• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WayneMorse

Banned
ku-xlarge.gif


Is that Feingold in the middle?
 
B

bodyofanamerican

Member
PhoenixDark said:
BTW anyone else tiring of TPM's recent lurch to liberal click bait territory? When I saw the tax proposal I thought "welp, Cali and NY are fucked." TPM's headline? GOP's New Plan Hikes Taxes On Americans In Blue States. Two blue states.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. They've fallen off a cliff, quality wise. I suspect they're trying to get traffic to the site to drive membership of TPM Prime, but this is sadly not the way to to it.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I always pronounced it as "Doag".


This video is pretty funny for all the wrong reasons. Here you have a member of the Chickens for KFC club (stolen from Markos Moulitsas) arguing how the true heroes of the Arizona controversy are of course, the Republicans:

http://www.msnbc.com/all

edit: fucking MSNBC's stupid new site. Click the video that says "Veto gives hope for Republican Party".
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Fox News attacking Hillary on her age. Good lord, people.

Stephen Colbert Takes On Fox News’ Hillary Clinton ‘Bombshell’ (Video)


Stephen Colbert says Fox News has discovered a bombshell about Hillary Clinton that could prevent her from winning the 2016 presidential election: She’s been on this planet for 66 years.

Fox News has reported that more and more people are talking about Cinton’s age, but specifically cited Fox host Mike Huckabee, who is 58.

“That’s right, Fox News is ready to project that in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton will be two years older,” Colbert said. “I mean, come on. Come on. Come on. That is old. Like old, old. Way too old to be president. I mean she’s going to be almost as old as Ronald Reagan was. But remember: Those were man years. Men age gracefully, like Robert Redford or a nice leather wallet.”

Reagan was inaugurated at 69.
Click to expand...

Ageist!

Romney is always currently 66.
 
A

Armoured Priest

Member
Cyan said:
It's "doge" with a long o. Same g sound that you have in "gif."
Click to expand...

That begs the question, how do you pronounce "gif"?

The "correct" way where its like the peanut butter, or the
actual
"correct" way where the "g" is the same "g" as in "graphics."


...not wanting to reignite this argument, at least in this thread.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
pigeon said:
Camp's tax plan is so serious as a starting point for a bipartisan tax reform bill it's not really clear why he released it. With number tweaking, it could easily be a Democratic tax plan. Closes carried interest loophole, rolls capital gains into standard income, cuts mortgage interest deduction, limits the charitable contribution deduction. There's useful stuff here. Corporate tax reform section is probably another story.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you do these things:

A. Remove waiver for farmers/manufacturers/oil
B. fix state deduction issue (whether putting it back or something else)
C. cap the 40% long terms exemption rate at $1 million, make 20% thereafter

And it's pretty much a progressive plan. You could also add in one more tax bracket at 20% to help the middle class and such (instead of 25%).

The plan is so far to the center (or left) compared to the GOP today, it's bizarre.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Black Mamba said:
Honestly, if you do these things:

A. Remove waiver for farmers/manufacturers/oil
B. fix state deduction issue (whether putting it back or something else)
C. cap the 40% long terms exemption rate at $1 million, make 20% thereafter

And it's pretty much a progressive plan. You could also add in one more tax bracket at 20% to help the middle class and such (instead of 25%).

The plan is so far to the center (or left) compared to the GOP today, it's bizarre.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a CBO report on what that would do to the deficit, just out of interest.
 
A

Armoured Priest

Member
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Giant Panda said:
I'm not sure how one could argue that money isn't speech in this case, so I think that is logically false. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be limits on it however, as freedom of speech has already been held to not be unlimited, and that's more where the Citizens United decision went wrong.
Click to expand...

The freedom of speech was a part of the bill of rights as a way to protect ideas and opinions. We can limit the use of spoken words all we want but we can't put any limits on the use of those words to express an idea or opinion.

If we're going to call spending money an expression of an idea or opinion, then I don't see how you can put any limits on any campaign contributions at all. Or would putting limits on speaking too much about an idea or opinion to too many people be considered constitutional as well?

Edit:

APKmetsfan said:
I haven't dug deep into it but I'm reluctant to concede to their tax rate numbers. It might not shift the burden now but I fear it will in the future its trying to move us away at least rhetorically from progressive taxation IMO. I'd rather have deductions than a lower nominal rate for the rich.
Click to expand...

Now that's a very good point. In the future it does give republicans a lot of room to change the behind the scenes numbers which make the system progressive, while it's a lot harder to change the up front tax bracket numbers.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
thepotatoman said:
Now that's a very good point. In the future it does give republicans a lot of room to change the behind the scenes numbers which make the system progressive, while it's a lot harder to change the up front tax bracket numbers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a serious concern. Plus, there is no reason why a simple tax code cannot be progressive. It is not progressivity that makes it complicated. I suppose since this is the Republican starting position, the Democrats should counter with a simple progressive code. And also add in a bracket that taxes 60% of incomes over $2 million.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
thepotatoman said:
The freedom of speech was a part of the bill of rights as a way to protect ideas and opinions. We can limit the use of spoken words all we want but we can't put any limits on the use of those words to express an idea or opinion.

If we're going to call spending money an expression of an idea or opinion, then I don't see how you can put any limits on any campaign contributions at all. Or would putting limits on speaking too much about an idea or opinion to too many people be considered constitutional as well?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure why you think the same reasoning has to apply to money as physically speaking. With money a limit make sense due to concerns about power and corruption that don't apply to physical speech. I'm sure physical speech and speech done electronically have slight variations in what is okay and what isn't, so I see it different forms of speech are treated a bit differently for the sake of practicality.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Amazing article in Time about the disastrous Healthcare.gov launch and how it was brought into the trauma center and worked on tirelessly.

Obama's Trauma Team: How an unlikely group of high-tech wizards revived Obama's troubled HealthCare.gov website
360_cover_0310.jpg
Click to expand...
Choice quotes:
McDonough and the President had convened almost daily meetings since the Oct. 1 launch of the website with those in charge--including Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner and White House health-reform policy director Jeanne Lambrew. But they couldn't seem to get what McDonough calls "actionable intel" about how and why the website was failing in front of a national audience of stunned supporters, delirious Republican opponents and ravenous reporters."Those meetings drove the President crazy," says one White House senior adviser who was there.
This is the story of a team of unknown--except in elite technology circles--coders and troubleshooters who dropped what they were doing in various enterprises across the country and came together in mid-October to save the website. In about a tenth of the time that a crew of usual-suspect, Washington contractors had spent over $300 million building a site that didn't work, this ad hoc team rescued it and, arguably, Obama's chance at a health-reform legacy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, on Oct. 17, the President was thinking of scrapping the whole thing and starting over.
Click to expand...
No one in the White House meetings leading up to the launch had any idea whether the technology worked.
Click to expand...
Rule 2: "The ones who should be doing the talking are the people who know the most about an issue, not the ones with the highest rank. If anyone finds themselves sitting passively while managers and executives talk over them with less accurate information, we have gone off the rails, and I would like to know about it." (Explained Dickerson later: "If you can get the managers out of the way, the engineers will want to solve things.")
Click to expand...
Carney tried to fend off the inquisition, but he had little to work with. Pressed repeatedly on when the site would be fixed, the best he could say was that "they are making improvements every day."

"They" were, in fact, not making improvements, except by chance, much as you or I might reboot or otherwise play with a laptop to see if some shot in the dark somehow fixes a snafu.
Click to expand...
It's a terrific read. Much like the Orca Failwhale of Romney's 2012 campaign, only this time, a couple of geniuses save the day. It's sad in the end that Obama did not even knew who fixed the problems. It would have been fitting if he met them.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
speculawyer said:
All hail Doge. I keep calling my dog "Doge" now. Even though I have no idea how I am supposed to pronounce it. (I go with "Dodge-E".)
Click to expand...
Notrollious said:
Dohj with soft j.
Click to expand...
EskimoJoe said:
Doge like beige is the one true way. Doh-zh.
Click to expand...
Oblivion said:
Like beige?
Click to expand...
empty vessel said:
Yep, that's how I do it.
Click to expand...
Fenderputty said:
This is how I say it as well.
Click to expand...
Dodge-E?
Dohj?
Doh-zh?
Fucking beige?
Get that weak shit out of here.
Much like Ice Cube's mother when she was pregnant, doge has a hard g in it.
Here's a handy pronunciation guide.

p.s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3oiThw2RxE
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
RustyNails said:
Amazing article in Time about the disastrous Healthcare.gov launch and how it was brought into the trauma center and worked on tirelessly.

Obama's Trauma Team: How an unlikely group of high-tech wizards revived Obama's troubled HealthCare.gov website

Choice quotes:





It's a terrific read. Much like the Orca Failwhale of Romney's 2012 campaign, only this time, a couple of geniuses save the day. It's sad in the end that Obama did not even knew who fixed the problems. It would have been fitting if he met them.
Click to expand...

I just wished Obama had cared that much about the website you know...before it launched.

I'm surprised Obama hasn't received more criticism from the left over the website. It harmed Dems nationwide, completely erased the momentum coming out of the shutdown and damaged the chances for single payer to be implemented.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
WayneMorse said:
I just wished Obama had cared that much about the website you know...before it launched.
Click to expand...

If your read the piece, he was concerned. But he was reassured from people lower-down that everything is according to keikaku.
McDonough says that in meetings with the President prior to the launch, Obama always would end each session "by saying, 'I want to remind the team that this only works if the technology works.'" The problem, of course, was that no one in the meetings had any idea whether the technology worked, nor did the President and his chief of staff have the inclination to dig in and find out.
Click to expand...
McDonough, as chief of staff, was supposed to be tending to everything associated with the rollout, including the technology. But he and Lambrew simply accepted the assurances from the CMS staff that everything was a go. Two friends and former colleagues of McDonough's say they spoke to him 36 hours prior to the launch, and in both conversations he assured them that everything was working. "When we turn it on tomorrow morning," he told one friend, "we're gonna knock your socks off."
Click to expand...
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Giant Panda said:
Well I'm not sure why you think the same reasoning has to apply to money as physically speaking. With money a limit make sense due to concerns about power and corruption that don't apply to physical speech. I'm sure physical speech and speech done electronically have slight variations in what is okay and what isn't, so I see it different forms of speech are treated a bit differently for the sake of practicality.
Click to expand...

But money isn't communication. It just isn't speech at all and i don't think it is sensible to say otherwise.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
WayneMorse said:
I just wished Obama had cared that much about the website you know...before it launched.

I'm surprised Obama hasn't received more criticism from the left over the website. It harmed Dems nationwide, completely erased the momentum coming out of the shutdown and damaged the chances for single payer to be implemented.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The fact that he seemingly had no interest or focus on his only signature domestic achievement pre-October 1st is just baffling to me. The presidency is very tough, I'm sure his days are packed with important stuff to do...but he wasn't at least getting monthly updates about this shit? The team knew the website wasn't going to work a month before launch if not sooner. Where was the president?

Where was he on Benghazi too?!?!
 
K

Karakand

Member
PhoenixDark said:
The glaring thing is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes, which would hit big states like NY, Cali, and NJ. I wouldn't mind seeing some type of compromise that keeps the deduction but lowers it, effectively raising taxes for residents of those states.

BTW anyone else tiring of TPM's recent lurch to liberal click bait territory? When I saw the tax proposal I thought "welp, Cali and NY are fucked." TPM's headline? GOP's New Plan Hikes Taxes On Americans In Blue States. Two blue states.
Click to expand...

Those deductions are already limited by (1) being Schedule A items and (2) Alternative Minimum Tax.

Getting rid of that deduction hits everyone, the state and local tax deduction allowed you to deduct sales tax paid (estimated or the actual amount if you were pedantic enough to actually keep track of it) or state income tax paid so even people in states without a state income tax were able to get some deduction.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Exactly. The fact that he seemingly had no interest or focus on his only signature domestic achievement pre-October 1st is just baffling to me. The presidency is very tough, I'm sure his days are packed with important stuff to do...but he wasn't at least getting monthly updates about this shit? The team knew the website wasn't going to work a month before launch if not sooner. Where was the president?

Where was he on Benghazi too?!?!
Click to expand...

It's like no one is reading the Time piece.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Samarecarm said:
Thanks for the link.

As a proponent of the idea that government can help people get health care and supporter of Obamacare, I have to admit that this pretty bad for my side :/ The big government contractors failed, and the project was saved when a handful of STEM wunderkinds are released from upper management. I hate it when libertarians look like they're right :/. Or, perhaps that just reflects the biases of the author at Time.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment that such a major botching would strike a huge blow to the idea of competent government, but considering that the people in charge of doing the coding/programming for the website were from a private contractor, wouldn't that imply the private sector was the one at fault?

I don't know how Republicans/Libertarians feel about contractors. They're from the private sector, so you'd think they might love them, but they're paid by government dollars, so...
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
thepotatoman said:
Now that's a very good point. In the future it does give republicans a lot of room to change the behind the scenes numbers which make the system progressive, while it's a lot harder to change the up front tax bracket numbers.
Click to expand...

Right now it might not shift much but it makes the top tax rate 25% lower than its current 37% (at least I think). You know in the future people will propose deductions which will push that number down. The furor that will erupt when someone proposes the rate increase to offset that will be ridiculous. Its the same framing the GOP uses on the debt ceiling. Live within your means, spend less not tax more.

Its dangerous and doesn't do much (any?) good. The probablem with the tax code isn't that its too high. The GOP even concedes this by trying to make it revenue neutral and keep the same burden. Its purpose is to change the battlefield to suit their low tax, regressive tax policy. They are and always have been playing the long game. I don't trust the democrats to see that as they are too often fighting todays political battles at the expense of the future.

Dems should counter with a proposal to lower middle and lower class rates and raise the rich's. Make it more progressive.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Samarecarm said:
Thanks for the link.

As a proponent of the idea that government can help people get health care and supporter of Obamacare, I have to admit that this pretty bad for my side :/ The big government contractors failed, and the project was saved when a handful of STEM wunderkinds are released from upper management. I hate it when libertarians look like they're right :/. Or, perhaps that just reflects the biases of the author at Time.

At any rate, I'm grateful for the people who worked long hours at well under their usual rates to ensure that the American people could get affordable health insurance. As a country, we owe them our gratitude.
Click to expand...
One of the tech dudes is right. He says that Government (at least in the US) has no experience selling service or products. Next, had the Government rolled out Healthcare.gov one state at a time in a concentric, layered fashion, it would have been much more smooth. Connect to state's healthcare website, work out the kinks, learn from the mistakes, move on to the next, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom