The New American Politics thread

[nik-]

So, I admit I haven't been paying attention to this "Fiscal Cliff" crap. Why are they going to have to deal with this in a month again?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by nik-

So, I admit I haven't been paying attention to this "Fiscal Cliff" crap. Why are they going to have to deal with this in a month again?

The reason is that the debt ceiling comes up right around then, so if they had negotiated a full deal now, the republicans could've held Obama hostage again for even more cuts because they can. So they postponed the cuts part till then so that way they don't have to deal with them being d-bags again like last time. It basically makes the Republicans bargain in good faith, something that they obviously cannot be trusted to do due to their prior actions.

[MarchHare]

Whether you've been following this story since the (GOP-) manufactured debt ceiling crisis in 2011 or if you just started paying attention now, this article should be mandatory reading to explain what's going on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fs-and-graphs/

[Daradon]

The Fiscal Cliff was a self imposed punishment of across the board tax increases and spending cuts that would go through automatically in the new year if a compromise couldn't be agreed upon. It was thought to be so severe than neither party would want to risk not coming to a deal before that.

The deal that was made yesterday was so low in tax increases and spending cuts that they will have to revisit the issue again as the deadline has been moved and not dealt with.

[Red Slinger]

I hate revisionist history but over the last few years I keep asking myself "what if Al Gore had won the election in 2000?" And the questions get even more specific:

-What if the Florida voting system wasn't so screwed up?
-What if the Florida Attorney General did the right thing instead of playing politics?
-What if Clinton had appointed more liberal judges to the Supreme Court?
-What if Al Gore was a better campaigner?

So many things went wrong in 2000. Even if just one of them went right the global economic meltdown and even possibly 2 wars (among other things) may have been avoided.

[SeeBass]

^I would think that if it was a Dem that was POTUS on 9/11 we would be looking at 3 straight Rep majorities sweeps now

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

^I would think that if it was a Dem that was POTUS on 9/11 we would be looking at 3 straight Rep majorities sweeps now

Although we do know that Al Quada was considered the number one threat to Clinton Gore and they debriefed the Bush team to that at hand over time, Bush/Chaney by all accounts completely disregarded the threat and saw Iraq/Hussain as their no 1 priority, it is possible that 9/11 wouldn't have happened under Gore.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Although we do know that Al Quada was considered the number one threat to Clinton Gore and they debriefed the Bush team to that at hand over time, Bush/Chaney by all accounts completely disregarded the threat and saw Iraq/Hussain as their no 1 priority, it is possible that 9/11 wouldn't have happened under Gore.

Sorry we already have to many "ifs"

You can't have "if" Gore won and "if" 9/11 never happened

you are dancing too close to the sun my friend.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Sorry we already have to many "ifs"

You can't have "if" Gore won and "if" 9/11 never happened

you are dancing too close to the sun my friend.

It contains no more suppositions than your statement. Actually, it contains less. Your statement was essentially this:
"if a Dem was elected" + "if 9/11 still happened" = "republicans get three straight majorities"

His statement was essentially:
"if Gore was elected" = "9/11 would not have happened"

Your statement has more suppositions in it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It contains no more suppositions than your statement. Actually, it contains less. Your statement was essentially this:
"if a Dem was elected" + "if 9/11 still happened" = "republicans get three straight majorities"

His statement was essentially:
"if Gore was elected" = "9/11 would not have happened"

Your statement has more suppositions in it.

In my defense my statement was Clinton Gore was more concerned about Al Quada therefore 9/11 might not have happened.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It contains no more suppositions than your statement. Actually, it contains less. Your statement was essentially this:
"if a Dem was elected" + "if 9/11 still happened" = "republicans get three straight majorities"

His statement was essentially:
"if Gore was elected" = "9/11 would not have happened"

Your statement has more suppositions in it.

yeah you are a big help

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

In the wise (if hokey) words of Aslan the Jesus-Lion: "No one gets to know what would have happened."

[SeeBass]

more nuggets of wisdom from Bill at Fox

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/0...-know-b/192015

[Tinordi]

Must read for the cut waste crowd:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...snotthemitsyou

This applies to the Alberta budget discussion as well.

The story is similar when looking at discretionary programmes—if there is a pure "entitlement society", it is small and poorly funded.

There is a reason politicians often do not specify which spending cuts they're talking about in budget negotiations: the popular ones (see cuts to foreign aid) don't add up. And, in general, Americans do like the programmes that primarily drive the country's fiscal imbalances—notably Social Security (20% of the budget) and Medicare (21%, taken with Medicaid and CHIP). Most of us do or will (hopefully) benefit from those programmes. That leaves us with the uncomfortable reality that we, not the jobless moochers, are the problem.

Greg Mankiw, an economist and former advisor to Mitt Romney, made clear the challenge facing America in a column two weeks ago: "Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans." My colleague notes that Jonathan Chait is confident that Americans will choose tax hikes over cuts to their own entitlements. But is that really the calculation most Americans are making? Most are still in denial over their role in America's fiscal drama. And as long as they are able to find convenient scapegoats for the country's fiscal challenges they will oppose the infliction of pain on themselves. Someone needs to tell these people, it's not them, it's you.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Must read for the cut waste crowd:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...snotthemitsyou

This applies to the Alberta budget discussion as well.

I think 9 out of 10 Americans think things can and should be fixed with no tax increases and by cutting social programs alone. Social programs that they themselves, nor anyone they know would ever need.

Whenever I've suggested to an American that tax deductions on mortgage payments is crazy, they justify it, by saying taking it away would effect the economy adversely. When it gets down to it they think anything that would effect them personally would effect the economy adversely so they don't want it.

They only want things that effect the poor, or as Americans like to call them, the lazy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I think 9 out of 10 Americans think things can and should be fixed with no tax increases and by cutting social programs alone. Social programs that they themselves, nor anyone they know would ever need.

Whenever I've suggested to an American that tax deductions on mortgage payments is crazy, they justify it, by saying taking it away would effect the economy adversely. When it gets down to it they think anything that would effect them personally would effect the economy adversely so they don't want it.

They only want things that effect the poor, or as Americans like to call them, the lazy.

actually, the majority of american's aren't opposed to tax increases. You can take either the mandate obama received as proof, or polling data that shows the same thing.

Americans are pretty overwhelmingly supportive of tax increases on the wealthy and super wealthy as well.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

actually, the majority of american's aren't opposed to tax increases. You can take either the mandate obama received as proof, or polling data that shows the same thing.

Americans are pretty overwhelmingly supportive of tax increases on the wealthy and super wealthy as well.

Guess I got my notions from the wrong demographic then. Which is entirely possible as none of them would have voted for Obama.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Guess I got my notions from the wrong demographic then. Which is entirely possible as none of them would have voted for Obama.

Most Americans want President Obama and congressional Republicans to compromise on a budget agreement, though they, too, are unhappy about the options that would avert the “fiscal cliff,” according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Most Americans oppose slashing spending on Medicaid and the military, as well as raising the age for Medicare eligibility and slowing the increase of Social Security benefits, all of which appear to be on the table in negotiations. Majorities call each of these items “unacceptable.”

A clear majority of Americans, 74 percent, say they would tolerate Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000, but neither side in the talks thinks that alone would generate enough revenue to bridge the budget gap.

Raising taxes is one of the ONLY things Americans largely agree on, that's how much of a non-issue it is.

edit: link http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ding-cuts-not/

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well it looks like Republicans want to take gerrymandering to a whole new level

After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-elect...-election.html

That's right, don't become more politically appealing, just rig more districts so you can win. The GOP is doomed if this is their 2016 strategy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Cory Booker, the guy can do pretty much anything

While out working on a story in freezing New Jersey, a reporter and camera crew from New York station WABC-TV noticed a dog left out in the cold.

Hours later, when they passed by again and saw that the dog was still outside, they decided to take the issue to Twitter, and the mayor.

Reporter Toni Yates tweeted N.J. Mayor Cory Booker and WABC. In the tweet, she applauded Newark for its heat help, but added, “Make pet owners get their dogs out of the cold.”

In another tweet, she wrote that she asked the block captain to “do something, call someone,” but doubted he would.

People began re-tweeting the messages, and soon enough the mayor was on the scene with the shivering dog.

“This is brutal weather. This dog is shaking really bad and you just can’t leave your dogs out here on a day like this and go away and expect them to be OK,” the mayor told WABC. “Hypothermia on any animal including a human animal will set in pretty quickly. So this is very sad. You can just feel the dog shaking pretty badly.”

Booker picked up the dog and put it into the back of a police car.

“If you’d crank up that heat, I’d appreciate it,” he told the police officer.

Booker, 43, called the dog’s owner and told them it was unacceptable to leave the dog outside in the freezing weather, WABC reported.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...-politics.html

He'll make for a good president some day no doubt.