Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Oh my god AB. You're killing me with that one.
-
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 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Oh my god AB. You're killing me with that one.
Wow, sounds exactly like my dad.
We never discuss politics anymore, because he is incapable of having a civil discussion; so I never even try. He is a complete right-wing cheerleader that listens to Rush religiously, not to mention subscribing to his magazine and buying his tea. He is quite reasonable with things that don't involve right/left/politics.
Even my mostly moderate/pragmatic views are too weak and liberal for him. Its quite frustrating.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
empty vessel
Member
I hear more and more stories like this about families getting torn apart by politics. It happened to my own as the tea party movement was at its apex, although thankfully only with respect to extended and not immediate family. It's caused by the ever increasing political radicalization of the right wing. Members of my extended family, who were always somewhat conservative but otherwise rational, thoughtful people, have turned into totally irrational bigots over the last several years. I am very thankful that my parents, who had previously been conservative but had already started becoming more liberal in the early 2000s, escaped this radicalization, as I don't know how I would have handled it.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Well, that is what makes things funny heh.
The point wasn't that the right has a monopoly on willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance- it's that the problem is so prevalent on the right, that it is a phenomenon which is causing considerable damage to our politics.
Exactly why I asked. The anger, and his trolling, you describe is very common among the Fox News/AM radio crowd. My FIL is also part of that crowd, and my wife told me he was constantly angry when she was growing up. This behavior is the exact intended effect of their media consumption.
But I'd bet if you asked him if he was "happy", he'd say yes. I'd be shocked if he said no.
Also, if this is true:
then you're doing your sister a disservice here:
That's the great thing about facts. One doesn't have to agree with facts for them to be true. Your dad was/is wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Don't try to be CNN to your sister, and pretend both sides are valid. Your dad was wrong, and your sister needs to know why.
Angry Fork
Member
Not sure if posted yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqcSdvpzs3A
So damn cringe inducing. Good grief this guy is so awkward/out of touch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqcSdvpzs3A
So damn cringe inducing. Good grief this guy is so awkward/out of touch.
speculawyer
Member
There is Rush Limbaugh branded tea? LOL.
I was a less "CNN" with her than that, actually. Here's what I said above it all:
The bit about agreeing with me was more about my last paragraph where I said I thought Obamacare wasn't the correct solution, that a Medicare for all sort of thing was better, though she may have taken it a different way, I suppose. But I did try and really say that what I did was research and these are the facts I found.
Yes
And holy shit you need to go to that website. I've never done it before, but it's goddamned hilarious.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
WOW! I'll be damned, but this is one of the best explanations I've seen when it comes to pushing aside facts and believing in what you want to be true. And it's amazing.
Yes, unfortunately.
I refuse to drink tea with the face of a vitriol spewing hatemonger on its packaging.
As for the anger thing, my dad also gets very 'angry' about political junk; of course if a 'side' hasn't picked it up, he is quite reasonable to discuss it with. As soon as its affiliated with right or left, he hates or loves it.
/smh, ridiculous. I can't believe he sends money to this guy. Love the part about 'merican exceptionalism.
Souldriver
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
SCANDAL OBAMA MADE UP CHARACTERS IN HIS BOOK
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t-how-drudge-and-politico-blew-it.php?ref=fpa
Oh wait, he admitted in the preface of the first edition that some of the characters were composites? Too bad we already reported it!
Goddamn fucking morons.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t-how-drudge-and-politico-blew-it.php?ref=fpa
Oh wait, he admitted in the preface of the first edition that some of the characters were composites? Too bad we already reported it!
Goddamn fucking morons.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I love how Drudge took it off his front page lol
It's still there. It's the first thing in the middle column after the weird jumble of stuff right at the top. (The design of this site drives me bonkers...) It's right above "ASKS: 'Why black people so angry all the time'..." and "OBAMA: 'That was an example of compression'..."
Zero Hero
Member
I just prefer Constructive or Destructive. You can have a good idea regardless if there is a D or R next to your name.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Best political cartoon or best political cartoon?
This is so bad.
*sits there grinning, rocking, hands clenched while being talked about being funny and wild*
Kinda pathetic.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Anne seems very nice but there's a problem when your spouse is the most marketable/likable thing about you politically. I don't see how anyone could watch that and think "oh he's a regular dude, just a bit tight. It'll come out soon!"
I'm guessing we'll see more and more of these dual interviews
I'm guessing we'll see more and more of these dual interviews
"Who let the dawg out? Wood-wood."
electricpirate
Member
I remember posting on this whole Bin Laden thing back during 2008, back then I said Obama's position wasn't really controversial, and that most presidents would make the same call. More it was a statement on the hypocrisy of his opponents and their surrogates (well, except for Biden who apparently was still against the raid). Looking at that Ramirez comment, and the pounding Romney is taking, it looks like I'm still right.
BotoxAgent
Member
Republicans are so desperate for a scandal from Obama right now, it's hilarious. They got nothing. lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This isn't good when he's running against one of the most coolest (in the eyes of many younger voters) that we've seen in a while.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
On the top panel who is the guy in red and the guy right across Obama?
So Falk is dead huh?
Souldriver
Member
Chavez and Ahmadinejad?
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I think it is Castro, Lil' Kim, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad. Castro remains isolated, Kim is dead (but the regime persists), Chavez is dying and will hopefully lose the next election, and Ahmadinejad is under harsh sanctions. Too bad the original didn't have Ghadaffi in there for some good laughs.
Again, as with Romney's argument about excursions into Pakistan, this is a defensible argument; although, it's laughable to see it proffered by Republicans. The most prudent method would conjoin strategic benchmarks with temporal constraints. Otherwise, you invite an interminable engagement. Of course, that's probably why Romney supports them. It removes agency from the calculus. Essentially, it absolves leaders from making difficult choices.
empty vessel
Member
Hopefully not. And I don't anticipate he will. Polls show him leading.
Yeah I am finding it amazing that everyday it seems they have absolutely nothing but 2008 ideas. I mean they lost that election, deal with it lol
Black Republican
Member
they probably want a wright pop up again
They're even bringing back the "he's a celebrity" attack line.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/portman-goes-after-obama-as-celebrity
Scraping at the bottom of the barrel there.
Anyone else been watching the Frontline special on Power, Money and Wall St.? Overall it was pretty good. The first three hours are basically a distilled version of some of the best reporting on the subject, like Giant Pool of Money, Too Big to Fail, and Confidence Men. I particularly liked the 4th part, which got more into the culture of Wall St. Strongly recommended in general, but for anyone who has been following this stuff closely over the year might be worth just skipping to part 4.
Something Wicked
Member
By the 1970s, the rate of new industry creation slowed compared to the previous decades. With that slower rate, combined with high taxes, high energy prices, high overall inflation, and over reaching of power by unions, the US economy tanked. As much as some of you want to downplay the sharp economic turn around by the mid-80s, it did happen and it happened via pro-business government reforms.
Anyway, my overall point is high taxes will not necessarily stagnate an economy with very high rates of technological and new industry growth. However, if that growth slows, high taxes will limit current industries from growing, and thus stagnate the economy. Also, the rates of technological/new industry growth of the '50s/'60s won't be seen again by modern societies for quite a long-time. Therefore, as I said before, governments of developed economic must tread carefully in the coming years.
I already said the greater size of the company, the more important the decisions of the figureheads become. The value of CEOs to the average work has grown non-linearly over the years. Also, the deviation happened in the US more than other countries is because the US has many, many more large companies and most of the largest companies in the world. Being the economic leader by such a large margin during the mid-20th century allowed US companies to expand throughout the world first- which this globalization accelerated during the '80s and into the '90s. Collectively, those factors demonstrate why average US CEO pay is not and should not be what is was before.
Now, does every single CEO in this country deserve his/her paycheck? Probably not. And those CEOs survive with higher federal and state income taxes? Of course, but be careful of the size and timing of the rate hikes. However, even directly redistributing much of their paychecks to rest of their employees won't be nearly enough to have any noticeable change in the living standards of the employees. And, large income taxes on just the 0.1% won't be enough to allow for any sizable US budget increases or deficit reductions.
You need to find new scapegoats for the current ills of middle and working class America. But then again, I suppose it doesn't matter to you- lawyers will always make money in the US.
So, about that that N.C constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage:
The transcript of her attempt to clean up that statement is in the link, and includes the following exchanges:
I mean just wow. For a moment we got a peek behind the curtain, and it's even uglier than I thought.
[insert Farnsworth meme here]
The Librarian
Banned
Ah. Of course. The unions.
Goddamn, spit my drink there. Damn you, Tim.
Sirpopopop
Member
Except being left or right has nothing at all to do with being D or R.
There are many Ds who could be classified as right-wingers. (See: Heath Shuler.)
speculawyer
Member
I'm not sure which is worse . . . the racial aspect or the thought that banning gay marriage would produce more babies. And does she think white people are more likely to be gay than other people?
It is like a cascade of stupidity.
Hey . . . if you want more babies then maybe you should be for gay marriage. It will make it easier for them to adopt and to get surrogate mothers. Of course they'll all be gay babies though, right? ;-)
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Will employers dump health care coverage if they can save $422 Billion over 10 years?
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 09:00 AM ET, 05/02/2012
In the health reform debate, theres a lot of crystal-ball gazing about what employers will do when, in 2014, tens of millions of Americans become eligible for publicly-subsidized health insurance. Will they continue paying for workers health plans, as theyve done for decades? Or, will they save a lot of cash, and let the government fill that role?
A new report, out Tuesday from Republicans on the House Ways and Means
Committee, estimates that Americas 100 largest companies could save a collective $422 billion over a decade.
Financially, theres a lot at stake. If workers use public subsidies at a higher rate than expected, the cost of Obamacare could skyrocket. So the looming question is: What will these large companies do? To understand that and game out whether large companies will, in fact, dump their employees in droves its worth understanding why employers offer insurance now, and how that might change under the Affordable Care Act.
Companies currently offer health benefits to stay competitive. A robust health plan can woo potential employees especially the 122 million Americans with preexisting conditions who insurers can deny on the individual market. Theres also a huge financial incentive: Employers get to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, making a dollar of health-care benefits work more than a dollar of wages. Theres also a wellness component: If workers are healthier, the thinking goes, theyll be more productive with fewer sick days.
There is one big reason, however, not to offer insurance: The cost. The average employer-based insurance plan costs more than $15,000 a year, and has increased more than 112 percent over the past decade.
Rising health-care costs generally underlie predictions of employer dumping: Why bother paying $15,000 for an insurance policy when the penalty for not doing so is a paltry $2,000? Moreover, the insurance market in 2014 will look a lot different than what we have right now: The government will subsidize insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line. Insurers will have to accept all customers. The individual market, in short, will become a much more hospitable place.
But the best experience we have suggests that employers wont drop coverage. That comes from Massachusetts experience under Romneycare, which, like the federal law, provided subsidized insurance for low-income Americans. There, employers have continued to offer coverage at the same level they did prior to the reform law.
What gives? To start, all those benefits of offering insurance the competitive, financial and wellness aspects dont disappear in 2014. Companies can still get more bang for their buck offering compensation as health insurance rather than wages.
The insurance packages that employers offer now are more comprehensive than whats expected on the exchange. The government subsidies, meanwhile, are less generous: An employee who gets dumped into the exchange can expect to pay 79 to 125 percent more in premiums, according to an analysis by consulting firm Lockton That means employers will still have a competitive advantage from offering insurance rather than sending workers to publicly subsidized coverage.
Right now, employers do not face any penalty for not offering coverage: Theres no $2,000 fine from the government, as there will be in 2014. But the vast majority of them still do, even as costs keep rising, mostly because of other benefits they reap.
########################
This is from an article written today. I thought it'll help RDreamer some more too. I wonder if his dad realizes that his company gets a tax write off for offering insurance and that incentive to businesses isn't changing in 2014.
There's also no reason to dump their employees because it'll make his company less competitive among others in the area.
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 09:00 AM ET, 05/02/2012
In the health reform debate, theres a lot of crystal-ball gazing about what employers will do when, in 2014, tens of millions of Americans become eligible for publicly-subsidized health insurance. Will they continue paying for workers health plans, as theyve done for decades? Or, will they save a lot of cash, and let the government fill that role?
A new report, out Tuesday from Republicans on the House Ways and Means
Committee, estimates that Americas 100 largest companies could save a collective $422 billion over a decade.
Financially, theres a lot at stake. If workers use public subsidies at a higher rate than expected, the cost of Obamacare could skyrocket. So the looming question is: What will these large companies do? To understand that and game out whether large companies will, in fact, dump their employees in droves its worth understanding why employers offer insurance now, and how that might change under the Affordable Care Act.
Companies currently offer health benefits to stay competitive. A robust health plan can woo potential employees especially the 122 million Americans with preexisting conditions who insurers can deny on the individual market. Theres also a huge financial incentive: Employers get to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, making a dollar of health-care benefits work more than a dollar of wages. Theres also a wellness component: If workers are healthier, the thinking goes, theyll be more productive with fewer sick days.
There is one big reason, however, not to offer insurance: The cost. The average employer-based insurance plan costs more than $15,000 a year, and has increased more than 112 percent over the past decade.
Rising health-care costs generally underlie predictions of employer dumping: Why bother paying $15,000 for an insurance policy when the penalty for not doing so is a paltry $2,000? Moreover, the insurance market in 2014 will look a lot different than what we have right now: The government will subsidize insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line. Insurers will have to accept all customers. The individual market, in short, will become a much more hospitable place.
But the best experience we have suggests that employers wont drop coverage. That comes from Massachusetts experience under Romneycare, which, like the federal law, provided subsidized insurance for low-income Americans. There, employers have continued to offer coverage at the same level they did prior to the reform law.
What gives? To start, all those benefits of offering insurance the competitive, financial and wellness aspects dont disappear in 2014. Companies can still get more bang for their buck offering compensation as health insurance rather than wages.
The insurance packages that employers offer now are more comprehensive than whats expected on the exchange. The government subsidies, meanwhile, are less generous: An employee who gets dumped into the exchange can expect to pay 79 to 125 percent more in premiums, according to an analysis by consulting firm Lockton That means employers will still have a competitive advantage from offering insurance rather than sending workers to publicly subsidized coverage.
Right now, employers do not face any penalty for not offering coverage: Theres no $2,000 fine from the government, as there will be in 2014. But the vast majority of them still do, even as costs keep rising, mostly because of other benefits they reap.
########################
This is from an article written today. I thought it'll help RDreamer some more too. I wonder if his dad realizes that his company gets a tax write off for offering insurance and that incentive to businesses isn't changing in 2014.
There's also no reason to dump their employees because it'll make his company less competitive among others in the area.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Will employers dump health care coverage if they can save $422 Billion over 10 years?
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 09:00 AM ET, 05/02/2012
In the health reform debate, theres a lot of crystal-ball gazing about what employers will do when, in 2014, tens of millions of Americans become eligible for publicly-subsidized health insurance. Will they continue paying for workers health plans, as theyve done for decades? Or, will they save a lot of cash, and let the government fill that role?
A new report, out Tuesday from Republicans on the House Ways and Means
Committee, estimates that Americas 100 largest companies could save a collective $422 billion over a decade.
Financially, theres a lot at stake. If workers use public subsidies at a higher rate than expected, the cost of Obamacare could skyrocket. So the looming question is: What will these large companies do? To understand that and game out whether large companies will, in fact, dump their employees in droves its worth understanding why employers offer insurance now, and how that might change under the Affordable Care Act.
Companies currently offer health benefits to stay competitive. A robust health plan can woo potential employees especially the 122 million Americans with preexisting conditions who insurers can deny on the individual market. Theres also a huge financial incentive: Employers get to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, making a dollar of health-care benefits work more than a dollar of wages. Theres also a wellness component: If workers are healthier, the thinking goes, theyll be more productive with fewer sick days.
There is one big reason, however, not to offer insurance: The cost. The average employer-based insurance plan costs more than $15,000 a year, and has increased more than 112 percent over the past decade.
Rising health-care costs generally underlie predictions of employer dumping: Why bother paying $15,000 for an insurance policy when the penalty for not doing so is a paltry $2,000? Moreover, the insurance market in 2014 will look a lot different than what we have right now: The government will subsidize insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line. Insurers will have to accept all customers. The individual market, in short, will become a much more hospitable place.
But the best experience we have suggests that employers wont drop coverage. That comes from Massachusetts experience under Romneycare, which, like the federal law, provided subsidized insurance for low-income Americans. There, employers have continued to offer coverage at the same level they did prior to the reform law.
What gives? To start, all those benefits of offering insurance the competitive, financial and wellness aspects dont disappear in 2014. Companies can still get more bang for their buck offering compensation as health insurance rather than wages.
The insurance packages that employers offer now are more comprehensive than whats expected on the exchange. The government subsidies, meanwhile, are less generous: An employee who gets dumped into the exchange can expect to pay 79 to 125 percent more in premiums, according to an analysis by consulting firm Lockton That means employers will still have a competitive advantage from offering insurance rather than sending workers to publicly subsidized coverage.
Right now, employers do not face any penalty for not offering coverage: Theres no $2,000 fine from the government, as there will be in 2014. But the vast majority of them still do, even as costs keep rising, mostly because of other benefits they reap.
########################
This is from an article written today. I thought it'll help RDreamer some more too. I wonder if his dad realizes that his company gets a tax write off for offering insurance and that incentive to businesses isn't changing in 2014.
There's also no reason to dump their employees because it'll make his company less competitive among others in the area.
Man, Obamacare sounds like a disaster. Maybe it should be repealed so some of this can be fixed : /
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Castro isn't even a threat anymore. Cuba is on a steady road to capitalism. Kim is dead, but his son has taken the reigns and looking at recent times things haven't changed much. Having Chavez in there is stupid. He's an incompetent leader with some authoritarian tendencies here and there. We only care about him because he's nationalized the oil and isn't drilling it. And he'll probably lose the next election. Ahmadinejad will be out next year, but its likely someone else more or less as "bad" will replace him.
Why do you defend the guy?
Regardless if you disagree that he has authoritarian tendencies surely you can agree that he has fucked up the economy?
Why? Its not going to change anything. Large employers aren't going to drop coverage.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Politico's ball dropping on this Obama gf story is like a testament to sloppy blog journalism going mainstream. Exclusive news is given priority over factual reporting
Meus Renaissance
Member
Social conservatives were indeed wary of Grenell from the start and questioned Romneys decision to hire him. Bryan Fischer, a social conservative known for claiming that President Obama feminized the Medal of Honor, among other things reacted predictably to Grenells hiring.
If the Secret Service scandal teaches us one thing, it is this: a mans private sexual conduct matters when were talking about public office, Fischer wrote. Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
If the Secret Service scandal teaches us one thing, it is this: a mans private sexual conduct matters when were talking about public office, Fischer wrote. Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/outraged-bryan-fischer-list-demands-romney
I genuinely do not undertstand that last sentence.
Put me in the same boat as everyone else. I can't even talk to my extended family anymore. They gradual have become more and more outspoken and radicalized. Every single person in my family is "hurt" by voting republican yet they are all brainwashed into thinking that the republican party is the one helping them. My mom refuses to talk about anything close to being political with me anymore and sat my sister down whos in college to explain to her why the republican party was good and to not give in to the liberals. Too bad little does she know my sister calls me with all of the hilarious republican talking points my mom tries to tell her.
Hobbestetrician
Member
What's not to understand? Gay men, much like women on birth control, are having sex every possible second they can. So if they are that loose sexually, they must be just as loose when it comes to confidential information. Therefore, all terrorists would have to do is infiltrate gay clubs across the country to ascertain information about the United States military. Buy him a couple of drinks, give him some interested looks, get the nuclear codes.
It's what Kirk Cameron has been warning us about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked