• 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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
North Carolina's House has overrode the governor's veto of the marriage opt-out bill.


http://www.wral.com/nc-house-overrides-veto-of-magistrates-bill-/14705339/

Court challenge in 3.. 2.. 1..

No wait. It'll go:
- SCOTUS ruling, then
- court challenge

As gross as it is, I can't help but feeling like the NC Republican/Tea Party is digging it's own grave for 2016. These chuckleheads all ran (with maybe a few exceptions) on a fiscal conservatism platform and a few (the governor, for one) specifically promised not to impose social ideology. The electorate bought it, but I think they've been wholly unsatisfied. NC is fairly socially progressive as the Old South goes.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
I thought this was accepted as fact. Some employers are cutting hours, yes. That part of the law doesn't really make sense to me.

This. It seems to affect such a small sliver of the population though, whereas 40 hour limit would affect far more. Perhaps lowering it to 20 would narrow it even more? Or are there a lot more people working around 20 than around 30?
 
Marco Rubio’s financial woes are a perfect microcosm for GOP hypocrisy

Rubio’s mismanagement of his money should be a super-colossal point of concern for everyone, especially those of us who endured the side effects of the Great Recession. Given how we’re only a few years outside of the recession, a candidate like Rubio shouldn’t be taken seriously as a contender for shepherding the American economy in a delicate post-recession world. The words “incompetent” and “dangerous” hardly begin to describe Rubio, but it’s a start.

Let’s recap what we know from the [New York Times] article:

- Until around 2012, Rubio was deeply in debt — mortgages (plural) and student debt totaling in the hundreds of thousands.

- An $800,000 book deal was supposed to resolve the debt for Rubio and his family. Rubio even spoke publicly about this (at the time) responsible course of action.

- Instead, Rubio purchased, among other things, an $80,000 boat. (The saying goes: Never buy a boat unless you can afford to buy 10 boats.)

- Rubio used a state GOP credit card for personal vacation (he called this “an accident”), as well as a household renovation project (another “accident”?).

- He paid $24,000 in taxes and early penalties for prematurely liquidating his retirement account, valued at $68,000.

- Rubio sold a Tallahassee home, previously threatened with foreclosure, at a loss of $18,000.

- He leased a 2015 Audi Q7 for $50,000, in spite of “significant debts.” [sic, the NYT article valued the Audi at $50,000]

- Even when commanding greater income, he hardly set aside any money in savings.

- Rubio used his personal credit card to pay for campaign expenses.

- In his 2012 book, Rubio admits to his “lack of bookkeeping skills.” Wow. Ya think?

Mitt Romney: Miss me yet?
 

Or as republicans put it. He's just too american!

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/10/marco-rubio-is-you-america/


Marco Rubio bought a bunch of stuff he probably couldn’t afford. Welcome to America.

When white middle class americans are fiscally irresponsible its american as apple pie! but those welfare leeches need to keep a tight ship and never waste a penny!!
 
To be fair Marco Rubio isn't white. In fact that's the only reason he's considered a legitimate challenger!

But yes the hypocrisy is astounding, what else is new. The same state elected a fucking Medicare fraud as governor.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more

My God. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on the Checkbook of the United States of America, which the president keeps on his person at all times?

The only problem I see is the state credit cards being used for personal expenses. That and the hypocrisy of anyone who complains about drawing an analogy between federal finances and personal finances suddenly drawing an analogy between personal finances and federal finances.
 
but what about the Community Reinvestment Act!

I guess buying more than you can afford is only a negative for black people.
My dad recently brought this up again as the entire reason the recession happened, I'm assuming that's reasonably false but I didn't know enough about it to argue
 

ivysaur12

Banned
My God. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on the Checkbook of the United States of America, which the president keeps on his person at all times?

The only problem I see is the state credit cards being used for personal expenses. That and the hypocrisy of anyone who complains about drawing an analogy between federal finances and personal finances suddenly drawing an analogy between personal finances and federal finances.

That and a lack of judgment. I don't think it has anything to do with your latter point.

Like, this:

- Even when commanding greater income, he hardly set aside any money in savings.

Who cares.

But this:

- Instead, Rubio purchased, among other things, an $80,000 boat. (The saying goes: Never buy a boat unless you can afford to buy 10 boats.)

- Rubio used a state GOP credit card for personal vacation (he called this “an accident”), as well as a household renovation project (another “accident”?).

- He leased a 2015 Audi Q7 for $50,000, in spite of “significant debts.” [sic, the NYT article valued the Audi at $50,000]

Especially the second point is a bit troubling. I don't really care about how he managed his debt. Many people are in debt. I'm a little surprised someone would think it's a good idea to purchase a boat or lease an Audi while in debt.

These also aren't really policy issues, so they feel secondary (like when Romney talks about his horse's gait or Reverent Wright). People care mostly because they want a president who's relatable and understands them -- then it speaks to electability.
 
My God. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on the Checkbook of the United States of America, which the president keeps on his person at all times?

You don't have a problem with a candidate being so obtuse that he can't control his own finances? For realsies? o_ô
 
My God. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on the Checkbook of the United States of America, which the president keeps on his person at all times?

The only problem I see is the state credit cards being used for personal expenses. That and the hypocrisy of anyone who complains about drawing an analogy between federal finances and personal finances suddenly drawing an analogy between personal finances and federal finances.
If you accuse someone of being a hypocrite, then you are the REAL hypocrite!
 
I'm not sure you understood my post. Your paraphrase suggests you didn't.
Speaking for myself here but if someone runs on fiscal conservatism "the federal budget is like your house budget" and we find out their house budget is in fact terrible then it's perfectly fair for them to be called out over that. I don't think that Rubio's reckless spending habits mean he'd be a bad president although I could name a dozen or two other reasons.
 

Jackson50

Member
I won't defend irresponsible behavior. And it's ironic because personal responsibility is a token conservative principle. But Rubio's in good company. Washington was in debt for most of his life; it wasn't entirely his fault, but he did have lavish tastes. Who knew he loved wine coolers? The same goes for Jefferson. Private behavior does not necessarily reflect a person's professional competence. The "accidents" with the credit cards are problematic though.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I'll take a purely cynical view on this: if Rubio is the nominee, this gives the Dems have something to point and tut-tut at whenever Hillary's ethical foibles are mentioned. Muddy those waters!

As a bonus, it's something that's easily understood for the general voting public. True, it's not quite as fun a visual as Romney's car elevator was, but a speedboat is still pretty ripe for cartoons, jokes, memes, etc.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Speaking for myself here but if someone runs on fiscal conservatism "the federal budget is like your house budget" and we find out their house budget is in fact terrible then it's perfectly fair for them to be called out over that. I don't think that Rubio's reckless spending habits mean he'd be a bad president although I could name a dozen or two other reasons.

Of a fashion, yes.

If you stay on that road, your argument will boil down to "executive experience is the only thing that matters", at which point he's also grotesquely inept, so whatevs.

My argument isn't that only one kind of experience matters, but that the president is hardly the single person on whom federal finances depend. Presumably, Rubio would staff his administration with folks who are expert in their respective fields, and it would be those experts who exert the most influence on the financial nitty-gritty of federal affairs. If we only elected to the presidency experts in every subject over which the president has authority, we'd never elect anyone.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
You mean Jerry Brown? He's a great governor to be sure, but he'll be 86 in 2024.

Some interesting names otherwise. I'll keep an eye on Klobuchar and Malloy, hadn't been following them at all.

I agree that we're too far from 2024 to make predictions. My main question is who would've run (that's strong) this year had Hillary opted out. We may never know if Warren would've taken a swing in that case.

Sherrod Brown.

And if Hillary hadn't run, I assume we would've seen: de Blasio, Malloy, O'Malley, Sanders, Booker, Chafee, Gillibrand, Warren, Patrick, Warren, Kaine, (Sherrod) Brown all enter the fray, or float the idea of it. I don't think that's a lot better than the clown car that is the Republican side, but that more speaks to the strength of Hillary as a candidate.

It'll be interesting to see which 2018 Dems can hold on. That'll determine a lot of which Red/Purple state Dems might be able to go the distance.
 
My argument isn't that only one kind of experience matters, but that the president is hardly the single person on whom federal finances depend. Presumably, Rubio would staff his administration with folks who are expert in their respective fields, and it would be those experts who exert the most influence on the financial nitty-gritty of federal affairs. If we only elected to the presidency experts in every subject over which the president has authority, we'd never elect anyone.

Your point is fair, but it's telling that you still don't make anything out of the hypocrisy. You don't believe running the government is like balancing personal finances, but it's an omnipresent talking point in the GOP. The issue isn't his finances, it's his hypocrisy.

I'd add a side of poor personal judgment, but as noted, we have had good presidents with pretty horrible personal judgment (Bill Clinton pretty recently).
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Sherrod Brown.

And if Hillary hadn't run, I assume we would've seen: de Blasio, Malloy, O'Malley, Sanders, Booker, Chafee, Gillibrand, Warren, Patrick, Warren, Kaine, (Sherrod) Brown all enter the fray, or float the idea of it. I don't think that's a lot better than the clown car that is the Republican side, but that more speaks to the strength of Hillary as a candidate.

It'll be interesting to see which 2018 Dems can hold on. That'll determine a lot of which Red/Purple state Dems might be able to go the distance.

de Blasio wouldn't have even thought about it, if he wins reelection then you'll see him begin to consider it.
 
More KvB drama:

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/lawmakers-clash-burwell-over-aca-contingency-plans/2015-06-10?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

GOP lawmakers clashed with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell when she testified before a House committee Wednesday, reported The Hill.

The Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), wanted Burwell to describe the Obama administration's contingency plans if the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates subsidies for plans sold on Healthcare.gov in the King v. Burwell case.

"The question is what will the administration do: will they stand up with one piece of paper and say 'my way or the highway' or will he work with Congress?" Ryan said.


He was referring to Obama's comment at the G7 Summit Monday that "Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision," FierceHealthPayer previously reported.

Burwell pushed back, saying there's not much that can be done right now while everyone awaits the high court ruling, which is expected by the end of the month.

"We'll do everything we can, we're working to make sure we are ready to communicate to the states and do everything we can," she said.

Burwell added that states could consider establishing their own health insurance exchanges if the subsidies are ruled illegal on Healthcare.gov. Burwell also said HHS could help support states interested in this option. For example, Pennsylvania and Delaware have proposed launching their own state-based exchanges by using parts of Healthcare.gov, including its website and call center. In addition, states could roll out a cloud-based version of Healthcare.gov in a matter of months and at a fraction of the cost of building an exchange from scratch.

The problem with this option, however, is that Republican-led states would have to agree to work with HHS, which many GOP governors don't want to do.

"The critical decisions will sit with the Congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available," Burwell said.

Burwell is handling this like a champ right now.

In the event of an adverse ruling, the administration absolutely CANNOT allow the debate to be framed as though the administration is being the obstinate one by insisting on the one page fix.

They also need to run hard with the message that the law was functioning just fine until the GOP filed a lawsuit to break it. The whole idea of, "this ruling just shows that the law was unworkable all along" can't be allowed to get traction in the mainstream media.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Your point is fair, but it's telling that you still don't make anything out of the hypocrisy.

What does it tell?

"Hypocrisy" isn't the word you're looking for if your complaint is that Rubio doesn't manage his personal finances well. If Rubio has said that the federal government's finances should be run like a household's finances, it might be embarrassing that he doesn't run his household finances well, but it isn't hypocrisy. "X should be like Y" and "I'm terrible at Y" are not inconsistent statements.
 


John Stewart did a hilarious segment on this. He was pretty critical of the NYT (don't hate the paper, hate the game). The clip can be watched in the link.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-shreds-york-times-124006700.html

Edit: just read the NYT article and I can see why John Stewart ripped them a new one. Also that $80k "luxury speed boat" is just a run of the mill fishing boat. Won't even get a second glance in Miami.
 
What does it tell?

"Hypocrisy" isn't the word you're looking for if your complaint is that Rubio doesn't manage his personal finances well. If Rubio has said that the federal government's finances should be run like a household's finances, it might be embarrassing that he doesn't run his household finances well, but it isn't hypocrisy. "X should be like Y" and "I'm terrible at Y" are not inconsistent statements.

It tells me that you want to give him a pass.

And yes, it's hypocrisy. It's not like he accidentally bought a boat when he was in debt. He wants to hold the government to one standard and then doesn't apply it to himself. Saying somebody is horrible at something is giving them an excuse. People are responsible for their decisions. This isn't like he invested poorly, which somebody could be legitimately bad it-- he ran up huge amounts of debt.

I'm not an expert on Rubio's personal platform but I'll bet "fiscal responsibility" is in there, as is treating government debt as a bad thing. He clearly doesn't apply those standards to himself.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
What does it tell?

"Hypocrisy" isn't the word you're looking for if your complaint is that Rubio doesn't manage his personal finances well. If Rubio has said that the federal government's finances should be run like a household's finances, it might be embarrassing that he doesn't run his household finances well, but it isn't hypocrisy. "X should be like Y" and "I'm terrible at Y" are not inconsistent statements.

Wait, how is it NOT hypocrisy?
 
John Stewart did a hilarious segment on this. He was pretty critical of the NYT (don't hate the paper, hate the game). The clip can be watched in the link.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-shreds-york-times-124006700.html

Edit: just read the NYT article and I can see why John Stewart ripped them a new one. Also that $80k "luxury speed boat" is just a run of the mill fishing boat. Won't even get a second glance in Miami.

Most people don't have those kinds of "run of the mill fishing boats"

And the website describes them as luxury.
 
Ted Cruz under fire for installing the guy who pushed back against a Muslim being appointed to an economic advisory position in the Tennessee state gov't as his state campaign chair.

Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is pushing back against criticism that the Texas senator named an anti-Islamic politician as his state chairman in Tennessee.

As chairman of the Williamson County Republican Party in 2012, Kookogey pushed a resolution condemning Republican Gov. Bill Haslam for hiring Samar Ali, a practicing Muslim, and for appointing a council on Islamic affairs in the state.

“RESOLVED that the Williamson County Republican Party hereby opposes Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam’s recent appointment of a Shariah compliant finance expert to the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development,” the resolution said.

What would "shariah compliant finance" even look like, I wonder?
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
It tells me that you want to give him a pass.

And yes, it's hypocrisy. It's not like he accidentally bought a boat when he was in debt. He wants to hold the government to one standard and then doesn't apply it to himself. Saying somebody is horrible at something is giving them an excuse. People are responsible for their decisions. This isn't like he invested poorly, which somebody could be legitimately bad it-- he ran up huge amounts of debt.

I'm not an expert on Rubio's personal platform but I'll bet "fiscal responsibility" is in there, as is treating government debt as a bad thing. He clearly doesn't apply those standards to himself.

Wait, how is it NOT hypocrisy?

Is Rubio a government? Is his revenue directly procured through taxation rather than as payment for services rendered?

Had Rubio said, "People shouldn't buy $80,000 boats," and then bought an $80,000 boat, that would be hypocrisy. If he had said, "People shouldn't take on debt," and then took on debt, that would be hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not holding a belief about what government ought to do but then not doing that oneself. The government is not an individual. An individual is not the government.

The complaint here sounds like this: "Marco Rubio thinks the federal government should not spend more money than it takes in through taxes. But he bought an $80,000 boat when he received a book advance of $800,000. So!"

Such a non sequitur may satisfy the partisan incuriosity of the hacks at Salon, but I had thought PoliGAF above such inanities.
 
Ted Cruz under fire for installing the guy who pushed back against a Muslim being appointed to an economic advisory position in the Tennessee state gov't as his state campaign chair.







What would "shariah compliant finance" even look like, I wonder?

I think you are parsing it incorrectly.

I think that's "a finance expert who's compliant to shariah."
 
Is Rubio a government? Is his revenue directly procured through taxation rather than as payment for services rendered?

Had Rubio said, "People shouldn't buy $80,000 boats," and then bought an $80,000 boat, that would be hypocrisy. If he had said, "People shouldn't take on debt," and then took on debt, that would be hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not holding a belief about what government ought to do but then not doing that oneself. The government is not an individual. An individual is not the government.

The complaint here sounds like this: "Marco Rubio thinks the federal government should not spend more money than it takes in through taxes. But he bought an $80,000 boat when he received a book advance of $800,000. So!"

Such a non sequitur may satisfy the partisan incuriosity of the hacks at Salon, but I had thought PoliGAF above such inanities.

You are trying way, way too hard.

I'm not saying he is a government. I'm saying that he is attached to aplatform that *does* liken personal finances to public ones, and then doesn't manage his the way he would presumably manage government ones.

All that is icing anyway, since the GOP hasn't acted on it's statements of fiscal responsibility in any consistent way in the first place. This story is telling is how bald-faced the divide is.
 
Most people don't have those kinds of "run of the mill fishing boats"

And the website describes them as luxury.

Most people don't have boats. But that fishing boat is pretty standard fare. Heck, my insurance agent neighbor has a nicer boat than that.

And of course the website is going to describe them as luxury to make them appealing to potential buyers. It's as luxury as a top model Honda Accord is luxury.

Also there's a huge difference between a speed boat and a fishing boat. Especially in the owner types.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
We're talking about a party that regularly complains about poor people not living within their means because they have a $60 a month iPhone+data contract.

I think it's fair to say buying an $80k boat is not something you should be doing if you can't afford it, even if it is simply a standard boat.
 
From Rubio's website:

Alternatively, if Washington starts living by the same common sense that American families live by, we can lower the debt limit rather than raise it, and we can reclaim the American Dream and bring it into reach of more people than ever before. Our children are counting on us to reverse course before it is too late.

So, he likens the nation budget to a personal one, but doesn't live within that budget.

I'd say it was incompetence, but one doesn't accidentally buy a boat or multiple homes.

As noted, a) national finances are not the same as personal finances and b) Rubio wouldn't be doing the managing directly. Neither was my point-- that he's a hypocrite for making the above comparison and then not living up to the standard he suggests the nation should.

The NYT piece certainly does blow a lot of stuff out of proportion, but the key issue for me is being willing to advance a false meme and the not even live by it himself. The first part is the problem, the second is the telling of that problem.
 
So does this article support that employers are cutting back part-time hours due to Obamacare?

The article title starts as "yes" but then makes a complete case that states "maybe but we're not sure....and even if it is, it's a few hundred thousand out of 150 million people)."

Of course, I doubt there wouldn't be some companies out there that did it. But it's so small it's insignificant.

My God. Can you imagine what would happen if he got his hands on the Checkbook of the United States of America, which the president keeps on his person at all times?

The only problem I see is the state credit cards being used for personal expenses. That and the hypocrisy of anyone who complains about drawing an analogy between federal finances and personal finances suddenly drawing an analogy between personal finances and federal finances.

I am fine with certain "dealbreaker" things. For instance, I won't for anyone who denies evolution as scientific fact. Yes, it really has nothing to do with being President, but IMO, if you deny something which is so obviously true, I can't trust your judgement anywhere. Too risky.

So for some people I could see why being completely reckless with money could also be a dealbreaker. If Rubio is stupid enough to buy a boat when he's in massive debt, why should I trust him at any job of importance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom