American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

yup that is kind of the basic question when you get right down to it, the answer is easy tho: racism

if youre looking for good news tho the most racist regressive generation is also the oldest and will die soon

i don't doubt racism's a part of it but classism doesn't help much either, and that's getting worse, not better

if youre looking for good news tho the most racist regressive generation is also the oldest and will die soon

― lag∞n, Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:55 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you mean the 'greatest generation'

def great at being huge assholes

it stands to reason that more could get rolled back in the future

― lag∞n, T

This deal locks in the budget for the next 2 years. How is more gonna get rolled back? Also, Murray could have handled the negotiations Republican-style, by starting with an opening budget bid that was at least at the amount that the Prez had suggested a few years back, instead of starting with one barely above the sequester number.

well a bunch of the sequestration happens after two years

yes that generation will die abt ten years before the rest of us bake or drown

yeah prob if he had just started w a higher opening bid everything wouldve worked out better says every self taught negotiation expert ever because the republicans are complete morons or something

tbh i'll still take the greatest generation over the boomers

(young racists seem to be managing our govt quite nicely given their 'small' numbers tho, but keep doing the DNC's work goonie)

haha keep being an imaginary revolutionary morbs

the greatest generation raised the boomers!

they had their differences iirc

x-post to Lagoon---No but Ryan would have to react and play defense, which Murray did not make them do.

So in two years the Dems will have someone who is a tough negotiator handling budget negotiations and the economy and political situation will be better then?

yes and the richies who own our govt will in ten years establish a guaranteed income, bcz less racist.

*sunshine and lollipops*

a higher opening bid makes no one play defense i assure you they wouldve just said no

Murray also did not try to get the media to talk about a budget number half-way between what Dems and Obama had previously suggested and the sequester amount.

yes and the richies who own our govt will in ten years will eliminate jim crow, bcz less racist.

*sunshine and lollipops*

― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Thursday, December 12, 1955 1:17 PM (60 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

besides i said 30 years

So we instead got 92% of the sequester and Dems talking about a bipartisan agreement

hey man, don't rock the boat! loose lips! meanwhile never mind that the DJIA and the income/wealth gaps keep setting records. no biggie! and that'll all take care of itself, some day, anyways

the sequester already happened is the thing you dont seem to understand, there was no way for the dems to be all hey can we just get a redo on our huge fuck up back there xp

hey man, don't rock the boat! loose lips! meanwhile never mind that the DJIA and the income/wealth gaps keep setting records. no biggie! and that'll all take care of itself, some day, anyways

― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you are all fucking morons with horrible reading comprehension, bye

to repeat myself, what patty murray got was an end to crisis budgeting. the GOP was perfectly happy driving at every cliff they could, and with a 2yr deal in place they can't.

if it makes you any happier, i have doubts whether the the murray-ryan deal will pass. everybody seems to hate it and key pressure groups are scoring against it. the right is near-uniformly hating ryan for being a sellout, what does that tell you?

'fiscal cliff' and 'debt ceiling' moments were damaging to the economy, both in GDP and in hiring. whether that is a good trade for long-term UI, idk.

but the GOP either disbelieves their antics were harmful, or at least, not harmful to anyone they care about. they'd do it again every chance they've got, it's their only play.

they also know that democrats are spineless. can't help but imagining if the GOP had the power the democrats do right now, and how they'd be negotiating

do you read anybody on the right at all?

sure do

google give up you are in conversation with three simultaneous morbes

Let me make things easier: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366034/some-thoughts-budget-deal-yuval-levin

one of whom is actual morbs but w/e

I generally think funding government services through user fees is much better than doing so through general revenue, so I take a move toward (slightly) greater reliance on such funding in a few programs to be a reduction in the burden on taxpayers in general without an increase in the size of government. That’s a good thing, but it’s certainly not unreasonable to describe such user fees as targeted taxes either. What the Democrats didn’t get is what they want and have insisted they would not do without: income tax increases.

this man has a phd

I'm the one who absolutely does not read anyone on the right; life is short

it's important though you keep up with all the latest on the right or risk dismissal as deficient in reading comprehension

are you a bot

"they also know that democrats are spineless."

the reason i asked is this is way off. the median conservative opinion of the dems is that they are all-powerful, ruthless, willing to use any procedural trick in the book, with an army of mindless and easily-disciplined voters keeping them in power, and a cynical lying media carrying their water.

median conservatives are an interesting crew for sure. remind me who grover norquist's counterpart on the left is, who has all the democrats' signatures on an un-constitutional petition never to vote for a tax cut on the rich

When will interested parties in the US media finally say 'projection, much?' to GOP whiners?

median conservatives are an interesting crew for sure. remind me who grover norquist's counterpart on the left is, who has all the democrats' signatures on an un-constitutional petition never to vote for a tax cut on the rich

― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:53 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there isn't one as far as i know.

unconstitutional?

the full faith and credit of the united states isn't to be questioned . . . except if that involves raising taxes. then forget it

to repeat myself, what patty murray got was an end to crisis budgeting.

By agreeing to a lot more than half of what Republicans wanted. As for the negotiating, Murray supposedly was ready to agree to Ryan's original call to reduce fed contributions to pensions for current federal employees by a large number. But then, 2 Democratic reps from Maryland who are on budget or other relevant committees and have lots of government workers in their districts, pushed Murray and therefore Ryan to reduce the amount and change it to future hired fed civilians and cost of living cuts for future hired military folks who retire per military rules between the age of 40 and 66 (while still being allowed to get paid as private sector employees). Murray had to be pushed on this aspect to get not a left-wing purist deal, but just a more meaningful less bad agreement on this portion of the budget.

unsophisticated to suggest she could have done any better and/or that's part of a longterm trend iirc

Yes, the Republicans are gonna say no to a large Dem budget that includes closing loopholes, raising capital gains rate, etc. etc., but why not put those Dem ideas out there first for media and public consumption and then compromise from there; and then why not also play hardball in trying to make up for a past error in agreeing to the sequester budget. Republicans don't let prior mistakes get in their way of pushing hard for what they want.

so instead of going for everything, they should do nothing. what about closing just one tax loophole?

the Dems are NOT spineless; they believe in getting elected, full stop

It is pretty hard to have anyone represent you in congress who can't get elected.

it's even harder to get them to represent you after

It's all a matter of who is holding their leash. Usually it's big campaign contributors.

Budget passed House.