• 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 Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tamanon said:
Besides, public opinion of the health care bill will rise after it's passed and the world doesn't end after all.

Only if it is progressive enough and only if people can begin to feel benefits soon. That is the only path the Democrats can take that will help them stem the tide in the next election cycle. If they pass what they have now, they will continue to see what they saw in Massachusetts: Democratic voters staying home.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Unexpectedly up again. (+40k, ??)
Distortions cloud what on the surface is a negative jobless claims report. Initial claims jumped 36,000 in the Jan. 16 week to 482,000, marking a third straight increase and the fifth increase in five weeks -- not a streak that points to improvement in the labor market (Jan. 9 week revised 2,000 higher to 446,000). The four-week average, at 448,250, rose 7,000 in the week to snap a long streak of uninterrupted improvement going back to August.

Now the special factors. The Labor Department said claims piled up due to short holiday staffing at state processing centers. Market News International is quoting a Labor Department analyst as saying the week's gain is "not economic, but administrative." Starting with the next report, the government analyst expects the effect to reverse making for a steady decline in coming weeks. An implication here is that short-staffing this year was greater than prior years and is not offset by seasonal adjustments. Note also that data from an unusually large number of seven states had to be estimated for the current report.
http://bloomberg.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=441986&cust=bloomberg&year=2010#top
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Tamanon said:
The issue is that if the big plan for health care gets scuttled by the filibuster, that completely changes the political calculus and gives the Republicans a plan on how to prevent any major legislation. We already know the Republicans will be against the "jobs bill" because it'll involve spending and not tax breaks.

Besides, public opinion of the health care bill will rise after it's passed and the world doesn't end after all.


Don't be so sure on that one. If enacted, it doesn't really kick in for some time. So it still exists in the ether as a great unknown until it finally gets put into place. It can still be campaigned against, even if it passes.
 

Tamanon

Banned
empty vessel said:
Only if it is progressive enough and only if people can begin to feel benefits soon. That is the only path the Democrats can take that will help them stem the tide in the next election cycle. If they pass what they have now, they will continue to see what they saw in Massachusetts: Democratic voters staying home.

Progressives make up a miniscule amount of the population currently. Massachusetts had nothing to do with healthcare.
 

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
Javaman said:
The Credit card act of 2009 is going into effect tomorrow...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009



There's quite a few other changes, but I especially like the bolded. The first should put an end to their BS practice of taking 1 or 2 days to process an electronic payment if done after noon. If I understand the second bolded part right, someone could set their max credit to just below the original max to prevent over-charges. Instead of going through with a charge it should just be declined.
They just find ways to make lost revenue by punishing the responsible card holders
 

Tamanon

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Don't be so sure on that one. If enacted, it doesn't really kick in for some time. So it still exists in the ether as a great unknown until it finally gets put into place. It can still be campaigned against, even if it passes.

Yeah but if it's already enshrined in law, it's really tough to campaign against, especially if the potential negative effects haven't occured yet(even if there's a good reason for it). I mean look how tough the Patriot Act was to campaign against, and that actually had visible negative effects. Nobody campaigns on repeals successfully.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Tamanon said:
Yeah but if it's already enshrined in law, it's really tough to campaign against


Riiiight ... like the Republicans failed to campaign against welfare or the Democrats failed to campaign against tax cuts.
 
Tamanon said:
Progressives make up a miniscule amount of the population currently. Massachusetts had nothing to do with healthcare.

That isn't correct on both fronts. Progressive health care policy is very popular. The numbers show that Coakley lost because of low Democratic turnout. Democrats would have showed up notwithstanding her lackluster campaign had the party, as a whole, given them any reason to do so. It didn't, and they didn't.

My position is that it is not a political party's responsibility to motivate voters. It is voters' responsibility to motivate political parties and move politicians. But, from the narrow perspective of a political party that wants to stay in power, the Democrats have made mistakes by ignoring their base. Republicans make those mistakes much less often (hence the solidarity of their opposition to the Obama administration, out of deference to the racism and xenophobia of their base).
 

Tamanon

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Riiiight ... like the Republicans failed to campaign against welfare or the Democrats failed to campaign against tax cuts.

Yes, but those are easier ones to campaign against, because those are giving something to someone else(not the target audience). Plus I don't think the tax cuts were successfully campaigned against.

Either way, the minor political possible hit for PASSING healthcare is nothing to the gigantic definite political hit for letting something die after it had already passed both houses, and with a sizable majority.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
bengraven said:
Fuck the Democrats, I want a new liberal party. They had their time.


This is an awesome idea. Liberals should have their own party and the tea-baggers/born again's can have their own party. Let the Democrats and Republicans merge into a third party.

Liberals and teabaggers will be able to constantly whine (because they will never be in power) and the rest of the country can have effective politicans that don't get dragged into the bullshit of appealing to their fringe bases.

Tamanon said:
Yes, but those are easier ones to campaign against, because those are giving something to someone else(not the target audience). Plus I don't think the tax cuts were successfully campaigned against.

Either way, the minor political possible hit for PASSING healthcare is nothing to the gigantic definite political hit for letting something die after it had already passed both houses, and with a sizable majority.


I guess we'll agree to disagree. I feel that HCR (as it stands) will be just as easy to campaign against as it was to campaign against welfare in the 80's and 90's. It will be an expensive program that disproportionately favors a segment of society. That's a recipe for a wedge issue.

Campaigning against tax cuts has become a staple of the Democratic party. Any proposed cut (or even a spending freeze) is portrayed as taking away something from the population at large. Often times, affecting the poor the most (for obvious reasons) which plays into the "Republicans only care about rich, white people" meme that has become the lynch pin of the modern Democratic party since the 50's. To say it is not a success is to deny the reality of one of the pillars of the party.
 
GhaleonEB said:
You had a good run, America.

Yep. With four fascists now sitting on the Supreme Court, it wasn't long in coming that they would hand the keys of the government over to corporations in plain view.
 
ToxicAdam said:
This is an awesome idea. Liberals should have their own party and the tea-baggers/born again's can have their own party. Let the Democrats and Republicans merge into a third party.

Liberals and teabaggers will be able to constantly whine (because they will never be in power) and the rest of the country can have effective politicans that don't get dragged into the bullshit of appealing to their fringe bases.

Your centrism is soooo edgy.
 

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
badcrumble said:
Welp, that about wraps it up for representative democracy in America.
I was pissed when i read it .... But is there a chance that this will make campaign finance more open? Also shouldn't this eliminate the need for lobbyists?
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
gcubed said:
maybe i'm not fully up on what the ruling means then... why not?
If the supreme court rules that a corporation can, say, spend freely on political campaigns for individals, it's effectively legal, and congress can't overturn it.

Basially, the supreme court overrules congress, as congress makes laws, while the supreme court establishes the constitutionality and legality of certain actions.

It's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of it.
 
gcubed said:
maybe i'm not fully up on what the ruling means then... why not?

I don't know shit from shit, but if I'm reading correctly the scotus labeled a corporation's money as free speech. Wouldn't it be against the law or something for the Senate to fuck around with that?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
gcubed said:
maybe i'm not fully up on what the ruling means then... why not?
What GaimeGuy said. The Court ruled that restricting corporate contributions and ability to finance and air as much ads as they want are unconstitutional.

Corporations are people too.
 
GaimeGuy said:
If the supreme court rules that a corporation can, say, spend freely on political campaigns for individals, it's effectively legal, and congress can't overturn it.

Basially, the supreme court overrules congress, as congress makes laws, while the supreme court establishes the constitutionality and legality of certain actions.

It's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of it.

The Court ruled it's a First Amendment speech protection that covers corporations because corporations are people too! (But black people still aren't, so don't even try it.) This overturned a prior decision from 1990.

Short of a Constitutional Amendment or a non-fascist Supreme Court that overturns the overturning of the 1990 decision, corporations can manipulate political elections to manufacture consent for their preferred politicians.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
Mercury Fred said:
Breaking on CNN:

Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ease restrictions on spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns.


By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

.
 

Aylinato

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Breaking on CNN:




oooo fuck you supreme court.


Way to fuck over the american people. There is no way anyone can outspend any corporation. Fuck you.



What a terrible week for politics.



Once again, fuck you supreme court of banks' interests.
 

loosus

Banned
i_am_ben said:
Time to amend your constitution, America.
Sounds good to me. I say we start by making presidential terms 2 years. That way, we can get idiots like Bush and Obama out of office sooner rather than later.
 

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
empty vessel said:
because corporations are people too!

Yup, corporations getting more rights. Meanwhile, somewhere in the not too far off future, the same SCOTUS majority rules against a minority receiving them.
 

Aylinato

Member
loosus said:
Sounds good to me. I say we start by making presidential terms 2 years. That way, we can get idiots like Bush and Obama out of office sooner rather than later.



*looks around*



who are you talking to? what are you talking about?
 

Aylinato

Member
xelios said:
Yup, corporations getting more rights. Meanwhile, somewhere in the not too far off future, the same SCOTUS majority rules against a minority receiving them.



I wonder if I could marry a corporation. The supreme court would say I could! Of course the divorce would be terrible for me.
 

cntr

Banned
loosus said:
Sounds good to me. I say we start by making presidential terms 2 years. That way, we can get idiots like Bush and Obama out of office sooner rather than later.

And this, people, is why the constitution cannot be amended − idiots like these are going to add their shit to it.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The decision needs it's own thread, by for the worst news in decades for our democracy.
 

loosus

Banned
cntrational said:
And this, people, is why the constitution cannot be amended − idiots like these are going to add their shit to it.
Yeah, you got me there. Bush and Obama probably would try to interject.
 
On the plus side, at least two requirements were upheld:

1. that any corporation which spends more than 10k on a film needs to register with the FEC.
2. IF it is a political ad is not authorized by a candidate, then the Corporation needs to let people know this in the movie.

If Thomas had his way those requirements would be struck down.
 

cntr

Banned
A Reformer At The White House

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and oversight panel chair who is fighting to prevent Congress from gutting the administration's proposed bank reforms, met today with David Axelrod, the president's senior advisor, according to my eyes and ears.

Warren, a widely admired economist, has become something of a Beltway phenom due to her obvious and unconcealed passion for reform and her disdain for the status quo. She has been critical of the administration's approach to managing the bank bailouts, and within the Treasury Department has achieved a bit of a bugbear status.

What did she and Axelrod discuss?

"There is no greater advocate for the financial interests of working people than Elizabeth," Axelrod said in an e-mail. "So I value her commitment and insights on issues like financial reform. There's never a doubt who's side she's on."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom