• 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.
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Future PhaZe said:
interesting, what kind of makeover do you think is necessary?
Click to expand...

Ah, don't really agree with the makeover part, just that Obama hasn't been a tremendous success in the way he might have been. Not his fault though with the "hell no caucus" in play.

Personally I'd like to see less hypocrisy on science issues like GMOs, pesticides, etc. But there are plenty of people across the aisle who want to get rid of their crazies, too. Not really a makeover so much as a recognition of core party principles. We're supposed to be the party for empiricists, not green idealogues.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
B-Dubs said:
They'll both be dragged way to the right during the primary as well. Whoever makes it out of the Republican Primary will be battered and bloody, the walking dead.
Click to expand...

Kasich is one of the few Republican hopefuls that I can't see playing that game.

He's really, really obstinate.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
B-Dubs said:
They'll both be dragged way to the right during the primary as well. Whoever makes it out of the Republican Primary will be battered and bloody, the walking dead.
Click to expand...
Battered & bloodied, and with much lighter campaign coffers. Simmering resentment from losing factions. A highlight reel of goofy comments that'll come back as campaign ads during the general.

I'd love a brokered convention. How big will the debate stage need to be for these primaries? I'm imagining all of the candidates seated in an orderly arrangement on gymnasium bleachers, waiting for the moderators to call on them for their answers, each of the candidates getting maybe a minute or two of speaking time per hour..
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Kasich is one of the few Republican hopefuls that I can't see playing that game.

He's really, really obstinate.
Click to expand...

I think you posted an article a few weeks ago about him giving a speech/Q&A at some convention full of supply siders, and they weren't happy with his views. I don't see how Kasich could get far while being the sane-ish guy in the race without a bunch of money.

It's going to be real interesting seeing Jeb Bush get attacked by Cruz, Jindal, etc at debates. I continue to believe Bush's team has underestimated the level of sheer anger that's on the far right with respect to immigration (and Common Core). And unlike Romney in 2012, Bush will be facing off against folks who can actually debate.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
CrimzonSamurai said:
CNN Money has a thought-provoking and stimulating article about what it means that Hillary went to Chipotle instead of McDonalds.

The article is neither of those things.

The comments are hi-larious.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/investing/hillary-clinton-goes-to-chipotle-not-mcdonalds/index.html
Click to expand...

Oh god, we need to get our shorts in on McDonalds and longs in on Chipotle right now. I can't think of a better bellwether than where a presidential candidate chooses to do their photo ops.

Actually, that might honestly be worth studying to see if there actually is an indicator there.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
thepotatoman said:
Oh god, we need to get our shorts in on McDonalds and longs in on Chipotle right now. I can't think of a better bellwether than where a presidential candidate chooses to do their photo ops.

Actually, that might honestly be worth studying to see if there actually is an indicator there.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that McDonald's and Chipotle are owned by the same parent company, or were. Maybe I'm thinking of Panera.
 
T

Teggy

Member
I'm no fan of Christie's but we need to get past the point where simply bringing up changes to Social Security and Medicare makes you persona non grata. SS in particular is not a sustainable model and the country needs to have serious conversation about it.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Off topic and personal but I'm nervous as heck tonight. I have an interview tomorrow in midtown Manhattan for an organizing position. Any tips to make it through without a heart attack? Lol

This is my ticket out of florida.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
BertramCooper said:
I think a lot of liberals are massively overreacting on voter turnout.

I don't think Democrats should be complacent, but I don't think turnout is going to be a major problem.
Click to expand...

Worse yet, the tone they're using is really turning me off. It really reminds me of how much I hate how identity politics are perceived - specifically by white liberals. Obama's increase in black support wasn't just because he was black, it was due to demographic increases for black people. I'd imagine that the black vote will be 12-13% of the electorate again in 2016 because of that fact. Hillary will be fine. Now...will black people stand in line for 2-3 hours like they did for Obama in Ohio? Probably not. I understand and acknowledge Obama has a bond with many black people that can't be compared to anything in politics today. You could compare it to Evangelical love for W Bush, or Irish American love for JFK, I suppose. And perhaps soon: female support for Hillary. There's a pride and trust factor that cannot be overlooked...but at the same time all those voters don't simply become inactive if a candidate doesn't meet their desired identity/religion/whatever.

BTW I wouldn't let white conservatives off the hook either, given their current "Rubio can win the Hispanic vote" nonsense.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Teggy said:
I'm no fan of Christie's but we need to get past the point where simply bringing up changes to Social Security and Medicare makes you persona non grata. SS in particular is not a sustainable model and the country needs to have serious conversation about it.
Click to expand...

Remove the Social Security tax cap.

There, I just solved SS for your entire lifetime and then some. And that's assuming that SS wasn't sustainable. It currently is and always will be.

Can we move on, now?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Teggy said:
I'm no fan of Christie's but we need to get past the point where simply bringing up changes to Social Security and Medicare makes you persona non grata. SS in particular is not a sustainable model and the country needs to have serious conversation about it.
Click to expand...

The issue with SS reform isn't that it doesn't need reform, it's that reform always involves cuts instead of revenue. Cutting the cap on taxable income would do wonders. Pushing back the eligibility age is fucking bullshit. About the only suggestion I kinda like is limiting distribution based on overall worth / retirement income. As someone who's saving for retirement with a 401K, company stock options and a home loan, this stands to hurt me more than not but fuck it. I would rather we have a viable system in place than not.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
New York Times Takes On The New York Times
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

...

Big corporations like Walmart, Apple, Salesforce.com and General Electric and their executives have done the right thing by calling on officials in Indiana and Arkansas to reject “religious freedom” laws designed to give businesses and religious groups legal cover should they deny service to gay couples. But the business response to these laws raises a larger issue about the role companies play in the political process. If corporate leaders are serious in opposing discrimination, they should refuse to finance the campaigns of lawmakers who want to deny civil rights to gays and other minority groups.

...

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence.

...

In recent days, public statements from businesses like Walmart, which is based in Arkansas, have played a big part in getting the Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson, and the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, to reconsider their previous support for the religious freedom laws as passed by their Legislatures. On Thursday, lawmakers in Indiana adopted changes to clarify that its law does not authorize discrimination. And Arkansas legislators changed their law so it closely mirrors a federal law.

...

If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

...

Just issuing corporate statements against such a law is relatively easy and actually doesn’t provide protection against discrimination. If corporations and their executives care about civil rights, they should make clear that they will not donate to or support the campaigns of politicians who back such regressive legislation. They certainly shouldn’t back lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who is running for president and who has been a vocal supporter of the initial versions of the Indiana and Arkansas laws, and Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who suggested on Wednesday that gays have it pretty good in the United States because they are not executed here as they are in Iran.

Another thing businesses can do is to make clear that they want lawmakers in all states to pass anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. More than three dozen chief executives of technology companies did just that in a statement released on Wednesday.

....

Congress and members of the public who care about fair elections and clean government need to mobilize right away, a cause President Obama has said he would join. Congress should repair the presidential public finance system and create another one for Congressional elections to help ordinary Americans contribute to campaigns. It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns.

These would be important steps, but they would not be enough. The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.
Click to expand...
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
BertramCooper said:
I think a lot of liberals are massively overreacting on voter turnout.

I don't think Democrats should be complacent, but I don't think turnout is going to be a major problem.
Click to expand...
I think some people overstate Obama's personal effect on turnout.

Kerry-Gore had greater turnout than the 2012 election, and not too much less than 2008. Surely there's at least as much enthusiasm for Hillary, especially among women voters, as there was for Kerry. FOX & co. were constantly arguing that the polls were skewed in 2012 because turnout would collapse after everyone had made history in 2008 and that never really ended up happening. As long as people realize the election *matters* they'll turn out.

Also considering the voting population will be 2% less white than in 2012, Hillary doesn't have to quite match Obama's numbers among minorities.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Black Mamba said:
Remove the Social Security tax cap.

There, I just solved SS for your entire lifetime and then some. And that's assuming that SS wasn't sustainable. It currently is and always will be.

Can we move on, now?
Click to expand...

They should have a special vote where no one over 55 can participate. Those people will get the SS they were promised, but they're the ones who make noise. Let the people who will be affected by SS cutbacks actually decide what will happen to it.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Teggy said:
They should have a special vote where no one over 55 can participate. Those people will get the SS they were promised, but they're the ones who make noise. Let the people who will be affected by SS cutbacks actually decide what will happen to it.
Click to expand...

Too bad we can't just finance a trillion dollar public works program build a spaceship big enough to ship everyone over the age of 55 into space, never to return to earth. Create infrastructure jobs, cut long term entitlement spending, and reduce racism at the same time.
 
T

Teggy

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Too bad we can't just finance a trillion dollar public works program build a spaceship big enough to ship everyone over the age of 55 into space, never to return to earth. Create infrastructure jobs, cut long term entitlement spending, and reduce racism at the same time.
Click to expand...

But I'd miss my parents.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Teggy said:
They should have a special vote where no one over 55 can participate. Those people will get the SS they were promised, but they're the ones who make noise. Let the people who will be affected by SS cutbacks actually decide what will happen to it.
Click to expand...

Social Security is fine. We don't need to do anything to it. It's a completely made up issue.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Fenderputty said:
I'm kinda split on term limits. I think the main desire to start term limits is to prevent the fuckery that campaign finance causes. Strictly limit campaign finance and less people are beholden to the hand that feeds them. The whole debate over congressional experience is a good one too IMO. If a congressmen deserves a continued vote he should get it and his experience should benefit him.

I think there's a lot of play across both parties for reform. Nobody makes noise about it though. The media doesn't drive the nation into a fervor about it and the politicians aren't going to snub their funds until forced. There's no immediate reason for them to change. I think in the short terms it's mostly just risk.
Click to expand...
Term limits have an intuitive, populist appeal, but they don't address the causes of poor governance. A number of states have enacted term limits over the past 20-30 years, and the effect is usually insignificant or negative. Typically, term limits empower lobbyists, bureaucrats, and the executive branch at the expense of legislators. We should focus on making them more responsive rather than forcing them to play musical chairs.
Future PhaZe said:
got into an argument with a democrat friend who suggested that obama isn't great at politicking and hopes to see a huge makeover of the democratic party in 16

what are your thoughts poligaf? I thought he was being a little dismissive of Bams' accomplishments. I see his tenure as being quite successful.
Click to expand...
Considering that Obama has spent five years governing with a House full of questionably functional, extremist dimwits, I'd say he's done well. He's committed mistakes over the years, but that's to be expected. What does your friend expect from this huge makeover? I suspect most everything he'd hope for is already mainstream Democratic policy. Does he desire a change in style? Maybe Democrats become social democrats? That's not happening.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Teggy said:
What about the fact that they will have to start reducing payments over the next 15 years or so?
Click to expand...

We should probably be clear about what "have to" means here. My understanding is that all this means is that, the way the law is written, social security payments would fall by 25% basically overnight once the trust fund runs out, which is expected to happen a bit after 2030. I don't think there's any mechanism for reducing payments gradually short of new legislation being passed. So there's a sense in which the program is unsustainable, but almost every government program is unsustainable in the sense that taxes earmarked specifically for it aren't sufficient to fund it - most programs receive funding from general tax revenue or borrowing.

So inaction seems like a pretty reasonable strategy unless the worry is that social security will be so expensive that it can't reasonably be funded from general revenue or borrowing. The doc fix is an obvious precedent. Congress isn't going to allow social security payments to drop 25% overnight, but Congress is also likely to refrain from making substantial changes to the program unless they absolutely have to. So why not just wait it out and let Congress eventually pass a quick patch (perhaps repeated annually) shoring up social security payments from general revenue? What's the argument that this is terrible policy?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Teggy said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

They can simply stop the reductions with like 2 sentences and that's it.

If you've noticed, the gov't has run deficits for most of its modern existence. It doesn't need to do anything but do what it always does. Just pay out the payments as promised.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Gotchaye said:
We should probably be clear about what "have to" means here. My understanding is that all this means is that, the way the law is written, social security payments would fall by 25% basically overnight once the trust fund runs out, which is expected to happen a bit after 2030. I don't think there's any mechanism for reducing payments gradually short of new legislation being passed. So there's a sense in which the program is unsustainable, but almost every government program is unsustainable in the sense that taxes earmarked specifically for it aren't sufficient to fund it - most programs receive funding from general tax revenue or borrowing.

So inaction seems like a pretty reasonable strategy unless the worry is that social security will be so expensive that it can't reasonably be funded from general revenue or borrowing. The doc fix is an obvious precedent. Congress isn't going to allow social security payments to drop 25% overnight, but Congress is also likely to refrain from making substantial changes to the program unless they absolutely have to. So why not just wait it out and let Congress eventually pass a quick patch (perhaps repeated annually) shoring up social security payments from general revenue? What's the argument that this is terrible policy?
Click to expand...

All this, plus, just to remind folks, this already happened. A big part of the stimulus was zeroing out Social Security tax for several years (a good Keynesian target, since it is one of the most regressive taxes) and covering it from the general revenue pot. So we literally just got done doing this.

It happens that this plan was very unpopular among Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, apparently because one side thinks it will lead to socialism and one side thinks it will lead away from socialism, but it's clearly not infeasible. It's not even politically infeasible, given that the general public doesn't even know about it!
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Black Mamba said:
They can simply stop the reductions with like 2 sentences and that's it.

If you've noticed, the gov't has run deficits for most of its modern existence. It doesn't need to do anything but do what it always does. Just pay out the payments as promised.
Click to expand...

While this is fine and all, this will play out with the general public about as well as an additional direct tax to them would. Currently half the nation feels the debt is too high and our deficit spending is "immoral". It's constantly framed as an impending doom that will see the nation spending more on interest than on actual budget items. To the public this solution is like fixing a fire by shooting gasoline on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • 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
Top Bottom