PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 28, 2009
9,062
0
0
Tokyo
Yea, Newt's more a Bond henchman. Weird name, looks a little odd, really aggressive personality. And apparently gets himself knocked out of the picture before the third act.
Newt WISHES he was a Bond villain. He dreams 'big', and wants to rule the world, but sucks at it. He's the henchman of the villain Bond takes out in the first 10 minutes of the movie, before the titles theme song even starts. He had a surprisingly good run for what he was, but we should have known it wouldn't last.

*disclaimer* I haven't seen any of the more recent Bond films, so I do not know how they changed in structure.
 

Hop

That girl in the bunny hat
Jun 6, 2007
5,713
0
0
Portland, OR
Newt WISHES he was a Bond villain. He dreams 'big', and wants to rule the world, but sucks at it. He's the henchman of the villain Bond takes out in the first 10 minutes of the movie, before the titles theme song even starts. He had a surprisingly good run for what he was, but we should have known it wouldn't last.

*disclaimer* I haven't seen any of the more recent Bond films, so I do not know how they changed in structure.
He's stuck around too long, though. I think Perry or Cain would fit that role in our political Bond movie analogy a bit better. They have all the characteristics of a proper villain, but they're really just a footnote of the actual story. Then you find out the actor playing them used to be a big name and they're trying to revive their career to help sell their upcoming autobiography.


....I may have gone off on that analogy a little.
 
Feb 28, 2009
9,062
0
0
Tokyo
I have a question. If conservatives believe that government can't create jobs, then why do they keep saying government actions kills jobs?
Yeah, I don't even know how they can claim such a thing. There is an abundance of evidence against such a statement. Now if they want to say the government is *less* efficient than the private sector at creating jobs I might buy it. But the claim that government cannot make laws is a complete fabrication of reality.

*got half way out writing a story about a road being built and then someone from the construction crew buying milk with money he got from the job he was contracted to do that was paid via tax dollars, but it got too branchy trying to follow the dollars so gave up*

Government spending puts money into the economy, putting money into the economy makes jobs. This is incontestable, so it is very baffling to me that people actually buy the Republican's rhetoric.

Edit: In some ways the money injected into the economy by the government is very inefficient. Romney's pay as former governor - total waste, he probably just put it in a foreign bank account. Giving food stamps to the family that makes less than 15k a year - very efficient. They went straight out bought cheese which paid a farmer, a company that builds industrial tanks, a cheese factory worker, an employee at the grocer, etc. Money injected at the bottom appears to be objectively better than that injected at the top.
 
Dec 30, 2004
39,503
8
0
The debate/primary threads are going to siphon off a lot of discussion in this thread. No doubt about it. But it should return to normal once Willard locks it up in March.

But, the plus side is that it may draw some new users in from those threads (or other hot-button topics) that otherwise ignored the monolithic Poligaf thread.


--- /// ---

There an be no question that poor policy or too stringent regulations can 'kill' jobs. Then of course there is the worry of having to support all these jobs (into the future) that have generous pensions/perks attached to them.

But you would have to say that there is a net benefit to society overall if these jobs/work are actually demanded by the public.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
May 30, 2005
14,541
0
0
34
Flying_Phoenix, with the podcast getting potential radio play, I think you might get more desire for participation. Who knows, maybe one day I will join in.


EDIT: LOL. With a name and tagline like that, I cannot support that. Good luck, though :)
 
Dec 30, 2004
39,503
8
0
A whiff? It set the groundwork, and for most reasonable people, that was enough for now. It was certainly a victory achieved with good will, in spite of a political process that makes enacting such a far reaching legislation a nearly impossible task in the face of such rabid opposition. I haven't seen your guys come close to doing something significant for the people like that.

It laid the groundwork for what? For insurance companies to reap massive profits from the millions of new people that have to sign up? Do you think once those profits come in, we will ever see a 'one payer' system (true universal health care)? it's going to be even pushed even further away. With no real evidence that it will control skyrocketing costs nor improve health outcomes.

Instead we have a reform bill that will create an even more powerful lobbying monster. All funded by you and I (via subsidies that will be paid to poor people).
 
May 24, 2005
38,503
1,517
1,320
Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say
By Jerry Markon and Alice Crites, Friday, January 27, 7:29 AM








Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul challenged fellow debaters to a 25-mile bike ride after moderator Wolf Blitzer asked about his age and health. (Jan. 26)


But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’
said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

The newsletters point to a rarely seen and somewhat opaque side of Paul, who has surprised the political community by becoming an important factor in the Republican race. The candidate, who has presented himself as a kindly doctor and political truth-teller, declined in a recent debate to release his tax returns, joking that he would be “embarrassed” about his income compared with that of his richer GOP rivals.

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy.

Mark Elam, a longtime Paul associate whose company printed the newsletters, said Paul “was a busy man” at the time. “He was in demand as a speaker; he was traveling around the country,’’ Elam said in an interview coordinated by Paul’s campaign. “I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff.’’

In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.


##################

There's more at the link. I wonder how many Ron Paul supporters will take another look at this situation after this story.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Jun 7, 2004
14,254
0
0
Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say
By Jerry Markon and Alice Crites, Friday, January 27, 7:29 AM

##################

There's more at the link. I wonder how many Ron Paul supporters will take another look at this situation after this story.
I just read this a few minutes ago. I think it's clear Paul has lied over and over about his knowledge of this at the time.

Is he racist? who knows who cares

But if he isn't above publishing some bigoted bull shit under his name just to make a few dollars then that is pretty sick in and of itself.
 
Jul 4, 2009
776
0
0
NewYork
Ron Paul's newsletters are really not important to me because he very likely will not be nominated. But his participation at the debates add to the comic relief and I love to listen to him.
 
Apr 22, 2008
44,148
0
0
26
I just read this a few minutes ago. I think it's clear Paul has lied over and over about his knowledge of this at the time.

Is he racist? who knows who cares

But if he isn't above publishing some bigoted bull shit under his name just to make a few dollars then that is pretty sick in and of itself.
The people whom he's racist against...?
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Jun 6, 2004
20,904
0
0
I just read this a few minutes ago. I think it's clear Paul has lied over and over about his knowledge of this at the time.

Is he racist? who knows who cares

But if he isn't above publishing some bigoted bull shit under his name just to make a few dollars then that is pretty sick in and of itself.

I'm actually a bit surprised that it took this long for them to come to light.
 
May 24, 2005
38,503
1,517
1,320
They're not contradictory beliefs...
How not? If government can create regulation that kills jobs (I do believe that this is possible), then why can't government pass a law that create jobs that wouldn't have been created?

Yeah I know that a private company literally hires the person, but if the reason the job was created in the first place was because the federal government wanted something done and funded it, then wouldn't that mean it is a government created job?
 
Jan 23, 2009
7,400
0
0
Newt was going to win FL! WTF happened :(
Newt's predictably erratic behavior coupled with the ire of party actors. And I suppose Mitt Romney was instrumental. He actually capitalized on Newt's vulnerabilities with effective attacks. The ammunition had been gifted to him. He only needed to assail him. Indeed, he did.
 

RBH

Member
Apr 19, 2007
54,206
0
0
President Obama is proposing a financial aid overhaul that for the first time would tie colleges’ eligibility for campus-based aid programs — Perkins loans, work-study jobs and supplemental grants for low-income students — to the institutions’ success in improving affordability and value for students, administration officials said.

Under the plan, which the president outlined on Friday morning in a speech at the University of Michigan, the amount available for Perkins loans would grow to $8 billion, from the current $1 billion. The president also wants to create a $1 billion grant competition, along the lines of the Race for the Top program for elementary and secondary education, to reward states that take action to keep college costs down, and a separate $55 million competition for individual colleges to increase their value and efficiency.

The administration also wants to give families clearer information about costs and quality, by requiring colleges and universities to offer a “shopping sheet” that makes it easier to compare financial aid packages and — for the first time — compiling post-graduate earning and employment information to give students a better sense of what awaits them.


These proposed changes would all require Congressional approval.

With student-loan debt now outpacing credit-card debt — and becoming a rallying point in the Occupy movement — the administration has for some time promised to address the issue, knowing its potency with voters in an election year. The president met privately with a group of college presidents in December, and has been collecting examples of colleges that have kept their costs from spiraling upward.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Mr. Obama turned up the heat, alluding to the plan without fleshing out details.

“Let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down,” he said.

Even without specifics, that raised hackles in higher-education circles.

“When we hear things like a shift in federal aid, it causes our antennas to go straight up,” said Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education. “Anything that smacks of price controls is of great concern on many levels, especially at a time when states are cutting their budgets — and if the effect of this is to limit tuition, what else would you call it but price controls?”

Ms. Broad said that she and university presidents across the nation shared the president’s commitment to affordable higher education, but that it was not so easy to keep tuition down at a time when institutions must also absorb state budget cuts, increase enrollment and bolster financial aid for the growing number of families who need it.

The administration officials who spoke about the proposals did so on the condition of anonymity, and on the condition that details not be shared until publication.

They stressed that expanding the pool of money for Perkins loans would not require new tax dollars, since those loans are repaid with interest. And even without new money, they said, it would be possible to change the formulas under which colleges receive funds for work-study jobs and Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants — at nearly $1 billion, the second largest federal grant program for low-income students, after Pell grants.

While Pell grants and Stafford loans are larger programs than the ones the administration wants to change, they are federally administered and can be used by students at any college. In contrast, the campus-based programs the administration is proposing to change are administered by individual schools, whose financial aid offices have substantial discretion. About 1,700 colleges and universities now offer Perkins loans, a number that would increase to more than 4,000 in the new proposal.


While administration officials said the Perkins changes would have no impact on the federal budget, other parts of the plan — like doubling the number of work-study jobs, and keeping the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans at the current 3.4 percent — would be expensive.

The officials said the current financial aid system rewards colleges for longevity in the program, and provides perverse incentives for keeping college costs high. Under their new proposal, they said, colleges would instead be rewarded for lower net tuition prices; restrained tuition growth; enrolling and graduating low-income students; and providing education and training that help graduates get jobs and repay their loans.

Some education experts, however, worry that by tying aid to costs, changes like those proposed might instead lead to lower-quality college education, with larger class sizes and greater use of adjuncts. Furthermore, they worry that public institutions suffering the most from declines in state support — and therefore under the most pressure to raise tuition — could be further hurt by losing access to some federal aid.

As with the original Race to the Top grants, in which the Obama administration used federal money to leverage its education agenda, the White House hopes to use the new college competition to spur systemic state reform that would reduce costs and encourage college completion. To win money, officials said, states would have to maintain their funding levels for higher education and align their entry and exit standards with secondary education and community colleges to help promote graduation on time.

The competition for individual institutions would reward colleges or nonprofit organizations that boost productivity through such approaches as course redesign that exploits new technology; early-college preparation that reduces the need for remedial work; and competency-based approaches to college credit that replace the traditional model of rewarding hours spent in class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/education/obama-to-link-aid-for-colleges-to-affordability.html
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
35,635
11
1,120
Things we've known for awhile, but a nice and concise list.

http://robertreich.org/post/11329289033

THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES


The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.


Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:



1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.


Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.
 
Jun 9, 2005
12,924
0
0
Washington
How not? If government can create regulation that kills jobs (I do believe that this is possible), then why can't government pass a law that create jobs that wouldn't have been created?

Yeah I know that a private company literally hires the person, but if the reason the job was created in the first place was because the federal government wanted something done and funded it, then wouldn't that mean it is a government created job?
If one believes that all government actions create regulations, and all regulations kill jobs, how on earth does that contradict the belief that the government can't create jobs?

I don't disagree with you, but these make are not contradictory beliefs, just wrong ones.
 
Apr 3, 2007
8,122
0
0
Things we've known for awhile, but a nice and concise list.

http://robertreich.org/post/11329289033

THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES


The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.


Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:



1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.


Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.
It always amazes me that people are brainwashed into thinking that people like Romney somehow paying another 2 million a year in taxes would somehow hurt the economy. We could use that money to do some actual good like hire additional teachers or a variety of other things.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jul 17, 2005
42,029
2
0
Bulbo posted this article in the other thread:

Mitt Romney responded today to a call for a tougher stance against Muslims by saying that most Muslims are peaceful people who deserve respect.

The issue came up during a question-and-answer session at a campaign stop here this morning. A man rose from the audience, claimed he had many Muslim friends, but said, “I have never heard one Muslim condemn Islamic jihad or terrorism. I see Islamic jihad as one of the greatest threats to America and the western world. Are you going to continue to give Islam and Islamic jihad in this country a pass like everybody before you continues to do? The only people that call Islam a religion of peace are the Muslims, and they are the most violent religion in the world.”

Romney said radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world. However, he said, “they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He noted that he was raised in the Detroit area, which has a large Muslim population. “They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.”
http://www.crescentpost.com/2011/12/newspaper-mitt-romney-says-muslims-are-peace-loving-people/

Haha, seriously? You're friends with these people, and one would reasonably think are otherwise decent people (or else why be friends in the first place?), but they all support terrorism? Even 9/11? And you're still friends with them?
 
Jun 7, 2004
20,148
0
0
35
Bulbo posted this article in the other thread:



http://www.crescentpost.com/2011/12/newspaper-mitt-romney-says-muslims-are-peace-loving-people/

Haha, seriously? You're friends with these people, and one would reasonably think are otherwise decent people (or else why be friends in the first place?), but they all support terrorism? Even 9/11? And you're still friends with them?
I never understood the in bold concept to begin with. What a naive thought that all Muslims have to do is simply come together as one uniform voice (despite the different sects, countries, cultures, politics, and languages of over a billion people) and simply say "WE DENOUNCE TERRORISM".

That's all. That is all they have to do and then people like this guy will simply be at ease. What an idea.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Jul 17, 2005
42,029
2
0
The office of pollster Peter Hart, who helped do the survey, sends over the numbers among independents. While Romney’s positive numbers among them have been roughly stable, at just over 20 percent, here is the change among independents in the past few months:

In November, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 22 percent of independents.

In December, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 29 percent of independents.

And in the new poll, Romney was rated somewhat or very negatively by 42 percent of independents — 20 points higher than two months ago.

Also: In November, Romney was beating Obama 47-34 among those voters. Now the numbers are upside down: Obama is beating Romney 44-36.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-independents/2012/01/27/gIQAeVB1VQ_blog.html
 
Dec 15, 2010
30,741
0
0
Bill Maher's show was a trainwreck tonight. Martin Bashir and Bill could never get a word in because former MTV V.J. Kennedy (crazy bitch) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher wouldn't shut their damn mouths for a second. Kennedy was the absolute worst
 
Status
Not open for further replies.