-
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 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
Do even tweens like Justin bieber anymore?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So the GOP's spin on the CBO report regarding ACA's effect on Jobs is hilarious as its conclusions are the OPPOSITE of what the CBO states
This is what the CBO says:
In essence, it provides security so people have to work less (and to be fair provides penalties, in the form of increased health cost because of less generous subsidies, for making more) which gets spun into
In reality what the CBO says is that the ACA reduces labor supply but increase demand for it.
This is what the CBO says:
In essence, it provides security so people have to work less (and to be fair provides penalties, in the form of increased health cost because of less generous subsidies, for making more) which gets spun into
the ACA costing Jobs, when the report states it will NOT result in a change in businesses demand for labor
In reality what the CBO says is that the ACA reduces labor supply but increase demand for it.
WayneMorse
Banned
I think the most surprising thing about that article is that Warner would really give a speech to Liberty University, and that there's a street in Virginia named the "Jerry Falwell Parkway."
Why are they so obsessed with a damn pipeline? It's not some giant infrastructural change to the country, it's a gimmick pet project that can be loosely associated with the GOP's hardon for carbon fuels.
DRILL BABY DRILL
Could also be that there are a large amount of Republicans who have some sort of investment in the fuel market.
theprodigy
Member
You could say the same about Republicans in blue states
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Is there a long time GOP guy in a blue state besides Spector?
speculawyer
Member
It really is amazing. I mean it would be one thing if this were some big project about AMERICAN oil . . . . but it is not. It is about Canadian oil. People can, and ARE, build pipelines all over the USA. In fact much of the Keystone pipeline is already being built or is already built. The only thing the executive branch really has control over is the border crossing to Canada. So this is all about Canadian oil.
And it is not like it will really benefit the USA much. It will create a few thousand temporary jobs while it is built and only like 50 jobs when it is done. And as far as benefits to the USA consumer go, it will end up RAISING the price of gasoline in much of the Mid-west and Mountain states because it will help solve the glut of stranded oil in that region. The pipeline will get the oil down to TX & LA where it will fetch international market prices . . . higher prices.
The GOP rank & file are really stupid if they think they will benefit from it. But they've already proved they are stupid by fighting tooth & nail against Obamacare when so many of them will benefit from it. I gotta say, it is AMAZING how the GOP leadership can get their low-level folks to go along with policies that don't help them at all.
But they are damn good at it. One of the big talking points in the right-wing chatter is how not having the pipeline is a secret deal for Obama to help Warren Buffet because he owns so much of the train companies and the lack of the pipeline means the trains carry the oil.
WayneMorse
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You should see how much Canada advertises in the DC. They have ad everywhere extolling out friendship and how Canada is pretty much America
Is that recent? That's not a good look for secretary of state...
Armoured Priest
Member
Heading into "Most Interesting Man in the World" territory there.
empty vessel
Member
That's great news if true. More policy needs to be analyzed from the perspective of impact on labor bargaining power. Any policy that makes a worker less desperate to have a job is good for increasing bargaining power across all jobs. When the bargaining power of unskilled workers rises, so too does the bargaining power of skilled workers. Wages across the board get driven up from the bottom.
I like it.
He doesn't always drink beer, but when he does...
speculawyer
Member
Now THIS put a smile on my face . . .
It's gold, Jerry, GOLD.
http://news.yahoo.com/victoria-jackson-files-county-seat-tenn-144745287.html
It's gold, Jerry, GOLD.
speculawyer
Member
I think he is looking much better.
And having a beard is not a bad thing when you are going to be spending most of your time negotiating in the mid-east and with Iran.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The report (link, Labor market analysis is on 117 I think)
Its not as optimistic about that point as it states business will pass on costs to the workers who don't reduce working (do to the structure of penalties) so its not like workers are going to have this amazing new bargaining power.
It reduces the need to work but might hurt some workers through less compensation (likely less raises than normal).
Another problem I have with the report is it constantly uses the phrase 'incentive to work' so things increase or decrease 'the incentive to work' I think that's the incorrect framing. Its the need to work. By giving more safety nets its not reducing the incentive to work (as one can have many incentives or reasons for working: pleasure, artistic expression, pride, cultural) but the need. One need not take a job they don't want just to survive. I think its framed as that way as the more people are obligated to work it loosens the labor market reducing their power and influence over wages. If more people need to look for a job they have less a chance to say 'no' to conditions they don't like which of course favors employers and large coorporations
It may be a faulty assumption on my part, but the active friction of open war (both against Assad and their fellow rebels) seems to me like it would be responsible for the burn of much more men and materiel than punctuated drone strikes.
Even if for no other reason than the relative ease of burning them when concentrated in-theater.
Strikes a funny contrast to the ads running here, "BIG SCARY MURKA BILLIONAIRES TRYING TO DEESTROY OUR OIL GOD BLASS CANADA".
Vomit.
NihonTiger90
Member
At the store. Fox News is on. They are still on the BENGHAZI train.
Gonna peddle what you know best.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I forgot about them
You can really see where people's priorities are when they discuss the CBOs finding
Black Mamba
Member
CBO also reduced projections by 1 million for private plans and 1 million for medicaid for this year (but unchanged overall) due to the bad early rollout.
Of course, I think they may be incorrect because we don't know the non-exchange numbers really and some companies have enrolled anywhere from 20%-60% off the exchanges. I don't think we'll know the real numbers for quite a while (ie August or something) in the private market.
Yeah, the GOP lost the risk corridors argument (we always knew they would). Now repealing it increases the deficit.
Also, as APK pointed out, the amount of hours people will choose to work is predicted to go down because of the ACA. GOP must hate the idea that poor people can work 2 jobs instead of 3 now that their healthcare is mostly free. The CBO reports increased labor demand and also that the small deficit is a drag on the labor market. shocker!
On the plus side, seems like the GOP is going to easily concede the debt ceiling this time without making much of a show about it.
edit:
tee hee
PS: Ted Cruz argued that Obama not going after pot users in Colorado is an afront to liberty. lolololol
Of course, I think they may be incorrect because we don't know the non-exchange numbers really and some companies have enrolled anywhere from 20%-60% off the exchanges. I don't think we'll know the real numbers for quite a while (ie August or something) in the private market.
Yeah, the GOP lost the risk corridors argument (we always knew they would). Now repealing it increases the deficit.
Also, as APK pointed out, the amount of hours people will choose to work is predicted to go down because of the ACA. GOP must hate the idea that poor people can work 2 jobs instead of 3 now that their healthcare is mostly free. The CBO reports increased labor demand and also that the small deficit is a drag on the labor market. shocker!
On the plus side, seems like the GOP is going to easily concede the debt ceiling this time without making much of a show about it.
edit:
tee hee
PS: Ted Cruz argued that Obama not going after pot users in Colorado is an afront to liberty. lolololol
platypotamus
Member
Onion?
Black Mamba
Member
lol nope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLw6RLJQin4
Translation: It's against liberty to not enforce laws that are wrong and take away liberty.
speculawyer
Member
What?
Ted Cruz said:
OK, I can see the principle he is talking about but it really does depend on the particular law. If Obama were not enforcing a law that covers corruption of his political friends that would be one thing . . . but not going after pot smokers is dangerous to liberty? Shut the fuck up, Cruz.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So the GOP launched a 'start up laboratory' and named it Para Bellum Labs.
Para Bellum, latin for prepare for war (yeah that's the vibe your going for?) was also the name of a fancy Nazi pistol.
These people can't not screw up.
Para Bellum, latin for prepare for war (yeah that's the vibe your going for?) was also the name of a fancy Nazi pistol.
These people can't not screw up.
It's also very popular type of 9mm cartridge (if you remove the space between the words), which is probably what they were going for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum
Is that Drew Carrey's youtube channel?
speculawyer
Member
Well calling it cerebellum labs would be false advertising.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There should be a big asterisks there.
Only if the GOP agrees with said law. They certainly don't agree with the current gay marriage laws in a number of states.
Seems like Ted Cruz isn't really much of a believer in States rights and would prefer federal rule and stricter enforcement of federal laws?
Aaron Strife
Banned
If Snowe had hung on she would have won easily.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
And the German gun in question wasn't specifically a "Nazi gun" at all. It was used in World War I about 30 years before Nazi Germany (and was used by the Weimar Republic)
This is one reason why I think liberals do themselves disfavors when they talk about guns
WayneMorse
Banned
Is it just me or has Susan Collins gone pretty hard to the right ever since Snowe retired?
RustyNails
Member
I just realized Christie must be kicking himself in the nuts for skipping 2012. He could have easily defeated Romney and could very well have scored an upset against Obama.
Thats assuming the skeletons prior to Bridgegate stay hidden in his closet though.
Thats assuming the skeletons prior to Bridgegate stay hidden in his closet though.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It was made famous by the Nazi's and strongly associated with them. Why make the association?
zero shift
Banned
The tax thread makes me sad. So many people getting fucked over by shitty "accountants".
I assume this is part of why so many Americans think taxes get raised when they don't.
I assume this is part of why so many Americans think taxes get raised when they don't.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The CBO report strikes me as an example of the easier talking point being the most effective. 2mil losing jobs is easy to repeat, especially when Chuck Todd and other "journalists" play along. But at the same time, I don't think it's hard to argue that people will decide to work less thanks to having healthcare security; being able to quit one of your two jobs for instance.
Another thing: the CBO report notes the deficit has been halved, compared to this point in 2009. It was good to hear Obama throw the deficit hawks in the bushes during the SOTU. It's under control, now it's time to get shit done.
Another thing: the CBO report notes the deficit has been halved, compared to this point in 2009. It was good to hear Obama throw the deficit hawks in the bushes during the SOTU. It's under control, now it's time to get shit done.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Cruz's argument appears to be something like this: the rule of law protects liberty, and the abrogation of the rule of law therefore threatens liberty. The president abrogates the rule of law when he refuses to enforce the law for policy reasons, and so threatens liberty.
Which part of that argument, if any, do you disagree with?
Presumably that that the rule of law protects liberty as an absolute.
This is a straightforward logical fallacy. p>q does not imply ~p>~q.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Which would be relevant if I had stated Cruz's argument as "rule of law therefore liberty; not rule of law therefore not liberty."
I suppose I'll need to spell it out a bit more.
The abrogation of the rule of law doesn't threaten liberty unless it is taken as a given that the rule of law, always and everywhere, does nothing but protect liberty. If there are laws that do not protect liberty, then failing to enforce them does not threaten liberty. Thus, unless you're arguing that all laws are perfectly just, Cruz's argument does not hold water.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked