Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
What's become of the healthcare act, BTW? Last I heard a couple of months ago, it was going to be put for review in front of either Congress or the Supreme Court.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.The choice last election was either President Buffoon / President Iron/ President Jerkass or President Focus Group/ President Personable. The latter at least has the personable part and lacks the buffoon and jerk ass parts even if it has too much Focus Group
edited 3rd Jan '13 7:29:58 PM by terlwyth
You just made me look up Our Presidents Are Different to determine which archetypes are those, leading me to discovering this quote:
... Please tell me that this is a joke. Because... Ugh, even I didn't peg him as that "out-of-touch-with-reality".
edited 3rd Jan '13 7:30:36 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.A look of Obama's foreign policy. It's not flattering, to say the least
.
![]()
![]()
You do realize that, since the quote lacks any context, there's no way to know what he was actually saying, right?
edited 3rd Jan '13 7:34:10 PM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."At the new person: The Obamacare act was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court months ago, which means it's now a lot harder to get rid of. Republicans in Congress keep trying to put it up for review, but it's unlikely to ever come up before the House or Senate as a serious issue. Particularly as time passes and the different parts of it go into effect.
Re: Serocco: Arbitrary level of burden of proof gettotaze!
I'm afraid I don't have any economic studies on-hand that go into a more indepth research about the stimulative efforts of tax cuts on middle class families. I'll agree that cutting taxes on people over 250k probably isn't stimulative though.
I just kinda take Tomu at his word regarding economics since that's sort of his field of study.
Unless I'm mistaken...
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."If we raise taxes on the middle-class it will hurt consumer spending.
Especially if they take effect immediately.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
<looks up long list> Ouch. I never had any illusions that "the lesser of the two evils" is not "evil", but seeing it for myself is another matter.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Stubborn, aren't they? If I were them, I'd focus on more pressing and more feasibly attainable matters — like helping in fixing the economy before it implodes on everyone's heads.
edited 3rd Jan '13 7:58:17 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Here's the disconnect: Tax cuts (or tax increases) don't affect everyone's spending the same way. Look at a sales tax. It's inherently regressive-that is, it hurts the poor more. Why? Because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income. As people's income goes up, their spending traditionally increases at a slower rate. Ergo, the lower income bracket someone is in, the greater chance that, if you give them a tax cut, they'll end up spending that money on something else.
Now, you may be thinking "But Tomu! Wouldn't taxing these poor people but then spending that money on government programs be even MORE stimulative?" That may be true in certain circumstances-however, it's also politically untenable, so it's also largely irrelevant.
Marq, they've made it increasingly clear that they, as a group, don't actually seem to care about it. It's like watching a slow motion car wreck. I'm not at all sure what they think they're going to do this year, because they're losing so much internal party coherence. Lots of Republican mouthpieces are losing relevance. (Though not as fast as I and others would like.)
I predict that we'll see a lot more motions to try and repeal Obamacare. And all of them will be unsuccessful because it'll become more and more politically untenable to support doing that.
It's not down the memory hole (what even is that supposed to mean?) until the Republicans stop trying to repeal it.
edited 3rd Jan '13 8:03:16 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
<rubs forehead to assauge headache> Party infighting, again. What's stopping the US from switching to the European definition of "political party" and break up the Democrats and Republicans from the coalitions of multiple cohesive-party-equivalents that they actually are into said cohesive-party-equivalents-turned-actual-parties?
Really, that's one thing the Europeans got right about politics: Never overstretch the definition of "political party". It leads to horrible inefficiency in the long term.
edited 3rd Jan '13 8:07:29 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
It isnt being discussed by the media. It already passed. People (or rather the media) have a very low attention span, thus they have moved on to other issue.
Besides the law went into effect and we dont have death panels, so the American average person doesnt really care.
And the memory hole thing its a reference to Orwell.
Edit: On economic things I also largely trusth what Tomu says.
edited 3rd Jan '13 8:07:42 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.The primary provisions of Obamacare go into effect in 2014. 30 million or more people will abruptly have access to healthcare who did not have it prior to that year. It could be a huge midterm election boost for Dems.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yea. Maybe I am wrong. We'll have to wait to 2014 to see how big of an issue Obamacare will really be. Will it be a call to arms for Republicans, or will it serve as goodwill in the favour of democarts?
I had forgotten it hadnt taken effect. Still, I think the possibility of strucking it down its so low that republican party leaders and the media have alread moved on.
edited 3rd Jan '13 8:09:49 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Why would the Democrats or Republicans agree to severely weaken there power?
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016What's preventing us is partially first past the post voting system, partially that our culture is different, partially that our current political system makes it really hard for a third party to get any traction. One bigger third party is just a more extreme version of the Republicans with good dashes of Objectivism, the other bigger third party is the Greens. And we've seen all the problems the Greens have with being taken seriously.
Basically, all the democracies in Europe set themselves up differently. We're stuck partially because we were one of the first and didn't really avoid the pitfalls of FPTP, while later democracies that formed were able to learn from our example and our mistakes in regards to running a democracy.
@Kostya: Any Republican governor that is refusing to set up an exchange is only going to have the Feds set it up for them. I don't think Republicans can do much to stop it at this point.
edited 3rd Jan '13 8:11:49 PM by AceofSpades

And your daily does of Charles Pierce!
Keep an eye on Christie, he'll be trouble.
Obama, the NDAA, and the inability of presidents since JFK to keep their hands out of the cookie jar of extralegal power
Boehner kept his job because no one else wants it, and keeping it doesn't give him any real power anyways.
(Note: I am still glad that we kept Cantor safely at bay, at the least. To quote an internet comment: "The last time I saw a movie character with a smile like Cantor's, Sigourney Weaver was pushing it out an airlock.")
edited 3rd Jan '13 7:23:46 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.