bills required to keep the government open has been enacted into law. House Republicans have struggled to pass even a continuing resolution to keep the government running for a few weeks while appeasing their red-meat conservatives. This is hardly the first time Congress has failed to conclude its annual budget process in a timely and orderly fashion, but this year’s implosion offers the most vivid example yet of the reason behind the process’s demise: the surrender of Congress’s constitutional power of the purse to the politics of a polarized, hyperpartisan House.
Historically, the Appropriations Committee has displayed restrained partisanship as Congress’s instrument for holding the executive, of whatever party, accountable. To the extent that the process is overcome by the partisan or ideological conflicts of the moment, it loses credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness.
While partisanship has been trickling into the appropriations process for years, the dam was burst by this year’s House budget resolution, which locked into place sequestration — the drastic, indiscriminate cuts that were triggered by Congress’s failure to act on the real drivers of the deficit, tax expenditures and entitlement spending. The budget then doubled down on sequestration by setting allocations for most domestic bills even lower in order to restore funds for defense and security. This left Republican appropriators with a number of bills they could neither defend nor pass.
The impact was on full display the week Congress left for its August recess when two major appropriations bills imploded. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill was pulled from the House floor when Republican leaders realized that many of their own members, as well as most Democrats, would very likely vote against its drastic cuts, while the Interior and Environment bill was suspended indefinitely amid a contentious and protracted committee markup.
Even Homeland Security, traditionally the low-hanging fruit of the appropriations process, has become a victim of the political crossfire. The 27 hours it took to pass my first bill as subcommittee chairman in 2007 — thanks to desultory amendments and procedural obstruction by rank-and-file Republicans, with their leaders standing idly by — gave a foretaste of what was to come. For the past two years, I and successive Homeland Security subcommittee chairmen have consciously striven to maintain a cooperative process and have brought bipartisan bills to the floor. In both instances, however, the work of months was blown up by incendiary amendments on immigration that spelled the end of bipartisan support. This year, Republican leaders tried to dissuade the main perpetrator, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), from offering his poison-pill amendment targeting so-called dreamers for deportation. But when he persisted, all but six Republicans voted for it — a striking sign of what the Republican Party has become, and of the near-total defeat of appropriations bipartisanship by broader political forces.
David Price is the man.
Aaron Strife
Banned
93% Green
93% Dem
71% Socialist
37% Libertarian
0% Republican
I feel good.
Rand Paul: "Maybe" Obamacare compromise
yeah, ok buddy
93% Dem
71% Socialist
37% Libertarian
0% Republican
I feel good.
Rand Paul: "Maybe" Obamacare compromise
yeah, ok buddy
shadowsdarknes
Member
He's going to have to talk hard specifics before I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just checking, you did see that there was about 5 choices for each question, right?
I didn't notice until several questions in and I redid the quiz.
Aaron Strife
Banned
To be fair, he wasn't a senator when Obamacare was being debated, but wouldn't it have been neat if all these senators suddenly demanding compromise after spending years shouting "KILL THE BILL" were willing to do so when the bill was actually being fucking legislated?
Then again, Lindsey Graham seems to have forgotten Obamacare is a law now, not just a bill.
You know what else sucks, Lindsey? You. Can we please get this man a conga line of cocks so he can keep his mouth shut?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked