Primary 2012: An austere OP for an austere era

jbragg

Edited, cause I didn't think it came across as funny as it was in my head.

tyrannus

did we make fun of the 0% captial gains for all brackets thing yet

because that's just funny.

lonelyahava

tyrannus wrote:

did we make fun of the 0% captial gains for all brackets thing yet

because that's just funny.

we certainly can. it was worth the funny being poked at it.

Deebaser

Capital gains is just double taxation! I theoretically paid taxes on my fortune when I inherited it! Why should the taxman abscond with my dubloons at musketpoint?

tyrannus

hey rich people, stop using super secret foreign banks for your investments! stop buying houses! I got your tax shelter right here! you'll never have to pay tax agaaaaain

Boring7

jbragg wrote:

The question, as did many in that debate, openly proposed that the candidate was a hypocrite. And to go back to what Fencingsax said, man, do they really want Perry.

Perry is the "True Heir to the Throne" as determined by the shadowy oligarchs that run the GOP. It is one of those open secrets that Republican political players like to retire to Texas and Texas is where the big oil money is. Ever since he first started running for re-election Perry's game has been one well-orchestrated passion play of the Returning King.

It started with beating Hutchison the pretender and White the Barbarian to retain control of the lands of Texas where his political predecessor King Dubya had left him. (I can't remember the line, but during his governor's race Perry said something that basically admitted, "re-elect me because I need the governorship to springboard for the presidency")

Then he traveled the realms, seeing many things and spreading the word that the current king was wicked and evil and should not be obeyed. And many people, (often paid by him) would publicly ask him, "won't you run? Won't you go to Washington and retake the throne o mighty young lord?" Again and again, Prince Perry denied the call, saying, "Yeah verily, to go to DC is to go mad like King Dubya. I shall not seek the throne, for I do not wish the crown."

And things grew worse, and the armies of the Great Old Patriots who sought return of the True Bloodline to the throne did bicker over which general might lead the armies. But the generals were weak and the armies did falter and lament. "Oh won't a true leader, a noble of The Blood come and save us?!" they were paid to say.

And as the bickering and battles between the generals of the GOP did bicker Perry returned, hung his head and lamented, "for the good of the land, for righteousness, I hear your call and accept it. Though I do not wish it I shall take command of the armies and seek to reclaim the Throne!"

And his shadowy backers did clap their hands with glee.

Yougottawanna

Rick Perry is John Zapolya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Z%C3%A1polya). He will reclaim the throne for the pride of the Ottoman Empire Hungary!

Sorry, been reading history lately.

Barcardi

The highlights of this leave me wondering if it was a cage match or just a giant subliminal commercial for Texas. What actually happened, did anyone "win" that was actually there?

Lucky Cynic

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Quid

Lucky Cynic wrote:

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Marriage is a status and not something two people do. Because of this and for the sake of fairness should people move, it's important that a person isn't just married in one state, but all states. Therefore, gay marriage must be banned to avoid the current unfair situation.

South host

You forgot tax cuts. And "handed the president a 2.4 trillion dollar blank check".

Incenjucar

Quid wrote:

Lucky Cynic wrote:

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Marriage is a status and not something two people do. Because of this and for the sake of fairness should people move, it's important that a person isn't just married in one state, but all states. Therefore, gay marriage must be banned to avoid the current unfair situation.

States rights!

Void Slayer

Incenjucar wrote:

Quid wrote:

Lucky Cynic wrote:

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Marriage is a status and not something two people do. Because of this and for the sake of fairness should people move, it's important that a person isn't just married in one state, but all states. Therefore, gay marriage must be banned to avoid the current unfair situation.

States rights!

Yes, supporting the rights of some states to tell other states what to do.

Forar

Boring7 wrote:

*snip*

:^:

Well played, sir.

override367

Void Slayer wrote:

Incenjucar wrote:

Quid wrote:

Lucky Cynic wrote:

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Marriage is a status and not something two people do. Because of this and for the sake of fairness should people move, it's important that a person isn't just married in one state, but all states. Therefore, gay marriage must be banned to avoid the current unfair situation.

States rights!

Yes, supporting the rights of some states to tell other states what to do.

Boy does that sound familiar

Do they really want to go down that road, banking on Americans not having any historical knowledge whatsoever?

... please nobody answer that

nexuscrawler

It's almsot like they hate the Constitution and the Interstate Commerce clause

override367

lonelyahava wrote:

Why am I finding myself liking Ron Paul on occasional answers?

Ron Paul is like Fry from Futurama, he needs to stop one sentence sooner.

"America cannot get what it wants forever by being the world police. The government has no right to have secret prisons. We need to legalize drugs because the war on drugs is a failure. That is why we must destroy the federal reserve and the department of education!"

spool32

override367 wrote:

lonelyahava wrote:

Why am I finding myself liking Ron Paul on occasional answers?

Ron Paul is like Fry from Futurama, he needs to stop one sentence sooner.

"America cannot get what it wants forever by being the world police. The government has no right to have secret prisons. We need to legalize drugs because the war on drugs is a failure. That is why we must destroy the federal reserve and the department of education!"

This is possibly the best description of Ronpaul I've read.

SammyF

spool32 wrote:

override367 wrote:

lonelyahava wrote:

Why am I finding myself liking Ron Paul on occasional answers?

Ron Paul is like Fry from Futurama, he needs to stop one sentence sooner.

"America cannot get what it wants forever by being the world police. The government has no right to have secret prisons. We need to legalize drugs because the war on drugs is a failure. That is why we must destroy the federal reserve and the department of education!"

This is possibly the best description of Ronpaul I've read.

Consensus!

Distram

Boring7 wrote:

jbragg wrote:

The question, as did many in that debate, openly proposed that the candidate was a hypocrite. And to go back to what Fencingsax said, man, do they really want Perry.

Perry is the "True Heir to the Throne" as determined by the shadowy oligarchs that run the GOP. It is one of those open secrets that Republican political players like to retire to Texas and Texas is where the big oil money is. Ever since he first started running for re-election Perry's game has been one well-orchestrated passion play of the Returning King.

It started with beating Hutchison the pretender and White the Barbarian to retain control of the lands of Texas where his political predecessor King Dubya had left him. (I can't remember the line, but during his governor's race Perry said something that basically admitted, "re-elect me because I need the governorship to springboard for the presidency")

Then he traveled the realms, seeing many things and spreading the word that the current king was wicked and evil and should not be obeyed. And many people, (often paid by him) would publicly ask him, "won't you run? Won't you go to Washington and retake the throne o mighty young lord?" Again and again, Prince Perry denied the call, saying, "Yeah verily, to go to DC is to go mad like King Dubya. I shall not seek the throne, for I do not wish the crown."

And things grew worse, and the armies of the Great Old Patriots who sought return of the True Bloodline to the throne did bicker over which general might lead the armies. But the generals were weak and the armies did falter and lament. "Oh won't a true leader, a noble of The Blood come and save us?!" they were paid to say.

And as the bickering and battles between the generals of the GOP did bicker Perry returned, hung his head and lamented, "for the good of the land, for righteousness, I hear your call and accept it. Though I do not wish it I shall take command of the armies and seek to reclaim the Throne!"

And his shadowy backers did clap their hands with glee.

You are my hero, sir.

Perry is a Reagan/Bush gestalt. He's like the GOP version of Devastator.

Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, and Biden are the Dinobots.

Lawndart

Incenjucar wrote:

Quid wrote:

Lucky Cynic wrote:

I totally missed this as I was asked to stay for a few extra hours at work and was elated that I was doing something constructive with my time rather than watching a live stream of talking points.

Did I happen to miss anything genuinely interesting? Sounds like it was, Blah blah, homo/xenophobia, blah blah, obamacare, blah, Reagan, blah blah Roll credits.

Marriage is a status and not something two people do. Because of this and for the sake of fairness should people move, it's important that a person isn't just married in one state, but all states. Therefore, gay marriage must be banned to avoid the current unfair situation.

States rights!

Except that Rick Santorum would like to yell at you about how Jesus thinks the 10th Amendment only applies to things like health insurance and not to things that violate America's moral laws, like same-sex marriage, or forced sterilization.

enlightenedbum

override367 wrote:

lonelyahava wrote:

Why am I finding myself liking Ron Paul on occasional answers?

Ron Paul is like Fry from Futurama, he needs to stop one sentence sooner.

"America cannot get what it wants forever by being the world police. The government has no right to have secret prisons. We need to legalize drugs because the war on drugs is a failure. That is why we must destroy the federal reserve and the department of education!"

I've always said that Ron Paul should get a cabinet level position where his job is merely to tell the President what things are going wrong and then have absolutely no power to suggest solutions.

VishNub

I wish it actually mattered what the candidates actually said and did come next November.

Obama would obliterate any one of them in a debate, but that doesn't matter, and it's infuriating.

In other news, will the Colbert ads affect anything in any way come the poll?

Tomanta

Never underestimate the power of the Colbert Nation.

But no, probably not.

Yougottawanna

Ezra Klein's wonkbook intro this morning (spoilered for long):

Spoiler:

The most telling moment of Thursday’s GOP debate wasn’t when Michele Bachmann cooly stuck a knife between Tim Pawlenty’s ribs, or when Rick Santorum plaintively begged for more airtime, or when Mitt Romney easily slipped past questions about his record on health-care reform. It was when every single GOP candidate on the stage agreed that they would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Even Fox News’s Bret Baier couldn’t quite believe what he was seeing. He asked again just to make sure the assembled candidates had understood the question.

Primary debates are usually watched for what they say about the candidates, but they’re generally important for what they say about the party. This one was no different. With the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the candidates didn’t disagree over policy. They disagreed over fealty to policy.

Bachmann didn’t attack Pawlenty’s policy proposals. She attacked him for past statements suggesting he might believe in other policy proposals, like the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. Pawlenty’s assault on Romney took the same form. This debate wasn’t about what policies the candidates believed in. That was largely a given. This debate was about which of the candidates believed in those policies the most.

The best policy in this debate wasn’t the policy most likely to work, or the policy most likely to pass. It was the most orthodox policy. The policy least sullied by compromise. A world in which the GOP will not agree to deficit reduction with a 10:1 split between spending cuts and tax increases is a world where entitlement reform can’t happen. It’s a world where the “supercommittee” fails and the trigger is pulled, and thus a world in which $1 out of every $2 in cuts comes from the Pentagon. It’s not a world that fits what many in the GOP consider ideal policy. But it is a world in which none in the GOP need to traverse the treacherous politics of compromise.

Perhaps no candidate is better suited for that world than Michele Bachmann. But tellingly, the candidate who is best on the politics also proved worst on the policy.

Over and over again, Bachmann misstated basic facts. She said that Tim Pawlenty “implemented” cap-and-trade in Minnesota. He did no such thing. She said “we just heard from Standard Poor’s,” and “when they dropped our credit rating what they said was we don’t have an ability to repay our debt.” Simply not true.

S&P has never questioned our ability to repay our debt. That’s why we remain AA+. They have questioned whether political brinksmanship will stop us from paying our debt. The downgrade “was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling,” said John Chambers, head of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee. That is to say, it was motivated by political brinksmanship from the likes of, well, Michele Bachmann.

It’s fitting that the candidate best able to resist compromise is the candidate who seems least able to correctly explain the policies at issue and the choices we face. It’s a lot easier to take a hard line if you don’t understand the consequences of your actions, and a lot simpler to belt out applause lines if you’re not slowed down by the messy complexities of the issues. But where Bachmann is leading, the other candidates are following. Mitt Romney knows perfectly well that a deal with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases is a great deal for conservatives. What he probably doesn’t know is how he’s going to explain why he pretended otherwise when he was vying for the nomination.

After the debate, the punditry immediately turned to who won and who lost. Pawlenty, most said, was the clear loser. Romney, Bachmann, and maybe the absent Rick Perry were the possible winners. I would look at it more broadly.

The losers in tonight’s debate were anyone who wants to see the sort of compromise necessary for the political process to work, and anyone who has been convinced that they can achieve their goals simply by restating their convictions. As for the winners? Well, I didn’t see too many of those.

Speaker

Slightly OT but this was great: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Xenogear_0001

Not sure if this was posted or not--I didn't see it going back several pages--but it's useful for anyone who didn't watch the debate (myself). It's a minute by minute break down of the whole affair, and it's got a nice humorous touch.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/12/what-you-missed-while-not-watching-the-iowa-gop-debate/

Chanus

Speaker wrote:

Slightly OT but this was great: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

The best part is, regardless of your ideology, that website says everything you want to hear.

a5ehren

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/12/health.care.ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Edit: Better link.

SyphonBlue

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

CommunistCow

So I just watched the Maddow bit on Perry's announcement. It seems like a pretty good plan to announce on the day of the Iowa Straw poll in SC and NH. This looks like it might steal some thunder from the other candidates and then he ends up showing up in Iowa on Sunday.

Delzhand

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

Chanus

Delzhand wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

And then outrage at the skyrocketing cost results in an outcry for the whole thing to be undone and they can blame the out-of-control healthcare costs on Obama/Democrats.

It's always about "How do we blame this on Democrats?". Always.

Quid

Delzhand wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

We're be exactly where we were before Obama's health reform.

And it will be all Obama's fault.

enlightenedbum

Delzhand wrote:

SyphonBlue wrote:

a5ehren wrote:

Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta (11th Circuit if you're into that) says that some parts of the ACA are unconstitutional: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/parts-of-health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

Next step is SCOTUS, I think.

Okay, so this makes it 5 affirming to 3 against.

I can't see the endgame for this decision. If the mandate goes away, then I (who already don't have health insurance) wait until I get sick, since insurance providers can't reject me for pre-existing conditions. Insurance costs for healthy people paying in skyrockets due to everyone else doing the same, until ultimately insurance is prohibitively expensive for everyone, and then...?

Medicare for all or people die.

Burtletoy

Yeah, isn't the mandate dying a good thing for us people that want single-payer?

Like, overturn the individual mandate and then the Health Insurance industry all goes out of business.

Then government healthcare for all.

Phyphor

It might be, but another result is that the entire bill could get repealed leaving you worse off. It will also likely suck as there's also a decent chance you won't get single payer until the insurers just give up and refuse to take people on

enlightenedbum

Burtletoy wrote:

Yeah, isn't the mandate dying a good thing for us people that want single-payer?

Like, overturn the individual mandate and then the Health Insurance industry all goes out of business.

Then government healthcare for all.

Or people die. This is the issue with the Madman theory the GOP is currently operating under.

Burtletoy

While striking down the mandate, the Court ruled that it was severable from the rest of the law.

"The Act's other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate's excision," the majority wrote.

So it looks like the only part the lower courts would overturn is the mandate, not the entire thing, yeah?

Would that allow the SCOTUS to throw away the entire thing, or would their ruling only apply to the sections the previous courts said was illegal?

Delzhand

More like Mad Max theory, I think.