kimmy

Romney evidently thinks these 47% are the shiftless deadbeats, the perennial welfare mooches, and so on... While that may be true for some small portion of them, it is not true for most. Large numbers of them fall into groups like: -retired seniors -students -those put out of work by the recent recession -the working poor (those working at low-paying jobs and relying on the EITC to make ends meet, rather than going on welfare) -veterans leaving the service and finding no jobs, and veterans on disability It is beyond crass for Romney to characterize those paying no federal income tax as people who won't "take personal responsibility and care for their lives." This isn't as dangerous for Romney as people are predicting, however. The reason is simple: his core voters all think they're part of the 53%. Right now there's some occasionally-employed roofer pumping his fist in the air shouting "you tell 'em Mitt! tell those welfare queens and spoiled college kids to get off their asses and get a job!" while he waits for the phone to ring and hopes it'll be for work instead of bills. -k

An excellent few days for Willard. Shoots self in foot by conceding that his plan to balance the budget basically consists of hoping the economy improves. Shoots self in face with embarrassing footage from a private fundraiser hosted by a "private equity titan" famous for hosting orgies. So it should be no surprised that the Republicans have realized that to have any chance, they're going to need a lot of help from Baby Jesus. -k

Everybody uses Willard's middle name. But let's ignore jbg's distraction and get back to discussing what a stupid argument Shady came up with in this thread. Although GM is posting big profits, they're running their company into the ground because they haven't made a profit on one particular model yet. And if the model in question was the Truckeroo SUV, nobody would have said much about it. But because the model in question is an electric car, and the idea of electric cars makes right-wing cranks wet their pants with rage, this is a Major Indictment of GM, the Auto Bailout, and Barack Obama. Yep. That's about how much sense it makes. -k

This thread got quiet all of a sudden... remember the part where Tim was explaining how the Red States are models of economic success? Remember the part where Jerry was explaining how the banks don't need to be regulate? Me neither. -k

Man, Shady's really beyond help. There's no point trying to explain it to him, and frankly it's far more fun just to watch him shrieking about Liberal Media Bias Conspiracies. I actually wish the polls showed the Republicans leading, though. The worst thing that could happen is if Democrat voters start thinking the election is in the bag and don't bother voting. -k

Wow, I'm pretty amazed that anybody is less popular than Christy Clark. -k

So, if I'm following what Betsy is saying: When scholars in Jolly Olde England were translating the Bible into English, God was with them to make sure that they used the word "stretched" to describe the making of the heavens. (...but He still couldn't be bothered to explain to them that He made the sun and stars *before* He made the plants.) -k

Yes and no. There's lots of regulations on traditional banks, virtually none on the "shadow banks"-- financial institutions that avoid regulation by not taking deposits or engaging in other activities that would bring them under the regulation that traditional banks are subject to. Read up on the "shadow banking system". This subject is certainly over our heads, but the gist of it is that by avoiding becoming classified as traditional banks, financial institutions can skirt a lot of regulation that traditional banks are subject to. And again, derivatives were *not* regulated. Alan Greenspan, long-running chairman of the Fed, was a major reason why: Greenspan fought regulation of derivatives for ideological reasons, and admitted that he was wrong. As eyeball says: Is the issue really that S&P and Moody's didn't understand these things? No. They understood. They didn't give high ratings to junk assets because they didn't understand the risks. They gave high ratings to junk assets because they knew which side their bread was buttered on. Oh, there's money in bond rating. Is there money in regulation? Unfortunately you've stumbled on a part of the problem. The people that politicians can turn to for expert advice are the same people who rake in immense amounts of money from the system. They're not exactly objective. Who do presidents appoint to watch over the financial sector? Well, Dubya and Obama both picked top industry executives to sort out the mess. Guys who made tons of money from things being the way they were, and will make tons more from the industry after they leave public service. The president can get top academics from Columbia and Harvard to provide objective, unbiased analysis... but the top academics get millions of dollars of consulting contracts from Wall Street every year, so they've got a lot of incentive to not be exactly objective or unbiased either. -k

When the housing bubble popped and the frequency of foreclosures increased in 2007, the dividends on CDOs (collateralized debt obligations, the derivative products made up of these risky mortgages) plunged and people began to stop buying them. The banks were left holding all these risky mortgages they couldn't unload anymore. AIG insurance was also devastated by the foreclosure crisis because many of the CDOs were insured through AIG. That's the kindergarten version... the mechanics of the "securitization chain" were a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it. They couldn't pass the buck anymore, and got left holding the bag. Anyway, the premise that "moral hazard" keeps banks honest because they've got skin in the game isn't true. They're playing with other peoples' money. There has been plenty of recent news that proves banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves (LIBOR, money laundering for Iran and drug cartels, using dishonest accounting practices to exaggerate their financial situations, and more.) -k

Ok, here's what I got: "In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk." Fair enough? Because if that's the case, then that's *exactly* why regulations *are* necessary on Wall Street. These guys felt safe sinking an absurd amount of money into risky investments, because the magic of the unregulated derivatives market allowed them to pass the risk on to others. The Clinton and Bush administrations both refused to regulate derivatives, and the result was that banks had financial incentive to make *more* risky investment, not *less*. -k

Do you actually think about this stuff, or are you just reading from a script? The United States is far superior to any conceivable military threat. The deficit is a greater threat to America than some imaginary military foe. -k

Suckers like you think they're talking about less forms and permits for small-businessmen to fill out, but what they're really talking about is axing Dodd-Frank, and the CFPA, and fighting any further attempts to keep Wall Street honest. -k

Yeah, well, your guy is the one telling us he's going to spend more money buying navy ships and hiring guys to march around carrying rifles all day. -k

As people keep pointing out to you, Shady, the banks gave out *far* more risky mortgages than any quota required them to, and they did so because thanks to deregulation of derivatives, they were able to make money hand-over-fist at it while passing the risk on to others. But leaving that aside for the moment: the whole argument that "they lowered lending standards as to facilitate mortgages to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify" just supports the idea that regulations shouldn't have been tampered with in the first place. Both parties share blame for eroding the regulations that led to the collapse-- it started under Clinton and continued under Bush Jr-- but there's only one party today campaigning with a promise to cut more regulations. You're cheering for them. -k

The red states, with the exception of Texas, are broke-ass deadbeats receiving welfare from the blue states. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html The most conservative states in America, the deep south, are also by far the poorest and underachieving states in America. Granted. But one party wants to boost the deficit by spending on military spending and tax breaks for rich-guys. If they do actually attempt to reduce expenses it is going to come in the form of ending programs and tax credits that will take money out of the pocket of low and middle class consumers which will take money out of the economy. And they've promised to repeal the regulations that were put in place to keep the banks from wrecking the economy all over again. You won't have too hard of a time convincing me that the Democrats are bad for the economy and the debt. But you haven't provided a single reasonable argument to show that the Republicans aren't far worse. The only firm commitments that Team Willard has provided are sheer bloody delusional lunacy. You can see that for yourself, and your only response is "yeah, b-b-but the envirofascists..." Clearly not. -k

The only firm commitment Romney/Ryan have made are cutting revenue, boosting expenses, and promising that they're not going to make the cuts Paul Ryan proposed in his budget. You and the other mighty deficit hunters can get back to me when Willard gets down to telling us what he's actually going to cut. -k

Well, Jerry, as you age you might wake up to the fact that today's Republicans have absolutely nothing to do with conservatism, except where sex and Old Time Religion are concerned. -k

The record proves otherwise. Reagan, Bush, and especially Bush Jr are the worst things to happen to the US debt since WWII. Keep in mind that when Clinton left office the US was posting annual surpluses and was on a pace to pay off WWII. Under Bush Jr, those turned into massive deficits, even before the global economic meltdown. Also, the Democrats are committed to ending the rich-guy tax cuts, which is one step towards addressing the debt. Also, they're committed to defense cuts, which is another. The Democrats have committed to two steps that will reduce the deficit, and the Republicans have committed to two steps that will make the debt worse. Yet you're convinced that the Republicans are the better choice. The record proves otherwise. The record proves that it's the Republican ideological obsessions-- tax cuts, deregulation, and defense spending-- that are the threat to America. -k

oh no! When the bible is outlawed... When the cross is an offense... When Christmas is a crime... Each Person can make a difference. When Rights are being destroyed... Faith provides the courage to take a stand. Freedom has a price. Are you willing to pay it? Pray And Stand up Before it's Too Late! Paul Bob Revere, riding across Boston America on his horse Harley to warn the patriots that the English atheists are coming. Sounds thrilling! The Bible outlawed! The cross an offense! Christmas a crime! I don't think I've ever seen Christian persecution fantasies ever expressed so vividly. -k

The Republicans? What a joke! -they've promised to increase military spending -they've promised to cut taxes. -they have not named one "entitlement" that they're actually willing to cut. -they've assured voters that they *won't* cut Medicare and Social Security, which are the biggest of the big entitlement programs you're complaining about. It appears their strategy depends entirely on the hope that dumb-ass rednecks will believe Willard can save a trillion dollars a year by de-funding Planned Parenthood and taking food-stamps away from the swarthy-folks. -k

More cries of persecution from the campaign trail this week! First! Campaigning in Virginia with God-fearing Christian icon Pat Robertson, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declared "That pledge says 'under God.' I will not take God out of our platform. I will not take God off our coins. And I will not take God out of my heart," to uproarious applause. This is an obvious reference to the Democratic platform initially containing no references to God last week, and the suggestion that "God" will be taken off the coins is among the cheesiest appeals to Christian feelings of imaginary persecution I have seen in quite some time. What's really sad, to me at least, is that Willard is so desperate that he's even campaigning with Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson is a withered old sack of garbage and any politician with any sense would avoid being seen with a guy with such a long history of saying despicable crap, like advising a guy to turn Muslim so that he can beat his wife this week. But then! The persecution went into overdrive when Barack Obama's September 11 proclamation did not talk about God either! And we all know that God gets very angry when we forget to thank Him on the day that His followers crashed airplanes into skyscrapers and killed thousands of people while He watched idly and did nothing. Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that Obama has "called for a moment of silence, but has not called for the word God. So some people are asking, why is God being left out again?" Later, her colleague Steve Doocy said: "On this most somber of days, get this. Does the President of the United States call on people to pray for those lives lost? No." "God being left out again"... is obviously another reference to God being left out of the DNC platform for several hours. Never mind that Obama had already declared all last weekend to be National Days of Prayer in remembrance of 9/11. -k

Great updates, guys! There's so much persecution going on right now! I especially liked the letter from the Vikings punter. That guy has a way with words, to say the least! I was reading that the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, has spoken up in support of Brendon Ayanbadejo and other NFL players exercising their right to free speech. I also noticed that there seems to be some amount of "durrr well that guy must be a fag or sumthin" type thinking directed at Ayanbadejo... even though he has 2 kids with his longtime girlfriend. I was also noticing that Ayanbadejo has a body that looks like it was sculpted from marble by a renaissance artist... but that's entirely off topic. On a similar note, lots of other athletes are getting into persecution too! A lot of hockey players, like the Oilers' Ryan Jones, are participating in a project called "You Can Play," aimed at supporting gay athletes and fighting homophobia in sports. "You Can Play" was launched by Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke, in memory of his late son Brendan, who died in a car crash in 2010. Brendan Burke was a hockey player who was gay. When Brendan came out of the closet to his family, Brian was supportive but also afraid that being openly gay in the macho world of hockey would be hard for his son. Though Brandon has died, Brian Burke started this project with the hope of helping other gay athletes. -k

As I said earlier in the thread, that's an entirely reasonable point to argue, and I'd love to get into it, just as soon as Jerry and Kid Me-Too tell us how they feel about Catholic institutions paying money to give men erections. To me, the answer relates to something else I posted earlier in the thread. If you are going to have a mandate, then there has to be standards attached to the mandate. You can't issue a requirement that everyone purchase insurance, and then consider a plan that pays for 50% of one Bandaid per year to adequately satisfy the mandate or the whole exercise becomes completely meaningless. And if you grant religious exemptions to every Moishe, Jeshua, or Muhammad who comes along, you're undermining the purpose as well. As I said earlier, only slightly facetiously... if you grant religious exemptions "then it's only a matter of time before people start selling a share of their company to the Church of Christ Scientists so that their insurance only has to cover splints and prayer." To paraphrase Mr Miyagi: Mandate do "yes" or mandate do "no." Mandate do "guess so" ...squish like grape. -k

So that people don't confuse him with his father, Barack Herbert Walker Obama. -k

As always, you make an excellent point. To add one more thing: there always seems to be this assumption that we're talking about single chicks who are sleeping around, or college girls, or so on. But we're also talking about married couples who already have kids and can't afford to have any more kids. Abstinence? Is "Not tonight, honey, I have a headache" supposed to turn into "Not for about 18 years, honey, we've got kids"? -k