• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sirpopopop

Member
In other news, Michelle Rhee continues to prove why she's someone that should be completely ignored in any conversation about education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/e...s-low-ratings-on-school-policies.html?hp&_r=0

The two highest-ranking states, Florida and Louisiana, received B-minus ratings. The states that were given F’s included Alabama, California, Iowa and New Hampshire. New Jersey and New York received D grades, and Connecticut a D-plus. The ratings, which focused purely on state laws and policies, did not take into account student test scores.
Click to expand...

Yes - the two highest ranking states were Florida & Louisiana. Florida's performance rankings aren't so bad. Louisiana on the other hand is one of the worst in the country. What kind of idiot could possibly give them the highest rating?

Oh right, someone who is more focused on an agenda rather than actually educating students.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
Well, this was a pleasant surprise.

So yesterday I made a blog post regarding an article I read on the National Review that argued that Democrats Raise Taxes on Poor to Subsidize Millionaires. (seriously)

Turns out that to my surprise, the writer responded this morning to me. He's actually done this once before, but I thought that was a fluke. Seems he's stalking me now.

In any case, I feel like a baller.

1271824064_little-girl-parking-bike.gif
Click to expand...

I responded in the comments.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Sirpopopop said:
In other news, Michelle Rhee continues to prove why she's someone that should be completely ignored in any conversation about education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/e...s-low-ratings-on-school-policies.html?hp&_r=0



Yes - the two highest ranking states were Florida & Louisiana. Florida's performance rankings aren't so bad. Louisiana on the other hand is one of the worst in the country. What kind of idiot could possibly give them the highest rating?

Oh right, someone who is more focused on an agenda rather than actually educating students.
Click to expand...
As a resident of Florida, I can tell you that any program that gives us high grades in education must be ass-backwards, because we dumb.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' "

I am talking to Mr. Boehner in his office on the second floor of the Capitol, 72 hours after the historic House vote to take America off the so-called fiscal cliff by making permanent the Bush tax cuts on most Americans, but also to raise taxes on high earners. In the interim, Mr. Boehner had been elected to serve his second term as speaker of the House. Throughout our hourlong conversation, as is his custom, he takes long drags on one cigarette after another.

Mr. Boehner looks battle weary from five weeks of grappling with the White House. He's frustrated that the final deal failed to make progress toward his primary goal of "making a down payment on solving the debt crisis and setting a path to get real entitlement reform." At one point he grimly says: "I need this job like I need a hole in the head."

The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"—he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that."

...

Mr. Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, "What am I getting?" and the president replied: "You don't get anything for it. I'm taking that anyway.

...

That reluctance explains why Mr. Obama originally agreed with the Boehner proposal to raise the retirement age for Medicare, the speaker says, but then "pulled back. He admitted in meetings that he couldn't sell things to his own members. But he didn't even want to try.

Mr. Boehner is frustrated that Republicans were portrayed by the press as dogmatic and unyielding in these talks. "I'm the guy who put revenues on the table the day after the election," he says. "And I'm the guy who put the [income] threshold at a million dollars. Then we agreed to let the rates go up, on dividends, capital gains as a way of trying to move them into a deal. . . . But we could never get him to step up," Mr. Boehner says with a shrug. Negotiations with the White House ended in stalemate when "it became painfully obvious that the president won't cut spending."

...

"Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad."

...

The debt bill is "one point of leverage," Mr. Boehner says, but he also hedges, noting that it is "not the ultimate leverage." He says that Republicans won't back down from the so-called Boehner rule: that every dollar of raising the debt ceiling will require one dollar of spending cuts over the next 10 years. Rather than forcing a deal, the insistence may result in a series of monthly debt-ceiling increases.

...

"It wasn't until literally last week that the White House brought up replacing the sequester," Mr. Boehner says. "They said, 'We can't have the sequester.' They were always counting on us to bring this to the table.

Mr. Boehner says he has significant Republican support, including GOP defense hawks, on his side for letting the sequester do its work. "I got that in my back pocket," the speaker says. He is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."

That leverage, he reasons, is what will force Democrats to the table on entitlements. "Think of it this way. We already have an agreement [capping] discretionary spending for 10 years. And we're already in our second year of it. This whole discussion on the budget over the next several months is going to be about these entitlements."
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Obviously I cut through a lot.

lol Boehner thinks the sequester is leverage for the GOP? If the GOP are willing to take the defense cuts, I'm fine with letting the sequester kick in. I don't want all those other cuts, but it won't be worth the cuts to entitlements if that's what they want.

It seems like even Boehner realizes the lack of leverage from the debt ceiling. The game is up, there. This whole "raise it for a month" thing is just stupid and the optics will be bad if they do that.

They're basically relying on Obama not wanting the discretionary sequester cuts enough to cave.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Black Mamba said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Obviously I cut through a lot.

lol Boehner thinks the sequester is leverage for the GOP? If the GOP are willing to take the defense cuts, I'm fine with letting the sequester kick in. I don't want all those other cuts, but it won't be worth the cuts to entitlements if that's what they want.

It seems like even Boehner realizes the lack of leverage from the debt ceiling. The game is up, there. This whole "raise it for a month" thing is just stupid and the optics will be bad if they do that.

They're basically relying on Obama not wanting the discretionary sequester cuts enough to cave.
Click to expand...

Reads to me like Boehner just realized getting his version of things out there might help him politically.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
It's very hard to believe Boehner has enough republicans to let the sequester happen; it, like the debt ceiling, will depend entirely on whether he allows a vote or not. Senate republicans sure aren't happy about it, and enough democrats will raise a stink too that something will be done to prevent the cuts.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
watershed said:
Reads to me like Boehner just realized getting his version of things out there might help him politically.
Click to expand...

on the fiscal cliff stuff yeah. Too little too late, though.

For 1 month is sounded like Obama was conceding things just to make a deal and GOP wouldn't play.

We don't know what really went down and stuff, but in the end Boehner's version took to long to get out there.

And now that Obama is seen as having compromised (despite no spending cuts) it will be too hard to capture the narrative.

But it is interesting to see him believe his leverage isn't in the debt ceiling but rather the sequester. Like I said, they will cave on the debt ceiling. He's basically implied it. But how much of what he says about the sequester is true versus posturing?
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Black Mamba said:
But it is interesting to see him believe his leverage isn't in the debt ceiling but rather the sequester. Like I said, they will cave on the debt ceiling. He's basically implied it. But how much of what he says about the sequester is true versus posturing?
Click to expand...

I suppose there's some reason to think he's being sincere on the sequester. He apparently thought it made sense not to vote on the Sandy aid bill because it was spending; he may think that the craziest people in his caucus, who you might expect to be most in favor of military spending, will actually be against doing away with any kind of spending cut. Which is not to say that he's correct, since he hasn't been very good at guessing which way these people will jump lately.

My worry with the sequester is more that if the Republicans pass a bill through the House getting rid of only the military cuts, they can then pressure the Senate with "let's not play politics with our soldiers' safety", and there are enough moderate/conservative Democrats that actually don't want those cuts in the Senate that it could be passed. I'd hope Obama would veto, but I'm not sure.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_mainlol Boehner thinks the sequester is leverage for the GOP? If the GOP are willing to take the defense cuts, I'm fine with letting the sequester kick in.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. Slash that defense budget, get out of Afghanistan, make some entitlement cuts and we will have a good lean budget. If that is too much cutting then build some infrastructure or other such domestic stimulative spending to get people working domestically and provides returns to the people.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Black Mamba said:
on the fiscal cliff stuff yeah. Too little too late, though.

For 1 month is sounded like Obama was conceding things just to make a deal and GOP wouldn't play.

We don't know what really went down and stuff, but in the end Boehner's version took to long to get out there.

And now that Obama is seen as having compromised (despite no spending cuts) it will be too hard to capture the narrative.

But it is interesting to see him believe his leverage isn't in the debt ceiling but rather the sequester. Like I said, they will cave on the debt ceiling. He's basically implied it. But how much of what he says about the sequester is true versus posturing?
Click to expand...

Has to be a lot of posturing. The sequester would eliminate a lot of pork and jobs from multiple districts, especially in the south. Virginia would get hit big time, so I just can't see Cantor sitting around doing nothing. Likewise Virginia has two democrat senators who won't sit by and let their state get slammed. There will be bipartisan uproar over it, not just from the war hawks but from congressmen more concerned about the jobs the military creates in their states.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Ether_Snake said:
Is Obama choosing Hagel as secretary of defense just to have the Republicans argue about Israel and Iran? Could be a way to make people tire of hearing about that, and at the same time make the Republicans look like a bunch of whiners, again.
Click to expand...

It's a cabinet position. Do you think Barack Obama thinks so little of his duties and his Cabinet that he would use one of the positions simply to troll the Republicans?

Obama isn't the GOP or CNN. He doesn't think of politics as a circus act.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Giant Panda said:
There are markets for nearly every health-related product or service. I seriously do not understand what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...

One of the basic features of a market is that its participants choose to partake in it willingly, and can leave it at any time.

You can't make the rational decision to not partake in health care. You get care, or you die. That's not a "choice."

And even then, the costs of your birth and death have associated health costs to your family and society (financial and non-financial costs).

It's not a market. It can't be a market.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
RustyNails said:
Does def sec nomination need to get confirmed by both the chambers? And how many votes needed?
Click to expand...

Civics 101:

All Cabinet members are nominated by the President and approved or rejected by the Senate via a simple majority.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Oblivion said:
Both chambers? I believe it only needs the senate, just like any other Sec. position, and it needs 60 votes.
Click to expand...

Okay, people need to stop saying that you need 60 votes to pass a bill in the senate.


In the Senate, you need 50+1 votes to pass a bill.
The Senate defines its own procedures (as does the House of Representatives).

Legislation must be presented on the floor of the Senate before it can be voted on (obviously: You can't vote on something that hasn't been brought before you).

In the Senate, there are two procedural votes called "cloture" which formally open the floor to debate on a bill or appointment and formally end debate. After the second cloture vote, the vote to pass or reject the legislation/appointment occurs.


Cloture votes require 60 votes... In other words, at least 60 senators are needed to allow the legislation the time of day to be formally discussed on the floor, and at least 60 senators are needed to close discussions. You can't vote on legislation that hasn't been brought before the senate, and you can't vote on legislation which is still formally considered open for debate.

Obstructionist political opportunists use this to their advantage by denying cloture to legislation they oppose. That way, even if 59 senators and the vice president support legislation, the 41 opposed/undecided can simply deny cloture, so that the legislation can't be brought to a vote.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
GaimeGuy said:
Okay, people need to stop saying that you need 60 votes to pass a bill in the senate.


In the Senate, you need 50+1 votes to pass a bill.
The Senate defines its own procedures (as does the House of Representatives).

Legislation must be presented on the floor of the Senate before it can be voted on (obviously: You can't vote on something that hasn't been brought before you).

In the Senate, there are two procedural votes called "cloture" which formally open the floor to debate on a bill or appointment and formally end debate. After the second cloture vote, the vote to pass or reject the legislation/appointment occurs.


Cloture votes require 60 votes... In other words, at least 60 senators are needed to allow the legislation the time of day to be formally discussed on the floor, and at least 60 senators are needed to close discussions. You can't vote on legislation that hasn't been brought before the senate, and you can't vote on legislation which is still formally considered open for debate.

Obstructionist political opportunists use this to their advantage by denying cloture to legislation they oppose. That way, even if 59 senators and the vice president support legislation, the 41 opposed/undecided can simply deny cloture, so that the legislation can't be brought to a vote.
Click to expand...

So you still need 60 votes then?
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Oblivion said:
Yes, and I read it again. I'm not sure if your post was in reference to most bills in the senate or for cabinet appointments.
Click to expand...

Both.

You bring something to the floor for debate. You end the debate. Then you vote.


Steps 1 and 2 require 60. Step 3 requires 50+1.

The exceptions are when ratifying international treaties or proposing a constitutionl amendment to send to the states for ratification (requires 2/3rds approval in step 3)

The process is different when modifying the senate's rules at the beginning of a congressional term
 
G

gcubed

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Both.

You bring something to the floor for debate. You end the debate. Then you vote.


Steps 1 and 2 require 60. Step 3 requires 50+1.

The exceptions are when ratifying international treaties or proposing a constitutionl amendment to send to the states for ratification (requires 2/3rds approval in step 3)

The process is different when modifying the senate's rules at the beginning of a congressional term
Click to expand...

With the way congress currently operates you are just playing a semantics game. 60 is the new 51
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
gcubed said:
With the way congress currently operates you are just playing a semantics game. 60 is the new 51
Click to expand...

I am calling it out for what it is: A perversion of the democratic process by abusing and exploiting a procedural loophole. You on the other hand are simply accepting it as the norm (in every sense of the word. IE: True Neutral).

Corruption isn't going to go away if you just accept it.
 
G

gcubed

Member
GaimeGuy said:
I am calling it out for what it is: A perversion of the democratic process by abusing and exploiting a procedural loophole. You on the other hand are simply accepting it as the norm (in every sense of the word. IE: True Neutral).

Corruption isn't going to go away if you just accept it.
Click to expand...

i'm not arguing with you about it being corrupt. I'm just arguing the current reality.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
watershed said:
John Brennan to be nominated to lead the CIA:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-to-nominate-john-brennan-to-head-cia-85824.html?hp=t1

I don't know much about him but I like him whenever I see him speak on tv and he seems to work well with the president. So if all goes well for Obama we will have Kerry at state, Hagel and defense, and Brennan at the CIA.
Click to expand...
THREE OLD WHITE GUYS

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rnc-spox-mocks-obamas-nomination-of-3-old

lolipops
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Also, with the current makeup of the armed forces leadership/intelligence community, it'd be REALLY tough to find a good female Sec of Defense/CIA chief. That's something that will only come with time.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
watershed said:
John Brennan to be nominated to lead the CIA:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-to-nominate-john-brennan-to-head-cia-85824.html?hp=t1

I don't know much about him but I like him whenever I see him speak on tv and he seems to work well with the president. So if all goes well for Obama we will have Kerry at state, Hagel and defense, and Brennan at the CIA.
Click to expand...

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/07/the-seduction-of-john-brennans-moral-rectitude/

I suppose the best thing one could say is that Brennan is good at what he does, albeit that what he does is rather revolting/breeds terrorism
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Tamanon said:
Also, with the current makeup of the armed forces leadership/intelligence community, it'd be REALLY tough to find a good female Sec of Defense/CIA chief. That's something that will only come with time.
Click to expand...
Are you saying hillary clinton will make the worst sec def? Yes you are
 
K

kehs

Banned
Black Mamba said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Obviously I cut through a lot.

lol Boehner thinks the sequester is leverage for the GOP? If the GOP are willing to take the defense cuts, I'm fine with letting the sequester kick in. I don't want all those other cuts, but it won't be worth the cuts to entitlements if that's what they want.

It seems like even Boehner realizes the lack of leverage from the debt ceiling. The game is up, there. This whole "raise it for a month" thing is just stupid and the optics will be bad if they do that.

They're basically relying on Obama not wanting the discretionary sequester cuts enough to cave.
Click to expand...

What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' "
Click to expand...

If he was actually surprised, this is just further proof that Obama and his team are running circles around the goppers in the House.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Dax01 said:
Obama's absolutely right that our long term problem, financially for the federal government, is healthcare spending.
Click to expand...

Yep, as the Baby Boomers continue to age, we'll be caring for more individuals for a longer period of time as they live longer than decades prior. Absolutely no measure of trying to respond to this in terms of policy is going to be politically popular. The Affordable Care Act makes a huge effort to encourage more people who are reaching elderly ages to look into preventative care, which could lower some costs, but ultimately we either see a reduction in the benefits that people receive from the federal government or we see taxes go up to cover the rising costs.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I'd support means testing Medicare for those who make more. The argument that this would weaken the public's opinion on Medicare (as has happened with Medicaid) doesn't make sense to me. I don't support raising the eligibility age though, and would rather lower it.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I wonder though, do we really have a long term problem, or is it more that we have a large balloon of baby boomers all needing healthcare at the same time that will settle and flatten a bit more once they all die off. I mean relatively speaking of course.
 
C

codhand

Member
RDreamer said:
I wonder though, do we really have a long term problem, or is it more that we have a large balloon of baby boomers all needing healthcare at the same time that will settle and flatten a bit more once they all die off. I mean relatively speaking of course.
Click to expand...

Our health care system is totally broken. We need to provide care per patient rather than per procedure, but that creates the problem of quantity of care by DR.'s over quality of care. Add to that prescription drugs whose goal is to not actually cure you, and you have a one huge mess.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
RDreamer said:
I wonder though, do we really have a long term problem, or is it more that we have a large balloon of baby boomers all needing healthcare at the same time that will settle and flatten a bit more once they all die off. I mean relatively speaking of course.
Click to expand...

You're assuming they will die off at the same rates & times that previous generations did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
910
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
726
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom