The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[chadritt]

Wouldn't they just get arrested? I can't imagine that protest lasts long.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hopefully this is just the fevered imagination of a few nuts. Blocking up the Beltway will cause a whole lot of anger.

There has to be a law somewhere that blocking a highway intentionally will lead to the forfeiture of your vehicle.

As for the word "austerity", I don't think it applies to checks on runaway spending. The figures on how our deficit has grown are easily found online. If we keep printing money, as Obama has done in an unprecedented manner, at some point someone will have to pay the price.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Wouldn't they just get arrested? I can't imagine that protest lasts long.

For what? Driving the speed limit? They're going to circle the area doing the speed limit from what I understand.

[SirFozzie]

the person who made the threat has now walked it back saying it was a media stunt.

(I'd say 50/50 it was a real idea, and they fell back to "and you fell for it" when they got made fun of)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Let's find more ways to fuck up the daily existence of people who have nothing to do with anything to make a grandstanding political point!

It's like when Occupy Boston decided to make an impromptu march at 5:00 to ruin the evening commute. I don't ever wish harm on someone, but there are times when I'm ambivalent towards it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

You're even worse at promoting the GOP then you are Sony.

I didn't think that was possible

I was promoting the GOP? How clumsy of me. I meant to say they're quite a group of fuck-ups, much like their counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Let's find more ways to fuck up the daily existence of people who have nothing to do with anything to make a grandstanding political point!

It's like when Occupy Boston decided to make an impromptu march at 5:00 to ruin the evening commute. I don't ever wish harm on someone, but there are times when I'm ambivalent towards it.

I love activists who think that the best course of action is to anger everyone around them.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I love activists who think that the best course of action is to anger everyone around them.

Doesn't that sum up the whole GOP thing?

GOP: "We're going to win this shutdown because people understand we're right."

Just about every poll since shutdown: "Fuck, are you kidding me? You guys are hated more then the Bubonic Plague."

GOP: See, WINNING!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I love activists who think that the best course of action is to anger everyone around them.

How many votes is the GOP getting out of D.C.?

Obama and Biden carried the District of Columbia with 90.9% of the popular vote to Romney's and Ryan's 7.3%, thus winning the district's three electoral votes.

And honestly, how many votes from Virginia that Romney managed in a loss is this actually going to lose?

edit to add: I think the idea is rather silly, but it's not as though it carries any huge risk either. At this point D.C. is lucky that it hasn't been burned to the ground anyway, disrupting it further doesn't seem like a major misstep.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hopefully this is just the fevered imagination of a few nuts. Blocking up the Beltway will cause a whole lot of anger.

From what I understand, traffic is great in DC right now, at least compared to normal, due to the shutdown. Would people notice?

SI

[panerd]

Somebody again help me understand why this isn't all political theatre by the Democrats, GOP, and media? Before the regular posters start jumping on me for wearing a tin foil hat here are the current headlines on Yahoo...

Poll: GOP gets the blame in shutdown - Yahoo News

Defying government shutdown, national park visitors play ‘catch me if you can’ - Yahoo News

Obama opens door to short-term deal to end shutdown and calls possible U.S. default an economic nuke - Yahoo News

Here is one that I can't find anywhere on there...

House Votes 407-0 to Provide Back Pay to Furloughed Workers | 218

So I know I am just an internet dumb conspiracy guy but after that vote isn't it just...

1) GOP talking fiscal responsibility while agreeing to pay all workers and thus having zero fiscal responsibility.

2) The Democrats shutting down popular attractions like the DC monuments and Yellowstone to show us all how important all of the out of control spending must be.

3) The media ignoring what seems to be the biggest story which is that everyone appears to be getting paid while still feeding the fear of points 1 and 2.

What exactly am I missing here? Does everyone getting back pay mean everyone isn't really getting back pay?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Applying government shutdown logic to the baseball playoffs | HardballTalk

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by panerd

Somebody again help me understand why this isn't all political theatre by the Democrats, GOP, and media? Before the regular posters start jumping on me for wearing a tin foil hat here are the current headlines on Yahoo...

I agree with this. I keep reading stories about money being spent to keep people OUT of parks - if the government is shut down, how are they staffed to actually prevent people from getting in?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In short, you can say "people just need to do better" but it's like "parents need to do a better job getting involved in school". That's not a solution- that's identifying a problem. Now how do you fix it?

SI

Crap like this doesn't help. I'm a big fan of Peyton Manning, but I wish he would stop advertising unhealthy foods that he probably never eats (Papa John's pizza, for instance).

YaleNews | Unhealthy food marketed to youth through athlete endorsements

Unhealthy food marketed to youth through athlete endorsements

By Megan Orciari
October 7, 2013

Professional athletes are often paid large amounts of money to endorse commercial products. But the majority of the food and beverage brands endorsed by professional athletes are for unhealthy products like sports beverages, soft drinks, and fast food, according to a new study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. The study appears in the November issue of Pediatrics.

Analyzing data collected in 2010 from Nielson and AdScope, an advertisement database, the study reveals that adolescents aged 12 to 17 viewed the most television ads for food endorsed by athletes. Previous research by public health advocates has criticized the use of athlete endorsements in food marketing campaigns for often promoting unhealthy food and sending mixed messages to youth about health, but this is the first study to examine the extent and reach of such marketing.

Researchers selected 100 professional athletes to study based on Businessweek’s 2010 Power 100 report, which ranked athletes according to their endorsement value and prominence in their sport. Information about each athlete’s endorsements was gathered from the Power 100 list and AdScope. Researchers then sorted the endorsements into categories: food/beverages, automotive, consumer goods, service providers, entertainment, finance, communications/office, sporting goods/apparel, retail, airline, and other. The nutritional quality of the foods featured in athlete-endorsement advertising was assessed, along with the marketing data.

Of the 512 brands associated with these athletes, food and beverage brands were the second largest category of endorsements behind sporting goods. “We found that LeBron James (NBA), Peyton Manning (NFL), and Serena Williams (tennis) had more food and beverage endorsements than any of the other athletes examined. Most of the athletes who endorsed food and beverages were from the NBA, followed by the NFL, and MLB,” said Marie Bragg, the study’s lead author and a doctoral candidate at Yale.

Sports beverages were the largest individual category of athlete endorsements, followed by soft drinks, and fast food. Most — 93% — of the 46 beverages being endorsed by athletes received all of their calories from added sugars.

Food and beverage advertisements associated with professional athletes had far-reaching exposure, with ads appearing nationally on television, the Internet, the radio, in newspapers, and magazines.

“The promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor products by some of the world’s most physically fit and well-known athletes is an ironic combination that sends mixed messages about diet and health,” said Bragg.

Bragg and co-authors assert that professional athletes should be aware of the health value of the products they are endorsing, and should use their status and celebrity to promote healthy messages to youth.

Other authors include Swati Yanamadala, Christina Roberto, and Jennifer L. Harris of the Rudd Center at Yale, and Kelly Brownell of Duke University.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Rudd Foundation.

[Kodos]

If star athletes sell junk food -- is your kid more likely to eat it? - NBC News.com

Another article on the same topic.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Deficit down 32% so far this year - May. 7, 2013

The deficit is falling not because of the 85 billion in cuts demanded by sequestration, it's because revenues have increased 16%.

Austerity won't work because even when everyone loses, folks will not agree to cut their projects and demand that the other people's projects take the hit. Sequestration proved that.

(Personally, I think that the out of control spending on military boondoggles like the F35 should be a major driver.. but the lobbyists has painted anyone who thinks that one cent of military spending hates 'Merica.. and others want to cut social net programs)

+1
Too bad this type of argument isn't sexy enough to make the news.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I agree with this. I keep reading stories about money being spent to keep people OUT of parks - if the government is shut down, how are they staffed to actually prevent people from getting in?

Because it's less expensive to pay a park ranger $X to keep people out of the park than it is to send in a helicopter and ambulance because Trespasser A is being menaced by a bear.



But seriously, though, I somewhat agree. I'm not sure if it's legally possible, but I'd rather see Obama be aggressive with what's shut down. People need to understand the ramifications of the lack of government services sooner rather than later, especially if the debt ceiling doesn't get raised and we really have to do without services.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Because it's less expensive to pay a park ranger $X to keep people out of the park than it is to send in a helicopter and ambulance because Trespasser A is being menaced by a bear.



But seriously, though, I somewhat agree. I'm not sure if it's legally possible, but I'd rather see Obama be aggressive with what's shut down. People need to understand the ramifications of the lack of government services sooner rather than later, especially if the debt ceiling doesn't get raised and we really have to do without services.

I can only assume some of these Federal workers are working without pay.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Somebody again help me understand why this isn't all political theatre by the Democrats, GOP, and media? Before the regular posters start jumping on me for wearing a tin foil hat here are the current headlines on Yahoo...

Poll: GOP gets the blame in shutdown - Yahoo News

Defying government shutdown, national park visitors play ‘catch me if you can’ - Yahoo News

Obama opens door to short-term deal to end shutdown and calls possible U.S. default an economic nuke - Yahoo News

Here is one that I can't find anywhere on there...

House Votes 407-0 to Provide Back Pay to Furloughed Workers | 218

So I know I am just an internet dumb conspiracy guy but after that vote isn't it just...

1) GOP talking fiscal responsibility while agreeing to pay all workers and thus having zero fiscal responsibility.

2) The Democrats shutting down popular attractions like the DC monuments and Yellowstone to show us all how important all of the out of control spending must be.

3) The media ignoring what seems to be the biggest story which is that everyone appears to be getting paid while still feeding the fear of points 1 and 2.

What exactly am I missing here? Does everyone getting back pay mean everyone isn't really getting back pay?

The backpay doesn't come in until after the shutdown is over. So no one is getting paid right now, not even the people who are deemed essential and have been working. I think everyone expected the backpay, since that was given in the last shutdown, so that's why it's not a huge news story. The backpay doesn't exactly comfort people who might not be able to go without however many paychecks until this shutdown ends.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The backpay doesn't come in until after the shutdown is over. So no one is getting paid right now, not even the people who are deemed essential and have been working. I think everyone expected the backpay, since that was given in the last shutdown, so that's why it's not a huge news story. The backpay doesn't exactly comfort people who might not be able to go without however many paychecks until this shutdown ends.

It also doesn't replace the spending to non-government employees. I know a woman that has layed-off a home healthcare aid for her husband because she currently is furloughed. The healthcare worker layed-off a babysitter because she couldn't afford it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

from today's AP poll ... perhaps the next fight is actually the big one?

People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit. Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government's ability to borrow isn't renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit - an expectation widely shared by economists. Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit; 46 percent were neutral on the question.

[miked]

Conflicted is the wrong answer, I'd say stupid.

[panerd]

I stand corrected on how they are getting paid but from my understanding some employees are working for no pay and some are at home not working. Both will be reimbursed the same? I would be a little pissed if my essential position got the same pay as someone else who is at home with their family doing nothing.

JPhillips: Though I may come across as a heartless anti-government guy on this board I certainly have some compassion for the babysitter of the healthcare worker of the employee. But the federal government never really lays off anyone do they? This situation really wouldn't be any different if the laid off worker was employed by GM or Coca-Cola would it? It sucks but when they get their backpay hopefully they will chose to not only pick the babysitter back up but maybe give her some "back pay".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How many votes is the GOP getting out of D.C.?

And honestly, how many votes from Virginia that Romney managed in a loss is this actually going to lose?

edit to add: I think the idea is rather silly, but it's not as though it carries any huge risk either. At this point D.C. is lucky that it hasn't been burned to the ground anyway, disrupting it further doesn't seem like a major misstep.

I wasn't necessarily talking about this, just the idea in general. We had some Occupy rally where they purposely blocked streets and made it a bitch to get home after work. Just never understood why a group would want to piss off people who they could use support from.

We also had anarchists during one of the summits in Chicago a year ago run around smashing windows. How is that benefiting your cause? All they did was piss off everyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

But the federal government never really lays off anyone do they?

They've cut around 100,000 in just the last year.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I mean, these are companies that try to scientifically come up with the "bliss point" to best addict you to their product.

I get it. Salt+sugar+fat=bad, and every company in this article adds a lot of it. But...the "bliss point" as fearmongering is pretty annoying. It's like we're actively decrying things that taste good as the problem. I know, the article (and most of society) is appropriately calling out the right things, but leading the article with "they try to make it taste as good as possible" doesn't really hit the message, and comes off really more anti-science than anything else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wasn't necessarily talking about this, just the idea in general.

Fair enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Conflicted is the wrong answer, I'd say stupid.

I wasn't wild about the way they chose to lead that section either tbh.

I don't think it indicates that much of a conflict necessarily, I'd say it could indicate the most shocking conclusion of all: a willingness to suffer a painful cure.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It also doesn't replace the spending to non-government employees. I know a woman that has layed-off a home healthcare aid for her husband because she currently is furloughed. The healthcare worker layed-off a babysitter because she couldn't afford it.

It also doesn't do jack shit for government contractors. Come Monday when I can't use stored PTO, if I'm not at work I won't get paid, and that money is not coming back.

[SirFozzie]

Republican party hits an all time favorability low, according to Gallup. The good news for them is we have a year till the next election, there's a couple pollsters who think that even with the gerrymandered districts, the House may be in play if this trend continues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/re...ecord-low.aspx

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Republican party hits an all time favorability low, according to Gallup. The good news for them is we have a year till the next election, there's a couple pollsters who think that even with the gerrymandered districts, the House may be in play if this trend continues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/re...ecord-low.aspx

Just curious, but has there ever been a link shown to exist between a party's national favorability and the results of a localized state/county election? I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I would be surprised if a republican would lose an election in rural Kentucky or a democrat would lose in Chicago because the overall party disdain level was high.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the national polls are indicative of future outcomes, a 3rd party will sweep the next federal election.

edit to add:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...6ee_story.html

Overall, 62 percent mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown. About half said Obama or the Democrats in Congress bear much responsibility ... Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it. Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent.

Indeed, anyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for his or her trouble, whether it’s Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, or Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, both with a favorability rating of 18 percent.

[Dutch]

If the national polls are indicative of future outcomes, a 3rd party will sweep the next federal election.

Everybody loves a good after-party.

[Flasch186]

Sen. Bob Corker said today that if Tres. Sec. Lew really stated that the 17th was the Dday and didnt leave himself a few months of 'runway' then he would be committing 'malpractice'. What?! Imagine if they found out the opposite occurred, that he stated the 17th but in fact they have oh, um, jeez I dunno, some arbitrary amount of runway that forced these idiots to bring a deal together before they had to because their faces were going to be sawed off tomorrow. They'd have him in front of a Sen. hearing in no time. You're Demamp if you do, and Demamp if you dont.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just curious, but has there ever been a link shown to exist between a party's national favorability and the results of a localized state/county election? I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I would be surprised if a republican would lose an election in rural Kentucky or a democrat would lose in Chicago because the overall party disdain level was high.

I've seen some correlation to national generic Dem/GOP preference having a predictive outcome, but I forget where I saw it. When a wave election is 10% switching parties there obviously won't be that much turnover.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Sen. Bob Corker said today that if Tres. Sec. Lew really stated that the 17th was the Dday and didnt leave himself a few months of 'runway' then he would be committing 'malpractice'. What?! Imagine if they found out the opposite occurred, that he stated the 17th but in fact they have oh, um, jeez I dunno, some arbitrary amount of runway that forced these idiots to bring a deal together before they had to because their faces were going to be sawed off tomorrow. They'd have him in front of a Sen. hearing in no time. You're Demamp if you do, and Demamp if you dont.

WTF?

We technically broke the debt limit months ago , but Treasury has been using "extraordinary means" to keep things going. On or about the 17th is when those run out.

[SirFozzie]

I see a story where a couple mutual funds are trying to divest themselves of short term US Treasury bonds, because if there's a default (even a short term technical default), they're required by law to mark it down to zero.

Bill Gross: We're buying what Fidelity is selling - Yahoo Finance

I'll set up a different thread for a poll if there's going to be an actual default.

[SirFozzie]

Pretty good Rolling Stone article on how we got here:


Tea Party Politics: A Look Inside the Republican Suicide Machine | Politics News | Rolling Stone

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Guy that my wife went to school with is running as a Tea Party candidate. I'm not really aligned with most of his ideas as he tends to go more towards a Rand Paul line of thinking. Should be interesting to see if he can unseat Pat Roberts. I know there's a lot of Tea Party money being pumped into his campaign.

Is Milton Wolf the next Ted Cruz? - The Week

[JPhillips]

How the hell is Pat Roberts not conservative enough?

[RainMaker]

Wolf is apparently upset that Roberts voted to raise the debt ceiling. Wolf sounds like a fucking moron.

[Passacaglia]

Mysterious Pro-Secession Billboard Appears In Missouri | ThinkProgress

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Mysterious Pro-Secession Billboard Appears In Missouri | ThinkProgress

LMAO

It figures they'd get the abbreviation for the state the billboard is in wrong.

Fucking idiots.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO

It figures they'd get the abbreviation for the state the billboard is in wrong.

Fucking idiots.

I think they got the state the billboard is in (MO) correct.

[sterlingice]

Also, for the record, TX better not secede. I just bought a house here and I'm not living in some hellhole "country" that includes Lousiana (no offense), Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Missouri.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think they got the state the billboard is in (MO) correct.

Was there MO on the billboard? I guess I didn't look at the picture close enough and just assumed that's the one they got wrong. MI/MS makes more sense though I suppose.

Haha.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think they got the state the billboard is in (MO) correct.

MI isn't a contiguous state to the others.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Was there MO on the billboard? I guess I didn't look at the picture close enough and just assumed that's the one they got wrong. MI/MS makes more sense though I suppose.

Haha.

Originally Posted by cartman

MI isn't a contiguous state to the others.

Right. The state they got wrong was Mississippi.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

MI isn't a contiguous state to the others.

Holy crap. I was thinking MS not MI. I'm not sure Michigan connects with Missouri. Maybe there's a tunnel under Illinois and Lake Michigan.

I was also thinking "damn, you're all around Arkansas but want no part of it".

SI

[Edward64]

Nice. Good to see they are talking. Wonder what Cruz will do next.

Showdown lowdown Day 10: The latest – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

"A useful and productive conversation."

That's how House Republican leaders characterized their meeting with President Barack Obama in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Thursday.

The good news is that they're still talking, contrasted with the last White House meeting when they had little to say.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, one of the Republican leaders at the White House meeting, said "we want to move quickly" and that Obamacare did not come up in "any substantive way" in their discussion. He said that both sides were working in good faith to resolve their differences.
:
:
Republicans earlier proposed to raise the debt ceiling for as long as six weeks to allow more time to negotiate a longer-term deal. In exchange, Republicans want a conference committee with members of both parties to work on a large deal addressing undefined “pressing problems.”

Obama has indicated that he would be open to a short-term extension but with no strings attached. The White House also said Obama wants the government reopened.
:
:
House Republicans, and notably Ted Cruz in the Senate, led the fight against Obama's signature health care law. They made defunding or delaying Obamacare a demand in legislation the House repeatedly sent to the Democratic-controlled Senate, only to see it die there.

Apparently, it's now dead in the House, too.

"That's currently off the table now," Republican Rep. James Lankford said in an interview on "The Lead with Jake Tapper." "That's obviously not going to happen at this point."

Lankford did say that Republicans will now instead ask for a one-year delay on penalties for those who don't sign up for health care insurance