Week In The News: Romney and Ryan and Issac

Jim_in_italy

From Giacomo in Italy who listens to the On Point podcast every day (downloaded from iTunes) and loves the show: Much is made of the 8% undecided vote and how much money is being spent to get the voters to move into one camp or another. How many of these voters are in the swing states, since these are the only electoral college votes really in play? I imagine the actual undecided voters in swing states is a very, very small percentage of the total

sickofthechit

The Electoral College sucks!
- Ray in VT
  
  I’ve never really cared for it. I think that the main reason for it’s existence was to put an intermediary between the public and the final decision. The College, theoretically composed of our betters, can put the kabosh on some nutty decision at the voting booth.
  
  I think that it creates other problems as well. The candidates are going to spend so little time and effort in safe states, because there is no incentive for them to go to Texas or California except to fundraise, because those states are already locked up. I also don’t like the idea that a guy with fewer votes can get elected President, as has happened on 3 occasions.
- Gregg Smith
  
  I kind of like having a voice instead of ceding the decisions to city slickers in NY and California.
- Acnestes
  
  It’s an anachronism that should have died with the arrival of mass communication. There was some justification for it in the 18th and 19th centuries when news might take months to reach some of the further flung parts of the country, but now it’s in the same class as wisdom teeth and the appendix. It adds nothing good and is just an opportunity for bad things to happen.

Jasoturner

I found it interesting that Paul Ryan was called out in the national media for – well, let’s just say it – lying in his speech at the convention. This struck me as highly atypical. Does your panel think that there is a change in the air in terms of news reporting? Are the stakes sufficiently high that the media are becoming more rigorous in sniffing out and exposing rhetorical distortion and dishonesty, rather than resorting to the “balanced” approach that has become so popular?

I sure hope so.

sickofthechit

When they are as obvious as ryan’s, they kind of don’t have choice.
Gregg Smith

He did not lie, it’s a reach by the press. Nothing he said was untrue.
- Ray in VT
  
  I think that defending the speech wholesale is a reach in and of itself. I was a bit heartened to hear someone from Fox News actually not tow the party line and give her honest opinion of the speech.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
  
  Given her views and her background, though, I wonder if she’ll be invited to contribute to Fox News in the future.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    I really don’t understand the Fox thing. I catch heat and am written off as a brainwashed ideologue but I refuse to shy away from the truth. The notion that Fox is in the tank and does not have dissenting views is absurd. You will hear no more vitriol against Republicans anywhere on the dial. It was Fox that broke the Bush drunk driving story days before the election. It was Hillary who said Fox was far more fair to her than the other networks. It was Juan Williams who dared to criticize Ann Romney as a corporate wife after her speech. There’s Joe Trippi, Bob Beckel, Mara Liaison, Juan Williams, Greta, Tamara Holder and scores of Liberals on Fox. The main news show is hosted by Democrat Shepherd Smith. I don’t understand your sentiment at all. I cannot believe you have watched much Fox.
    
    Now, to the link. It’s full of false premises, projections and innuendo but short on direct quotes and detailed rebuttal. I am happy to go through each line and show you what I mean but that just leads us to the weeds. I would appreciate it if you would give me one lie. And I don’t mean saying “While Ryan tried..” or “While Ryan blamed…” or “When Ryan insisted…”. Give me the direct quote because the accusations are inferred not stated. One doesn’t imply a lie. What did he say that was untrue. Show me the lie.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      twit “truth” twit “absurd” twit “lie”
    - Ray in VT
      
      I think that Fox gets knocked because of Murdoch’s positions, that it is run by a former head of the RNC and that it runs out a slew of conservative talking heads that put out opinion and commentary rather than straight news. Now, I kind of like Megan Kelly, and the straight news on Fox News Radio I think is pretty good. I think that one of their big problems is that their main commentators are all pretty much conservative ideologues. At least they parted ways with Glenn Beck. I used to watch some Fox, and I have to admit it was generally during the times when they had their “commentators” on rather than their actual newspeople.
      
      Now, you will perhaps notice that I did not characterize Mr. Ryan’s speech as full of lies. I’ll let others do that. Also the article characterized it in part as deceiving. I would be happy to argue that his speech contained half-truths, omissions and mis-characterizations. We all know that two wrongs don’t make a right, but how many half truths make a lie? I don’t know as there is an equation for that.
      
      I think that Paul Ryan is pretty slick, so I don’t think that he would come out at such a major forum and give a blatant factual misstatement. For instance, Mr. Ryan, unlike some others, did not say that Obama promised to keep the plant open in February 2008. That is correct. He then said that the factory didn’t last another year. Now, that is actually factually inaccurate. It apparently did last another 14 months in some capacity. It was mostly closed in December of 2008, well before Obama’s inauguration. Certainly it is still closed today, as Mr. Ryan has said, and that it unfortunate for the town. Where is the recovery? Well certainly some of those GM plants that did close then are open, and they currently anticipate running 3 shifts through the end of the year due to increased demand.
      
      He criticizing Obama for the money taken out of Medicare providers but fails to mention that his plan would cut the same amount. It is those sorts of omissions that make people criticize it as being dishonest, and I think that if you cannot see that those tactics were used to create, at times, false impressions among viewers and voters, then I think that you are willfully ignoring them.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Romney’s plan does not take the money out of Medicare. Obama does take it out and puts it into Obamacare which has already tripled in price, had conflicts with religious freedom, is not supported my a majority and has given over 1000 waivers. Ryan’s plan is no Obamacare, it doesn’t count the medicare cuts twice as Obama does and his plan is deficit neutral. But Ryan’splan doesn’t matter, it’s not on the table. He did not lie.
    - Ray in VT
      
      What is Romney’s plan for Medicare? I know his plan for student loans, which, from my understanding, routes the money back through private banks, thereby padding their bottom lines.
      
      Now, my understanding for the charge that Obama took the money out of Medicare is based upon compensation to providers that was negotiated out as a part of bringing providers on board with the reform law. If you can provide me with an unbiased, reputable source that arguing otherwise, then I would be willing to consider it.
      
      Is Ryan’s plan still on the table in the House? I think that his plan is a valid point to go after. He proposed it. It reflects his worldview, and if it so great, then why wasn’t it brought up? It’s not Romney’s plan, then fair enough, but perhaps he should have mentioned Romney’s plan, otherwise he was merely repeating a charge that many have labelled false without noting that he would remove the same amount of money from the program’s expected costs but just via other mechanisms. Not a lie, but an omission and a distortion.
    - Don_B1
      
      Romney in a great series of etch-a-sketchs, said on Monday, 13 August, his plan was identical or almost identical to Ryans, but they he had not done a line-by-line check (WSJ, Washington Wire) then on Tuesday, ex-Gov. John Sununu, a senior advisor, said Romney’s plan was quite different, then the next day Romney said they were real similar. Either Romney just doesn’t know or they are similar.
      
      One thing: Romney is not prepared for the presidency; he is barely prepared to answer questions that any good candidate should know were coming.
      
      What would he do as president when a real emergency comes up for which he has no experience?
      
      In his business life he has always spent extra time to do analyses down to the dot before starting a deal and then followed the initial path to deal closure, no deviations.
      
      Private equity is not free-wheeling; it is behind the scenes analysis and then drive down the plotted road to victory or pull out. He never had to establish working relationships with people with different life origins, styles or objectives. His was a closed group of smart people who set out to make a lot of money. The picture of them all celebrating with money stuffed all around their clothing and bodies says a lot.
    - Don_B1
      
      The fact that Romney undoes PPACA changes which “took the money out of Medicare” means that the changes where that money was used to close the “doughnut hole” and other changes that the Medicare Advisory Board rated to EXTEND the life of Medicare by EIGHT YEARS is gone also, so under Romney the Medicare fund will go negative in 2016 rather than 2024 under Obama.
      
      Want to bet that Romney keeps Obama’s changes?
- jimino
  
  If you really believe that, please do not engage anyone trying to sell you a bridge from Brooklyn to Manhattan.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    As he cites no lie.

sickofthechit

I loved Clint Eastwood, before he appeared at the RNC. Now I only have sadness and disgust for what was done to him. Shame on the “Repugnicans” for this travesty.

Obama’s “imagined” response to tell Romeny to go #$@! himself was a dick cheney line, not a President Barack Obama line. Or have we forgotten cheney’s deleted expletive on the floor of the Senate aimed at a Democratic Congressman shortly after he and bush assumed the
presidency?
Charles A. Bowsher

Ray in VT

I believe that the incident to which you are referring involved Vermont’s senior Senator, Patrick Leahy. Cheney always kept it classy.
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  Classy and sleazy at the same time. If it hadn’t been so disturbing it would have been impressive.

sickofthechit

There was a blurb wed night on faux news that said President Obama is calling for a Constitutional Convention to de-fang Citizens United. I can think of a few other items of interest for a Constitutional Convention, how about-
-Closure of the Electoral College {EC} (we could have avoided 2 wars, but for the EC in 2000)
-Expand the Definition of the General Welfare Clause to include Universal Health Care (It’s time to quit wasting 20%+ of each Health Care dollar on Insurance company overhead and no more uninsured Ameircans)
-Recognition that the Earth is a limited resource in the middle of nowhere and a realignment of our policies that recognizes that fact.
-Anybody else?
Charles A. Bowsher

Ray in VT

I don’t think that one could get any of those passed realistically.
- sickofthechit
  
  No. but 2/3 rds of us could. or is it 4/5 ths?
  - Ray in VT
    
    I’m pretty sure that it’s 3/4 of the states (39 currently needed). I’m not sure off the top of my head if that’s the same in the Congress.
Government_Banking_Serf

Universal Comfort Food Fridays?

Universal Electric Cars?

Universal 20th Century Middle Class lifestyle entitlement?

Why not, sounds good to me. We just wish it (with a little dose of mandate), and we can have it! China’s buying, lets splurge!
Don_B1

Consider supporting/working for (Harvard professor) Lawrence Lessig’s constitutional amendment for public campaign finance. That will allow legislators to spend their time on legislation instead of spending almost half their days fundraising. And not feeling that they have to modify their legislation to get campaign donations.
hennorama

It is so odd that people call for Constitutional Amendments seemingly at the drop of a hat, as if it were simple to get one passed. It’s practically impossible, requiring a proposal either by 2/3 majority votes in BOTH the US House and Senate, OR from a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Then the proposed amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, currently needing 38 states for approval.

Proposing these things seem only to demonstrate one’s lack of seriousness on the issue.

Republicans call for multiple CAs in their platform, to do the following:

- ban abortion under a “human life” amendment
- require balanced Federal budgets
- require 2/3 super-majorites for ANY tax increases
- ban same-sex marriage

None of these have the proverbial snowball’s chance of even becoming an official Proposed Amendment.

I find the balanced budget idea especially goofy, since the saintly Reagan never had one in 8 years, nor did either Bush I nor Bush II. It would also have effectively stopped wartime spending in World War II, when deficit spending averaged over 22% of GDP.
- Don_B1
  
  Note that the sainted Paul Ryan has published a budget document, “Path to Prosperity” which does not get to a “balanced budget” for AT LEAST 28 years. Who thinks that the economic conditions in 2040 can be calculated to any real accuracy for that far in the future? Note also that so much of Ryan’s budget is in “magical asterisks” that future Congresses will surely change it.

Ed75

What the RNC did was to resurrect American business. Mr. Romney offers family, decency, competence, common sense.

The only thing President Obama offers, which Mitt Romney doesn’t offer, if free sexual expression, and a society structured to deal with the fallout of the use of free sexual expression. That’s why the president of Planned Parenthood, an organization that killed 320 million human beings last year, is speaking at the DNC.

Ray in VT

I think that free sexual expression is a good thing. Sure, some of the changes since the sexual revolution of the 1960s have had adverse effects, but I would rather live in a world that is trying to deal with those problems than a world where society attempts to force people into narrow boxes that are defined by institutions like organized religion. I have many friends that are out of the closet now, and they’re happy. They’re not hurting anyone, and people should leave them along to let them live their lives. You may disagree with their lifestyle choices, but it’s not your place to decide for them.

Also, 320,000,000. That’s a pretty big number. I think that you might be off on that, aside from the fact that I disagree with the notion that abortion is killing a human being.
- Ed75
  
  Oops, 320 thousand, you’re right.
  - Ray in VT
    
    I thought that it was probably a typo. These things happen.
    - Ed75
      
      But the 320 million number, roughly, was in my mind because it’s the estimated number of human beings killed in abortion in China since the one child policy was implemented in 1979.
- Don_B1
  
  Ed75 has magnified the number by at least a factor of 100. But the best way to reduce that is through the PPACA (Obamacare or Obama Cares), which would provide better contraception for all and better medical care. The cuts the Republicans want for all discretionary spending will severely cut NIH research for all kinds of genetic diseases and other problems that cause fetal malformation resulting in the need for abortion.
  
  Better support for poor families would help too, as some abortions are because families feel they cannot support another child. Most such abortions are by mothers, living with the other parent, with multiple other children who got pregnant accidentally.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Stick to defending the rights of creepy men in robes. When you stray from that you manage to become less coherent and factual (if that can be imagined).

sickofthechit

Romney says President Obama wants to wage Class Warfare. So I take it that Romney thinks Class Warfare is wrong. So how does he justify the Class Genocide that has been waged by the wealthy for the last 30 years?

What Class Genocide you might ask? The one that has seen the wealthiest 20% share of the wealth rise from 75% in the 1980′s to over 88% today. Their 13% increase was the same loss the poor and middle class suffered over the same period. There’s really not that much left for the rest of us under a Romney/Ryan presidency is there? Especially if the Republicans gain control of Congress as well. Romney/Ryan want to lower the taxes still further on the wealthiest. As if paying 13 or 14% on his $20,000,000 in income is to much to ask.

Mister Romney, it’s not envy or jealously we feel, it is disgust, plain and simple disgust.

Charles A. Bowsher

Don_B1

Ryan’s tax plan would lower Romney’s tax rate to under 1%! And raise the taxes of those earning between 100,000 to 200,000 by at least $2,000. See the Tax Policy Center analysis.
OnPointComments

One of the typical tactics of the left is to point to a statistic and declare that the statistic is the problem, not the underlying cause of the statistic.�
�
Examples? The White House Executive Order that school discipline must be based on racial quotas instead of infraction rates, because the White House believes the statistic is the problem, not the family and social environments that cause some students to be more disruptive than others.

Pay scales by gender without analysis of the causes of the disparity, because acknowledging that career choice, hours worked, and motherhood affect compensation would undermine the unsubstantiated charge of discrimination.

And finally, listing income inequality statistics without an examination of the part that education, households with two earners who have full-time year round work, career choices, and not having a family until you have an education and are married, play in determining income, because to examine the causes might show that the choices people make have an effect on their income and wealth accumulation. The income inequality statistics to which the left points frequently includes that tired old canard that there was a pile of money somewhere and some people took more than their fair share, so “there’s really not that much left for the rest of us.” If this were true, then surely the successes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have driven hundreds of thousands into poverty; instead, we know that their personal successes brought prosperity to many, many others.
�
�
Solutions are easy without the causal analysis. An Executive Order to disregard discipline problems fixes the statistic; the Payroll Fairness Act that declares a business guilty until proven innocent fixes pay disparity; and redistributing wealth based on a liberal’s ideal of fairness fixes income inequality. If only it was truly that simple.
- sickofthechit
  
  When tax rates on dividend and investment income are lowered because of powerful (wealthy) interests. When wages are classified as carried interest because someone has a powerful lobby, when estate taxes are actually allowed to go to 0%, don’t tell me it has been fair. It has been Class Genocide.
  
  You and your ilk expect us to continue to play in a game where the weallthiest 20% get 88% of the chips and 88% of the cards, while the lowest 20% get 3% or so. Have you no shame?
  - OnPointComments
    
    Dividends: taxed twice, once at the corporate level and again at the invidual level.
    �
    Estate tax: to quote Thomas Jefferson: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
    
    I have no doubt that if taxes were raised, Congress would immediately find a way to spend the additional revenue.
    
    If you want tax reform, vote Romney/Ryan. It certainly hasn’t happened with the current administration.
    - Don_B1
      
      Sorry but your analysis does not hold up for the following reasons:
      
      Dividends: there is double taxation all over the place, from taxes paid to states and localities as well as the Federal government. But the big one is that a lot of money paid in dividends is never taxed at the receiver (non-profits, in an IRA which passes on through a trust, etc.) The complications of following that and having business pay taxes according to the tax status of the payee, when that is undeterminable for years is a complication no one would want.
      
      Estate tax: Jefferson is well-known for having opinions on both sides of many issues, particularly difficult ones like inheritance. He acknowledged the conflict between inheritance and the belief that “all men are created equal.” He was a against intergenerational debt and hereditary aristocratic privileges and a plutocracy is built and enhanced by removing taxation on inherited wealth. See the following for a more complete discussion:
      
      http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8316-to-whom-much-is-given-why-we-need-to-tax-inheritance
      
      The more a plutocratic aristocracy becomes entrenched the LESS mobility a society becomes and thus the chances for success by a member of the middle class or below becomes. So removing all inheritance taxation does actually lower the chances of anyone not initially wealthy of becoming wealthy.
- Don_B1
  
  First, I don’t think there are any Democrats who DON’T think that family social environments are the biggest factor in a child’s progress in school; Obama’s EO points the school system away from counterproductive punishment. If there is a “problem,” it is that it does not go further and point toward the approach that does work as the Vermont schools, since the 1990s, have shown works, restorative justice:
  
  http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/julia-steiny-our-punitive-mindset-blinds-us-to-effective-discipline/
  
  With the largest prison population of ANY country in the world, both in absolute numbers and percentage of population, this country has an unfounded faith in punishment (except for our own children, whom for whom every effort is made to allow them to avoid the consequences of a misdeed and the more money the parents have the more that is a big part of their approach to raising their children). To see how restorative justice works, see:
  
  http://www.restorativejustice.org/
  
  Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act does not do what you claim through distortion, etc. See the following for a reality check:
  
  http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pfa_myths_and_facts_factsheet_5.30.12_final.pdf
  
  Third, your allusion to arguments that faulty studies are used to justify “equal pay” laws is as much of a distortion as using such studies would be: there are good studies that show how discrimination is used against women and acknowledge that there are valid reasons that in totality there may always be a lifetime pay differential, but there should not be a differential for the woman working a job doing the same work at the same skill level as a man. That is what is still happening today, as the Lilly Ledbetter case showed.
  
  Summing up:
  
  Certainly solutions are “easy” without causal analysis, but your “causal analysis” is lazy and horribly defective, and is typical of the thinking that allowed the problems to occur in the first place.

JGC

Gov. Romney has sewn up the cranky, rambling old man vote.

DrewInGeorgia

He achieved that before he ever even spoke a word. He has the proper ‘credentials’ required and they have nothing to do with past experience or performance.

keltcrusader

Well Mr Romney, since you asked, I am better off today than I was 4 years ago and I know many others that are also. I was laid off in 2008 and found a new job in 2009. My husband who is a carpenter has been busy throughout the past 4 years and his company is increasing business more every month. In fact, many tradesmen we know are quite busy after a year or so of bare minimum after the 2008 financial crash. I see in the news income has finally begun rising for middle class workers and we have had positive job growth since shortly after Obama was elected which was a complete turnaround from the continual job losses under Bush. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly better than it was. Do you really think I would vote to pass the reins back to those who ruined the lives of so many in the US and want to revert back to those bad policies plus remove my rights of autonomy as a woman? I don’t think so.

http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

Wow, that was almost worst than crap being thrown against a wall.

I’m glad to hear your situation and family is doing well, but speak for yourself. There are millions more still suffering. The economy is growing at an anemic rate of 1.7% the past 4 years. Obama has a net job loss since he took office. How is that improvement? Is this acceptable to you? We should be shooting for 5% growth per year!

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

You are drinking the ObamaKoolaid by saying, “Do you really think I would vote to pass the reins back to those who ruined the lives of so many in the US and want to revert back to those bad policies…”. The housing bubble caused this great mess, policies from Clinton (Democrat).
Lets not forget that Bush tried 8 times to deal with the housing bubble only to be denied which led to this great recession. Also, this bubble was started by GOVERNMENT, exacerbated by crooked brokers and lousy home buyers. Hard to put the sole blame on Republicans here.
- keltcrusader
  
  Get a life Ryan and stop blaming others for your party’s role in the country’s problems. Romney asked a question and I answered. The economy is growing and would be growing faster if Republican weren’t so interested in getting a Democrat out of the WH instead of working together to fix the problems. Try Republican Congress instead of Bill Clinton for the policies that were enacted by none other the Mr “Serial Cheater” Newt Gringritch.
  - Government_Banking_Serf
    
    Your party allegiance, and blinders to the truth of the 2 party mess, will not serve you well in the long run.
    
    Plenty of blame to go around, the 2 parties are corrupt tools of the banking class, and failure to look at the bigger picture and fight for reform will lead to further destruction of the American Dream in all its forms.
    
    http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com
  - http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings
    
    Just so I’m clear. You are okay with a guy that has produced no net jobs, 1.7% growth over 3.5 years, proposed no reasonable budget to control the deficit or debt, continues the wars, and constantly makes false claims that taxing the rich is going to solve our problems?
    
    You don’t look for much in a President. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking you I’m just frustrated how people can vote for this guy AGAIN.
- Don_B1
  
  It is true that Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that had been held up by Sen Phil Gramm until his provision preventing SEC regulation of derivatives was inserted.
  
  The Democrats had passed legislation in the early 1990s giving the Federal Reserve the power to regulate the “Shadow Banking” industry, exemplified by Countrywide (later bought by Bank of America), but when Rep. Barney Frank, seeing widespread abuse in that sector, as a minority leader, requested that Alan Greenspan use that power, Greenspan declined. Greenspan also said that rules against market fraud did not have to be enforced as the market would take care of it [eventually, after huge damage to innocent people!].
  
  George W. Bush appointed a strong free-market advocate, Rep. Christopher Cox (R, CA), to head the S.E.C. where he did nothing to monitor the growing bubble in derivatives being traded by the banks based on mortgages they were buying without any evaluation from the (private) shadow banking industry to slice and dice into “tranches” of self-determined quality, and covered by bought evaluations by the Mornngstars, etc. This is how the house of cards was built, mostly through Republicans actions and non-actions.
  
  George W. Bush praised the growing level of homeownership while letting regulation fall by the wayside. His attempts to control the GSEs were disguised attempts to kill them, not reign in the abuses they committed, which were not increasing bad loans, but manipulating in-house accounting to maximize executive pay. The GSEs did not buy low-rated sub-prime mortgages until they saw their market share dropping and Countrywide CEO Mozilla told them he would stop selling any mortgages to them unless they also bought the under-qualified ones. But that was AFTER the horse had left the barn and the housing bubble was almost over.
  
  Your Republican talking points are a mix of distortions and outright lies.
  - http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings
    
    Don_B1,
    
    I agree with most of what you said except two things.
    
    1.) You try to divert blame from Barney Frank. Here’s a quote “Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.” If Bush would have succeeded to regulate GSEs or kill them we would have been better off.
    
    Source: http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/
    
    2.) “Your Republican talking points are a mix of distortions and outright lies.” Can you tell where I lied in my reply to keltcrusader? I was meirly trying to point out that is was not solely the Republican policies that caused this mess. That is what Obama would love for everyone to believe.
    - Don_B1
      
      It IS a lie that the GSEs initiated the practices that led to the housing and derivative bubbles. George Bush’s attempts to pass legislation “controlling” the GSEs went far beyond what was necessary to prevent the auditing coverups, etc. that the executives of those entities were engaging in. George Bush could have passed legislation that would have curbed those practices and possibly kept the GSEs completely out of participation in the derivative debacle, but it would have meant little or nothing toward preventing the 2008 financial crisis, which was generated by the rich who were looking for a good return on all the extra money they had as a result of the Bush tax cuts and the banks ginned up derivatives as a great way to make money for the banks while selling rubbish with a fake polish to those with money and no place to put it. The big investment banks started selling derivatives based on sound mortgages but as the demand rose, they looked to the shadow banks for more product and the product got successively more risky but no one wanted to look closely. The saying “you’ll be gone, I’ll be gone” [before all hell breaks loose] obtained.
      
      As for the claim against the CRA, the banks where CRA applied were never more than 20% of the subprime loan market and the GSAs never accepted loans with lowered standards until the Bush administration changes of 2005.
      
      See:
      
      http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
      
      Barney Frank’s statement was made in 2003, when just about everyone had no problem with the housing market except that it was not growing fast enough. He saw the Bush proposal as adding an extra layer of bureaucracy (would you believe that from a Democrat?).
      
      Over the next two years, Rep. Frank did see the mortgage bubble and that the growing size of the shadow banking industry was leading to deceptive practices and that led him to ask, from his weak position as a minority party member of the House Committee on Financial Services, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to use his power to regulate the shadow banks. And Greenspan forcefully declined.
      
      I don’t need to defend Barney Frank, his record stands on its own, but people do need to get the facts from objective sources.
- jefe68
  
  No it’s not. Talk about drinking kool-aid.
  You have a whole lot of distorted BS here.

Ray in VT

One of the things that irritates me about politics is the rhetoric. I know that politicians gloss over inconvenient facts and generalize, and I realize the political uses of such speech, but it really does get me sometimes.

For instance, take the clip from Governor Romney where he says that the U.S. liberates people from dictators. That is true. We have helped to get rid of some very awful rulers. The truth, though, is that we have also propped up such people when it has suited us.

There is a song by a group called the Descendants called ‘Merican that addresses both the great and the terrible things that we have done as a nation. One line that I particularly like is “You got to know the truth before you say that you got pride”. We need to look at the whole of our actions, but I know that that doesn’t make for good speechifying.

Don_B1

That is sure true when the speechifying is to sell hogwash and worse as the main course for Sunday dinner.
DrewInGeorgia

The Descendants! Haven’t heard that band mentioned in a loooooong time. You ever listen to the TSOL (True Sounds Of Liberty) album Revenge? There’s several songs on it that are On Point. Don’t particularly care for their other albums though.
- Ray in VT
  
  I’ve never heard of them. The only reason that I know about that Descendants song was because it was on a Warped Tour compilation album from 2004, which also had the first Flogging Molly song that I’d ever heard. They’re pretty great in my opinion. I also really like Bad Religion and Pennywise, although I’m not sold on the latter’s new lead singer.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    You should listen to the Bad Brains album Rock For Light and the TSOL Revenge album if you ever get the opportunity. I wouldn’t make those recommendations to many, you strike me as being open minded enough to appreciate them though.
    - Ray in VT
      
      Thanks, Drew. I’ll see if I can get my hands on some copies. I try to be fairly open about my listening habits, although most pop, country and rap really turn me off. I’m also a pretty big fan of Metallica, Concrete Blonde and Oingo Boingo.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Metallica lost me when And Justice for all came out, it was all downhill from there in my opinion. I really like Tool (along with A Perfect Circle, and Puscifer. I’m a big Maynard James Keenan fan), Soul Coughing, and Squirrel Nut Zippers. Thanks for the music discussion, it was a nice respite from the norm.
    - Ray in VT
      
      No problem. I’m glad to talk about something other than politics or religion.
      
      I know a lot of Metallica fans who think that it was all downhill after Justice. I can’t say that I agree. The only album that I didn’t like was St. Anger. I thought that all of the others had some very redeemable tunes.
      
      I haven’t listened to much Tool or A Perfect Circle, just what gets played on the radio, but I like what I’ve heard. Soul Coughing. Now there’s a band that I think of now and then, especially when I see the word mezzanine (super bon bon, super bon bon).
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      You just don’t know how much better you’ve made my day! If you’re not too familiar with TOOL, the Lateralus album is a good way to ease into it. The older music is pretty rough and pretty dark, but I love it all the same. If you really want to jump off the deep end get a hold of the Opiate album, it was the first.
      
      So glad to talk to someone else that is familiar with Soul Coughing, thanks again for making my day Ray!
      
      It is five AM, and you are listening, to Los Angeles.
  - J__o__h__n
    
    Bad Religion’s last several albums have been awful.
    - Ray in VT
      
      I don’t know, John, I think that the last three have had their moments. I haven’t listened to Dissent of Man much, but New Maps of Hell had a couple of good songs. I think that the Empire Strikes First had more and that the Process of Belief and Stranger Than Fiction were easily their best.
    - J__o__h__n
      
      I prefer Suffer, No Control, and Against the Grain.

sickofthechit

Romney Claims that he will create 12 million jobs in four years. His main policy to do this seems to revolve around deeper tax cuts for the invisible job creators. So far 12+ years of tax cuts for job creators has not yielded all that many jobs. The only thing it has yielded is nearly $3 trillion dollar in cash on company balance sheets. Maybe they are to greedy or selfish to “create” the jobs for a Democratic President.

StilllHere

it would help if you knew what you were talking about

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Summary.pdf
- Don_B1
  
  sickofthechit knows a lot more about how the economy works than you do.
- sickofthechit
  
  He, Ryan and the other repugs keep on saying lowering taxes on the wealthy will encourage the job creators to create jobs. When I go to look at his tax policy it is all about reducing corporate rates still further , lowering marginal rates, and eliminating the estate tax.
  
  Repugnicans refused to act on Obama’s jobs bill. I guess out of fear it might succeed
  - Don_B1
    
    If Ryan was not throwing total BS in his 14 February 2002 speech (C-SPAN) in favor of the Bush tax cuts, he understands exactly WHY the Obama jobs bill WILL work and provide a good part of the recovery growth the country needs. Why else did the infrastructure bill lie dormant between the Republican House and the Senate Republican filibuster from September 2011 to June 2012, except that the Republicans knew they would not have anything to run on from the economy if it had passed any earlier?
    
    Watch the reversal in position and see how the political imperative has driven Ryan’s approach to government, here:
    
    http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/19/13361928-video-paul-ryan-defended-stimulus-in-2002-when-george-w-bush-wanted-it?lite
    
    Unfortunately, the segments do not automatically follow and are somewhat out of sequence in the video window at the end of each segment; they are in the bottom tier, left to right.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

Why not? Look at how many more jobs we have from the last round of tax cuts
- StilllHere
  
  Millions were created, unfortunately millions more were lost because of increased government regulation over the last four years. :-<
  - Samuel Walworth
    
    Ofcourse, we didnt enter the recession until Obama took office..
    - StilllHere
      
      No, but it worsened under his watch and the recovery has been pathetic because of increased government regulation. The last three years, economists have thought we had a 50/50 chance of heading back into recession.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      Wait.
      
      “but it worsened under his watch ”
      
      “and the recovery has been pathetic because of increased government regulation”
      
      “The last three years, economists have thought we had a 50/50 chance of heading back into recession.show more”
      
      So the economy got better than what it was before he took office.
      
      Still you seem to admit such while claiming it worsened
    - StilllHere
      
      Wow, Mickey, you are dense. Let me put it in terms even you should be able to get. On day one, he started digging a hole, it got really deep; he filled it a little bit, but he’s still in a hole. So no, not better than when he took office.
    - Ray in VT
      
      I would disagree vehemently. Our public debt problem is certainly worse, but our GDP numbers, monthly job numbers and stock market numbers are all up. The housing market looks to have finally bottomed out and is starting to recover in some areas.
    - Don_B1
      
      Exactly what did Obama do on day 1 that was hole-digging?
      
      The ARRA was the act that brought the job hemorrhaging to a stop within a couple months fo its 17 February 2009 signing.
      
      Are you saying that when a fire truck arrives at a building in flames with a series of oil drums in the process of being engulfed, the first drip of water has to reach exactly the next drum to explode and prevent that and all unburst drums from being engulfed?
      
      And then when you want to send in a neighboring fire company to help because of the huge size of the building and its explosive contents, someone else prevents them from going to the fire?
      
      Get real!
    - Don_B1
      
      The ONLY period where the recession, which began in December 2007, got worse was the first two months or so, before his ARRA, passed in less than a month after his inauguration, took effect and stopped the hemorrhaging, and started the recovery so that the Great Recession technically ended in June 2009.
      
      But you never even acknowledge that this recession has a different cause than all the other post-WWII recessions and therefore will have a different type of recovery.
      
      This is called a balance-sheet recession because it is caused by a large part of the private sector economy overleveraging itself with debt and a full recovery will not happen until that debt is paid off.
      
      The stimulus is one way to help the deleveraging by putting the unemployed to work earning money to pay down their debt. That earned money gets spent increasing the income of others who spend that money, building a “virtuous circle” that restores the economy to its previous level and the stimulus spending then ends, leaving a robust economy.
  - Don_B1
    
    The Great Recession began in December 2007, crescendoing after the Lehman Bros. going bankrupt in September 2008, freezing the banking industry and panicking business into cutting spending and workers.
    
    Since the ARRA passed, the GDP hemorrhaging stopped and the private sector had job growth that was HIGHER than in the G.W. Bush period, while, once the stimulus funding to the states ended they balanced their budgets on cutting teachers and first responders, which has held back overall growth and kept unemployment high.
    
    What was the purpose of the Republicans delaying, on flimsy grounds, passage of the infrastructure bill from September 2011 to June 2012 except to ensure that there could be no improvement in economic numbers until AFTER the election?

http://www.facebook.com/matt.lepoli Matt LePoli

Is it still possible for politicians to hurt their own cause by being untruthful? Romney tells a joke that discounts global warming during what will likely be the warmest year on record. Ryan criticizes Obama for the credit downgrade to which Ryan himself contributed, and for the loss of jobs at a factory that was closed under George Bush.

Al Gore was called to task for much less than this in the 2000 election. Do the panelists think this cycle’s mendacity will have any cost to the cause of the politicians? And if so, how big does the whopper have to be?

Gregg Smith

President Obama has thumped his chest plenty over Osama Bin Laden. Never mind he condemned the very methods that led to Bin Laden’s demise. When being interviewed about the SEAL team Obama referred to Admiral McRaven as General McRaven. You’d think he’d know the difference. Sadly, three of the SEALs that conducted the raid have now been killed in combat. So, Mr. Chest thumper sent them a form letter. Classy.

WorriedfortheCountry

Don’t forget, while Mr. Obama was sending a form letter to the families of the fallen heroes he sent a personal hand written note thanking a rapper.

J__o__h__n

Clint Eastwood proved why actors need scripts.

jefe68

That was weird. What where they thinking?
- J__o__h__n
  
  Maybe the “mystery” in “mystery guest” meant why not who?
  - Mouse_2012
    
    They should have had Chuck Norris
    - J__o__h__n
      
      He delivered a lot of votes for Huckabee last time.
JGC

I wonder if Eastwood felt he had to make it clear he was a true Republican; the auto commercial he did during the SuperBowl made some muse he may have flipped to the Obama side. But it was a truly sad and bewildering appearance. It kind of reminded me of how the aging Charlton Heston could also appear disjointed in his role as NRA/Republican rabblerouser, and then near the end announced he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
Shag_Wevera

Too old. Crossed the line of competency.

Ray in VT

Here is my nomination for best news of the week (popular culture subcategory): MTV is finally getting rid of Jersey Shore after this season. Now let’s see if we can rid ourselves of Toddles & Tiaras.

Acnestes

I’d still take it over the GOP convention.
- J__o__h__n
  
  Unless their governor drops by.
hennorama

Yes, and get rid of the even more perverse “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” Weird objectifying of pre-teen girls. I guess these just prove the old H.L Mencken adage “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
- Ray in VT
  
  Yeah, that one’s just disturbing too. My wife watches a lot of the competition cooking shows and such, but we stay away from “reality tv”. I get all of my news on that front from Joel McHale on The Soup.
- Ray in VT
  
  Also, that’s a nice Mencken quote. Gotta love the man that created the popular myth the Millard Fillmore was the first President to have a bathtub in the White House.

keltcrusader

Food for thought: Although Paul Ryan says he defers to Romney’s stance on abortion (exceptions for rape, incest or life of mother), we are talking about a VP who has the ability to influence legislation and could have a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Would women really want the person who has consistently said that women should have NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER to be the one person who makes a final decision on legislation pertaining to what she does with her own body? Considering the enormous amount of anti-female legislation offered and, in some cases enacted, just in the past year, I think the chances of a continued assault on a woman’s right to freely choose her destiny for herself would be pretty much guaranteed.

StilllHere

What does “influencing legislation” mean and how would it work practically? If you’re going to use scare tactics, they need to be based in reality.
- keltcrusader
  
  The VPs primary duties is to act as the President of The US Senate who oversees procedural matters and is able cast a tie-breaking vote, and to preside over Congress’s count of the Electoral College. They are also next in the line of succession. In addition, the VP has more recently become the spokesperson for the Administrations policies & positions and can sometimes take a harder line on policy than the President – Dick Cheney comes to mind in this respect. If you actually think that, although the VP cannot address or contribute to the discussions while Congress is in session, that they do not influence the direction their parties tack to behind the scenes, you are the delusional one.
  - StilllHere
    
    Thanks for the civic lesson. But let’s get back to reality. How many times since Row v Wade has the VP broken a tie? Where’s the link between being a spokesman and legislation that gets passed? Cite specific examples. Wouldn’t he have more real influence as a powerful representative as part of the majority in one of the Houses that actually passes the legislation?
    
    What pieces of anti-women legislation did Obama enact? Sounds like Biden didn’t use his substantial powers of influence to prevent it. Curious.
    - Mike_Card
      
      Often enough for Darth Cheney to tell a Senator to go f*** himself.
mzdj

The question I haven’t heard anyone ask is, what if a woman is a victim of rape or incest. How does she get “permission” for an abortion? Does she have to prove the rape or incest? Hasn’t she gone through enough already? And who decides. Let me guess. Men!
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  I guess there would have to be a government bureau to handle that.
- hennorama
  
  And in Virginia, she would have been further violated by the proposed pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement (that was removed in the final law and changed to requiring abdominal ultrasound). This procedure in the original bill, shockingly would have required vaginal insertion of an ultrasound probe!
  
  What in the world were these legislators thinking? I hesitate to ask what further outrages they can think up.
Mike_Card

I have two daughters, and I encourage them to stay away from Virginia. If, however, they find themselves there and additionally find themselves in need of legal medical services, I have advised both to let me know if they are ever threatened with “transvaginal” devices. If they answer in the affirmative, firearms will be involved; and, of course, that is a 2nd amendment issue, isn’t it?

For my money, Paul Ryan is a cretin who shouldn’t even be allowed out of his cage.

J__o__h__n

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-funniest-pictures-of-year.htm?x=340&y=100&PS=712%3A38

Don_B1

That really is truth in advertising!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

We have reached the age where most people prefer a witty, catchy soundbytes over facts. And will even parrot the soundbytes over and over when they know full well they are less than honest or outright lies.

With Factcheck and other sources we often have easy access to the truth so we can assess and make our own opinions – but apparently most don’t care about the truth and would rather hear and repeat snappy one-liners zinging the opposition instead.

Mouse_2012

There was a story last night about fact checkers(I think either NPR or “The World”) in which it talked about how even when politicans are proven to be lying by a fact checker they will still go on to repeat the lie.
- BHA_in_Vermont
  
  lies repeated often enough to enough people become the truth – in those people’s minds.
- hennorama
  
  It’s ironic that Republican propagandists like Ryan, Romney and others are behaving like Socialists when they repeatedly lie. After all, it was Lenin who said “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Don_B1

That is why rhetoric is the last refuge of scoundrels along with patriotism.

That is also why the people with facts supporting them need to use it too, but to draw attention to the truth, not distract from it. It is a shame that Democrats largely are poor practitioners, including President Obama.
DrewInGeorgia

The exchange between Robin Young and Mary Lee Gibson during the last two minutes of the five minute Here and Now segment on young voters yesterday was brilliant. Worth a listen for any that missed it.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/30/rnc-youth-vote

Government_Banking_Serf

A dose a day keeps the utopian socialists and 2-party apologists away……

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com

…before we settle in for some more useless if not destructively distracting horse-racing and D-R football…..

The topics and analysis found at that site are relevant and at the core of almost every 1st hour politics/economics On Point show. I wish Tom would question from that perspective.

Rebuttals and discussion about that analysis, and how it relates to the shows would always be welcome, but I’ll brace for the ad hominems and substance-free dismissals.

J__o__h__n

Only once a day would be fine.
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  That’s almost a fair proposition!
Don_B1

See Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/culture-of-fraud/

for an analysis of the outright misrepresentation by Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and John Taylor of the effects of the Romney/Ryan budget and the denying of the real effects.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Yep. Talk about some guys who used to make a bit of sense.
  
  I guess the media gravy train was too enticing for the three of them to pass up.

Brandstad

”None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers— a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.”

Paul Ryan 8/29/12 Republican National Convention

Samuel Walworth

And what is that Romney Ryan plan will do differently to make it go away? Give me 5 points, please

(I am still undecided voter)
- Brandstad
  
  Create American JOBS
  
  1) Reduce government regulation freeing up small buisnesses to create jobs.
  
  2) Set a Goal and work towards becoming energy independent by 2020. This will create thousands of jobs in Oil, natuarl gas production, coal mining, and renewable energy technology manufacturing and production.
  
  3) Repeal and replace obamacare
  
  4) Stop military cuts that will result in job cuts in America!
  
  5) Punish any trading partner (countries) that don’t play fairly, like China Russia and Brazil (that have huge barriors of entry on US made goods)
- Don_B1
  
  Providing healthcare for all gives an entrepreneur the freedom to invest his life savings in a new business or service without having a chronic illness tie that person to a company providing healthcare as a benefit.
  
  Providing Social Security provides a floor of income in the future that no one would consider enough for extravagant living, but enough to hold one’s head up in dignity. That is why it is only one leg of a three-legged stool.
  
  Both of these the Republicans will destroy given enough time; why else do all their solutions have one aspect: less money from the government and no restructuring or that in anyway increases revenue. Because of the increased percentage of the income from productivity increases going to the wealthy instead of the workers, the F.I.C.A. cap has decreased the contributions to the SS “trust fund” below what the 1986 Law anticipated, although not by much. A slight rise in the cap would fix the SS “problem,” now good into the 2030s, to beyond 2050.
  
  The problem with Medicare (and Medicaid) is a reflection of the problem with healthcare: our method of payment (private insurance) does not incentivize care providers to be more efficient and not provide redundant and other unnecessary procedures.
  
  Read Michael Grunwald’s book, “The New New Deal” for what the ARRA did and did not accomplish (a LOT more than generally known).
  
  Read Jonathan Gruber on the PPACA.
Government_Banking_Serf

Why not? Grain-fed cattle have a pretty good life. At least they are all equal.
Shag_Wevera

Ask a poor family w/out a job or healthcare what they think about your post.
- Brandstad
  
  I know some, and while they are greatfull for help durring thier hardship, they want more then help, they want to get off public assistance so they can once again be proud self supporting members of society!
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    But enough about Paul Ryan’s employment history!
    
    (Really, dude, the excessive exclamation points aren’t the icing on the cake you seem to think they are.)
BHA_in_Vermont

“everything is free but us”
What a wonk. Just another sound bite.

Government_Banking_Serf

“Corrupt Government Officials Should Be In Jail … Alongside Corrupt Banksters”

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/corrupt-government-officials-should-be.html

Government_Banking_Serf

“Those who Benefited from Wall Street Fraud Must be Prosecuted … Including Rogue Government Officials who Aided and Abetted the Crimes

Wall Street fraud caused the Great Depression and the current financial crisis. Top economists and financial experts agree that our economy will never recover unless Wall Street fraud is prosecuted.

Yet the government has more or less made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, and instead to do everything necessary to cover up for Wall Street. For example, the Obama administration is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than under Reagan or either Bush.”……
- Don_B1
  
  The problem with this Lesser Depression is that it’s causes are similar to those of the Great Depression and the bankers certainly learned from their lawlessness in the post-WWII recessions.
  
  I am not aware of a lot of prosecutions of bankers in the 1930s either. But I am not a lawyer and find it difficult to evaluate AG Holder’s claims that while unethical, the “crimes” were not technically illegal, except to acknowledge that the banks probably “bought” law changes that made what they did legal or real hard to impossible to prosecute.
  
  The important thing is that the Republicans say they will repeal Dodd-Frank which, though far from perfect, does make a lot of what the bankers did illegal.
StilllHere

“The politicians work for us,” and “When somebody does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go.”
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  ? Point being? They should be above the Rule of Law because we can vote them out of office?
  - StilllHere
    
    Of course not; if criminal conduct can be alleged, prosecute; and if they’re doing a poor job, vote ‘em out.
    - Government_Banking_Serf
      
      Apologies, I just watched the Clint video, and didn’t realize before you were quoting that. That was a pretty good speech.

Brandstad

“[Our rights] are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes even presidents need reminding that our rights come from nature and God, not from government” Paul Ryan 8/29/12 Republican National Convention

This makes me wonder, if atheists don’t believe in God, do they believe in rights, and if they believe in rights where do they get their rights from?

J__o__h__n

The rights come from the constitution. We consent to be governed. If rights come from gods, why are many god-fearing countries ruled by dictators?
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  I think the Constitution just PROTECTS the rights that free people see as being self evident and inalienable. The Const. is there to be sure that situation is recognized and protected. I think its very important to be clear that the Constitution is not a hand of Government that GIVES us our rights.
- Brandstad
  
  If the rights come from the constitution, then they are not “inalienable” by defenition!
  
  True rights are those which are given to men by God. These rights are inalienable because no man has the authority to deny or take away what God has given. The meaning of “inalienable:”
  - J__o__h__n
    
    There is no god. The Constitution exists. I’d rather have rights from something real. King George III claimed his right to rule came from god too.
    - Ray in VT
      
      Again, there is the problem for natural rights theory. It’s sort of the same argument for where does the morality of a non-believer come from? The Constitution is only supposed to recognize those natural rights, but in theory it could be rewritten in order to inhibit or eradicate some of them. I think that ultimately it is a matter of belief. We believe that we have these rights, and we have a document that says that we do, so we do.
      
      Part of my problem with the people who say that our rights come from God is this: where was God before 1776? If these rights are inherent and eternal, then why the hell didn’t they get guaranteed before that time? I think that the answer is rather simple. The theory and our documents are a product of the Enlightenment and the human mind. I don’t think that that makes them any less special, but there’s nothing magical protecting them, and if it hadn’t been for Washington, Greene, Arnold, Morgan, the soldiers of the Continental Army and the money from the French, then we might still be very well living under the Crown. Our rights were bought and paid for by the blood of our ancestors.
  - jefe68
    
    You seem to be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      Would that that was his biggest comprehension problem.
      
      It’s nice to know that Branny thinks we rebelled against the Divine Right of Kings to subject our publiic selves and government to another G (and I mean Capital G, dammit) God.
Ray in VT

That’s always been the problem for non-believers and the theory of natural rights.
Government_Banking_Serf

Rights are inherent because we choose to say so. When you require supernatural faith to “give us rights”, you alienate a whoooole lot of Constitution-respecting, Rights-are-inalienable-not Government given, people.

The question is peoples view of either having inalienable rights which we protect from outside coercion, INCLUDING the government, or whether you believe that well-meaning smart people and technocrats should decide what rights we can and can’t have via government decree for our own good.

History tells the way that has worked best. A more libertarian, less overtly religious Republican party would really have a shot going forward.
- Brandstad
  
  True rights are those which are given to men by God. These rights are inalienable because no man has the authority to deny or take away what God has given. The meaning of “inalienable:”
  - Ray in VT
    
    Where was God before 1776, and where was He on the battlefields. Did he pony up the cash to the French so that they could give it to us? God doesn’t do squat to protect our rights. We do.
  - jefe68
    
    What a load of silliness. Magical thinking and quite a narrow view. By the way the word used in the Deceleration of Independence is unalienable.
    
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Don_B1

The important part that Ryan ignores is that it takes a government to ENFORCE those rights. I don’t see God running courts these days and most of Ryan’s acolytes would deplore the outcomes of Sharia courts while applauding equally unjust decisions from their “religious” courts.
Mike_Card

What in hell are you babbling about? You’re quoting Paul Ryan as some kind of authority on anything?

Michiganjf

Great to see Romney and Republicans mocking Global Climate Change, while half the country is parched and/or burning, and another part is inundated by hurricane rains… meanwhile, yet another hypocrite Republican, Bobby Jindal, demands federal money for his flooded state.

Ha!

… and Ryan’s I-POD “starts with ACDC and ends with Zeppelin…”

… What, no ZZ-Top???!!

I guess he doesn’t want the Texas vote!

sickofthechit

Actually it’s “Led Zeppelin”, so he is missing a lot of groups, and what about ABBA?
- Michiganjf
  
  Ha! Good!
DrewInGeorgia

Does anyone remember the Hell’s Bells days when pretty much all Christian based faiths were saying that Led Zepplin, AC/DC, Ozzy Osbourne, Iron Maiden, etc. were the work of Satan and that they all destroy our youth? Selective memory I guess. I guarantee you that most of the audience at the RNC was marching in that crusade but it’s okay if their new Hero wants to listen to Devil Music.
J__o__h__n

Ryan’s book shelf only goes from Hayek to Rand.

Mouse_2012

Ask/read ayn rand views on god since she was an atheist who ryan quotes as well?

WorriedfortheCountry

Ryan has been very clear on his disagreement with Objectivism.
- Mouse_2012
  
  false,
  
  Doesn’t ryan require his aids to read Rand the atheist ?
  - Government_Banking_Serf
    
    some mature people can read books, take some points, leave some points, as they build their world view and check it against history, experience etc….
    
    Stunning, I know.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      You think Ryan’s mature? Ryan’s whole career is based on government(kind of counter to Rand views)
  - Mike_Card
    
    He makes his employment offers contingent on reading Atlas Shrugged.

Brandstad

It’s no wonder the post-Gen X generation is angry: one out of two college grads can’t find employment. The President suggests burdening S corps with a decade of higher taxation to subsidize one year of artificially-lowered student loan rates. Hmm, making it more difficult for businesses to increases wages, create additional jobs by hiring college grads — is it any wonder why Mitt Romney now has over 40% of the youth vote?

by DANA LOESCH

Mouse_2012

So you what the U.S. to be like Europe with lower Corp taxes?

what a socialist
Don_B1

Since the rates the students pay is higher than what the government can borrow at, the government is still making money on these loans, so where is the subsidy?
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Dana Loesch?

Quoting just anyone that happens to be on CNN doesn’t make that person quotable. She has a long history of being demonstrably wrong about a lot of things.

Bruce94

Dear Mom and Dad,

My time at Camp Burythetruth & Dressage Dude Ranch is nearly over. I’ve really enjoyed this week of fun & special events.

I shared a cabin with some great guys like this really big dude who kept us flush with Subway sandwiches & Twinkies. Only problem was that he had anger issues. We called him the Bully from NJ ’cause he was always yelling about his teachers & school back home saying really mean things like they’re overpaid, uppity and unionized. He calmed down after our counselor explained that public employees like teachers get paid less on average than private-sector workers at the same educational level, and that blaming state budget woes on them is a lie. Then, the Bully said something odd. He said his father’s success was due largely to the G.I. Bill, which teachers, unions, schools all really like. Seems that the Bully from NJ was speaking out of both sides of his mouth just like another guy I met from Wisconsin, a guy we called John Galt ’cause he suffers occasional delusions of grandeur.

Then, there was this really polite, soft-spoken guy with a Southern accent. We called him the Angel from Arkansas ’cause he said we need more religion in public schools & playgrounds, and especially more police to ensure that women make the right choices in their lives. The counselor reminded him that in America there is separation of Church & State. Then, the Angel from AR turned red in the face & blurted “separation of Church & State is a fudging figment of your imagination.”

We also had a really nice dressage riding instructor. I think her name was Anne of Greenback Gables. Unfortunately, our last lesson was cut short because she had to rush back home to get her boys off the school bus. As she pulled away in one of two chauffeur driven Cadillacs, I couldn’t help thinking what an inspiration she is to working women, single- and two-parent working families everywhere.

Our last night at Camp was spent watching reruns of “Rawhide”– the TV Western starring Clint Eastwood. Then, our counselor took us to a Go-Cart track where the attendant let us strap miniature Irish Setters onto the back of our carts. That was one wild & crazy ride! Only two or three dogs threw up. What fun! The attendant said next time he would introduce us to some real race car drivers ’cause he personally knew several NASCAR team owners.

See you tomorrow. Thanks again for making my trip possible.

Your obedient son,
Bubba

P.S. They call it Camp Burythetruth because a short distance from our campsite there are ancient burial mounds where Native Americans as well as the truth about our history are buried. Of course, we never checked them out. Just too creepy for us to consider.

Mouse_2012

What’s wrong with getting rid of the Electoral College ? It’s highly undemocratic

WorriedfortheCountry

There are many reasons however there is one major practical reason. Imagine a close election that required a recount – like 2000. Imagine implementing that recount nationally. It would be a disaster.
- Mouse_2012
  
  I disagree,
  
  The EC actually Dilutes peoples votes based on where they live. The Recount would take effect in the questions state not the whole nation like in 2000
  - BHA_in_Vermont
    
    Exactly right. With the EC, voting in states with few EC votes is a patriotic exercise that has no effect on the election. Every vote counts – if you live in a state with a lot of EC votes.
    
    We have computers, we can tally tens of millions of “one man, one vote”. Such was not the case in the 18th century. The president should be elected by the people of the country, not the states with the largest populations.
  - Mike_Card
    
    The inclusion of the Senators is the major problem. A person’s vote in a one Representative state counts a lot more than a person’s vote in–say–California or New York. There are likely more pressing electoral problems to be solved–umm…the so-called “voter impersonation” problem?–but the EC is an invention of the 18th century that has outlived its relevance.
- Ray in VT
  
  It certainly would be. There can also be problems with the College. There was the 1876 election where it certainly appears that the deciding votes were bought. I also don’t think that it is a requirement in many states that the Electors vote for who won in their state. In a close race, electorally, one rogue Elector could flip the outcome.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Correct, many states don’t have laws requiring EC voters to vote the way of there state.
    
    This was also the issue with the Republican delegates in which the delegates are not required to vote for the guy who won the state.(this was later changed to prevent the Ron Paul supporters from nominating Ron Paul and allowing him a speaking slot)
  - BHA_in_Vermont
    
    Accurate. There is NO requirement that the EC voter votes as “directed” by the voters of the state for which they are casting their vote.
DrewInGeorgia

I despise the Electoral College, always have, always will.
Taxation without Direct Representation comes to mind every time I think about it. Throw in a dash of Redistricting and some Voter Requirement ‘changes’ and Voila!
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

If we get rid of the Electoral College, vote-scrubbing by GOP state leges will have nationwide impact. They will be encouraged to do more of it.

Let’s say suppressing X number of votes in State ABC will make it winnable for Romney. They’ll do that and stop. But if we go to popular vote, there’s not need to stop at X because suppressing 2X will affect the race total overall.

(And yes, it’s strange to think that this argument has come out of nowhere–it didn’t exist four years ago–to mean something today.)

Yar

In the picture above, a question comes to mind: Should a church insure against acts of God?
http://onpoint.wbur.org/files/2012/08/AP375437787559-500×283.jpg

Mouse_2012

Good question.

Brandstad

With even Democrats acknowledging that Ryan gave a strong performance last night, the media is in full spin mode attacking the Vice-Presidential candidate. They are hyperventilating that Ryan “lied” in a story about Obama promising to keep open a Janesville, WI GM factory, which eventually closed during Obama’s first year in office. And by “lie” I guess they mean that Ryan told a true story they don’t like. Such is the state of political reporting these days.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/30/the-medias-ryan-derangement-syndrome

Mouse_2012

What democrats? oh wait your linking to breitbart.com you know the rightwing hack website that lies and distorts information on a grand level.
- Brandstad
  
  If you don’t read the right’s argument and the left’s arguments and come to your own conclusion, you are a SHEEP!
  - Steve__T
    
    So you should be in a pasture somewhere.
Ray in VT

I guess by lie one would mean that Obama did not promise to keep the plant open, and that while that plant may have finally shut down after Obama became President, the closing started in mid-2008 and one of the major lines shut down in December 2008. So, if one was to say that Obama promised to keep it open, then that is a lie, and representing it as though it wasn’t in the process of being shut down for months prior to his becoming President, then one is promoting a distortion.
- Brandstad
  
  Candidate Obama made his statement in February 2008. At the time, local residents feared the closure of the factory as GM struggled to compete. Obama made his comments explicitly in the context of the likelihood that the factory would be shut down. If the government was there to support the auto industry, that specific plant would be around “for another hundred years.”
  
  As the companies fortunes worsened throughout 2008, GM announced that the Janesville plant would likely close sooner than expected. Candidate Obama reiterated his promisewith specifics:
  
  As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
  Note that, “I will lead an effort”.
  
  In December 2008, GM laid off most of its workers at the plant and shut down SUV production. This is the date the media has chosen as when the plant “closed.” That date is safely in the Bush Administration, you see. But, the plant didn’t close then. It remained open, with a much small workforce, producing light trucks for Izuzu. It ended production in April 2009. But, even now, it isn’t officially “closed.” According to GM it is on stand-by and may be opened for production again in the future.
  - Ray in VT
    
    Notice that he said “plants like the GM facility in Janesville”. I will take it that you are quoting the President directly, so if you are, then that is still not a promise to specifically keep that plant open.
    
    The administration has also taken a lot of heat for how it handled the bailout and reorganization of GM. So, should he not have done it, or should he have personally directed it? Either way, he loses amongst his critics.
    
    I’m aware of the timeline, although I wasn’t aware of it’s current status. If it did produce until April of 2009, then Mr. Ryan’s statement that it closed within a year is wrong. Perhaps, given that many GM plants, including ones that closed in 2008-2009 and have since reopened are running at full capacity, perhaps there is still life for the Janesville plant.
    - Brandstad
      
      GM has 60K less US employees since the bailout and more than 60K new employees outside the US! The bailout didn’t help the US as much as Obama would have you think.
Shag_Wevera

Are you saying he was factually incorrect, or that it doesn’t matter that he was factually incorrect?

Mouse_2012

We quoting Ryan now? Most the crap he said in his speech was lies.

Besides he made his wealth working for the government, went to school from government SS payoff and receives government protection and government healthcare plus government perks.

The guys whole career is based on entitlements.

Shag_Wevera

Do as I say, not as I do??????

BHA_in_Vermont

Laughter at Romney’s joke was not just a a little forced, eh?

J__o__h__n

It wasn’t as funny as the gay haircut, the story of the dog on the roof, or walking the blind teacher into a door.

Government_Banking_Serf

What is this narrative about Clint’s speech being so “bizarre”? It was quite clear, quite effective, and the guy is how old? and we complain if he hesitates a few times?

Government_Banking_Serf

I googled the speech, and its all “odd”, “bizarre” etc. Sounds like media wanting to take the sting out of a beloved actor being in the wrong party and making common sense points.
J__o__h__n

I thought the chair was more coherent.
Mouse_2012

“Make my day Clint”

Michiganjf

Ryan’s speech of LIES?

It’s astounding the degree to which Republicans can’t defend their positions, either FOR themselves or AGAINST Dems, without lying to, exaggerating to, or misleading Americans.

Is EVERY Republican position REALLY so indefensible that they CAN NEVER resort to the truth?

Mouse_2012

The sad thing is many of the republican base actually believe those lies.
- Brandstad
  
  What lies? Please give me 3!
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Lie 1
    http://www.fair.org/blog/
    One of the main themes of the Republican convention is
    
    lie 2
    
    Santorum, Romney campaign noses grow longer over welfare-to-workhttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-30/news/33477361_1_romney-campaign-gut-welfare-reform-mitt-romney
    
    lie 3
    GM plant —
    
    Ryan: blamed Obama for the closing of GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis. Truth: One of the biggest whoppers of the night; the plant closed before Obama was even sworn into office. His position also contradicts the Republicans’ position of opposing President Obama’s auto rescuehttp://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/paul_ryan_the_definitive_fact_check/
    - Gregg Smith
      
      #1) “We did build it” can in no way be construed as a lie. Obama said what he said. He was denigrating small business, no two ways about it.
      
      #2) No link, try again.
      
      #3) The plant did not close until April 2009. He said he would save it. No lie, you don’t even know what Ryan said or you’d quote him.
    - Steve__T
      
      You can nit pic all you want we still know he LIED I’m not going to play your game you can act but hurt if you want. he lied like a rug and all the proof you can possibly ask for to refute wont change a word.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      As he cites no lie.
Brandstad

What lies? Please give me 3!
- Michiganjf
  
  Not in YOUR reality, Brainstdead…
  
  In FAUX NEWS WORLD, everything was perfect as scripted!
  - Gregg Smith
    
    As he cites no lie.
- cryptomorph
  
  From FOX:
  
  On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
  
  The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
  - Gregg Smith
    
    That’s hilarious, not a single quote. She writes stuff like, “When Ryan insisted…” as if we are to take her word for it. Quote Ryan insisting.
    
    Brandstad asked for 3, you gave zero. How about 1. If you can (you can’t) I’ll give you 5 Obama lies for every lie you can cite.
  - Brandstad
    
    She is an opinion writer, not a journalist! LOL
- Mike_Card
  
  Your mom called; it’s time to go upstairs for your Ovaltine and Cream of Wheat.
  
  http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid

Government_Banking_Serf

Hey Jack, how about we take away the Government Backed Student Loans from the Universities (that’s who they are for), and watch the prices come down, so people can borrow from family or simply save/work to go…..

Did you miss the big Govt-backed Real Estate Bubble? It was big news a few cycles ago…..

J__o__h__n

Or put all of that money into public colleges. Let the private ones deal with the marketplace.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

“Can borrow from family” is something everyone heartily laughed at when Mittster said “That’s how a young person makes something of themselves”.

I can’t tell if you’re being unintentionally funny or not.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDIOY7RQ3F5EAR4EAP5FKRS52M bethrjacobs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/emergency-tax-rich-roils-britain-163209092.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-breaks-ground-760-million-073000913.html

neither obama or mit making hard choice for selves only for others both are thieves

ewetopia

I disagree with Jack Beattie — Romney’s comment about the oceans was appalling. His insinuation was that addressing climate change will not help American families, when the truth is exactly the opposite. And the snarky laughter in the hall when he brought up the oceans will be remembered when climate change is truly hurting some of the very people in that hall.

Carrie
Montpelier, Vermont

J__o__h__n

I agree. I hope the drought states were paying attention.
- Mouse_2012
  
  doubtful.prob the ones cheering when Mitt Said such
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  While we’re on the subject, what’s Tampa’s mean elevation above sea level? I don’t know if the delegates care, but a pile of people do live there all year.

DrewInGeorgia

It’s good to hear you talking sense again Mr. Beatty. Your first few statements this morning had me worried but the rest of your initial commentary was spot on. Thank You.

BHA_in_Vermont

IF:
the conventions were not party Rah-Rah, bash the other side, sound bites with no substance, I might watch. There is nothing said at these conventions that would aid a voter in deciding which candidate to support.

Ellen Dibble

As soon as Clint Eastwood had Obama in the hotseat, fictitiously, I felt called upon to imagine the president’s saying this and that to the particular audience — with a man with a gun blown up to humongous size behind them. And I fell sound asleep. I hear that the world was treated to the view of a very good man, with a good life, and a good family, and also successful. Yes, but how exactly is he planning to make my life better? Or the role of our nation in this changing planet more laudable and effective? How? I think I missed nothing.

DrewInGeorgia

Nice. And you’re right, you didn’t miss a thing.
StilllHere

You’ve been asleep for four years, why would last night be any different.

svolantetb

It is very disturbing to read the story in today’s Washington Post titled “Fact checkers under fire in bitter campaign.” When neutral parties try to point out the distortions and falsehoods the campaigns use, the response from partisans is to shoot the messenger. We are so infected with hubris and self-righteousness that we are losing the ability to think critically and honestly about our own positions.

Brandstad

What is more disturbing is when fact checkers are checked by fact checkers and determined to have a huge political bias!
- jefe68
  
  The fact is Romney and Ryan are nothing short of liars, period.
  - Steve__T
    
    Agreed
  - Gregg Smith
    
    You can’t cite a single lie.
    - jefe68
      
      I think responding to you is a waste of time. But for the record here you go:
      
      Romney Says he Won’t Raise Taxes on the Middle Class
      
      What Romney Said, “Unlike President Obama, I won’t raise taxes on the middle class of America.”
      
      The Truth: Romney’s tax plan is classic trickle down economics. Romney’s tax plan lowers on the top 2% of earners and raises taxes on everyone else. According to the Tax Policy Center, taxes on the middle class would go up by about $2,000 to pay for Romney’s tax cut for the wealthy.
      
      Romney Promises to Create 12 Million New Jobs and Claims Obama has no Jobs Plan
      
      What Romney Said, “And unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs.”
      
      The Truth: This is a double whopper on Romney’s part, and one that he is fond of repeating on the campaign trail. First, President Obama does have a plan to create jobs. It’s called the American Jobs Act, and it was killed by congressional Republicans.
      
      The second part of Romney’s lie was a bit more devious. Romney promised to create 12 million new jobs, because he and his campaign know that economic forecasts show that if nothing is done, the economy will create 11.8 on it’s own. Mitt Romney
      is suggested that America should elect him because his leadership will be 200,000 jobs better than doing absolutely nothing. That is the kind of leadership that Mitt Romney is promising America.
      
      Romney Accuses Obama of Not Creating Jobs, Wanting to Raise Taxes on Small Business, and Assaulting Coal, Oil and Natural Gas
      
      What Romney Said, “His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them. And this I can tell you about where President Obama would take America: His plan to raise taxes on small business won’t add
      jobs, it will eliminate them; His assault on coal and gas and oil will send energy and manufacturing jobs to China; His trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk.”
      
      The Truth: This
      was a triple play of lies. So far Obama has created 4.5 million jobs. Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the rich actually cuts taxes for 97% of small businesses. Oil, coal, and natural gas production have all increased under Obama. Coal production is up 0.93%. Oil production is up 5.7%, and natural gas is up 22%.
      �
      I could go on but it’s not worth it.
      Ryan’s speech was on long lie fest.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Dang, I feel compelled to reply given all your work. I appreciate it… I guess. I’ll start at the end.
      
      The definition of “created” (you left off “or saved”) has become warped with caveats. There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. That’s the reality.
      
      Obama has not extended the tax cuts for anyone since they were extended for everyone.
      
      Your energy production numbers are in a vacuum. To credit Obama would be a lie. It is nearly all on private land done in the private sector despite, not because of, Obama. There is a natural gas boon from fracking. Oil takes years to come on line, to the extent we are producing, it’s from the massive expansion under Bush.
      
      Obama said his plan would bankrupt Coal. It’s a matter of record. Skip to 2:15 for the money quote or watch it all:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=related
      
      Until Romney does not create 12 million jobs there is no lie if you want to call it that. He may just be wrong…. and create 13 million. It’s all guess work including how many will happen naturally… in a static world with no surprises for a decade. The American Jobs Act as well as the 25 jobs bills passed in the House are irrelevant. They certainly don’t prove Romney lied.
      
      Nope, I see no lies but thanks for the direct quotes. It seems to me you are criticizing what you think he meant more than what he said. The closest nugget I see is the Tax Policy Center study but I’d have to see it. My understanding is he will move to 2 rates and eliminate many deductions across the board.
- Mouse_2012
  
  rightwing link?
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    There’s only one thing more untrustworthy than a Brandstad claim, and that a Brandstad claim with a link in it.
maryjan

I agree.
Mike_Card

Sort of a, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts” moment. The teabaggers either never received or weren’t able to read that memo.

Mouse_2012

see

He Didn’t Say It: The RNC’s Bogus Theme
http://www.fair.org/blog/

maryjan

Good story about how Bain Capitol used DEBT to make huge profits for Bain Capitol. Makes his and Paul Ryan’s criticism of debt seem rather hypocritical.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Brandstad

Your post is meaningless. Private debt is good because you have to take responsibility for it and public debt is bad because everyone else has to take responsibility for your debt.
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  Responsibility? Accountability? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! That’s so……… 1700′s
  
  We print reality now. US Treasury. So a few working people have to shoulder it in taxes, inflation and recurring bubbles, the political/banking class is doing great!
- J__o__h__n
  
  What about Bain loading up a company with debt while extracting profits and then declaring bankruptcy?
- maryjan
  
  Read the story first, then see if you still agree. This was not his private debt. This is debt that the companies he took over were saddled with for years. In some cases it worked well, but in many cases the companies went under and many lost their jobs.
StilllHere

Where in the public sector or academia do you work? How have you been able to avoid reality for so long?
- jefe68
  
  You have a lot of nerve. So working in academia or in the public sector is worthy of insults?
  
  How is it that people of your ilk go on this kind of diatribe and yet when it comes to the professional right wing politicians, such as Paul Ryan, you say nothing. How is that? Is it just that you are a partisan hack? Or maybe you are the misanthropic type, which would explain a lot.
  - Mike_Card
    
    Paul Ryan. hahahahahahah! In today’s GOP, he passes for an intellectual heavyweight, all right. I guess that’s because he can read a whole book.
- maryjan
  
  First of all, I agree with jefe68. There is no shame in working for academia or the public sector. But, you have made an erroneous assumption about me based on my comments. I have had my own business since 1991.�
  Sorry to disappoint you.
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    Don’t take it personally.
    
    Literally, don’t.
    
    If you were a public sector worker, you’d have run the risk of being asked to explain why you’re on this website while you’re at work, and it’d have been demanded of you to give up a pile of those things you thought you earned, signed a contract for, because Don’t You Know There’s a Debt Crisis On?
    
    Just think of every blowhard who gets pulled over by a traffic cop and sputters “Don’t you know I pay your salary?” and extrapolate from there.
  - Mike_Card
    
    You probably need no help, but I’ve not seen your screen name for all that long. Stillllll is one of the resident trolls who add nothing to the conversation other than snark. Best ignored, since responses only encourage it.

http://www.facebook.com/dnischan Daniel Nischan

I can’t figure out what all of those people “built.”

Steve__T

Any and everything, They built it all. The Government doesn’t build roads and bridges, and infrastructure that would mean that Government created jobs and everybody knows the Government can’t do that
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Since they didn’t get there on roads, I’ll figure the jetpack valet service outside the convention center made a tidy profit.

maryjan

Romney used government bail-out to help save Bain Capital
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

cryptomorph

You mean like he used about 1.2 billion in government money to save his Olympics?

http://twitter.com/CivicCom Julie Hussey

I turned to the convention at ten expecting to watch Romney and after trying to understand what Clint Eastwood was trying to say, I completely lost interest. If they were looking to attract women who voted Republican all their life, became frustrated, and voted for Obama 4 years ago, Clint Eastwood was a terrible choice for that 10 pm kick off moment.

Rex Henry

Further to the caller’s comments: Where are these jobs the “job creators” were supposed to make out of thin air with their huge tax cuts? I don’t see how building up supply creates demand.

If the have-lesses have more money to spend, they create demand and THEN jobs are necessary to fulfill the supply.

StilllHere

Millions of jobs were created as a result of the tax cuts, unfortunately millions more were lost due to increased government regulation enacted over the last four years.
- jefe68
  
  That’s nothing short of nonsense. You left out the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  Something the GOP seems to do a lot.
  Selective amnesia.
- cryptomorph
  
  Reagan FAILED by his own standards. I looked back at the economic predictions Reagan made…
  
  http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2011/06/proof-reagans-tax-cuts-failed-as.html
- cryptomorph
  
  And millions more were created under HIGHER CLINTON TAXES! The simple fact is tax cuts alone are NOT a silver bullet… except to create bigger deficits and more debt. Do you think “starve the beast” is just a slogan and has no real world strategy to sabotage the US Treasury?
  - StilllHere
    
    Wrong, millions of jobs were created under Clinton due to reduced government regulation, enough to offset those lost to higher taxes. It is simple causation.
    - cryptomorph
      
      ROTF… thanks for another empty Orwellian Right claim. No! Sorry… the official Orwellian Right take on the Clinton years was that a tiny GOP tax cut in 1997 “unleashed” the economy brought us the surplus. Of course why that didn’t work in 1981 or 2001… that can be swept under the rug.
    - StilllHere
      
      You make even less sense than when you were Ultratax, too much meth I’m guessing.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Point is that the Right will NEVER credit Clinton’s tax hike as having any part in getting to a surplus… or his economic policies creating a sustained economic boom. The Right always finds ways to steal that credit… that Newt was responsible for the Surplus and the capital gains tax cut in 97 “unleashed” the economy.
BHA_in_Vermont

Yep. The 80% spend a lot more of their money than the rich. They have no choice. The less you make, the higher the percentage you need to spend to stay alive.

The “chicken-egg” problem here is that no INTELLIGENT business owner is going to hire people to make goods and services when there are no buyers for them. The unemployed/underemployed can’t spend money they don’t have on those goods and services. Thus, no jobs are created.

Cut government and you cut jobs, downward spiral. I’m not saying the government should support a lot of “make work” jobs that do not provide value to the country. BUT “small government” people need to figure out which private industries are going to provide the same “goods and services” the government provides now or they’ll just create more unemployment.

You can bet your hiney that the “job creators” the Republicans keep claiming won’t create jobs IF their tax rate goes up slightly DO NOT have a plan, nor the infrastructure, to replace the work currently done by government employees.

If Romney wants to create 21M jobs, he should drop out of the race and use his “job creating” skills to figure out which goods and services currently done by the government can be:
- Done profitably and more effectively and more cheaply by the private sector.
- Employ MORE people than they displace (could be the same people to start with) in relatively short time because there is NEED for more of the good or service.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Let me concisify that for you: “Money’s like manure; it doesn’t do much good if it’s all piled in one place.”
  
  (h/t Harry Truman.)
  
  (However, it occurs to me that the right wing’s “Harry Truman was really a Republican” vogue may have passed.)

Government_Banking_Serf

“Obomney” Jack finally speaks the truth!

Shag_Wevera

Mitt’s big pledge was to create 12 million jobs in the next four years. Most economists predict this gain already, regardless of who is President. What a bull-shipper!

WorriedfortheCountry

Which economist is that?

The CNN money babe last night claimed it was a bold pledge and she was skeptical.
- StilllHere
  
  Notice no reply from this bull whipper.
StilllHere

Name one economist, not on the Obama payroll, who thinks that.
- Mike_Card
  
  Ron Paul.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Well, that is a real fake number. Like all the real fake numbers in the Ryan budget.

cryptomorph

To paraphrase Romney… the reason the current economic recovery is the slowest since the Great Depression has nothing to do with the utter devastation right wing policies did to the economy… nothing to do with the collapsed banking and housing sectors… or even GOP obstructionism. It’s all because Obama resents success. So by Romney’s own definition Reagan must have also resented success because his “economic recovery” was the last record holder for the slowest such recovery since the Great Depression.

�
Reagan didn’t have a collapsed banking or housing sector to deal with. In fact Reagan didn’t even inherit a recession. It started 6 months into his presidency. Reagan’s recession had higher peak unemployment than under Obama… and unemployment was above 7% for 60 straight months. (source BLS Series Id: LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted)

�
Somehow the Orwellian Right has rewritten history to paint Reagan’s economic policies and predictably they’ve rewritten history so sweep under the rug that it was right wing policies that were behind the economic implosion back in 08. And now they want to do it all over again… only this time on steroids.

hennorama

Yes, Republicans LOVE Ronnie Raygun, what with his great record of 8 straight deficits. What a shining example to follow! A great example for so-called deficit and debt hawks. Guess this is why the vaunted Ryan’s budget doesn’t balance for over 20 years.

maryjan

Did anyone else feel that Clint Eastwood’s invisible Obama played to an undercurrent of racism? The words he “put in Obama’s mouth” and then responded to were meant to make people think of Obama swearing and telling people to shut up. Playing into the old “angry black man” stereotype?? BTW, i am white.

superfinehelios

I didn’t see the racism (I’m hispanic) but I did see it as a crude attempt at humor. I don’t think Obama would EVER tell someone to go _____ themselves.
- sickofthechit
  
  cheney would and did, on the floor of the Senate.
TomK_in_Boston

Sure – eastwood, akin, throwing nuts at the black camerawoman and saying “this is how we feed the animals” etc are all part of a pattern. They hurry to say “this doesn’t represent the TeaOP we do not endorse such behavior” etc but it really gives a view into the twisted soul of this extreme party.
- OnPointComments
  
  David Chalian jokes about black people drowning, MSNBC (the media arm of the Democratic party) omits minority speakers from news coverage, Biden says “gonna put y’all back in chains.” You’re right, it really does give a view into the twisted soul of this extreme Democratic party.
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    “Media arm of the Democratic party”.
    
    Hahaha.
  - TomK_in_Boston
    
    The righty plan to unchain wall st even beyond the current absurd deregulation will indeed put most of the USA in economic chains.
  - StilllHere
    
    So true, Madcow and an insane clown posse of in-breaders.
WorriedfortheCountry

Chris Matthews, is that you?
- StilllHere
  
  That guy is truly a pathetic tool, unwatchable.

Brandstad

When the driver of the bus is headding towards a cliff and putting the accelerator on the floor, it is the responsibility of the republicans to put on the breaks and turn the bus around

sickofthechit

Slowdown, take a few breaths, you have apparently suffered a severe blow to the head.
- Mike_Card
  
  May I have a few whacks at the Branata?
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    I lol’d at that, missed it earlier. Careful though, the overlords have a habit of taking things out of context round’ these parts.
    
    I know you’re thinking there’s Candy in there but I’m afraid you’ll be sorely disappointed at what is actually inside. Here’s a hint: It’s the same thing that’s inside almost every Politician’s Promises.
DrewInGeorgia

Wrong. Maybe that’s their responsibility but their preferred course of action is apparently to make sure the tank is full of gas. And they are putting on the breaks, the breaks to the backs of Americans. I think you meant brakes which will do absolutely nothing, we’ve already jumped the edge. Wish I had read jefe68′s comment before it was flagged. Why was it flagged, what did it say?
- J__o__h__n
  
  Thanks censor, for deciding what I can read.
  - jefe68
    
    I give up. On Point go fly a kite.
- Gregg Smith
  
  I’m sure it was his usual nastiness.
maryjan

Was it Mitch McConnell’s responsibility to state at the Heritage Foundation back in 2010 that the major goal of the Republican party should be to make Obama a one term president, rather than to increase employment, solve the debt crisis, etc. ?
StilllHere

So true! Time to let him go!

DrewInGeorgia

I felt so bad for Mr. Eastwood, he never should have been placed on that stage. The sadistic clowns that decided he should speak have denigrated the man while simultaneously creating a situation that will absolutely come back to bite them in the a$$. Yes I realize Mr. Eastwood can make his own decisions but this is one that should never have been made available to him.

superfinehelios

Yes, really looked disheveled. Not the image of him I want stuck in my head. Nor do I want to remember him supporting the repubs.
http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Leadership failure, I guess.

I really don’t care much about conventions, but that’s a doozy of a bad decision on the RNC’s part.

If it happened to the DNC, we’d all be subject to the “How can they run the country if they can’t run a closed auditorium” on Drudge Politico right now.

sickofthechit

Bumper sticker of the day:

Sorry Mr. Romeny,
America doesn’t need
another Geroge now.

Least of all one on steroids.

50% of tax cuts to the wealthiest 5%!?

Davesix6

In response to Carville, there’s nothing President Obama has said that Jimmy Carter didn’t say.
President Obama has given us the second Carter term, and the economy reflects that.

cryptomorph

�
Odd… Obama’s first term seems much more like Reagan’s… except Reagan didn’t inherit an a collapsing economy, the banking and housing sectors hadn’t imploded, peak unemployment was higher, and where unemployment was over 7% for FIVE YEARS. Somehow, despite the grim evidence, the Orwellian Right has rewritten history to paint Reagan’s policies as a great success. And to add insult to injury… the recovery didn’t begin until AFTER a massive tax hike in late ’82.

Casey Reyner

Where Romney came from? Yes his father came from Mexico, but Romney came from money, has always had money, and this illustrates how in this country your ability to succeed is linked to the wealth you already have.

StilllHere

Thankfully most Americans don’t think like you. You are to blame for your own sorry plight.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Yep. Ask the sons of millionaires like Bill Gates and Donald Trump.
  
  Actually (if you’re a regular middle-class sort) get your kid into Harvard, have him or her drop out, and then laugh about it.
  
  Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and his family didn’t disown him. That says a ton about the resources his family had and the risks he was safe to take. If he failed in two years he wasn’t going to be living in a cardboard box.
Davesix6

Romney’s grandfather didn’t have a lot of money.
Using your limited logic, how in the world did his grandfather succeed?
- maryjan
  
  In 1885, Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled to Mexico to escape America’s anti-polygamy laws. Along with a group of his fellow Mormons, Miles Park Romney, who had four wives and 30 children, settled in Chihuahua, Mexico, where polygamy was still legal.
  It was there in Mexico that Mitt Romney’s grandfather, Gaskell Romney, grew up and where his father, George Romney, was born. Gaskell and George Romney moved back to America before Mitt Romney was born to avoid the violence of the Mexican Revolution.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Your question seems to ignore how economic mobility has changed for the worse over couple of generations.
BHA_in_Vermont

Linked, yes. Necessarily dependent upon, no.

There are many instances where someone not from wealth succeeded. But good things and good decisions have to coincide.

However, few who are born rich fail to succeed. Once you have money, unless you are totally stupid, you will make more money. With $200M+, Romney would make $2M a year doing nothing other than buying U.S. Treasuries that yield 1%. How long would it take the “average working American” to make $2M? Right, a working lifetime.

Look at the Waltons. They are wealthy beyond belief and no living Walton had anything to do with creating that wealth.

cryptomorph

Guest Bill McKenzie claimed we need “revenue neutral” tax reform. Is he nuts? Revenues in inflation corrected dollars have been BELOW FY2000 levels for now 12 YEARS!!! The simple fact is back in 2001 we had 6 TRILLION in debt… and Bush promised debt paydown. Instead Bush did everything possible to increase debt. Now with $10 trillion in new debt… McKenzie is taking the partisan line that we must never reconsider that mistake nor the common sense solution to let those irresponsible Bush tax cuts expire?

It’s time OP realized that a balanced guest list should NOT include right wing propagandists.

Davesix6

Your numbers are incorrect.
Anyway you forgot to mention that Obama called Bush “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, yet under Obama $5 trillion has been added.
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  Yeah, but…….
- cryptomorph
  
  Oops, yes, in my haste I neglected to say revenues were higher for two years… and totaled a paltry $140 billion in chained FY05 dollars. In all the other years revenues WERE LOWER.
  
  As for Bush… he ran up the debt when the economy was good. We see in his last year what expenditures would be when only the federal government had the resources to stop the economy from a total implosion.
- cryptomorph
  
  BTW your Bush debt numbers are incorrect. They are closer to $4.8 billion.
  
  As for revenue… here are the numbers… in $2005 constant dollars.
  
  2000… 2,309.2 Clinton’s last year
  2001… 2,214.3
  2002… 2,027.9
  2003… 1,900.5
  2004… 1,949.3
  2005… 2,153.6
  2006… 2,324.6
  2007… 2,413.1
  2008… 2,288.1
  2009… 1,899.0
  2010… 1,927.9
  2011… 1,998.7
  2012… 2,089.4 estimate
  
  Source: Table 1.3 THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013, HISTORICAL TABLES They differ slightly from those in the 2012 Budget Tables I’d first cited.
  
  So in your mind if revenues are LOWER for 5 years, that’s proof tax cuts bring in more revenue?
  - Gregg Smith
    
    2007 has yet to be topped. That’s after 4 years of raging wars and tax cuts. I love those numbers. What was the deficit? I think about $162B. Such horrible times.
    
    Whatever you do don’t compare average revenue to GDP ratios between Bush and Eisenhower’s 90% rates. It will break your heart.
    - cryptomorph
      
      So Greggggg using your Orwellian Right logic… sabotaging a surplus before we pay down any debt, having depressed revenues for SIX of Bush’s eight years, and eight years of deficits and adding to the debt is “proof” tax cuts repesent fiscally responsible policies? And that’s just using FLAT revenue projections from 2000 on, not dynamic ones. Ya you probably do… and let’s sweep all the LOST revenue for all these years under the rug.
      
      Laffer was right about one thing… if tax rates are too LOW… they will FAIL to capture enough revenue. We don’t need any more evidence that the Bush tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible than to look at those last 12 years of pathetic revenue.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Huh?
      
      It was only 6 or 7 sentences, which one was inaccurate?
    - cryptomorph
      
      WTH are you babbling about?
    - Gregg Smith
      
      You replied to my comment with a fantasy non-sequitur. Did you even read what you replied to? What did I get wrong?
    - cryptomorph
      
      The question is why are you evading MY points?
    - cryptomorph
      
      Still don’t know how to read the official government budget tables? In FY07, your favorite Bush year, the on-budget deficit was -342.153 billion. You dishonestly included money borrowed from the off-budget side and, BTW, the unified deficit was 181 billion not 162.
      Yup… in your mind… revenues can be dismal for SIX YEARS… and there can be a 343 billion deficit… yet to you that’s “proof” tax cuts perform miracles.
- Gregg Smith
  
  In less than half the time and Bush is saddled with Obama’s $350B in TARP debt.
- cryptomorph
  
  How much longer do I have to wait for your “correct” numbers?
BHA_in_Vermont

“we must never reconsider that mistake”

It wasn’t a mistake. GWB didn’t make mistakes. He said so himself.

Call_Me_Missouri

People who espouse the economic Trickle Down theories fail to recognize these basic truths…

Reducing Tax Burdens on corporations only Reduces Operating Expenses. It does not increase demand or revenue.

Businesses do not Create Jobs based on Reduced Operating Expenses.

Businesses only Create Jobs when Revenues go up and Demand goes up and there is need for more work to be completed.

Investors do not get excited by your stock and decide to purchase it because you have reduced your operating expenses. In fact, if you are balancing your budget entirely on reducing your operating expenses that would be an indicator to sell the stock because you can only cut so many expenses before you have to close up shop.

You *might* be better able to get a Corporate Loan with reduced operating expenses… except in the case where your operating expenses are reduced as a result of reduced Taxes which could go right back up tomorrow.

These truths are the fundamental reason why giving rich people money in the form of Tax Breaks does not work. Reducing their Operating Expenses will not insight them to create jobs, invest in their business, or do anything other than save the money for a rainy day when the tax rate goes back up.

BHA_in_Vermont

Well said and, sadly, understood by few.
- Steve__T
  
  Agreed
- Call_Me_Missouri
  
  I was listening to something last night (I think Marketplace?) and Robert Reich was trying to explain why trickle down economic polices do not work and though what he was saying was correct… It was very unclear how what he was describing would actually affect Job Creation which is the ONE THING that is supposed to matter this election season.
  
  That was when I came up with this method of explaining why Trickle Down Economics will never create jobs came to me.
  
  I meant to email it to Bob… But since this stuff was being discussed here I thought I would share it.
Mike_Card

Other than Arthur Laffer, I’ve yet to hear from any known economist–and I refuse to consider Mo Brooks or Ron Paul–who is on-board with that goofy U-curve. Are there any who would be recognized outside of solely academic circles?
- Call_Me_Missouri
  
  I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are asking. What goofy u-curve are you talking about?
  - Mike_Card
    
    The so-called Laffer Curve. According to the legend, Laffer had drinks with Reagan and sketched a U-shaped curve on a cocktail napkin; a graphic representation of the relationship between tax revenues and tax rates. The intellectual underpinning of “trickle-down” economics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    - Call_Me_Missouri
      
      Thank you for explaining. I’ll read that on the train ride home.
      
      My gut response is that we have never truly tried it and therefore there is no actual evidence that could be evaluated to show whether it works or not… but that is based on the understanding that we never cut spending during Reagan’s presidency… instead he spent tax payer money like a drunken sailor while at the same time cutting taxes for rich people. That is not how you implement the trickle down theory, but that is what we did. Sound familiar at all?
    - Mike_Card
      
      I’m not sure this is anything more than a graphic demonstration of VooDoo economics, even tho Bush I was probably no better equipped than Reagan–who considered himself an economist, since he’d taken economics courses in college.
      
      From my perspective, it seems that there is always an element of the political side who are searching for intellctual backing. Reaganites like to insist that trickle-down worked, even tho the empirical evidence suggests that nothing like that assertion is supported.
      
      My preference is to ignore the untested, theoretical notion of trickle-down and rely on your own market-tested notion of corporate finance. But that’s just me.
    - Call_Me_Missouri
      
      Now that i have read the Wikipedia article, two things are clear to me…
      
      1. This was used as the justification for Trickle Down economic theory, but is not in and of itself the Trickle Down theory. This is a two dimensional graph demonstrating the relationship between Tax Revenue and Tax Rate (%) and that is it. Trickle Down economic theory is that when you lower the tax burden of the very richest amongst us that it will free up money for investment and that the result of that investment will be more jobs and a better well being for everyone. This has never been proven to be true because we have always cut the tax rate while at the same time increasing Government spending, thus increasing the Deficit and the Debt. Ronald Reagan was the most egregioius example of this, though George Bush Junior was also quite bad with two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate for Prescription Coverage for Seniors while at the same time cutting taxes in a way that mostly benefited rich people. And look where we were when Bush Senior took office and where we were when Obama took office… Need I say more?
      
      2. This U-Curve theory has never been tested in the US because it would be impossible to do so. That curve only takes into account one factor… Tax percent. the problem with that one factor in the US is that no two people in this country pay the same tax rate. To start with our Federal Income Tax is a Progressive/Graduated tax rate based on income level so at the very least there should be a third dimension to this graph which is Income Level… But then there is the fact that taxes are levyed at many levels of government… Federal, State, County, Town.. Then there are a million different types of taxes (in my opinion, any money that goes to a government is a Tax) Some sample taxes are Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, Gas Taxes, Excise Taxes, Car Registration Fees, Licensing Fees of all kinds, Speeding Tickets… you get the gist. As a result, there is NO WAY that a two dimensional Graph could accurately represent the effect of changing one tax rate on all people.
      
      I am sure that there is some mathematician out there that has attempted to factor in all of these taxes to figure out what the optimal tax rate would be, but it seems to me that it would take many Cray Computers operating in parallel to complete the calculations and that we might be dead before it finishes.
      
      That being said… there is also NO Doubt that the concept behind this principal is true… you can create a tax rate that yields bad net income levels for a government.

http://profile.yahoo.com/QMDZ3LH5U2B4GAT7J2HS4TCP6E Jim

I love James Carville’s analysis:

“It is all the same Republican (blueprint) speech we heard before”

and that is exactly right. i was hoping to hear something different. but it is the same old, same old supply side nonsense that did not work from the Reagan administration to the W days.

as one commentator said… i think jack.. who are you going to help Mr Romney as you alluded that you will help? the middle class, upper middle class, or the super rich folks like yourself?

cryptomorph

The reason the Right’s blueprint never changes isn’t because the leaders of the Right are NOT as stupid as the party faithful they seek to deceive. Their main goal has been to abolish those New Deal and Great Society programs they’ve always loathed and they know they can’t openly run on that platform and win any elections. In competition with that view are private sector economic interests on the Right which prefer these programs be privatized so they can be pillaged. Since they pay the bills, the political Right has no problem dancing to that tune.

�
Either way, the far Right knew if they slowly sabotaged the US Treasury with irresponsible tax cuts and spending, they could eventually create the fiscal conditions where there WOULD be some public support for weakening those programs. That time is has come and the Right is going in for the kill even as they wipe their fingerprints from their treachery in sabotaging the fiscal health of the nation. At what point does such treachery cross the line into treason?

BHA_in_Vermont

Someone’s memory isn’t so good related to Kennedy and Capital Gains tax cuts.

“No matter that the capital gains cut Mr. Kennedy proposed as part of his tax reduction and reform package in 1963 was never enacted.”

“Kennedy would have cut the capital gains rate to 19.5 percent from 25 percent and he would have lengthened the holding period from six months to one year.”

“As for the treatment of capital gains, the President linked his proposed reduction in the rate to a provision that would tax capital gains transferred at death” “He argued that taxing capital gains at death was an essential element
needed to balance the break that upper-income people would receive from a cut in the capital gains tax. ”Certainly in its absence there would be no justification for any reduction of present capital gain rate schedules,” Mr. Kennedy said.”

Are the Republicans OK with a “death tax” to balance the Capital Gains tax cut? I didn’t think so

Even if the commentator was correct and Kennedy had cut Capital Gains and there was a boom of sorts following that:
- Capital Gains taxes are now 4.5% lower than what Kennedy PROPOSED. Do those in favor really think they can create jobs by cutting the Capital Gains tax? What do they propose to do when the Capital Gains tax is eliminated all together using this logic?

There is another BIG difference re Kennedy cutting taxes vs now. When Kennedy was President, we had very high tax rates and had paid down the WWII and Korean War debt. You don’t need as much income when you have few debts. Now we have massive debt from 2 unfunded wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/08/us/washington-talk-echo-of-kennedy-era-even-camelot-s-cast-argues-capital-gains.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

cryptomorph

If the Right so loves the so-called JFK tax cuts… let’s BRING THEM BACK! What the Orwellian Right ignores is JFK stopped at a top tax rate of 70%. They’ve bastardized JFKs position to mean if he favored one tax cut, he’d favor them all no matter how irresponsible.

RI_traveler

What irony! How can the Republicans say with straight faces that Obama has failed to lead/accomplish what he promised when they have made blocking him/preventing a second term their #1 priority?

Steve__T

They don’t think it’s an issue.

Mouse_2012

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch praised Eastwood for having the “guts” to work in Hollywood and openly support Romney, but figured the teleprompter must have been on the fritz during his speech.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80508.html#ixzz258SBKxa0

I thought the Right hated teleprompter ?

Davesix6

Clint Eastwood is 82 years old, President Obama is 51 years old.
When Clint Eastwood was 51 years old he didn’t need a teleprompter, Obama gaffes without one.
Big difference.
- Mouse_2012
  
  seems you dropped the 9.
  �
  So it’s okay for clint to use a teleprompter but not obama?
  �
  got it.
- Mike_Card
  
  Clint is a professionally-trained actor.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  After a convention full of speeches given off TelePrompters you’re making a TelePrompter joke?
  
  Weak, weak sauce.

Ellen Dibble

Maybe women see through the paternalism of the hope of jobs for all — the hope that the job creators will be able to keep you in an appropriate job, take care of you there. 150 years ago, most people made their own jobs. The Big Brother now is the power behind the curtain, the corporate money. I know that oversimplifies, but maybe women have a hunch about it.

BHA_in_Vermont

Do they understand that the “job creators” are not creating jobs NOW even though they have been paying reduced taxes for 11 years?
- maryjan
  
  It always surprises me that this fact gets overlooked all the time. They have a theory about reducing “job creators” taxes as a way to increase employment. The fact that it has not worked does not see to bother them at all.
  - jimino
    
    You just don’t understand that facts do no matter when they don’t coincide with “values” and “principles”. The fact that their core beliefs are entirely inconsistent with history and the real world is of no concern to the true believers.
  - StilllHere
    
    Millions of jobs were created as a result of the tax cuts, unfortunately millions more were lost due to increased government regulation enacted over the last four years.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      You forgot to say that Obama was enacting those JahbKillinRegulationz before the 2008 Dem convention.
    - Mike_Card
      
      Yes, the tax cuts created many jobs, for which we are repeatedly thanked by China, India, Mexico, etc., etc.
- hennorama
  
  This nonsense about mythical “job creators,” (which is Republicanspeak for “rich people”) always cracks me up. They claim over and over that lowering taxes will magically result in new jobs.
  
  Here’s how it’s supposed to work: the “job creator” wakes up one morning to discover that her taxes are lower. She then supposedly thinks “HOORAY! Now I’ll hire that new employee today, who I didn’t need and couldn’t profit from yesterday!”
  
  It’s absurd.

Government_Banking_Serf

Immigration?

Why shy away from Rule of Law?

Suggesting Latinos can’t understand or appreciate Rule of Law concepts, as opposed to open border/entitlement free for all, is racist.

dbo2

Jack Beatty,

The Economist magazine endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Bush in 2000.

http://www.economist.com/node/3329802

Dave Olnhausen
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Government_Banking_Serf

Jeez Jack, you are so retrograde. Must we always be prisoner to the past? Never be accountable for our present?

BHA_in_Vermont

People using government assistance didn’t plan properly. They didn’t choose the right parents.

maryjan

haha! guess they didn’t win the birth lottery!
Gregg Smith

Ryan, Condi and others pointed out the absurdity and cruelty of condemning people to a fixed station in life. In America it doesn’t matter where you come from it matters where you are going. That was Condi’s line. Ryan talked about mowing lawns without thinking he was doomed to a life of mowing lawns.
- cryptomorph
  
  RED HERRING ALERT… just because the far Right loves this talking point doesn’t make it true.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    That’s sick.
    - cryptomorph
      
      No Greggy, what is sick is your blatant lie that Dems favor an absurd and cruel policy that condemn peoples to a fixed station in life.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      That’s what it does.
    - cryptomorph
      
      No, that’s what you want to BELIEVE it does. But to the extent that corporate Dems buy into Trickle Down policies… you might be correct.
- Thinkin5
  
  Pres. Obama brought himself up by his own bootstraps and for that the right demonizes him and asks to see his college grades! A double standard for everything. How dare you want to see Mitt’s tax returns?! But you, Dem. president, we need to take a good look at your credentials. And we aren’t going to believe them when we see them either.

jim_thompson

Romney will not be able to govern as a moderate or pragmatist. He’s sold his soul to the far right to get to this point and yet still had to put Ryan on the ticket to shore up the base. Grover Norquist himself said we need a President just to sign stuff that the right wing Congress passes-an automaton so to speak. The GOP of today has alienated Latinos, women, working people, students, the unemployed, and the LGBT community. Seantor Graham of SC himself said there aren’t enough angry white guys to sustain the GOP.

I needless to say will be voting to re-elect the President. I am happy today with President Obama as I was when I voted for him.

Jim T in Fort Mill,SC

http://profile.yahoo.com/QMDZ3LH5U2B4GAT7J2HS4TCP6E Jim

Thank you Jack! Thank you for mentioning that Paul Ryan and Chris Christies used Government entitlement programmes to advance their lives.

They did NOT do it by themselves without using government help.

To Paul Ryan,
The government gave you social security money to put you to college after one of your parents pass away, NOT Ayn Rand.

Government_Banking_Serf

So whats the point? Is Ryan or anybody arguing for 0 government? For 0 help for anybody?

As much as Dems would love to project that to the voting masses to garner votes, it’s nonsense.

20% GDP on Government is plenty for all sorts of stuff.

So if you were arguing from 25 to 20, or 20 to 18%, you cannot have ever used anything from our government (which we all pay for) without being a hypocrite?

So you let the kids run wild with the credit card because you use a credit card occasionally and you don’t dare speak up cause the other kids will call you a miser?

jefe68

On point is doing some weird things today with flagging comments. Stop it please.

Mouse_2012

Oh yeah the Republican Platform( you know the 2012 one) states there against abortion even in cases of Rape,incest. I guess Akin views are far more inline with the party then one would have thought

Government_Banking_Serf

Tom! How can you be such a Republican apologist!? “People try to strive for success”? Please!

Mouse_2012

Bush the 2nd was considered a moderate until he was elected.

BHA_in_Vermont

Yep, the man who claimed he was a “uniter” on the campaign trail shook that Etch-a-sketch really hard on the way to his inauguration.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Yep. In pursuit of the suburban white woman vote, he played “compassionate” for about two minutes.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    That photo in the flight suit did far more to gain him the white woman vote than his brief period of ‘compassion’. I wouldn’t have believed it but many of my female friends at that time told me how much they absolutely loved that pic. I found it disgusting and told them so, the general response was girlish giggles and “Get over it Drew”.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      I’m sorry, but you actually spoke with G. Gordon Liddy, Bill-O and other Foxholers about that photo?
      
      Oh, you’re referring to females crushing on Command Codpiece. My apologies.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Military Uniform + artificially enhanced Codpiece + Guaranteed Government Paycheck = Security to some. I didn’t say all, just commented on my experiences during the fiasco.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      Yeah, I was just flipping your remark for the inconceivable mancrushes from our savvy tastemakers.
Mike_Card

I must have missed when he addressed the delegates; didn’t get to hear Bush I, either.

Government_Banking_Serf

“Forward.”

Let’s hear the real Master Plan for us. Geithner, Bernanke etc on Steroids. Global Currency. Less individual autonomy for our own good, determined by technocratic elite.

He likely won’t spell it out, as most Americans really don’t want that trajectory.

“Bill Black: Fire Geithner, Fire Holder, Ask Bernanke to Resign, and Prosecute CEO’s and CFO’s”

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/10/bill-black-interviewed-on-democracy-now.html

jimino

I know you claim to be a nonpartisan rejecter of both R and D but I never see you criticize the R approach. So can we conclude you support that party’s economic proposals?
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  Criticizing the Neocon and Finance and Crony Capitalistic wing of the Republican Party is like shooting fish in a barrel. Plus many here can do it in their sleep. The problem is the misguided trust in the Democratic Party, or more Socialistic solutions IMO, and that is the hypocrisy that I feel needs to be pointed out. It would be opposite on some establishment GOP populated site.
  
  I like Bill Black, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and alot of the stuff on that Capitalism Without Failure Page, as its bipartisanly critical, and systemically critical.
  
  http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/10/bill-black-interviewed-on-democracy-now.html
  
  The knee-jerk Democratic worship here makes me ill, and frankly, pushed me (a Nader voting registered Democrat until recent switch to support Paul) further away from the Democratic Party, as I see the lack of Objective critical thought and skepticism of the elite power brokers who are just as Dem as Repub. I don’t blame Capitalism, I blame corruption and Regulatory Capture.
  
  Sadly, instead of fighting that difficult fight to take back our markets and country, so many seem to yearn for a lazier and naive lurch toward socialistic or communistic Control and Command goals- yes, the Benevolent Dictator fallacy.

DrewInGeorgia

Some keep saying “It’s the worst economic recovery since the 1929 crisis, it’s your fault President Obama!”

Here’s a little common sense for ya: The worst economic crisis since 1929 will obviously have the slowest recovery since 1929. I guess some people would be happier if there were more of us standing in bread lines.

StilllHere

Except that that is not historically accurate. The pace of recovery ususally mirrors the pace of the decline.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/comparing-recessions-and-recoveries-job-changes-4/
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  Usually is not always. I take your point, evidently you took mine as well.
WorriedfortheCountry

Not true. Most recoveries are V style. The steeper the decline, the steeper the bounce.

Some are saying that this is different because it was caused by a financial crisis. Others are saying we have systemic problems and this is the new normal. Others are saying the global competition make it impossible to recover.

One thing is clear, we can’t stay on the same course if we want a robust recovery.
- Thinkin5
  
  I read that every other past recovery was pumped up with gov. jobs while the private sector recovered. This one had the biggest reduction of government/public sector jobs and cut backs ever. That’s very bad for a recession economy. And still, we’ve had economic GROWTH for more than a yr. and a half (can’t recall number of quarters). We want it to be faster but it’s going the right direction. Slow and steady wins the race.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  You’re right. More government spending at this point in the cycle, just like every other GOP pres coming out of a recession asked for and got, would have done us better. And that shows in employment levels.
- Joseph_Wisconsin
  
  I guess I should be amazed that we actually appear to agree on something, at least in your apparent willingness to consider the truth of the statement that the recovery has been slow because of systemic problems. I believe that this is indeed very much the case, and has been since the supposed “recoveries” from the previous two recessions.
  
  In both of those previous recessions, and especially the one over the start of the G.W. Bush administration, what passed as recovery was an illusion created by economic bubbles (Internet and then housing) that allowed most Americans to temporarily feel wealthier and increased consumer demand for goods and services based on credit and this temporary but not real wealth. Underlying this has been the stagnant or even negative growth in real income for the bottom 90%+ in the US. The most recent recession was especially steep and recovery may take a very long time, or for most never occur, because almost all wealth for the bottom 90% was in the [inflated] value of their homes. Take away the bubbles and people are unwilling or unable to spend, unemployment rises, and economic growth is stalled.
  
  The slow recovery has nothing to do with taxes being too high, especially with income tax rates for the top being at levels lower than seen since before the Great Depression, and it has nothing to do with deficits, except to the extent that the Republican’s sudden (only since the election of Obama) has hindered any discussion of real stimulus. The primary reason that Republicans have tried to create this deficit fetish is to provide an argument to cut or eliminate programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and other financial assistance to the poor, Social Security, and Medicare. This is nothing new as it has been a goal of the Republicans since these programs were first put in place.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    Wish I could like this multiple times.
  - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
    
    I’ve seen the chart and I shoulda linked to it too.
    
    (Of course, I’m not the one who needs to read it.)
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    I don’t have time for a big debate on taxes however the focus on rates is misguided. They key is tax simplification — especially in the corporate tax code. The tax code is 74,000 pages and needs to be dramatically simplified to reduce market distortions and compliance costs.
- cryptomorph
  
  Lost on you seems to be the fact that it was RIGHT WING IDEAS that imploded the economy. THOSE discredited ideas, you’re willing to place faith in again.

Thinkin5

The Republicans are just “jealous of our freedom”!!! Especially women’s freedom.

Thinkin5

Mitt Romney is NOT like his father. I wonder if he wishes that he was. Why keep talking about his father? He’s hoping and praying that we will think he did all those things and had that dynamic personality. Release your tax returns like your father did Mitt.

BHA_in_Vermont

Good question. George Romney wanted to move the party to the Center. Mitt wants to move it Right.

Which position do you suppose is more representative of the “average American”?

It is hard to unite people when you exclude and denigrate 2/3rds of them. This country will remain in neutral until a majority of the house and senate are centrists. Unfortunately, I do not think that will happen in the foreseeable future. China will be happily moving up the “global power” chain as America goes broke.
myblusky

Candidates who want to “unite the parties” don’t get elected and don’t get support from their own party. If he wasn’t divisive the Republicans wouldn’t have nominated him so he had to move more to the right.

Sadly – this is the state of American politics – divide and conquer. Maybe we need to rethink the name “United States”. Red Vs. Blue with a 3% Grey Area – although that isn’t a very catchy name.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  No, but “unite the parties” is a fetish for our Beltway Inbreds.
  
  What it means to them is that Democrats are too mean when only compromising 70% or suggesting R-approved policies of a decade ago. And also that one GOP senator playing “bi-curious” (Snowe, Collins, Brown…) is the greatest statesman evah.
- J__o__h__n
  
  Obama ran on that last time and won both his party’s nomination and the election. The Republicans didn’t want to compromise.

Markus6

I assume Romney has flip flopped to become the nominee. I’ll even grant that he’s probably lieing when saying some nonsense about climate change or gay marriage or any of a number of areas. I also accept that Obama lies regularly about Obamacare and his accomplishments. I’ve accepted that simplistic people on both sides and a media that supports this mean our politicians have to lie to get elected. What a great surprise.

So do I vote for a person who accomplished little before being president, then was given a lousy deck of cards but has played them incompetently and failed by most objective measures. Or do I vote for the guy who has accomplished a lot, even in a state dominated by the opposing party.

When someone’s shown they can’t do the job, even if the job is really really hard, and if their answer is always to blame someone else, you need to retire them. Probably makes me simplistic too – well, at least I have a lot of company.

Thinkin5

Of course, Mitt’s VP pick hasn’t any history of running a business either. How many years working in the public sector? Or is it OK if you’re working for the Republicans?
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  If you’re a Republican your RuggedIndiviualist bonafides are part of who you are, not something so petty that you actually have to do them.
  
  It’s a state of being, not an action.

WorriedfortheCountry

This has nothing to do with political ideology.

Was any one else touched by the rose story last night?

Thinkin5

I heard it replayed today. Very sweet but it wasn’t Mitt who did that and it’s not likely to help him should he become president. It’s not that Mitt doesn’t have a heart, or isn’t loved by his family, it’s his policies and the people that he’s beholden to because they gave him the nomination.
Just look at all he said on the campaign trail. It speaks volumes about who he really is when he’s “on the job”. He won’t be offering roses to anyone. Well, maybe the bankers on Wall St.
Gregg Smith

I was. There were many moving moments. They are compassionate, thoughtful and kind. They’re actually human, whod’a thunk?
- Thinkin5
  
  Except for the sniping and rude digs and outright lies, and peanut throwing idiots (directed at a black camera woman from CNN, “this is how we feed the animals”!!), except for Clint Eastwood’s drunken sounding, disrespectful diatribe. Other than that…all roses!
  - Gregg Smith
    
    No lies were spoken. The idiots were thrown out, who cares what the color is of the camera woman and Clint was awesome.
    - WorriedfortheCountry
      
      Clint made my day.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Thanks for proving my point Gregggg that True Believers don’t care if they are being lied to because they’ve inoculated themselves against truth.
    - jefe68
      
      who cares what the color is of the camera woman
      You keep going on about race in these very bizarre ways for lack of any other words. When you are called on it you have a stock reply of “sick”. I concur, you comments about race are sickening.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      The automatic knee-jerk charge of racism is sick. I’ll say it every time.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Just wondering, is it your position that if the camera woman were white the insult would be less egregious? Would the idiots be less idiotic? Why? Do you believe blacks are so fragile the word “animal” brings them to tears because of something that may have happened to their grandparents? Or do you think blacks are actually more animal like and therefore more sensitive? Or is it that you believe blacks need you to defend them?
      
      You can’t answer these questions because you have never thought deeper than the surface party line. But they’re good questions.
    - StilllHere
      
      Yesterday, they were all who cares about the color of the speaker when they were hurling racist comments against Condi.
J__o__h__n

More evidence that GEORGE Romney was a great guy.

LianeSperoni

I am not a Romney supporter, but I do think it is important to be precise when talking about the positions Republicans are mapping out.

The guests on the program rightly pointed out that many of the speakers at the Republican convention admitted that they had received government aid for a time in their lives. What the guests don’t seem to realize is that Republicans are not against government, they say they are for limited
government. (Hear Paul Ryan: 20% of GDP, because that is enough!)
�
It is not hypocritical to Republicans that they received aid during a period of hardship after escaping the Mexican Revolution, or after the
death of a father, or to start a business, because they look at it as temporary aid. What Republicans “fear” is that permanent underclass that never rises out of poverty- for which they blame k-12 education (Hear Condoleezza Rice: a zip code should not determine a child’s success), the solution they
advocate is school choice.

For all the guests’ talk of “stark choices,” and the
candidates’ talk the same way, there is actually no substantial difference that I hear between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of education. President
Obama says he is not ending the work requirement for welfare, and he is an advocate of education reform to give people a way out of poverty. I don’t know where
Obama stands on school choice; I know that he supports the Children’s Zone in Harlem- which makes a zip code unto itself. The “disagreement” amounts to nothing more than misrepresentions of similar positions, not an actual difference of policy.

So if the Democrats and the Republicans agree that a.)
poverty does exist and b.) education is the way out of poverty, then why are so many college educated (some with advance degrees) not successful? And why are
our kids falling behind given all the education reform that has taken place over the last 20 years?

The Republicans say it is because the President is a weak leader who diminishes success. In other words, he is not the “booster-in-chief” the country needs. The parade of success stories that Americans were treated to this week was an exercise in self-promotion and boosterism. I expect that the Democratic convention will sound off on the same themes during their convention. The “stark choices” will then seem
less clear to the average voter. (Of course we will see the increase in nastiness, which is the inevitable result when two parties cannot differentiate
themselves from one another.) I see no stark choices, except the ones the media invents by distorting the platforms of each party.

If we want to have a real debate as to why college educated people cannot find jobs and are slipping into poverty, people should consider the following:

“Since 2001, employment has grown 8.7 percent in
lower-wage occupations and 6.6 percent in high-wage ones. Over that period, midwage occupation employment has fallen by 7.3 percent.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html?ref=business
�
If we want to start to understand why kids are having
trouble learning, maybe it just might not have anything to do with zip codes or teachers’ unions:

“It’s scary,” said Jennifer T. Wolstenholme, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Virginia and the lead author of the report. She said that the researchers found behaviors in BPA-exposed mice and their descendants that may parallel autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit disorder in humans.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/kristof-big-chem-big-harm.html?_r=1&hp

I, for one, would like to stop having a fight over religion and who is holier-than-thou and who is more authentically American. I don’t want to hear any more stories about success or failure…

I just want to know that the people who are running the
country are reading the newspaper.

Thinkin5

Thoughtful comments. I would like to believe that both sides, mostly, want the same things. I think that the right thinks that demonizing and stereotyping people is some kind of motivation for change. The right uses the word “success” a lot. Do they mean wealthy? Are they referring to the amount of money one makes? Can a person be a success if they make $50k a year, pay all their bills and enjoy their life? Is it the bank account with the most money that makes a person the most “successful”? I don’t think so. That would mean that if I won the lottery or inherited millions, I would be a big success!
Mike_Card

If President Obama is a weak leader, what president in living memory would you nominate as a strong leader? I would guess FDR, but I’m not old enough to have experienced whatever it was that won 4 elections.
Government_Banking_Serf

“Republicans are not against government, they say they are for limited

government. (Hear Paul Ryan: 20% of GDP, because that is enough!) ”
Deaf ears my friend, deaf ears. The narratives of 0 government and pillaging evil people are much more effective.

Rule of Law to control cheaters and deviants in our economy, the Constitution to protect us from those who threaten our liberty? That’s so………1700′s!

You’re not allowed to believe that anymore. Its the State or Anarchy for these folks.

Steve__T

Disqus does it again

DrewInGeorgia

Dis Cuss. I’m with ya.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Disqus seems to have it in for you.
  
  Maybe you need to put on a disguise and create a new account with a different email address.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    lol
    
    If you only knew. I say things people don’t like sometimes, sad most Americans have come to feel their rights include “The right to not be offended”. My take on that is: If you don’t like it, stop reading it.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      No, I don’t mean that way, I mean a bug, a coding glitch, something impersonal and electronic you might only get rid of by abandoning one account and creating another which doesn’t resemble it at all.
      
      I don’t think we’re in a Futurama world where the actual Disqus software has sentience and wrecks your posts because it disagrees with you.
      
      Well, I don’t think we’re there yet.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      lol, I don’t think that either. What I meant when I said “If you only knew” is that good ol’ Disqus and I have gone around and around and around and around. This is not my original screen name. Not positive about the count but I think I’m about five steps removed now. My past issues have been with excessive moderation (unwarranted censorship). The account may change but the glitches stay the same.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      Five rides on the Disqus merry-go-round?
      
      Your patience is commendable.
      
      I use another service and have not had trouble. Yet.
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      Hope your good fortune continues. Who the hell said I was patient? lol
      Persistent? Yes. Patient? Not so much.
      
      ;’)

Steve__T

And again, OK I give up

DrewInGeorgia

Don’t Give up! Fight The Power!!! lol
- Steve__T
  
  It seems that I can’t reply to anyone lower than the first page.
  - DrewInGeorgia
    
    This is from a reply to TinaWrites regarding the same issue:
    
    “Using an actual Disqus account seems to be the least glitchy way to interact with the forum. As for the bouncing the comment to the top of the page problem you describe, when you’re on the board and it shows that you have replies try this: First refresh the page. LEFT click on the red reply counter, then right click while hovering over the reply you want to read and select ‘Open link in new window’. The new window will frequently (but not always) pop the comment to the top. If you wish to respond to the reply do so in the newly opened window only. Rinse and repeat for additional replies. After replying close the opened window showing the reply and your original window will still be open. Refresh the original window and everything will (most of the time) be in order. I know this is a convoluted procedure and I apologize but as I said earlier functionality doesn’t appear to be priority.
    
    As for the destruction of paragraph formatting this appears to happen any time Copy and Paste is used. It takes some effort to keep posts clean and concise but to all who are persistent editors I say Thank You.
    
    Hope this information is in some way helpful to you.”
    
    The underlying theme is to have a primary window open but to use separate windows to reply to previous posts. It helps the majority of the time, but not every time.
    - Steve__T
      
      Thanks Drew
    - DrewInGeorgia
      
      No problem.
    - William
      
      Tks much! I thought it was just me doing something wrong.

Steve__T

He dug a hole? Or was he pushed into it, then had sand dumped on him every time he tried to get out?

@Stillhere in reply to Mouse

DrewInGeorgia

Sand dumped on him using the shovel that they wrung from his hands.

cryptomorph

Why does the GOP feel it can lie with such impunity? To blatantly lie during a political campaign is a sign of contempt for each citizen and of the democratic process itself. It’s an attempt to con a citizen to vote on untruths, a vote the politician knows they could not earn if they were honest.

The GOP lies because these politicians KNOW the party faithful have self-sabotaged intellects. They prefer the lies that fit their ideological narrative and have inoculated themselves against the truth. All the fact checking in the world matters not.

The Road To Hell is paved with True Believers:

http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2006/05/road-hell-is-paved-with-true-believers.html

WorriedfortheCountry

Where are the lies?

Did they say Obama was responsible for a woman’s cancer death?
- cryptomorph
  
  W wrote: “Where are the lies?”
  
  �
  Thanks for proving my point. If you CARED… you could EASILY find them on your own without asking others to do your research. My point is you DON’T care. As for the cancer ad. First it was NOT an official Obama campaign ad… and yes, it was reprehensible even if it apparently only ran once as opposed to the GOP having an entire national convention revolve around lies.
  
  I await YOUR condemnation of GOP lies… but I won’t hold my breath. You’re living proof you embrace lies when they fit your world view.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    No, I saw left wing blogs come out with ‘fact checks’ immediately after Paul Ryan’s speech. MSM outlets, like CNN, immediately repeated these ‘fact checks’. Now the fact checks were debunked – like the GM plant closing.
    
    Worse, the so called fact checks were nits that didn’t change the primary argument Ryan was making — Obama’s broken promises.
    
    However, many of the so called ‘fact checks’ were not fact checks but political analysis pointing out potential hypocrisy. Of course they only told part of the story.
    
    It is not surprising that you don’t want to talk specifics.
    - cryptomorph
      
      So if Obama makes a statement BEFORE Bush and the GOP implode the economy… and BEFORE GM declares bankruptcy, he must be held to it? BTW, production DID end at Janesville in Dec 08 while Bush was still president. The Right is dishonestly playing with the word “closed” to try and absolve Ryan of gross misrepresentation of the facts. See, it wasn’t REALLY closed. GM just stopped using the plant! But I’m sure you’re content with such gross misrepresentations. Thanks AGAIN for proving my point.o if Obama makes a statement BEFORE Bush and the GOP implode the economy… and BEFORE GM declares bankruptcy, he must be held to it?
      
      �
      BTW, production DID end at Janesville in Dec 08. The Right is dishonestly playing with the word “closed” to try and absolve Ryan of gross misrepesentation of the facts. But I’m sure you’re content with that. Thanks AGAIN for proving my point.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Get a grip dude, production did not end until April 2009. Where’s the lie?
    - cryptomorph
      
      The last car made in Janesville was Dec 23, 08….
      
      http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/30/13572758-the-janesville-falsehood?lite
      
      Please retract
    - Gregg Smith
      
      I’ll bet you feel silly now.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Not as silly as Righties who will ignore the 2000 workers laid off under Bush and instead take comfort that 57 remained to be laid off after Obama took office.

jefe68

I could not have said it better.

Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who
are united by so much more than divides us.”

The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the
Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda. Mr. Romney’s big speech,delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with
the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security —
and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

Excerpt from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html?ref=opinion

Brandstad

Please explain the details of Obama’s 2008 DNC Convention promises in detail! What did he promise to “Change” America into?
- Mike_Card
  
  For someone who seems to need other people to provide facts, you make an awful lot of demands that you can very easily find for yourself. A true republican would understand the meaning of self-reliance. Unless you’re just a shit-head troll.
  - StilllHere
    
    Gotcha, lots of broken promises and you’re too scared to see them all reproduced in black and white. Unless you’re just a s-h. Don’t bother answering, the answer is clear to all.
    - Steve__T
      
      So where are your links?

Joseph_Wisconsin

I am surprised that I have not seen more comments about that bizarre performance by Clint Eastwood last night. Yeah maybe he was having trouble reading the teleprompter, but he is a professional actor and eyesight problems could not begin to explain it all. Did no one from the Romney camp bother vetting his speech? Whose idea was it for him to carry on a conversation with an empty chair? Inspired by Waiting for Godot?

Then there is Ann Romney’s speech form the previous night. I know that her goals were to make Mitt seem like a human being and to give people the idea that she and Romney has some sort of clue about the lives and struggles of ordinary people, but like Juan Williams of FOX News I was not sold. All her stories about the days, while Mitt Romney was in college, when they experienced real hardship, as exampled by having to use an ironing board for a kitchen table just made me wonder what’s up with Mormon men and how they treat their wives. Mitt even at that point had stock holdings, given to him by his father, in the range of $60,000 (1969 dollars). Mitt couldn’t have sold a few shares to buy a kitchenette set? I’m sorry but what Ann describes as their hardest times are what people who have experienced or are experiencing real hard times could only hope to aspire to. I recall my college days, occurring about four years later than Mitt’s. Every cent I had earned working during high school and all I earned during part time jobs during college was still not enough, I had to take out student loans each year. This when I was attending UC at Berkeley when there was adequate state funding so that tuition was nothing like it is today. When I graduated an got my first professional job it was a year before I could save enough to buy my first car and I paid off my loans over the next five years. Those were more genuine hard times, yet during college I had reason to be optimistic about my future. Nothing like what the poor are facing currently.

Mitt you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, so just own up to that. It didn’t prevent GW Bush from being elected and he pursued the same favor the wealthy policies that you want to.

WorriedfortheCountry

They claim most of Clint’s stuff as ad libbed.

I thought Clint was different but excellent.

My wife thought it was awkward.
- DrewInGeorgia
  
  Your wife was right.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    The most awkward part was when he criticized all politicians — to a room full of politicians.
    
    However, I kind of like it.
- Ray in VT
  
  I only caught the end, but I would have listened if I had had the time. It doesn’t matter to me what his politics are, but I like him as an actor and a film maker.
TomK_in_Boston

Yeah, some of these “born on 3′rd and think they hit a triple” folks amaze me. Young Mitt, the son of the Governor and CEO, must have had some tough times, huh? I know W thought he got where he was by his own hard work. I was born into a lesser degree of privilege and can’t imagine not being aware of the advantages it has given me.
- freethinkerstill
  
  I’m so in line with you, Tom. Raised lower middle class, I still was able to afford college and come out debt free. As a result, I was able to find and hold employment all these years. My 20 year-old college son is taking on debt (despite my savings and ongoing contributions to his education) in amounts that anger and dismay me! I am aware that being a white-skinned male in a time when government and private industry worked together provided me an advantage that my “middle class” son does not fully share. (God help the poor and the working poor who can’t borrow their way into college.) Tell Romney I’m sorry my son couldn’t borrow $20,000.00 from me to start a business. It was eaten up in the first year and a half of his college expenses!

WorriedfortheCountry

No one has seen Axelrod since Romney gave his speech.

Rumor has it ole Axelrod has gone into hiding because he now knows for certain Obama is toast and he backed the wrong guy.

Thinkin5

I saw him speaking this morning. Seemed pretty happy that the Repcons were doing his work for him. So many weak links revealed in the R convention speeches. So many little anecdotes of fiction and contradictions.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  Worried is just a reality based as ryan.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    A weak attempt at levity my friend. That’s all.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      You don’t have to repeat it 4 times, Worried.
      
      The fact is that Axe has been active today talking abt how the TeaOP blew their chance to deliver a strong message with their bizarre convention.
      
      So, much as it pains me to say so, your speculation that Axe has gone into hiding is no more true than ryan’s speech.
    - WorriedfortheCountry
      
      Disqus.
  - Guest
    
    A weak attempt at levity my friend. That’s all.
  - Guest
    
    A weak attempt at levity my friend. That’s all.
  - Guest
    
    A weak attempt at levity my friend. That’s all.
  - Guest
    
    A weak attempt at levity my friend. That’s all.
StilllHere

He’s busy trying to come up with enough lies to fill up 5 days of delusion, illusion and smoke ‘n mirrors. Democrats are the party of deceit. If they put as much effort into work as they do into lying, they wouldn’t have to keep growing this nanny state of co-dependence.
- WorriedfortheCountry
  
  They would never get away with the lies and deceit without a complicit media. That is the only thing propping them up right now.
  - StilllHere
    
    They are one in the same, you cannot find the point at which the Democrat party ends and the media begins.

s4nelson

I attempted to get on the show this morning and was in the line but got dumped. Here is the point and it appears that it did not get addressed. Romney was in charge of his convention. He had to sign off on all decisions. Thus putting Eastwood on the stage was Romney’s decision. What does this say about him as a leader, as a decision-maker? This was an action, not his puffy rhetoric. This is in a long line of Romney the jokster from shaving the head of a suspected gay student in high school to the birt certificate attempt at humor last week. Much of Romney’s humor is that of a bully. That is the role that Eastwood played as Romney’s proxy last night. Romney the squeaky clean guy who doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, doesn’t curse has Eastwood do the dirty work for him. What kind of a president would he be? What kind of a leader is this man?

Brandstad

WORLD’S WEALTHIEST WOMAN TELLS PEOPLE TO STOP ENVYING THE RICH & WORK HARDER, GOV’T OFFICIALS FLIP OUT

“There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire,” she wrote in an article for an industry magazine.
“If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself — spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working,” she added.
“Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others.”

Said by Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart

J__o__h__n

She left out “inherit from a rich father.”
- Ray in VT
  
  She also left out get a bunch of other people to do the hard work for you. One of my problems with her statement is that it pretty much says that if you don’t have money it’s because you waste it on booze and cigs and you’re not working hard. The honest truth is that an awful lot of people who are working very hard are not getting rich. The owners or the middlemen might be making a killing, but the people doing the dirty work aren’t. For instance, I saw at the store the other day, and a pair of Adidas shoes made in China were selling for $150. Now I’m sure that the people who actually made those shoes are working hard, but they aren’t getting rich.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Adidas_sponsorships#Players
  
  Take a look at this list of people who Adidas is paying to promote their stuff. They do a 30 second add and make more than probably 100 Chinese workers do in a year. The real truth is that hard work often doesn’t pay off. It may pay, but it’s not going to make you a billionaire.
Thinkin5

Yes, and while your at it, get someone to loan you millions or write you into their will. It will really help speed up the process. Then the money just comes in from interest. Great!
jimino

That you would hold out this greedy heiress who is hated by every member of her own family and anyone who has ever dealt with her as a model for the rest of us says it all.

WorriedfortheCountry

“When someone doesn’t do the job we have to let him go”
-Clint Eastwood – August 30, 2012

Thinkin5

Yes! Please let Eastwood go!

DrewInGeorgia

Am I the only one here that finds it somewhat depressing that on the board today there has been zero discussion of Isaac’s impact or anything else that happened this past week other than the RNC? I’m not complaining, just wondering if I am alone in this.

TheDailyBuzzherd

Isaac was horrible. When the Hell is someone going to reign in The Army Corps of Engineers? When is someone finally going to say that “Mr Go” was a colossal failure and bury it?
Brandstad

No one in the news wanted to mention that Obama wasn’t going to visit the destruction until he found out Romney was going there today, now Obama’s fundraising schedule has been changed allowing him to visit New Orleans
JGC

See my comment above about the Great Canadian Maple Syrup Heist. Horrifying!

TheDailyBuzzherd

�
�
Romney may make a good chief for a Federal agency, but not as President. A businessman may not make a successful politician and can’t delegate as usual.

Three Reasons:

1) I don’t trust him. He’s a banker and a laissez faire free-market idealist at heart. I see him buckling under the influence of banks worse than O ever did. A vote for Romney is a vote for big banks.

2) As an investment consultant, his ratio of action vs proposals annually was somewhere around 1:83. 83 ideas came across his desk and 1 got service. He had weeks to crunch the numbers to ascertain risk of those various proposals and find the least risky proposal to back. So, he had choices between good bets and fairly obvious ones. As president he won’t have weeks to ponder a situation that has poor choices, something he may have a hard time getting used to. That’s why presidents have a good crack team around them; they’ll be the ones crunching the numbers for him.

3) Running on a platform that a vote for O is a vote for redistributing the wealth. What the heck do people think the whole tax issue is? Medicare vouchers? We already pay for much of our premiums out of pocket on income that’s become less over time! Add college and under-performing “401K retirement plans”, a joke if there ever was one, and you have no money left to retire on. Read Ellen Schultz’s excellent book, “The Retirement Heist”. What happened to pension funds? It’s not what you think. A great example of how the average Joe’s pension went to funding CEO perks. If that’s not a redistribution of wealth, however “legal”, I don’t know what is.

Look here. The GOP really needs a reality check and form a new platform. The “Less Gov’t Big Defense” stump is old, tired, untruthful and should be retired. When did we last “win” a war? The fattest “defense” budget in the world and we can’t stabilize a country the size of Texas. Make the DoD be run as a business for a change and cut the revolving door defense contractors and bankers have enjoyed for far too long. Get tough on Wall Street and bring it down to size so WE can drown it in a bathtub. Wall Street has become far too important than it’s worth. Americans can buy things if their paycheck allows it. So Apple thinks, “We’re not responsible for solving America’s problems.” They’d BETTER worry, ‘cuz if we can’t afford their stuff anymore, that’s a good chunk of their market GONE. You can’t be protected by an entity such as the US Federal gov’t unless you pay for it. Hiding money when you can well afford not to is not just unpatriotic, it’s traitorous. The GOP must realize that if workers must be managed, then ALL MEN MUST BE MANAGED. A “free market” economy will lead to nothing but disaster. Look no further than the Rockefellar legacy for proof. Otherwise, these corporate communists will flush us down the toilet once and for all.

hennorama

Once Romney loses, he’d make a good Secretary of Commerce.
- Mike_Card
  
  Possibly. But Defense is the only place he’d understand. There, everybody says, Yessir, Yessir, 3 bags full, salutes, and steps away smartly. Willard seems to think that’s how CEO’s work. hahahahahahahahaha!
- Vandermeer
  
  We don’t need corporatocrats in office

Government_Banking_Serf

“I know you claim to be a nonpartisan rejecter of both R and D but I never see you criticize the R approach. So can we conclude you support that party’s economic proposals?”
-Jimino

Criticizing the Neocon and Finance and Crony Capitalistic wing of the Republican Party is like shooting fish in a barrel. Plus many here can do it in their sleep. The problem is the misguided trust in the Democratic Party, or more Socialistic solutions IMO, and that is the hypocrisy that I feel needs to be pointed out. It would be opposite on some establishment GOP populated site.
I like Bill Black, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and alot of the stuff on that Capitalism Without Failure Page, as its bipartisanly critical, and systemically critical.

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/10/bill-black-interviewed-on-democracy-now.html

The knee-jerk Democratic worship here makes me ill, and frankly, pushed me (a Nader voting registered Democrat until recent switch to support Paul) further away from the Democratic Party, as I see the lack of Objective critical thought and skepticism of the elite power brokers who are just as Dem as Repub. I don’t blame Capitalism, I blame corruption and Regulatory Capture.
Sadly, instead of fighting that difficult fight to take back our markets and country, so many seem to yearn for a lazier and naive lurch toward socialistic or communistic Control and Command goals- yes, the Benevolent Dictator fallacy.

J__o__h__n

You suffer from the benevolent dictator fallacy fallacy which results in you thinking that every Democrat wants to give up all freedom just because we want a safety net.

This forum has plenty of Republican/conservatives posting also. Why don’t you go after that party for silencing Ron Paul? You whined about NPR ignoring him for months.
- Government_Banking_Serf
  
  I’d be happier to see some of you do it, with principled reasoning to keep your less open minded brethren honest. Problem is they would turn on you for daring utter a word against the status quo, same old, same old attempts at doing the same thing and expecting different results (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama; Greenspan ,Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner).
  
  That where all the action is, strings pulled, injustices originated and justified, by bogus economic false choices that make us more subservient to the government/banking class, and allow them do drift further and further from accountability.
  
  Its the Finance/Government Collusion, Cooperation, Third Way, whatever you want to call it. It fails. Competition, enforced by Rule of Law (transparent basic ground rules for economy) is the only way to prevent the accumulation of power by, or between Government and/or Established Wealth, which as history has shown, always ends badly.
  
  Hence, the American Experiment.
  
  FA Hayek was pro safety net.
TheDailyBuzzherd

… sure seems that both parties are trying to shrink the middle class down to size so they can drown it in a bathtub.

Brandstad

“My Doctor’s an idiot. A few years ago, he started expressing concerns about my weight, pointing at this chart supposedly showing how much a man of my height should weigh. One glance at his stupid chart and it was clear to me that he had completely misdiagnosed my condition. There was nothing wrong with my weight, I just wasn’t tall enough. Clearly I needed to grow my way out of this. So I went home and googled “how to stimulate growth.” Once I got past the all the baldness cures and penis pumps (it’s not my bag, baby), I found hundreds of papers so incredibly boring I knew they had to be true. In no time, I was able to design and implement my own stimulus plan based on the irrefutable scientificky principles of Nobel prize winners and other people so smart they never had to do an honest day’s work in their lives. Despite the difficulty climbing stairs, I was feeling pretty good about things until my last check-up…”

I Found this on Z Hedge

Joseph_Wisconsin

Maybe next time you should try something other than supply side economics, the Laffer Curve, or trickle down economics. If you are past 20 I still don’t believe that you well gain any height, but avoiding the aforementioned will do much for promoting general economic growth beyond a very few and will definitely do wonders for bringing deficits down.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000894438466 Charles Miller

In the show’s mention of Neil Armstrong’s death, I heard the host note that a piece of music that Neil Armstrong brought with him (via cassette tape on board the Columbia) to the moon en route to history.

That snippet was played for us to hear.

Mr. Ashbrook noted the piece was stirring, but didn’t mention that that snippet was from Dvorak’s 9th symphony – a.k.a. “From the New World”.

I’m thinking that that very well may have been part of the meaning of that musical choice of Armstrong or the crew.

Mike_Card

4th movement; composed while Dvorak was resident in NYC.

http://www.facebook.com/breezybj Brianne Johnson

After watching the GOP primary debates and now the GOP convention, I now understand The Republican Party Platform:
�
Anti-Poor
Pro-People who are living in generational poverty and lack resources, education, and any kind of step-up are just lazy and need to be motivated by removing the few resources available and that is the only way to get people to move themselves on up to the East Side.

Anti-Handicapped
Pro-The ADA is putting all these unneeded ‘regulations’ on small business that is helping to put them out of business i.e. having to install wheelchair ramps. And it is your choice if you get pregnant and give birth to a special needs child and you better have the funds to raise that child.

Anti-Women’s Rights
Pro-Reversing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as it is putting undue burden on business having to pay women a living wage and taking away longer maternity leave because women shouldn’t be outside the home in the first place.

Anti-Animal Welfare
Pro-Giving farmers, ranchers, slaughter houses the respect to beat, torture, and punish sick and starving animals any which way they want so we have the pleasure of cheap meat (with a side of Mad Cow). And the Endangered Species Act is taking away freedom from hunters and fisherman and is putting ranchers out of business when the dissolution of any species is just what happens in the natural world.

Anti-Science
Pro-Science is objective because sometimes it is not easy to understand and therefore should be ignored totally and we should just follow our feelings on matters of earth and space and anything that happens to cleanse the planet of all living matter is out of our control and we just should not try because it will cost money.

Anti-Worker’s Rights
Pro-Our not so distant relatives were able to live under the demands of business and it made them the ‘Greatest Generation’. Black lung, child workers, loosing limbs, warehouse fires – all a part of a hard days work and worker’s demands are putting undue burdens on the business owners.

Anti-LBGT
Pro-Someone somewhere can point out something in the bible that may or may not be interpreted in some way depending on who is reading it. And even when history shows examples of homosexuality since at least the Egyptian era it is now a choice that is made by too many humans watching TV shows like ‘Will & Grace’ and getting indoctrinated by the Gay Agenda.

Anti-Health Care
Pro-If you get sick or injured you should have your own insurance. And if you can’t afford that insurance then we call that ‘Natural Selection’.

Anti-Women’s & Men’s Reproductive Rights
Pro-Closing down Planned Parenthoods across the country and their free reproductive services and healthcare for those going without and this will turn the U.S. around.

Anti-Wilderness Protection
Pro-The government has no responsibility in protecting the few areas of wilderness and the remaining wildlife habitat in the country because I am sure business will be looking at wilderness spaces and think preservation is the most cost-effective way to treat these areas and be consistent with an approach that keeps the last few open spaces on Earth accessible.

Anti-Renewable Energy
Pro-‘Drill Baby Drill’ until that day in our lifetime when we have drilled every last drop and then…….. someone else can worry about it.
�
This is just the impression that I have gotten from the GOP leadership.

Mouse_2012

Bingo
Duras

Anti-democracy

Not one mention of the deluge of corrupting influences in politics.
TomK_in_Boston

It’s all that, but the main thing they care about is redistributing the remaining wealth of the middle class to the top. Short version: the GoP agenda is class warfare.

RolloMartins

Well, now we all know what the GOP “secret weapon” was. But the weapon, I’m afraid, turned out to be a suicide bomber. Blew up their faces, didn’t it?

Mouse_2012

“Make my day empty chair” know now your going to ask yourself empty chair do you feel lucky ?

The RNC should have had Chuck Norris
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  Crazy Clint, throwing nuts at a black camerawoman and saying “this is how we feed the animals”, delegate complaining about seeing a mexican working in the US pavillion in Epcot, media finally waking up and calling ryan’s speech a bundle of lies, etchasketch’s speech nothing but vague platitudes and talking points…wow, they would have been better off of the hurricane cancelled the whole thing.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  They were gonna have Jackie Chan but the TeaOP didn’t want no non-aryans.
  - StilllHere
    
    Democrats revealed their incredible racism in their bitter attacks on Condi and her speech.
    - Duras
      
      Did the democrats try to establish an otherness and make her seem like a non-American?
    - StilllHere
      
      Yes, they did, and worse.
    - Duras
      
      I have explained how birtherism is nothing but racism, now explain how democrats were being racist to Rice.
      
      This is starting to sound like the time when Herm Cain and the republicans called the liberals racists for the media coverage of his amorous history.
      
      Come on, explain the racism. I enjoy listening to conservatives talk about race. It’s like a Southern Baptist talking about micro-evolution.
    - Duras
      
      Do it at the top please. I’ll responed later. I got to leave for awhile.
    - http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
      
      Explain the racism? He can’t.
      
      Once he’s convinced himself that there are enough right wingers to win office without the help of all those racist Tea partiers the base, what do you expect him to say?

http://www.facebook.com/jessie.p.felde Jessie P. Felde

when we look at the 8+ % unemployment rate, The Republican Party Said it would do whatever it takes to Make President Obama a one term President. The corporations ( generaly Republican) in America have gone to working our laborers excessive overtime, keeping the jobs out of the hands of the unemployed. And the new trend is to offer “fexible” or “temporary” jobs that do not allow people to earn a decent wage, borrow money, or plan for their futures.

http://www.facebook.com/jessie.p.felde Jessie P. Felde

when we look at the 8+ % unemployment rate, The Republican Party Said it would do whatever it takes to Make President Obama a one term President. The corporations ( generaly Republican) in America have gone to working our laborers excessive overtime, keeping the jobs out of the hands of the unemployed. And the new trend is to offer “flexible” or “temporary” jobs that do not allow people to earn a decent wage, borrow money, or plan for their futures.

Duras

Privatizing prisons–another republican idea–is another way for corporations to get cheep labor in order to not hire free citizens for real jobs.

JGC

This is no laughing matter. Canadian strategic maple syrup reserves have been burglarized, to the sweet tune of $30-million. Between this and the mid-west drought affecting Mrs. Butterworth’s corn-syrup-based “maple” syrup, what shall we drizzle on North American pancakes this autumn?

WorriedfortheCountry

I’ve already stocked up on pure VT maple syrup. Get it while you can.

Duras

Do conservatives generally place an empty chair in the room and pretend to argue with Obama?

Gregg Smith

Yes.
StilllHere

An empty chair for an empty suit.
jimino

Eastwood’s presentation was a perfect metaphor for the current Republican party: Rich old white guy arguing with a nonexistent “bogeyman” over things that aren’t really happening. All to the fervid cheers of an audience whose reaction can only be the result of ignorance, naivete or delusion.
WorriedfortheCountry

Clint was channeling a Bob Newhart and Morey Amsterdam stand up routine from the ’60s. Maybe you are too young to remember.
hennorama

Jon Stewart has hilariously named Clint’s skit “The Old Man And The Seat.” Nicely done, Jon.

Gregg Smith

The picture of the flooded church is quite a juxtaposition to the topic a couple of weeks ago: “Mega-droughts in our future”. I’m thinking this flooding, like the drought, is due to AGW.

cryptomorph

Thanks for another display of your Orwellian Right ignorance. Predictions for climate change include more precipitation in some areas, less in others. Deal with it. It’s time you learned the distinction between weather and climate.

JONBOSTON

On-Point is really scraping the bottom when they have Cynthia Tucker this week and Eleanor Clift last week to discuss national politics. Tucker never fails to see racism in every word and statement uttered by a republican. To see racism in republican objections to Obama’s changes in the welfare program is ridiculous. Eleanor Clift envied Monica Lewinski and to have her opine on Akins was a complete farce. Akins disgusts me and should resign. But Clift’s criticism of him when Bill Clinton will be the Dems key note speaker was a joke. Dems have convenient memories and forget all the charges levied against Clinton. Recall he was accused of rape, was charged with abusing women, sexual harassment , lying to a federal court and then being disbarred. I hope next week’s panel that reviews the Democrat convention will have more balance.

WorriedfortheCountry

There is great irony with the Dems selection of Bill Clinton as keynote while promoting this faux war on women.
- hennorama
  
  I’m pretty sure that even Republicans would agree that Bill Clinton LOVES women! Your point is what, exactly?

Vandermeer

Would love to see Fareed Zakaria on ON POINT again.

WorriedfortheCountry

No plagiarists please.

Seriously, the major problem I have with Fareed is he acts like he is smarter than everyone else. The only problem, for him, is that he isn’t smarter.

http://profile.yahoo.com/Z2D5FPVJG4JRDYVQHGEWF3R724 GN

If Mitt were elected in 2012 he will face the same grid lock that President Obama has faced.�
Mr. Romney’s notion of privatizing everything will not work out. It will only take one bad deal and the stuff will hit the fan. The microscope that he will function under will be cranked up to max power.

Michiganjf

Happy LABOR DAY weekend everyone!!

Say, all you Republicans should get a holiday for YOURSELVES as well!

Oh, wait… you already have a holiday off… April 15th!

WorriedfortheCountry

Yes, have a great Labor Day. Hopefully, friends, family and fun for all.

I’m not a Republican but April 15th is a day of infamy.
StilllHere

Right, this coming from those who don’t work and don’t pay taxes, everyday is a holiday for you parasites.

Duras

Did anybody see Jon Stewart play that clip of Mitt Romney on March of 2009 say, “We certainly don’t want Obama’s failed policies to succeed.”

Before Obama’s policy took effect, republicans had a meeting and decided to use the language of “failed policies.” I was blown away by that admission. Romney couldn’t even say “policies” before they took effect; republicans had already deluded themselves by March.

Remember those movies from the 30s and 40s about the rise of political parties that resembled machines instead of a collection of individual minds. It’s uncanny.

StilllHere

As vague as they were, it was clear to all that Obama’s policies would not succeed and would threaten the very foundation of this great nation. All should have heeded the warnings! The last four years have witnessed the failure of all of his policies. If we had only paid more attention four years ago, we would not needed to have gone through all the pain and suffering, seeing our nation brought to its knees financially, even more politically divided, with morale at all time lows. This is the legacy of four years of failed policies and poor leadership. America has a chance to right the wrongs, to get us back on track, to forget the past four years, and to prosper again, united in purpose and hope. November is our chance to close the book on this failed presidency!
- Duras
  
  GDP was contracting at 8.9% before his policy took effect.
Gregg Smith

Obama could have so put them in their place if his policies had worked. All he has is, “It could have been worse”. But he knows these policies never had a chance of working. That wasn’t his concern.
I’m more in the Rush camp. He is succeeding in his effort to fundamentally transform America. Things are as he wants them. I had hoped he would fail. Making him a one term President is crucial to the future of America. It’s job #1.
- Duras
  
  GDP was contracting at 8.9% before Obama policy took effect.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    And recovered only to recrash when his policies took hold. Why?
    - cryptomorph
      
      More of your Orwellian Right lies and distortions Greggg? While the recovery could be better, there has been NO decline in GDP for ANY quarter after Q2 09… let alone another “crash”.
      
      http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Look at the little lines in your graph. Note how they go up then go back down to nearly 0 by the first quarter of 2011. Note the direction it is heading now. Bush is long gone, if Obama’s policies had worked the little lines would still be getting bigger. Smarty pants.
    - StilllHere
      
      your own graph shows you to be incompetent
hennorama

Stewart absolutely KILLED last night. Clint’s act is now “The Old Man and the Seat.” Republicans’ nostalgic vision of the perfect America, which they claim Pres. Obama has destroyed, was skewered as patently ridiculous and false. The GOP vision is that everything was just perfect before November 2008, which is absolute revisonist history. Apparently the economic collapse started in January 2009, not during the last year of Bush II, and Mr. Romney forgot that we are still at war in Afghanistan, only 11 years later.

And Romney’s declaration about Republicans wanting Pres. Obama to succeed was shown to be complete BS, using Mr. Romney’s own words, EIGHT DAYS AFTER OBAMA’S INAUGURATION!

The segment about “America needs to be run more like a business” with the correspondents interviewing delegates from states that receive much more in Federal assistance than they send in taxes was hilarious! Sorry, Mississippi, the market has decided and we have to let you go. You too, South Carolina, and Georgia, etc, etc.

Amazing how satire can so clearly make a point.

Gregg Smith

Democrats are in a pickle with this GM thing. In desperation they lied about Ryan lying. The immediate deluge by the coordinated press was all the minions needed. By the time the truth was known, it did not matter to the sheep. They had already heard the talking point which fit their preconceived (already fed) notions. They certainly are not curious enough to look outside of their bubble. For proof, look through these comments and note how many are still parroting the line that the Janesville GM plant closed before Obama was sworn in.

Here’s the rub, Democrats love to say Obama saved GM. Assume for the moment they are right. He did so by closing many plants an thousands lost their jobs. To acknowledge this directly contradicts their position on Romney and Bain.

Further, the dems love to wag their collective finger and say, “I guess you think it would have been better to let them go under”. That one assumes bankruptcy means going under which it doesn’t. A restructuring effort to get their house in order and bring fiscal sanity to the process is a good thing. But they never had to do that because of the bailout. And they went bankrupt anyway… and may again.

StilllHere

Next week will be a litany of lies and misrepresentations on a scale we have never witnessed before. The sheep won’t care and the dembots will ignore while the media sleeps, especially here. Have your vomit bags at the ready!
- Gregg Smith
  
  We’ll be all over it and will be able to cite direct quotes. When cornered they will mutter something about Fox.
cryptomorph

The lies and distortions are from the GOP. The last car made in Janesville was on Dec 23, 2008… a month BEFORE Obama took office. Here’s a photo of the workers with that last car.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/30/13572758-the-janesville-falsehood?lite

What the GOP is doing is playing with the words “shut down” to imply it was still open because GM didn’t formally place the plant on standby status until 2009.
- Gregg Smith
  
  Maddow? Are you serious? Thank you for proving my point about curiosity so well.
  
  The plant halted production of SUV’s in Dec. 2008 and continued to produce medium-duty trucks until April 2009. So you are wrong, smarty pants.
  - cryptomorph
    
    I stand corrected. It’s not that you even bothered to provide a source. None the less the the final decision was made by GM, not Obama, during a imploding economy caused by policies YOU support.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      See what a little curiosity will get you… truth.
    - cryptomorph
      
      That’s the difference between us Greggggy… I am interested in truth. You’re more interested in the illusion of truth. Bottom line for Janesville is that about 2000 jobs were lost in Dec 08 under Bush… and there were about 57 kept on to make light trucks.
      
      http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/
      
      So in your Orwellian Right mind… Obama is to blame for what exactly…? Making a statement before Bush’s policies YOU support imploded the economy or before $4 gas under Bush destroyed the SUV market?
      
      Ya, to a rabid right winger who never takes ANY responsibility for the FAILURES of the Right… you probably DO think Obama is totally to blame.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Do you think Maddow was: a) ignorant of the facts, or b) Purposefully feeding the false party line to people like you?
      
      If “a” then I look forward to you posting her correction. If she doesn’t I hope you knock her down a few notches on your credibility list. If “b” then realize that she is not only dishonest but that you were duped. I guess either way you were duped.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      You aren’t going to reply to this one are you. Devastating.
    - cryptomorph
      
      I’m in favor of getting to the truth and I condemn anyone who promulgates falsehoods and distortions… regardless of political leanings.
      
      Now let’s see YOU condemn the Orwellian Right their lies and distortions.
      
      Nope… THOSE you embrace are regurgitate here every day 24/7… which reminds me… you never really denied you were paid to post. And sorry about your buddy Moda… he had to go
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Say it: “I was duped”.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Like I said, you refuse to condemn the Orwellian Right their for their lies and distortions.
  - TomK_in_Boston
    
    And almost all of the workers were producing SUVs. So, almost all of the damage was done while W was president, as a result of the economic crash caused by deregulation of the financial sector, lyin ryan is trying to put it on Obama, and you’re marching in lockstep as a good Party Member.
    
    Geez, even Fox was uncomfortable with this incredible spin – but no problem for you, eh, Gregg.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Maddow lied, Ryan didn’t.
- JONBOSTON
  
  I also laugh at your citing Rachel Maddow as a reliable fact checker. The Gazette xtra.com , a Janesville paper, reported on Feb 2, 2009 that full-size sport utility vehicle production had ended but that medium-duty truck production would continue (not start) in Janesville. And that it would continue production through May when all production would cease. Moreover, in June 2009 GM (after being nationalized by Obama) considered three sites ( including the now shuttered Janesville plant) for production of a small car. The other two sites reopened but not Janesville despite Obama’s previous promise to keep the plant open.
  - cryptomorph
    
    What “promise”? Obama suggested that if government provided the money for retooling to make fuel efficient cars, the plant might be around for a second century. That was BEFORE Bush’s $4 a gallon gasoline destroyed the SUV market and BEFORE Bush’s policies destroyed the economy leading to GM’s bankruptcy. But feel free to blame Obama if you need to, especially if it helps you absolve Bush and his irresponsible policies from destroying the economy. Let me guess… you want the same insanity again… only this time on steroids.
    - JONBOSTON
      
      It would help if you identified the very Bush policies that you claim led to the recession. Moreover GM ( and Chrysler) was headed for bankruptcy long before 2008. It’s legacy costs , idiotic concessions to the UAW, uncompetitive cost position vs, competition , and shoddy cars are what led it to bankruptcy.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Bush is not totally to blame, but Right wing ideas are. Clinton set the stage signing on to Phil Gramm’s deregulation of banking and commodities. He supported free trade which sabotaged our industrial base and subsidized China’s becoming a world economic super power. Under Bush we have NO reversal of those Gramm policies. We have a needless war, irresponsible spending and tax cuts that sabotaged the fiscal health of government and its ability to respond to emergencies. Under Bush banks were allowed to go to 40:1 leverage encouraging more reckless borrowing. We see his encouragement of reckless policies by Fannie Mae to give loans to people with poor credit. Sorry you missed the past 20 years. Are you 12 years old or have you been in a coma?
    - Gregg Smith
      
      The Volt to the rescue!
    - cryptomorph
      
      Now do you intend to show us where Obama made a “promise” to keep that plant open?
  - anamaria23
    
    This whole “debate” is insane in the scheme of things. That Paul Ryan even brought it up in a major political speeech is evidence of his immaturity.
    His reasoning on most issues is confounding i.e. President Obama does not do things 100% the way the Repubs want, therefore they cannot agree, therefore it is Obama’s fault that the Repubs obstruct and filibuster????
    A narcissist through and through.
cryptomorph

How does what GM did in closing plants at a time of no demand and just before they declared bankruptcy have ANYTHING to do with predatory practices by Bain?

It’s one thing for Wall Street to invest in creating jobs, it’s another for economic predators to use leveraged buyouts, dump the debt on the company, then loot it.
- Gregg Smith
  
  Romney saved companies by closing plants causing lost jobs just like GM did. But Bain did not use our money.
  - cryptomorph
    
    What the hell does “public money” have to do with ANYTHING? The Right is against the government picking winners in the market, yet Obama is being blamed by Ryan for not using public money to save this plant at a time there was NO market demand for its products?Of course the reality is Ryan is against public public money being spent for priorities other than he approves of. Using government taxing authority to funnel Social Security and Medicare money to predators on Wall St and parasitic health insurance companies is perfectly fine.
hennorama

Wow. Do you even REMEMBER what was happening in the fall of 2008? The financial collapse crushed banks so badly, they wouldn’t even lend to each other overnight, much less longer term to anyone else. Confidence in banks was so low, there were runs on banks and money market funds. Depositors fled. Bank capital was evaporating, so credit virtually dried up. No loans were being made.

GM and the other auto cos. couldn’t sell any of their products, since there was no financing available. Banks wouldn’t lend on small loans for auto purchases, much less to billions to GM to support their operations. GM was losing over $1 BILLION PER MONTH. What bank is going to lend to them when this was happening?

There was NO ONE willing to privately finance any restructuring for GM or any other auto co. Somehow this is never mentioned. Yes, GM restrutured, obviously. No business that is losing $1 BILLION PER MONTH can continue on that course for long, regardless of government or private support. Yes, plants and dealerships closed, AS THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER ANY PRIVATE RESTRUCTURING.

Sheesh.

Congressman Ryan using the Janesville plant as some example of a failure by Pres. Obama was at best an exagerration and at worst a flat out lie. And unnecessary, to boot. Why he felt the need to contort the truth is beyond me.

So much for his vaunted reputation as a “truth teller.”
- Gregg Smith
  
  I don’t argue with you about the bad times but I do about Ryan lying. Obama should not have told them he’d keep the plant open for the next 100 years. Ryan did not lie. If GM had gone bankrupt before the bailout it would have been much better. Ford survived. GM is still in shambles, closing plants, crushed by pension promises, manufacturing cars nobody wants at taxpayer expense. There has been no correction just propping up which is throwing good money after bad.
  - cryptomorph
    
    Just where is there any “promise” to keep that plant open? And since when are YOU in favor of the government picking winners in the market? It’s just more of your nauseating hypocrisy. If Obama did put money into that plant and market conditions were than no one was buying those cars… you’d accuse him of cronyism, or supporting another Solyndra. Yup… you’ve created the perfect no-win for Obama… unfortunately it’s based largely on lies and distortions.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Why did you put “promise” in quotes? Please don’t tell me what I think.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Back to your semantic games? YOU are the one who said: “Obama should not have told them he’d keep the plant open for the next 100 years.”
      
      You’re claiming there was a pledge, commitment, or promise in what Obama said… and it should be sacrosanct even after Bush crashed the economy and his $4 gas killed the SUV market. I see NO pledge, commitment, or promise in what Obama said:
      
      “And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your president.”
      
      Obama HAS made good on helping the auto industry go green… and the GOP has done nothing but criticize him for programs like the Volt just as they did for saving the auto industry. But then should I expect intellectual honesty from blatant political partisans like you?
    - Gregg Smith
      
      It sounds like a promise to me. Was he saying his government would not support GM…. but IF they did…
      
      O well, I’ll deal with this up top to continue exposing your lack of curiosity and willingness to be fed talking points.
    - cryptomorph
      
      No, because you’re slavishly doctrinaire, you NEED to misrepresent what Obama said as a promise. In another post you actually claimed Obama personally made the decision NOT to reopen Janesville. You simply can’t be taken seriously Greggy. You have NO original thoughts. All you do is regurgitate what Rush says and you’re so enthralled with the delusion of omniscience you feel compelled to post here 24/7.

cryptomorph

ROMNEY’S POLICIES: RETURN TO FAILURE

The GOP is again spouting Orwellian Right nonsense that tax cuts are some magic bullet for the economy as if the evidence wasn’t in from the Bush2 years. Tax cuts them failed to either stimulate the economy or inoculate the economy against recession. We might have avoided that mistake if we just went back and learned from an earlier example… the era of Voodoo Economics. In February 1981 the Reagan admin wrote of their new economic plan

The program we have developed will break that cycle of negative expectations. It will revitalize economic growth, renew optimism and confidence, and rekindle the Nation’s entrepreneurial instincts and creativity. The benefits to the average American will be striking. Inflation—which is now at double digit rates—will be cut in half by 1986. The American economy will produce 13 MILLION NEW JOBS by 1986, nearly 3 million more than if the status quo in government policy were to prevail. The economy itself should break out of its anemic growth patterns to a much more robust growth trend of 4 to 5 percent a year. These positive results will be accomplished simultaneously with reducing tax burdens, increasing private saving, and raising the living standard of the American family. Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43427

In reality, just 5 months later, the economy sank into what was then the worst recession since the 30′s. Unemployment hit a peak of 10.8% by December 1982… higher than it was under Obama. The unemployment rate remained over 8% for nearly 2 years, from March 82 through January 84. unemployment was over 7% for SIXTY MONTHS.Source… you’ll have to construct your own tables here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls As for the actual job creation numbers under Reagan? FOX says “Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986.” source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html That’s it? Even when Fox gives Reagan an extra YEAR, Reagan could not meet his own job creation prediction of 13 million new jobs by 1986 (Jan 86) and was 3.5 MILLION jobs off. I don’t know where FOX got it’s 9.5 million new jobs number but at the BLS site http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls you can also run the job numbers. In February 1981 when that White House reported predicted 13 million new jobs by 1986… the total workforce was estimated to be 108,242,000. In January 1986 the number was 116,682,000. Where Reagan predicted 13 million jobs… it looks like a mere 8.4 million were created. That’s 4.6 MILLION jobs off Reagan’s prediction.

Reagonomics was a utter failure by Reagan’s own standards yet the Orwellian Right has erased this failure from the minds of the faithful just as they are busy erasing the Bush2 failures.

So why does the GOP want the public believe in a FAILED policy? Because the REAL intent of these irresponsible tax cuts was NEVER economic stimulus but a reason the far Right can never admit to… to sabotage government revenues and drive up debt hoping to eventually bring us to the point we are at now… where the Right hopes to drive a stake in the heart of all those New Deal and great Society programs they’ve always loathed. To preserve this strategy the Orwellian Right has rewritten history and turned irresponsible tax cuts not just into a shining success but into a religion. They know fully well facts really don’t stand a chance when the Right wing faithful inoculate themselves against them.
Borrowed from my blog at http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2011/06/proof-reagans-tax-cuts-failed-as.html

TomK_in_Boston

Tax cuts redistribute more income to the top, and that’s the GoP agenda. Everything else is smoke. There is no trickle down.
- cryptomorph
  
  Trickle Down is the only plausible smokescreen the Right has of selling irresponsible fiscal policies designed to benefit the rich while sabotaging government for the rest of the people… which is why Trickle Down the lie that never dies.
  - TomK_in_Boston
    
    Exactly. Anyone who thinks the right is concerned about the debt while offering more tax cuts is deeply confused. All that tax cuts do is let the romney types grab even more.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      …and take 6 million of the poorest of the rolls completely while lowering the bottom rate 5 points and sending the bill to the top earners. So tax cuts did that.
      
      Would you consider someone who has had 4 deficits in a row over a trillion dollars as concerned about the debt?
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      The top rates are near the low since 1929. For those financial manipulators who can claim everything as dividends and capital gains, it’s 15%, which is the lowest. The estate tax has been gutted. Nothing has been “sent to the top earners” but more wealth and income, the USA is privileged white boy paradise. That is a fact. GDP has kept climbing since Reagan but the middle class has flatlined. The wealth is all going to the top.
      
      Obama is governing in the aftermath of the bush debacle. He was handed the bush tax cuts and wars and medicare part D and has been trying to get out from under. Anyone who is not spinning knows that, the bigger the crash, the longer the time for recovery. Crashed cause deficits, but it’s bad economics to make the deficits a priority in the aftermath.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      In 2000 the top 1% paid 37% of taxes. After the tax cuts it was 39%. You can’t take 6 million off the rolls and not have someone pick up the bill.
      
      You wrote: “All that tax cuts do…”. I just pointed out what else they did. Can you dispute it?
    - cryptomorph
      
      ROTF… yup… just as I predicted: it’s more of Greggy’s Orwellian Math pretending that paying a larger percentage of a SMALLER tax pie is the same as paying more in actual dollars!
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Did I do that?
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2xifdO_l0
      
      No, I said, pretended nor wrote anything of the sort. What I did write was true. Deny it, smarty pants.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Obviously you don’t know the difference between “true” and meaningless.
    - cryptomorph
      
      The total federal effective tax rate for the top 1% went DOWN from 36% in 1996 to 31.2% in 2005 when the Bush tax cuts fully kicked in.
      
      http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      You didn’t point anything.
      
      Focus on the rate. The rate is what matters. Your side loves to say that anything that helps the middle class is “unsustainable”.Repeat after me: Letting oligarchs like Romney pay 13% is unsustainable.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      I’ll take that as a no.
    - cryptomorph
      
      If we’re just talking about federal income taxes the effective rate for the top 1% was 24.2% in 2001 and dropped to 19.4% in 2005 when the Bush tax cuts fully kicked in. http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf
      
      So if the Rich pay a larger percentage of the income tax pie and a lower tax rate it’s 1: because the total tax pie shrunk… which it did… 2: they captured more of the income pie. Or 3: some combination of the above.
      
      As a percentage of total revenues the income tax percentage dropped from 49.6% in FY2000 to 43.1% in FY05
      
      source table 2.2 Historical Budget Tables
    - cryptomorph
      
      Using his famous Orwellian Math, Gregggg claims the rich “picked up the bill” because taxes were cut for the poor. He “proves” this by looking at the increased percentage the rich paid of the SHRINKING income tax pie.
      
      The fact is NO ONE picked up the slack… because all of Bush’s tax cuts were “funded” with BORROWED MONEY. In that sense our kids and grandkids will pay.
      
      Income tax revenues in current dollars predictably FELL after the Bush tax cuts from
      1,004.462 billion in FY2000 to 808.959 billion in FY04. Even in FY05 income tax receipts were some 75 billion below Clinton’s last year. To Gregggg this is “proof” tax cuts bring in more revenue. 808.959 billion in FY04. Even in FY05 income tax receipts were some 75 billion below Clinton’s last year. To Gregggg this is “proof” tax cuts bring in more revenue.
    - cryptomorph
      
      More of your Orwellian Math pretending that paying a larger percentage of a SMALLER tax pie is the same as paying more in actual dollars?
    - cryptomorph
      
      Yup, it’s More of Gregggg’s Orwellian Math.
      
      The total federal effective tax rate for the top 1% went DOWN from 36% in 1996 to 31.2% in 2005 when the Bush tax cuts fully kicked in.
      
      http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf
      
      But feel free to tell us fairy tales of how these tax cut designed to benefit the rich actually “soak” the rich. The Orwellian Right has been telling us this for 30 years!
  - hennorama
    
    Trickle down = “Pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”
    
    An excellent example of Republispeak, as cynical as “rich person” = “job creator” and “estate tax” = “death tax”.
    
    All three are nonsense.
TheDailyBuzzherd

Tax Policy + Romney = W2 ( as in, GWB, Pt2 )

Call_Me_Missouri

Now that i have read the Wikipedia article, two things are clear to me…
1. This was used as the justification for Trickle Down economic theory, but is not in and of itself the Trickle Down theory. This is a two dimensional graph demonstrating the relationship between Tax Revenue and Tax Rate (%) and that is it. Trickle Down economic theory is that when you lower the tax burden of the very richest amongst us that it will free up money for investment and that the result of that investment will be more jobs and a better well being for everyone. This has never been proven to be true because we have always cut the tax rate while at the same time increasing Government spending, thus increasing the Deficit and the Debt. Ronald Reagan was the most egregioius example of this, though George Bush Junior was also quite bad with two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate for Prescription Coverage for Seniors while at the same time cutting taxes in a way that mostly benefited rich people. And look where we were when Bush Senior took office and where we were when Obama took office… Need I say more?
2. This U-Curve theory has never been tested in the US because it would be impossible to do so. That curve only takes into account one factor… Tax percent. the problem with that one factor in the US is that no two people in this country pay the same tax rate. To start with our Federal Income Tax is a Progressive/Graduated tax rate based on income level so at the very least there should be a third dimension to this graph which is Income Level… But then there is the fact that taxes are levyed at many levels of government… Federal, State, County, Town.. Then there are a million different types of taxes (in my opinion, any money that goes to a government is a Tax) Some sample taxes are Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, Gas Taxes, Excise Taxes, Car Registration Fees, Licensing Fees of all kinds, Speeding Tickets… you get the gist. As a result there is NO WAY that a two dimensional Graph could accurately represent the effect of changing one tax rate on all people.
I am sure that there is some mathematician out there that has attempted to factor in all of these taxes to figure out what the optimal tax rate would be, but it seems to me that it would take many Cray Computers operating in parallel to complete the calculations and that we might be dead before it finishes.
That being said… there is also NO Doubt that the concept behind this principal is true… you can create a tax rate that yields bad net income levels for a government.

cryptomorph

And yet the economy did fine with a top marginal income tax rate of between 70-90%. Why? Perhaps because the rich didn’t want to pay those taxes and actually reinvested in business. BTW, the other half of the Laffer Curve the Right always ignores is if tax rates are too LOW, then the government unnecessarily LOSES REVENUE. With federal revenues in constant dollars being BELOW FY2000 levels for 10 of the past 12 years… a loss of trillions in revenue, it’s difficult to make the case we need more irresponsible tax cuts… especially now that we’re 10 trillion more in debt since 2001.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  Yes it did, and we weren’t Communists either. High top rates encourage reinvestment instead of obscene bonuses and playing the financial casino, and make $ available for infrastructure, R&D, Apollo, etc and all the great “entitlements” going back to the GI bill.
  - Call_Me_Missouri
    
    “High top rates encourage reinvestment instead of obscene bonuses”
    I don’t agree with this statement because Reinvestment and Bonuses (aka Salaries) are both tax write offs that lower the tax burden of a company. So technically, in today’s time of greed, a higher tax rate would encourage more of both unless there is a limit put on what percentage of salary expenses could be written off.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      Theories are fun, but look at the facts. Our economy worked better for the middle class when top rates were high. In the 50s and 60s wages went up when GDP went up. Now all new wealth goes to the top. The right loves to say “we’re broke” but the USA is not broke, the system is.
      
      Also before voodoo, in addition to strong progressive taxation, there was a telecom monopoly, the gvt required “equal time” on TV networks for opposing views, the gvt told airlines where they could fly, banks that had FDIC could not play the wall st casino, etc etc etc…..and one-worker families were sending kids to college and buying summer homes.
      
      I’m not saying all gvt regulation and taxation is good, but if anyone now proposed our very own system from the period when the American middle class was the economic wonder of the world, the right would have a major hissy fit calling it communism and socialism and predicting that it would lead to the next Great Depression. You might think that having their model predict disaster during a golden age would cause them to re-think their theories. However, it doesn’t, because all they really care about is grabbing more for the oligarchs.
    - Call_Me_Missouri
      
      There are too many things different between the 50′s and 60′s and now to make a fair comparison between then and now. And there is no way to roll back the clock to yesteryear.
      
      My assertion is that NOW, not in the 50s, if a company has to choose between using a salary write off to pay themselves more money or use it to pay someone else more money or make a capital investment in order to avoid paying taxes, that they will pay themselves first every single time. That is a sign of the times. In the 50s and 60s there was much more employee/employer loyalty and unions were stronger, etc. The pace of life was slower and companies weren’t at the mercy of the 24 hour news cycle, quarterly earnings statements that make or break their company with massive instantaneous sell offs. In other words.. it wasn’t just tax rates. It is a completely different world now.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      Missouri, you are giving the straight righty Party Line response that I hear over and over: things are so different today that the fact that the glory days of the middle class coincided with high taxes and regulation is irrelevant. I disagree. I think higher taxes would damp down the wall st casino and encourage reinvestment over taking $ out as profits.
      
      I certainly agree about Unions, and I’d love to see some legislation helping them instead of trying to tear them down. I’d like to see the tax structure adjusted to favor mfg in the USA. There are lots of things we could do. But keeping it simple, given the failure of tax cuts and deregulation, it’s only common sense to try what once worked so well, instead of dismissing it. In my experience those arguing “things are different now” are almost always incorrect and have a hidden agenda.
- Call_Me_Missouri
  
  I’m sorry, you sound like you are trying to argue with me but unfortunately I agree with you. �
  
  My post got busted away from my original thread, so the context of my post has been lost, Dang Nabbit!
  
  I agree with your argument and you make a good point about re-investment that I will need to add into my portfolio. That fits into my argument that companies have gotten TOO FAR AWAY from training their own employees… which is because there is hardly any benefit to doing it. At 70% taxes there is a big benefit for providing training, and apprenticeship programs to your employees… instead of whining that they can’t find qualified workers.
  
  Thank you for this nugget. The puzzle has a new piece.
  - cryptomorph
    
    [dope slap] Sorry, I misread your last line. [/dope slap]
Mike_Card

I think you’re reaching the same conclusions that I have reached, although you’re describing them more eloquently. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

The article says that the idea originated with Keynes; my question was whether anyone knew of an advocate other than Laffer. It has been awhile since I studied Keynesian economics, but I’m thinking that Laffer glommed onto a side-effect of the Keynes theory of national income and turned it into the centerpiece of trickle-down.

Keynes, of course, was notoriously non-rigorous (empirical evidence bored him and he refused to stoop), but I believe that Galbraith ran the numbers and became a noted Keynesian, even though Trickle-down was fundamentally monetarist. I cannot recall ever having read anything approcaching an endorsement from Friedman or any of the Chicago school.

The only reason I’m getting into the weeds is because Romney is pursuing a Trickle-down approach, and I’m trying to figure out who has his ear. Ryan is an intellectual lightweight and has nothing to add.

JONBOSTON

Obama’s incompetence: does anyone seriously believe that the policies of the last 4 years will generate different results in a second term? To quote our Secretary of State, if you think so , you’re engaging in willing disbelief.

Compare Reagan’s recovery to Obama’s:�
Both presidents dealt with unemployment rates above 10% but had different responses to the recession. Reagan lowered taxes and lifted regulatory burdens and other barriers to economic growth. Obama increased the growth and size of government , and demonized big and small business , high achievement and success. All the while threatening high achievers with increased taxes and more regulation.

In Reagan’s presidency, unemployment was 10.8% in 1982 . For Obama 10% in 2009. Fifty five months after the recession started in July 1981, the Reagan recovery had created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession started and real per capita GDP was up $3091. Fifty five months after the recession began in Dec 2007, there were 4.0 million fewer Americans working than when the recession began and real per capita GDP was down $803. According to an a analysis of US census data of the recent recovery, US households have lost more income than they lost during the recession. In Dec 2007, real median household income was $54,916. It fell to $53,508 when the recession ended 18 months later . But by June 2012, real median family income had fallen to $50, 964. During the Reagan recovery from 1981 to 1986, , real median income on an annualized basis rose by $3,380 or 7.7%. The pathetic Obama recovery has caused more people to file for disability and claim food stamps. In July, it was shocking to learn that 246,000 new people had qualified for disability benefits during the previous three months , while only 225,000 people had found new jobs. The number of food stamp recipients has grown from 26 million in Dec 2007 to over 46 million today , an incredible increase of 71%. Now Obama’s Dept of Agriculture is trying to turn food stamps into an economic development plan by claiming that each $1 spent on new food stamps generates $1.02 in ” new economic activity”. I KID YOU NOT! YOU CAN’T MAKE UP SUCH IDIOCY.

Despite his record of failure people still may vote for our incompetent president. He may be a nice guy (query his smear campaign , gutter tactics ,and divisive policies), but as Marco Rubio said , he’s a bad president.

cryptomorph

Thanks for your Orwellian rewrite of history. Obama inherited an imploding economy from Bush… whose policies you no doubt supported. Reagan did NOT inherit a recession let alone an imploding economy. It STARTED 6 MONTHS AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE… and unemployment wasn’t 10.8% until EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER. Unemployment was over 8% for about 2 years and over 7% for FIVE YEARS… and Reagan didn’t have a collapsed banking or housing sector to deal with. The recovery didn’t actually begin until after a massive tax hike in late 1982. I’m not claiming any causal effect… but it certainly throws a monkey wrench into the bogus claim that tax cuts are some magic bullet. It’s clear from both Reagan and Bush2… that such the only consistent result from irresponsible tax cuts are huge deficits and increasing debt.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  The right makes idiotic discussions of tax cuts. In particular, they talk as if tax policy was unrelated to the current tax rates. Reagan cut taxes starting with high rates, which makes sense to me. Then he raised them when a deficit developed, which also makes sense. Now we have had 32 years of tax cutting (ups and downs of course, but overall down) so any tax cuts now start from extremely low rates. The 15% paid by financial manipulators is obscene and the estate tax has been gutted.
  
  Cutting taxes even more starting at record low rates after 32 years of tax cuts has no relation to cutting taxes when rates are high. That is the fundamental point the right will not face.
  - cryptomorph
    
    What else can we call them but Tax Cut Psychos? They seem to actually believe that we can cut taxes forever and if revenue EVER rebounds… even if it’s 5-8-10 later… no revenue was lost during that time… and if there are huge deficits and growing debt… they MUST be held blameless.
    
    These True Believers are the products of a massive disinformation campaign to convince them that less revenue is a revenue boom… and if the rich pay less in actual dollars, but a growing percentage of a shrinking tax pie… then the tax code is unfair to the rich and their taxes must be cut further. Debt? Who cares about debt. We’ve pissed away some 15 TRILLION on ourselves the past 30 years we’ve refused to tax ourselves for… and despite the biggest Free Lunch in history… most on the Right are convinced they’re over taxed. Today’s Tea Party and most others in the GOP are just spoiled rotten Free Lunchers.
    �
    It’s scary to see such insanity accepted by a large percentage of the nation.
    - TomK_in_Boston
      
      It’s crazy. In states like CA, where universities that are national treasures are being destroyed, middle class voters want their chump change tax cuts and don’t make the connection with the thousands of dollars more they are paying for their kids tuition.
- JONBOSTON
  
  Reagan inherited 18.6% interest rates and inflation of 12% in addition to the recession and 10.8% unemployment. I bought my first home in 1982 and the interest rate was 18.25% . Eighteen months later I refinanced at 12.5%. Reagan’s cut in income taxes spurred enormous economic growth which brought down interest rates, inflation , unemployment , and increased GDP. The Tip O’Neill Congress and George Mitchell Senate piled on the spending as revenues increased due to the economic expansion. Reagan can be faulted for significantly increasing defense expenditures but it did bring down the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall.
  - Call_Me_Missouri
    
    He lowered income taxes and invested OBSCENE amounts of BORROWED money into defense spending which spurred economic growth… Otherwise known as creating a BUBBLE. He was the worst kind of Liberal.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Reagan bought a lot of cheap growth by putting about 2.8 trillion on the nation’s credit card. Since it’s still not been paid off… what do you think the cumulative interest has been the past 30 years?
  - cryptomorph
    
    Thanks for making my point… the True Believers of the Orwellian Right rewrite of the Reagan years always sweep the Reagan Depression under the rug. Reagan’s policies were a failure BY HIS OWN STANDARDS.
    
    http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2011/06/proof-reagans-tax-cuts-failed-as.html
Call_Me_Missouri

“Obama’s incompetence: does anyone seriously believe that the policies of the last 4 years will generate different results in a second term?”

What policies? The ones the Republican House have guaranteed will not be enacted in even the slightest bit?

You are talking about the results of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING, you MORON.

And don’t give me some romanticized history lesson about Reagan. He was the BIGGEST LIBERAL SPEND AND SPEND president we have ever had. He lowered taxes and spent our deficit and debt up so badly that Bush Senior HAD TO RAISE taxes to stabilize the free fall the economy was in.
- JONBOSTON
  
  I’ll just call you stupid. Rather than cite nothing , how about some facts. Like that 55 months into the Reagan recovery, the number of Americans on AFDC ( welfare to idiots like you) declined by 357,000, or 11.9%. Today , there are 500,000 more Americans drawing unemployment insurance than when the 2007 recession began, an increase of 19.2%. Historical data and CBO projections for 2012 also indicate that in the Reagan recovery , Medicaid enrollment grew by 535,000 ,or 2.4%. In the Obama recovery, Medicaid enrollment has grown by more than 11 million, or 19.7%.
  
  Net net, Obama not only has failed to bring back the American economy, he has ushered in an enormous growth in dependence. But I guess for an Obama supporter like you, you would regard all these expenditures as “new economic activity”. Keep drinking the cool-aid!
  - cryptomorph
    
    Pray tell… just when is “55 months” into the Reagan recovery? I take it this is sometime after the Reagan Depression where unemployment peaked higher than under Obama and it was over 7% for 60 months? All after he claimed his tax cuts would create 13 million new jobs by 1986 but there were only a net 8.4 million jobs created?

cryptomorph

The Orwellian Right has True Believers all chanting the same line: the Obama Stimulus failed. They never really say why… though others say it was too small to fill the void. In Bush’s last few months GDP in Q4 2008 was down about -9% in just one quarter. By Q1 2009 the decline was reduced to -6.7% and by Q2 it was just -.7% even as unemployment had yet to peak in Q3. GDP’s been positive ever since.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

cryptomorph

None of the above should be read as my supporting all of Obama’s policies. He should have done more… including a second stimulus. He should have started WPA/CETA style work programs instead of long term unemployment. He should have begun to reverse our disastrous free trade policies. He should have gotten the speculators out of the commodity, especially oil, markets. He should have pushed the Fed to make bank loan instead of just giving them cheap money they could reinvest in Treasuries. And he should have pushed for stronger Wall St reforms so it invested in productive activities instead of being a parasite on the economy.

Steve__T

That’s Sick

Steve__T

Strike Two

Coastghost

cryptomorph: how about let poor Eric Blair rest in peace for as many days as you’ve been abusing his name with manic application of your “Orwellian right” formula? Your practice aspires to Orwellian dimension itself: recall that Orwell’s original practices in Animal Farm and 1984 were aimed squarely at the ORWELLIAN LEFT, the authoritarian and totalitarian socialisms of the 1940s in Germany and Russia. –Not to say that Orwell’s views fail to admit of wide applicability, but no one-sided invocation of his critique these days succeeds in being anything but . . . Orwellian. The Left, no matter how pusillanimous or fatuous it finds itself today, is not exempt.

cryptomorph

Who said the USSR or Nazi Germany were on the “left”? OH! I KNOW!!! The Orwellian Right!!

Look Einstein… “Orwellian” is an ADJECTIVE… and it can apply to ANYONE who uses such tactics to rewrite history or to convince us that War = Peace… or when Liberals claim an anti-democratic Constitution = democracy or when the GOP claims drastic reductions in revenues after irresponsible tax cuts = a revenue boom.

My usage is correct. Deal with it.
- Coastghost
  
  No, Sub-Einstein, or Little Brother: your usage is so hamhanded and indiscriminate as to be useless. If you would care to agree about something, though, Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” warrants fresh attention and updating.
  - cryptomorph
    
    I will use the term where I believe appropriate and consistent with the accepted definitions. Now do you have anything of substance to add that’s on-topic for this forum?
    
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/orwellian
    
    of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or resembling the literary work of George Orwell or the totalitarian future described in his antiutopian novel 1984 (1949).
    
    civilliberty.about.com › … › Civil Liberties › History & Timelines
    
    Definition: To describe something as “Orwellian” is to say that it brings to mind the fictional totalitarian society of Oceania described in George Orwell’s novel …
    
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Orwellian
    
    Or·well·i·an (ôr-w l – n). adj. Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian …
    
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
    of or relating to the works of George Orwell (especially his picture of a future totalitarian state).
    - Coastghost
      
      Have you read “Politics and the English Language”, by the way? I’ve read it often enough to know that the term “Orwellian” does not appear there, and taking Orwell’s stated cues in that essay, I doubt he would assign much utility to the word in our contemporary political discourse. (Have you even read 1984? Ingsoc was his coinage for Oceania’s unitary political ideology, a corruption of “English Socialism”.) Your attempt to commandeer the term “Orwellian” is disingenuous, to put it charitably, and your usage is not wholly accurate, plus it can boast no claim whatsoever to Orwell’s linguistic intent.
    - cryptomorph
      
      TRANSLATION… you have NOTHING to say about the actual topic of this forum. Why didn’t you just say so!
    - Coastghost
      
      TRANSLATION: you stepped off the very end of your quivering branch some two hours ago at least and only now find yourself wallowing in the ideological mud. What topic CAN you contribute to sensibly? (Don’t think I didn’t see that you failed to confess plainly that you have in fact read Orwell’s essay and/or his dystopian novel. On the basis of the testimony you do provide, it is not clear that you understood Orwell even if you did read his works.)
    - cryptomorph
      
      TRANSLATION… you STILL have NOTHING to say about the actual topic of this forum.
    - Coastghost
      
      TRANSLATION (barring explicit clarification): “I, cryptomorph, in spite of my reckless use of the adjective ‘Orwellian’, have never even read ‘Politics and the English Language’ and/or 1984 by George Orwell.” Yea or Nay, cryptomorph? (If you only read Orwell’s essay in your downtime this very evening, would you tell us?)
    - StilllHere
      
      You are pathetic.You make off topic criticisms, using terms you don’t understand. Really sad.

Potter

obama begging for another 4 years is not enough.

I’ll ask a simple question after I answer Romney: I did feel that excitement when I voted for Obama. And Romney points out that hope and change sounded good. It did although my vote for Obama was not about those two words alone- it was about AUDACITY as well. Shouldn’t I feel that way now? I should feel that way now if it ALL was up to Obama. But, Mr. Romney, it WASN”T all up to Obama. Your party obstructed his every move… and set out to do that ON PRINCIPLE.

So my simple question to you Mr. Romney is this: Why should I risk my vote on you? All I have to go on is your mischaracterizations and lies, no plan as to how to go forward that makes sense to me. Why don’t I vote for what I know I am going to get with the hope that this second term will actually bring some of THAT change?

JONBOSTON

Were you in a coma from 2008-10? The first two years of Obama’s presidency the Dems controlled the House and had a filibuster-proof Senate. He got everything he wanted with the exception of cap and trade which even Democrats couldn’t stomach. His budget proposals were an even bigger joke. I believe in 2011 the Senate voted against his budget 96-0. Then in 2012 the House voted against his budget 430-0. The problem with Obama is that his policies and programs are awful combined with a total absence of presidential leadership. Stop drinking the cool-aid!
- Potter
  
  Okay Jon- you drink Romney’s cool-aid.
  - JONBOSTON
    
    You gotta be kidding. Linking New York magazine as a credible source for anything other than reviews of great new restaurants in NYC? Why not just cite Move on.org , MSNBC, or the Daily Kos?
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Ask LoserNormColeman how long “two years” is.

Call_Me_Missouri

Discus keeps breaking threads…

This post broke off a thread, and was the second post I made without manually refreshing the page between posts.

Has anyone else experienced this? I see lots of replies broken from their main thread, but are they always the second post without manually refreshing the page?

cryptomorph

I’ve seen that happen when this page is open in more than one browser window.

TomK_in_Boston

What’s the best name for the RR plan to destroy medicare?

Groupons? Vouchercare? Class warfare? Any suggestions?

They offer a Groupon with no connection to the cost of private insurance that you can take to WellPoint, as an individual with no group purchasing power. Nice situation to be in, eh?

Isn’t it obvious that the gap between the Ryan Groupon and the cost of insurance will increase over time? Anyone not get that? I mean, this is a program run by the gang that hated medicare from day 1. Now all they have to do is cut back on the Groupon and it’s Mission Accomplished. Of course that’s “saving medicare” in Big Lie speak.

So the gap grows, more costs are shifted onto seniors, and we get the most effective rationing of all – being unable to pay. As medicare pays out less, taxes on the romney types can stay low, and we get a perfect case of righty reverse robin hood redistribution. Those out-of-pocket costs that the Groupon won’t cover and seniors pay, if they can, go straight into the pockets of the romney class via tax cuts.

Funny thing is, some non-oligarchs think this is a good idea. Baaa!

Gregg Smith

Romney’s the one with the plan.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  Sorry, you got all of lyin ryan now, so stop cryin.
  
  Romney HAD a plan, and it was the one good thing he did as an otherwise no-show MA gov. If he ran on it I would have had some respect for him. However he has taken the bizarre, dishonest position of going along with the wingnuts and attacking the ACA, which is very much like Romneycare. Makes me wanna puke.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    Sorry Tom.
    
    RC was 60 pages.
    Obamacare is 2800 pages and growing. 2700 pages of differences.
    
    Also don’t you understand Federalism? Federal takeover of 17% of the economy is never the way to go. The power of the Federal government has been growing ever since they amended the constitution to allow the income tax (which the politicians promised would be limited to a few percent of income).
hennorama

How about:

YOYOPGLFAICTIYWYSAHAPCC – You’re On Your Own Pal Good Luck Finding An Insurance Company To Insure You When You’re 70 And Have A Pre-existing Condition Care

-or-

GOBBLEDYGOOK -Get Out Before Being Left Elderly Decrepit Yeasty Grimacing Obsolete Or Kaput

They both make as much sense as Mr. Ryan’s Medicare Privatization Plan.

I reconsidered and deleted another that had an impertinent acronym directed towards Rep. Ryan. Let’s just say it started out “Fantastical Unavailable Coverage” and continued thereafter.
- TomK_in_Boston
  
  Good ones!

cryptomorph

I don’t know where I heard it… but someone observed that Clint Eastwood’s sad if not utterly pathetic performance made Sarah Palin look like Winston Churchill in comparison. Seriously, I felt nothing but pity for poor ole Clint.

Potter

This is what Romney gets for mindlessly going after splash in place of substance.

Gregg Smith

cryptomorph,

First, you do realize Ryan in his speech acknowledged the plant was slated for closure in 2008. That seems to further discredit the notion he lied. He said:

“When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

Evidently your fact checker did not conduct due diligence. And obviously you were not curious enough to look further than your ideology. The speech at Janesville on Feb.13, 2008 was wordy and boring like most of Obama’s. The quote you used was earlier, although still deep, in the speech. He went on to say:

“Those are the steps we can take to ease the cost crisis facing working families. But we still need to make sure that families are working. We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years, and shuttered factories re-open as new industries that promise new jobs. And we need to put more Americans to work doing jobs that need to be done right here in America.”

During the course of the speech he talked a lot about promises made and broken; And how he would be different. Read the entire speech and the intent is even clearer. I’d give you the link but you didn’t offer it either. It’ll mean more if you look it up yourself. Hint: You won’t find it on a fact checker site.

There’s more. In October of 2008 he said:

“Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country. This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

When Obama extended the bailout the Janesville plant was one of 3 to be considered for reopening. He opened the other two.

I suggest better news sources. We already proved beyond a shadow that Maddow duped you. Start by no longer relying on her… and realize the words “fact checker” don’t mean squat.

cryptomorph

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/
- Gregg Smith
  
  You cannot be serious. Is that where you got your quote? I gave you two other quotes your source ignored. One was from the same speech. And you are still clinging to the meaningless quote? Do you even care about the rest of the speech? Did you read it? Or the subsequent statements? Or the context? Or the truth? Un freakin’ believable!
  - cryptomorph
    
    Blah blah Greggggg… there’s NOTHING in those other remarks where Obama promises, pledges or makes ANY commitment to keep open GM Janesville http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=205482 But I can understand why you’re fixated on this aspect of the story as opposed to the more obvious one… that Ryan’s fairy tale was designed to blunt attacks on Romney for his Bain record.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Your uncurious self had no idea the quotes existed.
      
      “Ryan did not lie”, say it.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      False
      
      Quite well known now that Ryan lied.
    - cryptomorph
      
      �
      I see NO commitments, pledges, or promises in ANY of Obama’s remarks. But feel free to misrepresent them… because that’s all you do. It’s like you saying… hey, you like my car… and my claiming you made a a commitment to buy it.
cryptomorph

Doing everything he can to shield Ryan from accusations of lying, Greggg claims: “When Obama extended the bailout the Janesville plant was one of 3 to be considered for reopening. He opened the other two.”

Obama opened the other two plants? I can’t wait for your evidence that Obama PERSONALLY, as opposed to GM, was involved in these decisions.
- cryptomorph
  
  24 hours and Greggg is a no show. But I’m sure in his mind any criticism of Obama, no matter how fabricated, must be accepted without question.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Dude still thinks calls about obama Birth Cert are valid and no way racist.
    
    Should tell you something about his.

Coastghost

UH-OH. Breaking news that still breaks, which could make for an interesting next week, if true: Obama appointee Suzanne Barr AND/OR Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano have RESIGNED. (It was momentarily on Google’s newspage posted from Newsday before it suddenly disappeared.) Stay tuned.

Coastghost

Suzanne Barr is OUT, NY Daily News confirms.
- Coastghost
  
  AP confirms: Barr is out.
Gregg Smith

The lezbo man bashing thing was weird.
Coastghost

Newsday’s headline of Napolitano’s resignation is still on the Google page for JN, but the server is apparently overloaded since the story cannot load. ??? No one else is reporting . . . yet. But ICE’s Barr doth seem to be gone.
- Coastghost
  
  AP clarifies (?) Newsday headline that Napolitano’s (former) aide Suzanne Barr has resigned, as of 7:29 pm ET. Reuters, NYT concur. Even if JN stays on, SB’s resignation could prove, let us say, topical.
hennorama

OMG OMG OMG! Who cares? Scandalous yes, important, no.
- Coastghost
  
  Important enough, esp. if it winds up snagging Napolitano herself: Newsday’s story has changed to reflect only the Barr resignation, but the Newsday headline still says stubbornly that JN herself has resigned. –This could take a few hours, granted.
  - Coastghost
    
    Okay, Newsday’s headline finally has been revised to reflect only Barr’s resignation, Janet is safe for now, and a good night’s sleep to us all, even to cryptomorph.

Gregg Smith

After all the lying about Ryan lying, this is rich. Obama was caught lying while accusing the Romney campaign of lying.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-lies-while-accusing-romney-campaign-lying_651431.html

cryptomorph

So Greggy, when will YOU condemn the lies and distortions from the Right as I have from Dems or other sources? Ever? Never?

What’s that empty chair? No, that’s no physically possible.
- Mouse_2012
  
  He wouldn’t because he actually believes them.
Mouse_2012

Weekly Standard is a rightwing hack website who openly distorts and lies on a wide array of topics.

The piece Greg links to attacks the “fact checkers” as hidden Partisan hacks(yep an openly hack site attacking others funny right?) then relies on some of those sources it just critisied to attack obama for lying.

The piece is written by MARK HEMINGWAY
a simple google would reveal that this guy is an Partisan.
- Gregg Smith
  
  This is astonishing to me. The WS piece has direct quotes from the President and others. They don’t check out. It’s demonstrable. It has nothing to do with any of what you wrote. Is it your position the author made up the quote out of thin air and Obama didn’t deny it? The astonishing thing is not a single accuser of Ryan has given the quote that was supposedly a lie. Not one. And here Obama is caught dead to rights with proof and look atcha’. You’re making excuses on one hand while stretching logic to condemn on the other.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    President Obama Quotes Romney Pollster Dismissing Fact-checkers
    
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/president-obama-quotes-romney-pollster-dismissing-fact-checkers/
    
    CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA — President Obama today seized upon a remark by a pollster for his rival’s campaign to paint Mitt Romney as determined to “not let the truth get in the way” of his campaign.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      THAT’S THE LIE!! No one said “Not let truth get in the way” but Obama lied when he said they did. It didn’t happen.
- Gregg Smith
  
  My reply disappeared. It was direct quotes dude. Obama was caught dead to rights. Who cares who caught him. No one has quoted Ryan’s alleged lie.
  - Gregg Smith
    
    It’s back. Go figure. Same above.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Tons of people qouted Ryans lie, tons of links on this same thread. Your link is still to a rightwing hack website, if you felt that this was a common proven statement than you could always quote from an objective sources. but you didn’t you choose to qoute from an rightwing hack site.
    
    also,
    
    “Obama was caught dead to rights”
    
    Maybe if I use your terms you will stop defending the Paul Ryans lies, lets try
    
    “Ryan was caught deat to the rights Who cares who caught him”
    - Gregg Smith
      
      No one gave a quote. Give it to me.
cryptomorph

We’re all STILL waiting for you to prove Obama made a pledge, commitment, or promise to keep the Janesville GM plant open. All we have from you is your CLAIM Obama not only made such a commitment but he PERSONALLY decided NOT to reopen it. Of course you refuse to deal with the question of why Ryan would lie. It was a lame counterattack to shield Romney from attacks on his record at Bain.

Coastghost

Yoo hoo, cryptomorph: have you read Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”? A definitive “Yes” or a definitive “No” will do. Have you read Orwell’s novel 1984? Again: a simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice. Easy questions, and the answers should be at least as easy.

Coastghost

Tick tick tick tick (forty+ minutes later): either cryptomorph is a slow reader or cryptomorph has stumbled over the line “A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field”. –or else cryptomorph read Orwell’s works too long ago to recall their distinct contributions, or cryptomorph remains dedicated to brandishing the useless political term “Orwellian” without benefit of actually having read Orwell’s work. Tick tick tick tick . . . .
cryptomorph

TRANSLATION… you STILL have NOTHING to say about the actual topic of this forum and prefer personal attacks as a distraction from the real issues here.

From your tactics I’d say you’re someone else I know here… using a different user name. Either way… yawn.
- Coastghost
  
  You do realize that your continued evasion and failure to simply answer simple questions looks a lot like a reluctant admission that in fact you have not read either Orwell’s essay or his novel? My “attack” is not personal but political: anyone generously bandying about the inflated term “Orwellian” in political discourse who has not in fact and in truth read Orwell’s works lacks political and/or intellectual credibility. –Please disabuse me of my quaint notions, cryptomorph: you have or have not read Orwell’s essay and his novel? (I will take any further evasion as an emphatic NO on your part.)
- StilllHere
  
  Have you no shame?
cryptomorph

Ah gee… I forgot this source:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Orwellian%20Right

LOL

Coastghost

So: by my count on just this page alone (exclusive of tertiary dictionary citations) cryptomorph has generously deployed the inflated/useless term “Orwellian” (“inflated” and “useless” according to Orwell’s own professed standards, that is) no less than seven times while giving NO evidence of ever having read either Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” or his dystopian novel 1984. NOTA BENE.

JONBOSTON

It’s obvious from my posts this weekend and past ( previously aka “jonS”) that I’m not a fan of Obama’s programs and policies and regard him as divisive and unpresidential in character. Notwithstanding that , my biggest criticism of Obama is that he has failed as leader of this nation. He lacks the presidential character of a Harry Truman or the call to a better America of a Kennedy or Reagan. Instead of the ” buck stops here” , Obama’s mantra should be “the buck stops everywhere else”. Supporters of Obama–make the case that Obama demonstrates presidential leadership. I don’t believe it’s possible.

hennorama

Let’s see … a quick list of accomplishments:

-Ended war in Iraq
-Ended Osama Bin Laden
-Ended economic crash
-Signed Affordable Care Act, with its multitude of benefits
-Diversified energy production, emphasizing renewables and conservation, but “using an all of the above” approach. Overall, the US now imports about 45% of of the oil it uses, down from about 60% during Bush II era
-Increased auto fuel efficiency standards dramatically, to over 35 MPG in 2016, and over 54 MPG in 2025
-Signed equal pay law for women
-Ended military discrimination under DADT

There are many more, but time and space are limited.
- Gregg Smith
  
  President Obama did not accelerate the withdrawal from Iraq one iota from what Bush negotiated.
  
  The killing of Bin Laden took the diligence of many patriots over years. It could not have happened without the very methods Obama condemned. He sent form letters to the families of three of the SEALs who later were killed.
  
  The economy is in shambles.
  
  He rammed throughout the highly unpopular bill with reconciliation, bribes and kickbacks…. and over a thousand waivers. It was the most partisan transformation of consequence in history. The price has tripled, it guts medicare and infringes on religious freedom.
  
  He is not an advocate of “using an all of the above” approach. It’s more like “anything but fossil fuels”. He’s thrown billions down the green energy rat hole.
  
  Fuel efficiency is a marketing asset for the auto industry, it doesn’t need to be mandated.
  
  The Paycheck Fairness Act never passed because its a horrible idea. It was not “signed”.
  
  The military is not a gay pride parade.
  - hennorama
    
    Not to be argumentative, but … all the events I cited did actually occur, right? l can see how you could quibble about an “equal pay law.” Pres. Obama signed a FAIR pay law for women, not an EQUAL pay law. It’s named the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, signed on Jan. 29, 2009.
    
    You seem to not want to give credit when it’s due, but prefer to criticize rather than acknowledge facts.
    
    Combat troops are out of Iraq. Bin Laden’s dead. The economy is growing, albeit slowly. The ACA is the law of the land, and has many benefits, probably the most important of which is the Patient’s Bill of Rights. The US produces much more energy than ever before – oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc. Autos are now and will be much more fuel-efficient, leading to much less dependence on imported oil. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is an actual law. Those in the military or who wish to be in the military no longer need to lie in order to serve our country.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      My problem is exaggerated credit (like for Bin Laden, endiing Iraq by Bush’s negotiated SOFA, and especially energy), your definition of “credit due” (my perspective is quite different on a few of these issues) and the notion the economy is recovering. Or that Obamacare helps the situation.
      
      You wrote: “-Signed equal pay law for women”. I’m not going to google it but as I recall the Lilly Ledbetter law had little to do with equal or fair pay. Wasn’t it a statute of limitations thing? I don’t even think it was about women. I could be wrong. I’m sure you’ll set me straight.
    - hennorama
      
      Equal pay is the law and has been since 1963. The LLFPA changed the way the time one has to sue for unfair/unequal pay is determined. Instead of 180 from the first occurrence, it’s now 180 days from each time discriminatory compensation is paid.
      
      And yes indeed Bush II signed the SOFA on Dec. 14, 2008, after Pres. Obama’s election but before he was inaugurated. The unfortunate and shameful shoe-throwing/dodging incident happened during Bush’s press conference in Iraq on that date.
      
      I don’t understand what “exaggerated credit” means. Is it when the high school coach takes credit for the touchdown pass his former player threw in the Super Bowl? Or is it when the player throws the touchdown pass, says “Hey, I threw that touchdown pass!” and then disgruntled fans of the other team say “Well yeah, but really your high school coach should get credit for that, not you”?
      
      Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun arguing over this stuff. I just want to understand the terms.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      I don’t think you can give Obama credit for signing equal pay, that’s all.
      
      By “exaggerated credit” I mean not giving any to Bush for Bin Laden or ending the war in Iraq. Energy production is up only because of drilling on private lane despite Obama. Bush made a massive increase in permits on public land that is just now coming online. Obama imposes a moratorium, new permits are almost nil and he’s taking credit…exaggerated credit.
      
      I think his “accomplishments” have been awful for America. It’s my opinion.
    - cryptomorph
      
      So according to you… Bush should get credit for ending a war that should NEVER have been fought? Ya, you probably are serious.
  - JONBOSTON
    
    Excellent post Greg. You nailed him almost as well as Paul Ryan did.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      Thanks Jon, I do what I can.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      delusional as always
Gregg Smith

Obama actually said “the buck stops with you”. Really.

Gregg Smith

The radical right-wing “Huffington Post” has made quite an admission regarding LBJ and tax cuts.

”The result was a tax cut that is largely credited with ushering in an era of high growth and, of course, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html

Mouse_2012

twit twit twit, what Greg does is attempt use a often liberal newspaper piece to make an rightwing talking point somehow real or valid I guess.

Say Gregg right and we should believe the link he gave use. Than one should also believe the link by the same authors as well like,

Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On ‘Active’ Role At Bain Capital       �
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/romney-bain-taxes_n_1828816.html

and

John Boehner Backs Mitt Romney’s False Welfare Claim   �
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/john-boehner-mitt-romney_n_1833481.html

and
Grover Norquist: Mitch McConnell Would Use Procedural Maneuvers He Attacked Harry Reid For Using

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/grover-norquist-mitch-mcconnell_n_1839554.html

and

Mitt Romney Campaign Forbids Reporter From Asking About Todd Akin, Abortion (UPDATE)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-abortion-todd-akin_n_1825864.html

the below are two people gregg linked to and since he has another faith that the piece he linked to is true the same should equally be said about the other articles both have written.


sam stein
Ryan Grim
- Gregg Smith
  
  That logic is unfamiliar to me. I can’t relate but I understand the liberal mind a little better. Thanks.
  
  I tend to look around at a wide variety of viewpoints. I can agree with many people on specific issues. But to read your comment, you evidently believe it’s all ideology so if it comes from your side then endorse all of it. This also explains why “experts” on Fox or Rush will not be caught dead considering anything from them. People are still saying Ryan lied because of their narrow selection of views. Look at poor Cryptomorph, it was days before he admitted the GM plant didn’t close until April 2009 and days later before he realized there was more than one quote about keeping it open. He had no idea because of the very dynamic you describe. Uncurious.
  
  The point is Kennedy’s tax cut’s (via LBJ) stimulated growth. People here like to talk about Eisenhower’s rates but the real growth came when they were cut. It’s nice to see Huffpo acknowledge that. Everybody knows it.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Naw,
    
    I was just pointing out the absurdity of your attempt at linking the Huff Post piece you did and if one takes such absurdity to the level you’ll clearing trying to present you would logically agree with some of the other stuff these men wrote. Otherwise you would clearly be cherry picking information to fit your political views
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Ryan lied hommie, even the authors of the piece you quoted admits this.
  - cryptomorph
    
    �
    Gregg resorts to more lies and distortion… “Look at poor Cryptomorph, it was days before he admitted the GM plant didn’t close until April 2009 ” Gee Gregggggg… despite the fact that you provided NO source for your claim, once you mentioned light trucks and I confirmed it, I DID retract immediately. Yup I was misled by those photos of GM workers holding a banner declaring the last car made at Janeville Dec 23, 08. Of course this detail allows you to evade the bigger lie Ryan told… that Obama made some pledge, promise, or commitment to keep Janesville open. YOU’VE claimed, without proof, Obama PERSONALLY made the decision NOT to reopen it.
    
    But feel free to be comforted by your own dittohead delusions… maintained by your constant denial of evidence.
    - Gregg Smith
      
      What, now it’s my job to inform you? You were misled by Maddow not the picture. She made a fool of you.
- Gregg Smith
  
  My reply disappeared. Probably just as well. Your logic is twisted.
  - Mouse_2012
    
    Dude you qoute Rush L.
    
    Talke about twisted.
    - cryptomorph
      
      In the two years or so since I’ve sen Greggg post… I’ve yet to see an original thought. He slavishly tows the Orwellian Right line on every issue. We might as well be reading a Heritage Foundation comic book for 4th graders.
    - StilllHere
      
      Please dude, you’ve been totally discredited. You have been found guilty of using terms you don’t understand. The world has put you on permanent “ignore” status, and frankly that’s more than you deserve.
    - cryptomorph
      
      Making an empty claim I’ve been “discredited” is just an empty claim. Your problem is that if I admit I was wrong about one thing because the evidence demanded it… and you NEVER admit you’re wrong despite the evidence… then your delusions of right wing infallibility remains intact.
cryptomorph

�
That’s amusing since NBER credited the 60′s economy to a wartime expansion… and let’s not forget there were 3 tax HIKES between 66 and 69 that largely negated the effects of those tax cuts. The Orwellian Right claims revenue from those tax hikes is part of a “revenue boom” caused by the 65 tax cuts. It’s the same dishonest method they use to claim revenue from Reagan’s massive tax hikes were from his 81 tax cuts. So no doubt your DO believe it’s all true which is why you’ve regurgitated these lies and distortions here the past few years 24/7.
cryptomorph

Oh wait… so Gregg is claiming the economy can do well with a top rate of about 70%? Gee Greggy… why didn’t you just say so! Like I’ve said so often… if you so love the so-called JFK tax cuts… LET’S BRING THEM BACK!!!!

http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

Paul Ryan, to Hugh Hewitt: “I ran a 2-fifty-something marathon.”

Reality: Paul Ryan “improved” his marathon time, like a fish story, from just over four hours, to under three hours.

I’m not calling him a pathalogical liar, but I’m certainly thinking it.

Good thing that we had someone (Runner’s World, a magazine which has always evenhandedly and encouragingly covered the fitness activity of presidential candidates) find out how badly Paul Ryan was lying.

Otherwise next thing we might have heard from Ryan is that he’s jumped the English Channel while carrying half a hundredweight of bricks.

Gregg Smith

Yep, that crossed a bold red line. He’s toast. It’s even worse than making up events and characters in an autobiographical memoir.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  I love watching you climb onto lies like they were liferafts.
WorriedfortheCountry

He should challenge Biden to a marathon and see who wins.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  The big bragging point for Ryan was that he did this.
  
  Oh, wait: He did it twenty years ago when he was in college.
  
  And he couldn’t stop there. He had to lie about it now.
Mike_Card

Ryan is a pathological liar. Nobody forgets a marathon time, and if someone does, the slip is nowhere near more than an hour. I ran one, 27 years ago; the official time–caught in the photo as I crossed the finish line–was 3:30:55. Actual time was 3:30:33, since it took me 17 seconds to reach the starting line after the gun sounded.

Romney’s choice of this piece of dung is now clear: neither has any respect for the truth, regardless of the ease in disproving their lies. In that respect, they are perfectly paired.

The distressing part is that there are so many otherwise rational-sounding people who are willing to overlook–nay, defend!–Romney and Ryan’s total lack of moral conscience.
- JONBOSTON
  
  I guess Ryan is guilty of a mortal sin. Were you that exercised about Obama’s campaign accusing Romney of causing the death of a steelworker’s wife (6 years after leaving Bain and while Mass governor), or accusing Romney of being a felon, or distorting the success of Bain, or lying about Obamacare (“bend the cost curve” , you’ll keep your insurance”), or claiming that Romney’s tax program would raise taxes on the middle class ( Romney has called for a 20% across the board cut, or engaging in class warfare, or pandering to gays, women, students, hispanics , welfare recipients, or some other Democratic constituency. Or Joe Biden’s plagiarism? I doubt it.
  - Mike_Card
    
    Then why ask me? Ryan is a pathological liar. He’d rather lie than tell a plausible truth.
    - Mouse_2012
      
      aka Jon’s responses is” look over there the other guy is worst”
  - sickofthechit
    
    It was not Obama or his campaign who insinuated that Romney was a murderer. The ad was run by a super-pac which can not, I repeat can not be controlled by the candidate. Republicans obviously don’t understand that as evidenced by Romney saying he did not approve of an ad one of the super-pacs supporting him ran. That sir is a violation of Federal Election Law. The candidates can neither tell the super-pacs what to run, nor can they tell them what not to run. Either is exertion of control.
    - cryptomorph
      
      And that’s the difference here. That Super PAC pulled the ad. Romney and Ryan just keep spouting the same lies… because it puts Obama on the defensive and get’s Romney’s Bain record and his tax secrets from being talked about.
    - JONBOSTON
      
      You are living in fantasy land. Priorities USA , the maker of the ad, is run by Bill Burton, Obama’s ex-asst. press spokesmen. Burton is a slime ball supreme lacking any ethic or moral compass. And David Pluffe, Obama’s campaign chief, solicits funds for Priorities USA. And Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s press spokesperson, did a conference call in May with Joe Stopic , whose story is featured in the ad and then was caught lying when she denied knowing anything about Stopic. Finally , when given the opportunity to denounce the ad, Obama said nothing. If he had any moral decency, he would have said something. But he didn’t.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF
  
  Since you’ve run a marathon, you get the honor of calling him Paul “Rosie Ruiz” Ryan.
  
  (I am sure I won’t need to explain who she is to you. To others on this board, well…)
  - Mike_Card
    
    Actually, I was thinking of using this forum to spread the rumor that Ryan wouldn’t even have completed the race, had it not been for a friend with a pedi-cab. Come to think of it, consider the rumor live, now!
Mouse_2012

Actually Ryan is the perfect model for an christian conservative republican. He had Government SS pay his way through college and made his millions off of Big Government. Uses Government perks and Government health care, he’s so cheap he doesn’t even get an private membership but than again the government would prob pay for it anyways.

Perfect reflection of what the government stands for.
- cryptomorph
  
  Romney and Ryan aren’t government haters. They LOVE government when it benefits them or their rich friends. They just hate when government benefits the common person. They want to use government’s Medicare taxing power to benefit the parasites in private health insurance companies as well as predators on Wall St dying to get their hands on Social Security money. In the mean time they want our generation to steal 15-20 trillion from the future so we can party… then let our kids and grandkids pay the bill. After all… they can’t yet vote to protect themselves so they are fair game.

DrewInGeorgia

wow. Reading the last two hundred comments was like watching a Wimbledon match with no tennis ball on the court. Hope the coming week is better for y’all than your weekend seems to have been. Have a great Labor Day everybody.

StilllHere

That cryptomuppet really got his head handed to him!
- cryptomorph
  
  Hardly, but dream on!

JONBOSTON

Pray tell:
without a change in leadership, why would the next 4 years be any different?

Gregg Smith

Axelrod was on Fox News Sunday and refused to answer the question. “Are we better off than we were four years ago”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDEDvH_bHms&feature=player_embedded

David Plouffe was asked the same question on Meet the Press and dodged it three times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cRtvq0J9Qs&feature=player_embedded

Sad.

cryptomorph

Shall we ask the same question about the Bush2 years? Yet that’s the SAME philosophy Romney will bring back.
�
Your big criticism of Obama is he can’t clean up fast enough the economic disaster YOUR nutty far Right ideas caused.

I’m not happy with Obama or the economy. But are we better off than in Jan 09 when GDP had dropped about 9% the quarter before and we were losing about 700k jobs a month? Are we better off without the Iraq war or Bin Ladin? Are we better off with albeit weak controls on Wall St than no controls? Are we better off with the beginnings of national health care? YES!
- Gregg Smith
  
  No, we shouldn’t ask about the Bush years. Everything is different, all the paradigms have shifted, your view is monolithic, and the dynamics cannot be compared on any meaningful level. Plus the fact that Bush is not running. Neither is Clinton. So no.
  
  It’s not that Obama has not cleaned up fast enough it’s that he’s made it far worse than it had to be. This should have all been passed us long ago. He’s a disaster.
  
  Poo poo the notion of 50 million liberated and allies in the heart of the middle east where there once was sworn enemies in a post 9/11 world. I tend to think it was going to happen no matter what, it wasn’t an option. And Kudos to the assassin but Bin Laden’s death was more symbolic than anything else. It did not make us safer the was regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan did. Oh yea, Dodd/Frank sucks.
  
  I miss GWB.
  - cryptomorph
    
    G wrote: “It’s not that Obama has not cleaned up fast enough it’s that he’s made it far worse than it had to be.”
    That’s just another empty right wing talking point. Reagan didn’t have to deal with a collapsed banking and housing sector. He implemented the policies YOU favor and yet 6 months after he took office the economy sunk into the deepest recession since the 30′s… peak unemployment higher than under Obama, and unemployment over 7% for 60 months. He FAILED by his own yardstick. By YOUR logic, it was Reagan who made the situation worst. Things only got better after the Bush disaster when Obama took office. Say it Greggggg…. Your complaint is Obama can’t clean up after YOUR discredited policies fast enough.
  - jefe68
    
    I miss GWB.
    Says it all about you and your political amnesia. He was the worst president since Warren Harding and Nixon. Funny how they are all Republicans.
ChristopherJ

Fair enough. But isn’t it possible that we need a new question?

This question was interesting and effective in the early 80s, when the context warranted it. I don’t things are so simple now; the kind of economic crisis we’re facing is TOTALLY different and likely to take much more time to straighten out by its nature.

Like I say, the question is fair, and you’re on solid ground to ask it. However, I don’t think it reveals much in terms of substance. Of course, no one cares about substance, but even still.
- Gregg Smith
  
  I think the question is valid especially because things have gotten so nasty (Republicans want dirty air, to throw grandma over a cliff, don’t care about autistic kids, they’re sexist, racist, etc.) in lieu of a positive record.
  
  We have places like New Jersey, Wisconsin, Virginia, Indiana and others where policies far different than Obama’s have worked big time without raising taxes. We see an energy policy in ND that has yielded a 3% unemployment rate from the fracking boon while Obama imposes moratoriums and denies permits.
  
  But the main thing is he said he would fix it and he has made it worse.
JONBOSTON

One of the ancillary benefits if Romney wins the election would be the exit from public view of David Plouffe (slime personified), David Axelrod (he dares to have you ask him a tough question), Bill Burton ( unethical and unbounded by any moral decency), Stephanie Cutter ( proven liar), and the rest of Obama’s campaign staff. They are the slimiest group that I have ever seen on the public stage. Good riddance to all of them.
jefe68

What a plan, the GOP plans to run Reagan’s campaign again with Mr. Stiffy…

JGC

There were comments earlier on generic letters of condolence sent by the White House to fallen Navy Seals. The source for the “story” is Joel Arends, a 35-year-old Iraq War veteran who is now the executive director of Veterans for a Strong America. Veterans for a Strong America is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which means it can raise unlimited amounts of money and does not have to disclose its donors. It claims to be nonpartisan, but Arends was a field operative for the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2000, and he has also been involved with conservative political organizations such as Americans for Progress (founded and funded by billionaire conservative/libertarian David Koch). When Fox News “reports” this story, they describe Veterans for a Strong America and Joel Arends as nonpartisan, and obviously they are anything but. This has all the hallmarks of swiftboating, trying to take an honorable endeavor and flip it into something to discredit the people involved in the decision making process, and thereby diminish them.

Gregg Smith

The story is true, so there’s that. It is disrespect at worst and an egregious oversight at best considering the circumstances. He sent a handwritten letter to Heavy D’s family for goodness sake. Which is fine but the blame lies squarely on Obama not the messenger.

Are you aware of all the past Democrat operatives running non-profits like Media Matters, NAACP, etc.? I’m talking bigwigs.

cryptomorph

Is Ryan a true fiscal conservative or policy wonk? I see from Ryan NO moral imperative that our generation pay for what we spent on ourselves…. and his speciality seems to be merely inventing cover for the fiscally irresponable “starve the beast” strategy.

JGC

From Politico:

Republicans trying to play down President Barack Obama’s decision to launch the raid that led to the death of Al Quaeda founder Osama bin Laden are not getting much help from the military brass who oversaw the operation. During a rare public interview (7/25/12) Adm. Bill McRaven, head of the U.S. Special Operations command, portrayed as bold and brave Obama’s decision to order the raid despite significant doubts about whether bin Laden was at the Abbottabad compound…during an onstage interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at the Aspen Security Forum, Adm. McRaven said, “I’m not a political guy, but I’ll tell you as an interested observer, they (Obama and his national security team) were magnificent how they handled the start-to-finish. The president asked all the right questions…The president gave me ample time to prepare once the conversations were through.”

A few weeks before the bin Laden raid, Obama nominated McRaven to take over the Special Operations command and be elevated to four-star admiral.

Gregg Smith

No one takes that from him. He was bold and brave. He also referred to McRaven as “General” the other day. The military is not his thing.

TomK_in_Boston

Re “a gaffe is a pol accidentally saying what he really thinks”, Etchasketch should have got a lot more headlines for calling the USA a company, No doubt that’s what he thinks, but geez, you’re not supposed to SAY it!:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/31/783791/romney-calls-america-company/

He promises to “make sure this company deals with its challenges”, which indicates a Bane-style reorganization for USA Corp. That would mean firing workers, cutting wages of those he keeps, canceling pensions (privatized SS and Ryan Groupons instead of medicare), cutting costs and quality for short term profits, eliminating R&D and other reinvestment in the business, offshoring, maxing out the debt and funneling the borrowed $ to him and his oligarch cronies. Sounds like the perfect righty agenda.

JONBOSTON

So what if Romney misspoke and said company instead of country. Obviously this left wing wacko cite thinks it’s big deal. It means nothing. I’ve never understood the left’s problem with companies since they’re nothing more than organizations of people that HIRE employees , buy goods and services from other companies , and produce products and services that are wanted by the consuming public. I find it mystifying. It will be interesting to hear what Etch-a liar (D- state of gutter ) has to say Thursday night in Charlotte.
- Steve__T
  
  ” So what if Romney misspoke and said company instead of country ”
  
  So what?
  How about You didn’t build that.
  - JONBOSTON
    
    What about it? If you listen to the entire comment , it supports the Republicans interpretation. Moreover, Obama’s comments parrot exactly what Elizabeth Warren said–she’s running against Sen. Scott Brown.
    - jefe68
      
      Oh the irony. It was government that built the forum center that the GOP held it’s convention in.
      
      One more thing genus, like the other right wing extremist you twist and lie about facts to support your agenda.
    - JONBOSTON
      
      Genius is spelled with an “i”.
      And like so many left wingers you engage in personal attacks and rarely if ever cite any facts to support you arguments.
    - StilllHere
      
      It helps when they call you a genius and spell it wrong. The guy below is one of the dumber trolls to be found here.

cryptomorph

�
The censorship here is, again, becoming mindlessly intolerable. Now we can’t even discuss whether Romney’s “faith” is a legitimate issue in determining his character! 5-6 posts on this topic I posted were nuked last night. Odd since Romney’s faith was certainly an issue with the Christian Right of the GOP… just as JFK’s Catholic faith was certainly a public issue in the 1960 campaign. JFK dealt with it on his own… and didn’t need censors to shield We The People from this relevant discussion.
�
Shame WBUR… shame!!!!

MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

So let’s see if this is tolerated… Mormans are NOT Christians. So how is Mitt more acceptable to evangelicals than a Christian Obama? Oh wait, he’s not white!

By my count you posted 17 times in the first page of comments downloaded and 39 including the second page. You definitely have stamina going for you… You actually had 5-6 post deleted? I’ve seen some pretty whacky stuff tolerated on this website, so I gotta ask, what could you have possibly written that would be censored other than swearing or using hate language?

cryptomorph

Anyone old enough to remember the hoops JFK had to jump through to convince the public his Catholic faith would not let the Pope dictate his presidency nor would it would place the Republic at risk? JFK fell within the spectrum of more traditional Christian beliefs. Yet if a candidate for president’s religion was Satanism… should that NOT be a legitimate issue in the campaign? What if they were guided by astrology or some other pseudo-science?

In a nation founded largely by Deists who rejected “revealed” religion, just what weight should We The People place on a candidate’s CHOICE of religious beliefs? With no proof of ANY religion… should such beliefs forever remain beyond scrutiny? Must we just ignore their choices and declare all beliefs equally valid?

If so, then when will the nation finally embrace the first Satanist?

Of course the other possibility is that ALL religious beliefs based on unproven precepts are by definition a demonstration of human irrationality. So doesn’t that disqualify ALL religious candidates?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Guests

From Tom’s Reading List