Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Extry, Extry, ACORN Steals Election for Obama!!!

Somebody pointed this out in the comments of the last post, it is such a weird result that I wanted to feature it.

You can imagine that after the elections the polling industry sort of takes a break. Well, Public Policy Polling is plugging along, asking people questions and publishing the answers. Of course the party that lost the election is unhappy, but the way they are taking it demonstrates why the people voted against them in the first place: they live in a dream world.
PPP's first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard...and also declining in numbers.

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore. Republicans not handling election results well
ACORN was an organization that advocated for lower and middle income families, including registering poor people to vote, which was not good for Republicans, who made the organization a big boogeyman. After a rightwing video hoax portrayed ACORN negatively in 2009, they lost their funding and went out of business.

I am sympathetic with the Republicans' depression. You should have seen me in November, 2004, when the American people elected George W. Bush for the second time. I felt like a stranger in a strange land. Senseless war, torture, cronyism, ignorance, the winner stood for all the worst things about our society, and the people around me had voted to put him back into office. I couldn't believe he won a majority of the vote, but there it was. At least something good came out of that -- December of 2004 was when TTF got together and this blog started up.

There is an important transition going on here and we might as well say it out loud. White people are not the majority any more, and where they are their edge is shrinking. As the recent election showed, playing to the fears of white people is not a winning strategy for a politician. Those people who "want their country back" have a point: the generation before mine lived in a world where white people ran everything, the generation after mine does not. They are not going to get their country back, they have to learn to live in reality. And so far they are resisting that.

PPP has a few other interesting findings, too. I kind of liked this one:
Grover Norquist is largely unknown nationally, and among voters who are familiar with him he is generally disliked. Only 15% have a favorable opinion of him to 37% with a negative one, with 48% not holding an opinion one way or the other. Even among Republicans just 18% see him positively, while 23% have an unfavorable view. Only 23% of voters think it's important for politicians to follow Norquist's tax pledge to 39% who think it's not important and 38% who don't have an opinion.
I saw Grover on CNN last night. What a slimeball, that's all I can say.

More survey results were published HERE. For instance, this:
30% of respondents indicated they thought Democrats engaged in voter fraud. 33% of Hispanics, the same percentage as of white voters, believe that Democrats engaged in voter fraud, to only 15% of African Americans.
I can imagine coming from some violent, corrupt Central American country and assuming that voting is fraudulent here, but otherwise I am not sure how to interpret that result. Is there a Spanish equivalent to Fox, by any chance?

Another tidbit (although with screwed-up spelling).
18% of respondents said they would support their state seceding from the union due to Obama’s reelection, to 68% who would oppose the measure. 27% of Hispanics would support secession, compared to 19% of white voters and 12% of African American voters. Young voters were also more likely to support succession. 29% of 18-29 year olds would support succession, while only 14% of voters age 46-65 and only 16% of voters age 65+ would support it.
I am pretty sure that "succession" is supposed to be "secession." But isn't that interesting that more than a fourth of Hispanics would want their state to secede from the union? I would love to see some interviews and learn what is behind that thinking. (There would be some beautiful justice in a future where Texas was a state in Mexico...)

I have been in countries where everyone belongs to the same ethnic group, and the USA is simply not like that, never has been. We are currently experiencing waves of migration from Asia and Latin America, and Caucasians of European descent are losing their stronghold on American leadership. I think it will be good to loosen up that sense of privilege, this is a change that has been a long time coming. You can expect desperate struggles as panicked white Republicans try to hold their place but I don't see any way it will happen. The minorities who are advancing into power will not want revenge, I do not foresee a time when white people are the victims of discrimination, but they have already lost their grip on ownership of the society, and now they will need to adapt.

53 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

" they live in a dream world."

Yes they do an FOX helps them maintain the illusion.

Enjoy this video from the Daily Show comparing life in the real world to life in the bubble at FOX News: The War on Christmas Friendly Fire Edition

December 05, 2012 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liberty, self-reliance and respect for the value of life are not white ideas

liberals are trying to replicate the gay activist trick of conflating their ideas with the ideals of racial equality

the media is currently egging them on but this strategy will ultimately fail

but, what if liberals succeeded in racially dividing the country?

if whites voted as monolithically as blacks, they'd win every time

truth is, most Americans would like to move to a post-racial future not one divided by race

and the Dems think they're the party of diversity when they've had the support of racial minorities for years and yet have only nominated one minority member for President?

Repubs can say they didn't have as large a poll to choose from

what's the Dem excuse?

December 05, 2012 1:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, I see bad anonymous is even more bitter now then he was just after the election. He's coming out of denial about the importance of the election and realizing that the Republicans have only been able to slow down the economic recovery rather than stop it altogether and by 2016 the economy will likely be humming along nicely and the Democrats will be reelected.

But of course in Bad anonymous's delusion world in 2016 we'll be in the second term of the 16 years of the Romney and Ryan presidencies ( or is it the last term of the Huckabee presidency?). Remember, as Bad anonymous said the day before the election:
"popular vote: Romney 52, Obama 48 you heard at TTF first, people".

LOL, Oh yes, we heard you, you're a never ending source of humour for people living in the real world.

December 05, 2012 1:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, actually, Bad anonymous will never come out of denial, as his next comment will show.

December 05, 2012 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats have elected a black man as president of the United States of America, twice.

How did the House GOP respond? With 19 white male proposed chairs for House committees and finally putting a woman in charge of a committee Friday afternoon.

"“I’m not sure which was worse: House Republicans refusing to have any women Chair a Legislative Committee or only appointing a woman to Chair the Congressional Housekeeping Committee,” said one Democratic official.

The Committee on House Administration oversees the running of the House as well as federal elections. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), the current chair, lost his bid for reelection on Nov. 6. That meant the House GOP leaders had to fill his slot at the top of the committee.

Normally who chairs the administration committee in the House would only be news inside the Beltway. But by choosing Miller to take over, House Republican leaders appeared to critics to be trying to clean up the mess they made when the so-called “major” House committee chairs were announced this week. That list was all male, leading to criticism from women in the Republican caucus as well as Democrats. Female House Republicans publicly pushed Boehner to appoint a women to the remaining committee chair slots.

For a party trying hard to grow its appeal among women, the committee chair announcement was seen as an indication the GOP is not ready to change by critics on the left. Miller’s appointment has done nothing to quiet that view.

“It’s too little too late at best and it’s tokenism at worst,” Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, told TPM. “The reality is that John Boehner has already demonstrated that he doesn’t understand that in the Republican Party, there are extremely competent, very able women who should be leaders.”"

December 05, 2012 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LOL, I see bad anonymous is even more bitter now then he was just after the election."

you have amazing vision, nastilynn!

can you show us an example of how bitter anon is?

I know you have a lot to choose from but show us one reeeaallly good one!

"He's coming out of denial about the importance of the election"

oh yeah, those elections where the status quo is returned are really important

unforunately for Obama, Americans left Dems in charge of the Senate

otherwise, Repubs could fix up the economy and he'd probably get credit for it

"and realizing that the Republicans have only been able to slow down the economic recovery rather than stop it altogether"

actually, since 2010, the Repubs have been able to slow down the damage Obama has done to our economy and will still be able to

"and by 2016 the economy will likely be humming along nicely and the Democrats will be reelected."

what's going to make it hum?

the increasing deficit and interest costs?

higher taxes?

our fading influence in the world?

right now, with a trillion a year of borrowing and near-zero interest rates, the economy should be booming

but, alas, we have a dumb Dem in the WH who keeps talking about more regs and taxes

no one wants to invest in new ventures

"But of course in Bad anonymous's delusion world in 2016 we'll be in the second term of the 16 years of the Romney and Ryan presidencies ( or is it the last term of the Huckabee presidency?). Remember, as Bad anonymous said the day before the election:
"popular vote: Romney 52, Obama 48 you heard at TTF first, people"."

fascinating

"LOL, Oh yes, we heard you, you're a never ending source of humour for people living in the real world."

you mean the real world where you mutilate your body trying to make yourself into the gender you want to be rather than the one you are?

or the one where a President can pretend the people endorsed him when they elected a legislative body that opposes him?

or the one where a party can consider itself the party can consider itself the party of diversity because of the nomination of one man?

all Dem Presidents and VPs have been white men until Obama

how many minorities have held the top office in Canada?

December 05, 2012 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Marc Rubio says it has been definitively proven that life begins at conception.

"I wish there were more folks in this town who are deeply committed to science and the belief in science and would not ignore that scientific fact," he said. "They're pretty brave about saying the age of the Earth, but they don't want to say when life begins?""

yeah, wassup with that?

December 05, 2012 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nov. 14, 2012, Rasmussen Reports: 54% Are Pro-Choice, 38% Pro-Life

December 05, 2012 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

where's the science crowd on this one?

pretty clear that life begins at conception

here's some encouraging news for the GOP:

"A decision by Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 would be welcomed by most Americans, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll released Wednesday.

As she prepares to step down as secretary of state, Clinton has a lifetime high favorability rating of 66 percent, according to the Post/ABC poll, with less than a third of respondents holding unfavorable views. Two-thirds of Americans approve of her job performance in the Obama administration.

That goodwill translates into broad support for Clinton to make a second run at the presidency in four years, with 57 percent supporting her candidacy."

what a dream within a dream for Repubs!

December 05, 2012 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question when life begins is not a scientific one. Living things reproduce, they heal, they grow, they learn, they die, and if one wants to mark a point as the "beginning" one is free to do so, but it is only a semantic index pointing to a moment in the ongoing dynamic process. You could say life begins when the baby breathes, or that it begins at baptism, you could say life began billions of years ago. Whatever you like. The embryo is a cluster of cells with DNA taken from a sperm and ovum. Nobody knows for sure, but it seems that between twenty-five and fifty percent of all conceptions result in expulsion of the embryo in the first six weeks. No one with any understanding of science is going to try to argue about "when life begins."

December 05, 2012 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Living things reproduce, they heal, they grow, they learn, they die, and if one wants to mark a point as the "beginning" one is free to do so, but it is only a semantic index pointing to a moment in the ongoing dynamic process."

no, there's a point when the dynamic process begins

it's called conception

if this event doesn't occur, there is no capacity to reproduce, heal, grow, learn, die,

if this event does occur, this will happen

it's not a tricky question

it's just that some people consider their convenience and pleasure more important than the life of this defenseless child and so they rationalize what is very evident

science can indeed empirically measure reproduction, healing, growth, learning, death,

you sure you know anything about science?

December 05, 2012 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Science would consider the moments when an ovum and sperm cell unite as a phase transition. I have the idea that the concept is new to you. New cellular products are generated constantly in the body, the embryo is one of them.

Let's make it easy. I will reword your question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now you can adamantly insist that the egg came first. Congratulations, you win.

It doesn't make you look very smart, but that is the end of the argument.

December 05, 2012 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The GOP's RR team thought contraception would win them the women's vote, but events in the real world showed them they were wrong, again.

Gallup: 2012 election had the largest gender gap in recorded history

"2012 was the fifth straight election to feature a double-digit gender gap."

December 05, 2012 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, well we are going to try and point out to women exactly how stupid they have been.

http://dualincomedilemma.com/

December 06, 2012 1:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LMAO

Good luck with that outreach program!

December 06, 2012 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News Puts Karl Rove on the Bench

The post-election soul searching going on inside the Republican Party is taking place inside Fox News as well. Fox News chief Roger Ailes, a canny marketer and protector of his network’s brand, has been taking steps since November to reposition Fox in the post-election media environment, freshening story lines — and in some cases, changing the characters. According to multiple Fox sources, Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris. Both pundits made several appearances in the days after the election, but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly. Inside Fox News, Morris’s Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line. At a rehearsal on the Saturday before the election, according to a source, anchor Megyn Kelly chuckled when she relayed to colleagues what someone had told her: “I really like Dick Morris. He’s always wrong but he makes me feel good.”

A Fox spokesperson confirmed the new booking rules for Rove and Morris, and explained that Shine’s message was “the election’s over.”

Multiple sources say that Ailes was angry at Rove’s election-night tantrum when he disputed the network’s call for Obama. While the moment made for riveting television — it was Ailes’s decision to have Kelly confront the statisticians on air — in the end, it provided another data point for Fox’s critics. A spokesperson for Ailes denied any rift between Ailes and Rove, and said the two plan to meet this week.

December 06, 2012 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa, I clicked on your link. According to your own numbers, your mythical family would be taxed at a 33% overall rate, which seems like a fair price for the conveniences of infrastructure, defense & security, industry regulation, etc. that come with a government. Of that, 18.6%, according to your numbers, is federal tax.

It appears that what you are doing here is pretending that you take all the tax out of one of the two incomes. If they're equal, as in your example, then the 33% overall rate becomes 66% out of one of them, and zero out of the other, which you don't mention. Who exactly is supposed to be fooled by that?

December 06, 2012 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all I did was take the take home pay the family gets to keep with one salary and compare it to the amount they get to keep with two. no zeroing out. that is the clear way to make a decision if you are both working, and the question dual earners face. 33% isn't terrible (and my number is 43%) but when you start paying 33% on both incomes compared with 6% on one the deltas are shocking. and again, that is without any of his hikes which I realize don't hit until you higher brackets... will calculate that this weekend. It's not misleading, it's actually the calculation you make when deciding whether mom should work or not.

anyway, I have a meeting at 10 and will be off line until later this evening.

December 06, 2012 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many GOP centrists and some conservatives are calling on House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.

“I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,” said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, adding: “Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them.”

Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, R-Fla., told the Post: “If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.

Even the very conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, is preparing himself for higher taxes: “The president is going to get some form or fashion of revenue. That’s baked into current law,” he said. “I didn’t vote for it. I don’t want it. But I recognize it, and House Republicans will work to minimize the damage to the economy.”

December 06, 2012 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Spermatazoa and ooza are also living cells.

December 06, 2012 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Oozoa

December 06, 2012 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cory Booker #SNAPchallenge: Day 1 Reflections

Hear how Mayor Booker is faring on his first day of trying to feed himself on $29.78 a week in food stamps.

December 06, 2012 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point, Robert, they were alive when they got there, their merging is not the beginning of life.

December 06, 2012 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many GOP centrists and some conservatives are calling on House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits."

ISN'T IT INTERESTING, AND REVELATORY, THAT EVERYONE, ON BOTH SIDES, REALIZES THAT OBAMA HAS NO INTEREST IN SAVING MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND THAT DOING SO IS A CONCESSION TO REPUBLICANS?

ISN'T OBAMA EVEN A LITTLE EMBARASSED BY THIS?

"“I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,” said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, adding: “Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them.”"

AVOIDING THE CLIFF IS EASY. JUST CANCEL THE AUTOMATIC TAX HIKES AND SPENDING. WHY ARE THESE STUPID REPUBLICANS LETTING OBAMA FOOL THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT UNLESS WE RAISE TAX RATES ON WEALTHY PEOPLE BY NEW YEAR'S THAT WE'LL GO OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF?

RIGHT NOW, REPUBLICANS WOULD BE HAPPY TO CANCEL THE CLIFF AND WORK OUT THE DEFICIT REDUCTION IN A THOUGHTFUL MANNER IN 2013.

IT'S OBAMA AND OBAMA ALONE CASUING THIS PROBLEM. HE'S GETTING AWAY WITH IT IN THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION SO FAR, IN LARGE MEASURE WITH THE HELP OF THE MEDIA. BUT THE REPUBLICAN NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB EXPLAINING THIS.

OBAMA IS A LIAR.

"Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, R-Fla., told the Post: “If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans."

OBAMA ISN'T OFFERING ANY ENTITLEMENT REFORMS, TOM. DON'T LET HIM FOOL YOU.

HIS GOAL IS TO SOAK THE WEALTHY MINORITY ENOUGH TO PRESERVE UNSUSTAINABLE ENTITLEMENTS UNTIL HE GETS OUT OF OFFICE.

"Even the very conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, is preparing himself for higher taxes: “The president is going to get some form or fashion of revenue. That’s baked into current law,” he said. “I didn’t vote for it. I don’t want it. But I recognize it, and House Republicans will work to minimize the damage to the economy.”"

JEB, JUST PASS A BILL CANCELLING THE FISCAL CLIFF AND LET OBAMA EXPLAIN WHY HE WON'T GO ALONG WITH CANCELLING THE TAX HIKES UNLESS WE DO WHAT HE WANTS.

YOU'RE REALLY LETTING HIM PULL A FAST ONE ON YOU GUYS. HE HAS NO POWER HERE BUT AN OBSTRUCTIONIST VETO.

AND HE'S NO CLINTON.

December 06, 2012 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good point, Robert, they were alive when they got there, their merging is not the beginning of life."

that's wrong

before then, they were part of another organism

Robert is making an argument against contraception

he's not too bright

December 06, 2012 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.”

—Revelation 9:6

Between an electoral defeat that was wholly unexpected (by them, anyway) and a “fiscal cliff” that will compel them to support a tax increase, Republicans are experiencing present political reality as a sort of Apocalypse. That's how it feels, anyway; eventually they will adjust. But for now they’re channeling their resentment into internecine warfare, creating a tableau vivant of pitched battle and unending recrimination that Hieronymus Bosch could have set against a landscape of burning lakes and whirling locusts. It is deeply satisfying to behold. But there’s so much bile flying in so many directions that the uninitiated can find it difficult to keep track of who’s purging whom, and why. Here follows a guide to some of the more interesting enmities.

John Boehner’s back-bencher purge. House Speaker John Boehner stripped four Republican members of sought-after assignments to two prominent committees (Budget and Financial Services), then warned the rest of the GOP caucus that “there may be more folks that will be targeted … we’re watching all your votes.” Boehner insists the four (Walter Jones of North Carolina, David Schweikert of Arizona, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan) weren’t purged for being too conservative, but rather for not being “team players.” One thing they had in common, though, was a vote against last year’s debt-ceiling deal.

Boehner’s (and Paul Ryan’s) Ryan-Plan purge. The budget plan Boehner presented to the White House—which contained $800 billion in tax increases over ten years and $1.4 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Social Security and Medicare—constituted, among other things, the first formal Republican acknowledgment that Paul Ryan’s House-passed budget plan is dead. Ryan himself has not been purged, however. He is participating in fiscal-cliff negotiations. Indeed, while some House conservatives say the Ryan plan will live to fight another day, there are tentative signs that Ryan himself is done with the budget proposal that brought him to national prominence. He still maintains pride of authorship, however. Amash and Huelskamp, it’s been suggested, were removed from the Budget committee at least partly on Ryan’s recommendation; they both voted against the Ryan plan this year.

December 06, 2012 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservatives’ Boehner Purge. Purging dissidents and proposing a tax increase—even one lacking, as Boehner’s does, the tiniest detail about how revenues will be raised—has not endeared Boehner to the party’s conservative wing. GOP performance artist Sarah Palin said, “Right now the GOP establishment is more concerned about the opinion of the media and the Georgetown cocktail circuit than they are ‘we the people’ who hired them.” FreedomWorks, a Koch-funded, Tea-Party-affiliated nonprofit, is also angry at Boehner, and has called on him to reinstate the four dissenters. Another right-wing group called Americans For Majority Action has begun a campaign to dump Boehner as speaker next month; 16 abstentions would do the trick. The leading (but not, at this moment, very plausible) alternative appears to be Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who heads the Republican Study Committee and opposes a tax increase.

FreedomWorks’s Dick Armey Purge. Dick Armey, a former House majority leader, has been paid $8 million to vacate his high-profile position as chairman of FreedomWorks. Apparently Armey and FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe can’t stand each other. The final straw came when Armey refused to sign off on a book contract Kibbe struck with HarperCollins. The book’s research and promotion relied on FreedomWorks staff, putting FreedomWorks’s tax-exempt status, Armey felt, in jeopardy. (Attention IRS: Kibbe went ahead with the deal anyway.) Sources at FreedomWorks complained to Politico that they spent so much time promoting Kibbe’s book that they didn’t have enough time to mobilize conservatives for the election. An $8 million golden parachute is pretty eye-catching for an organization that claims to work at the grass roots; as of 2010, Politico reports, Armey’s salary was a cool half-million. But if the intent was shut Armey up by shoving money down his throat, it didn’t work. “What bothered me most … was that [Kibbe] was asking me to lie, and it was a lie that I thought brought the organization in harm’s way,” Armey told Politico.

Kirby Martensen’s Bill Koch Purge. In October, this former executive at Oxbow accused Bill Koch of kidnapping him in the course of purging him, Martensen, from Oxbow.

December 06, 2012 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News’s Karl Rove Purge. Fox News chairman Roger Ailes hath decreed that henceforth producers will need special permission before they can book Karl Rove or Dick Morris. The stated reason is that Ailes wants some fresher faces now that the election is over. But Rove and Morris made notably faulty election predictions on Fox, and Rove reportedly angered Ailes when he challenged Fox’s number-crunchers for calling the election for Obama.

Bill Kristol’s Grover Norquist Purge. In a Weekly Standard piece urging conservatives to support a “modified version” of Obama’s tax plan, Kristol called Norquist “our modern-day Angelo” from Measure For Measure. This was tantamount to calling Norquist a hypocrite, because in Measure For Measure Angelo, when granted temporary rule over Vienna, insists on strictly enforcing a law that makes sex outside marriage a capital offense … while at the same time propositioning the condemned man’s sister (to whom Angelo is not married). If she screws him, Angelo says, he’ll commute her brother’s sentence! Kristol may have meant only to suggest that Norquist was rigid and unforgiving in enforcing his Taxpayer Protection Pledge (more like Shylock demanding his pound of flesh in The Merchant of Venice, though given the anti-Semitism typically attributed to that play Shylock is not an allusion to be made lightly, particularly in a neoconservative magazine). The evidence that Kristol meant only that Norquist is too unforgiving is the absence of any direct argument in Kristol’s piece that Norquist is a hypocrite. But Kristol does point out (without mentioning Norquist) that it’s not remotely logical to favor a payroll-tax increase, as congressional Republicans did last year, and then insist that that isn’t a tax increase. Norquist, as it happens, rather cravenly endorsed this hypocritical formulation at the time.

Erick Erickson’s 66 Canal Center Plaza Purge. Erickson, co-founder of the right-wing blog RedState and a onetime city councilman in Macon, Ga., briefly considered, and then rejected, the idea of challenging the soft-on-taxes Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss in the Senate primary. Instead he’s venting his rage against the fifth floor of 66 Canal Center Plaza in Alexandria, Va. On this floor reside a variety of “charlatan consultants,” all incestuously connected to the Republican National Committee, the Romney campaign, and each other, and all of which raked in ungodly quantities of cash while sending Romney to his doom. Crossroads Media is there, funded by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads; so is Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney Super PAC. They are, Erickson says, “evil.”

December 06, 2012 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Links repaired (even though the Anons will not touch them)

on Ryan’s recommendation

hath decreed

Weekly Standard piece

December 06, 2012 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Yep, they're stupid! said...

Today in Senate maneuvering: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blocked a bill based on his own proposal, after he called for a vote on the bill in the first place so that he could prove that it would fail.

The legislation would have given President Obama the authority to raise the debt limit on his own, unless Congress could come up with a two-thirds majority to vote to stop him. The bill was based on a proposal McConnell made last year that would give the president “last-choice option” to avoid a default on the nation’s debt.

McConnell proposed a vote on the bill this morning, arguing that Democrats wouldn’t have the votes to pass it. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at first declined, but then called McConnell’s bluff this afternoon. This time McConnell blocked the vote.

“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid said. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”

This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “I don’t think this has ever happened before.”

< eye roll >

December 06, 2012 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

December 6, 2012 - U.S. Voters Trust Obama, Dems To Avoid Fiscal Cliff, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Tax The Rich, But Don't Touch Medicare, Voters Say

American voters give President Barack Obama a 53 - 40 percent job approval rating - his best score in three years - and by a wider 53 - 36 percent they trust the president and Democrats more than Republicans to avoid the "Fiscal Cliff," according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Registered voters say 48 - 43 percent that President Obama and Congress will reach agreement on a plan to avoid tax increases and spending cuts set to go into effect at year's end, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

By a huge 67 - 23 percent margin, voters oppose eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, but strongly favor, 62 - 28 percent, limiting the deduction to the first $500,000 of mortgage debt. By 56 - 35 percent, voters favor eliminating that deduction for second homes.

Voters 65 - 31 percent support higher taxes on households making more than $250,000 per year, with 84 - 14 percent support from Democrats and 66 - 31 percent support from independent voters. Republicans are opposed 53 - 41 percent.

"Nothing like winning an election to boost your job approval. President Barack Obama hasn't had a score this good since his 52 - 40 percent approval rating May 5, 2011, right after the death of Osama bin Laden," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"This is only the second time in more than three years that President Obama has broken 50 percent. And voters see Republicans as more likely to be obstructionist, and have less confidence in their ability to come up with the right solution to the nation's financial woes."

American voters say 56 - 38 percent that Obama and congressional Democrats will make a good faith effort to cooperate with congressional Republicans on important issues. By 51 - 43 percent, voters say congressional Republicans will not act in good faith.

Voters are optimistic 58 - 38 percent, however, about the next four years with Obama as president and believe 50 - 26 percent that the economy will get better in the next four years.

If Obama and the Republicans drive the federal government over the Fiscal Cliff, voters say 47 - 23 percent that the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes that go into effect will be bad for the U.S. economy. By a larger 53 - 15 percent, voters say the Fiscal Cliff will be bad for their personal financial situation.

Voter opinions on issues on the bargaining table:
47 - 40 percent support raising the tax on capital gains;
70 - 25 percent oppose cutting Medicaid spending;
51 - 44 percent oppose gradually raising the age for Medicare eligibility;
55 - 41 percent oppose cuts in military spending;
66 percent believe the best way to reduce the deficit is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.

"The 48 - 43 percent belief that President Obama and both parties in Congress can avoid the Fiscal Cliff is hardly a strong vote of confidence that the folks in Washington can avert the supposed financial catastrophe they all say they want to avoid," Brown said.

Abolish the Electoral College in favor of direct popular vote for president, American voters say 60 - 29 percent. Republican, Democrats and independent voters all support the idea by wide margins.

It's a bad idea to sign a no-tax pledge, voters say 85 - 10 percent, including 77 - 15 percent among Republicans.

December 06, 2012 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Whoosh! said...

Jim DeMint, the senator from South Carolina, announced on Thursday that he was stepping down from the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. With nearly four years left in his current term, the move came as an utter surprise, and will require South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to appoint a replacement until a special election can be held in 2014. DeMint, a Tea Party favorite who wields considerable influence on the far right, will also leave a leadership void in the Senate's conservative wing.

Why did he do it? In an interview with The Wall Street Journal just before his announcement, DeMint suggested that he could be more influential at Heritage than in the Senate. "This is an urgent time, because we saw in the last election we were not able to communicate conservative ideas that win elections," he said. Erick Erickson at RedState agrees: "DeMint's power in the conservative movement just grew exponentially. A man who was going to retire in four years anyway, will now be leading the conservative movement from its base of operations for years to come."

The foundation where DeMint will carry on his work occupies a prominent place in conservative politics. "Heritage is commonly called a 'think tank,' but it's something far more complex than that — it is one of the largest grass-roots organizations in the world, with an astonishing 700,000-plus donors and supporters and a budget of $75 million," says John Podhoretz at Commentary. (Fun fact: It was once a champion of a health-care proposal called the individual mandate, which has since been deemed a harbinger of socialist ruin by conservatives.)

Less charitable members of the GOP have suggested that DeMint, one of the poorest members of the Senate, did it for the money.

December 06, 2012 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's some new friends for you fringers:

"The Mormon church has launched a new campaign encouraging its members to be more compassionate toward the LGBT community.

On Thursday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints launched the website mormonsandgays.com, in which it calls for Mormons of all stripes to "love one another."

As Buzzfeed notes, the new campaign reflects an "evolution from [the church's] past teachings" as it asserts that sexuality is not a personal choice.

An official statement posted on the new website reads:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

CNN reports that the website's launch appears to support the belief held by some gay-marriage activists that the LDS church is "toning down its opposition to same-sex marriage."

Church leaders say they hope the new resource will foster a greater "understanding of homosexuality among Mormons and a more civil conversation about the issue."

Church spokesman Michael Purdy told the Deseret News that the site is also part of an effort by the Mormon church “to teach and clarify" the church's position on homosexuality.

"There are some aspects of our belief and practice that are simply not well understood," Purdy said. "Too often these types of big, important issues are dealt with in sound bites, and often by individuals who do not have the complete picture of what the church is doing.""

December 06, 2012 7:54 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

In the near future, the 98% are going to feel pain from cutbacks that will emerge from negotiations to reduce the deficit -- not to mention the expiration of the Social Security payroll tax holiday.

Most people will put up with those cutbacks for the longterm benefit of all -- but only if they believe that the very rich (who have not had to sacrifice much of anything, and many of whom profited from the insanity that led to the 2008 meltdown) are going to sacrifice, as well. Increasing the marginal rates is the only way to assure the 98% that this will, in fact, happen, and the election results show that most people feel this way. (When politicians talk about adjusting deductions, most people correctly assume that rich people's lobbyists will find ways to subvert the effort and protect their clients.)

So if the Congressional Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, they will agree to an extension of the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT the cuts at the high end. The President has offered a clean bill on this issue -- meaning that he is prepared to engage in the tough bargaining later without his ace card: Increase in marginal rates at the top Rep. Cole and even Ann Coulter have figured this out, but the Congressional Caucus is too blind to their misguided ideology to see the reality.

December 06, 2012 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

So you are saying that conception is the beginning of a new organism, or the transition from two organisms to one, rather than the beginning of life?

Reductionists would argue that the definition of organism, especially with respect to single-celled creatures, is essentially arbitrary.

Though I wouldn't agree with them entirely, yet some credence must be given to the notion that at the margins the distinctions between cells, tissues, organs and organisms are not absolute.

Do organisms, even those posting on blogs, have names, or can they be anonymous?

December 07, 2012 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So you are saying that conception is the beginning of a new organism, or the transition from two organisms to one, rather than the beginning of life?

Reductionists would argue that the definition of organism, especially with respect to single-celled creatures, is essentially arbitrary.

Though I wouldn't agree with them entirely, yet some credence must be given to the notion that at the margins the distinctions between cells, tissues, organs and organisms are not absolute.

Do organisms, even those posting on blogs, have names, or can they be anonymous?"

Nice rationalization for murder.

Robert, are you indifferent to the fact that your mother didn't kill you in the womb?

Or are you so morally bankrupt that you are indifferent to whether other unborn children can have your same fortune?

You're kind of like a guy who escapes the Titanic and then destroys all the other life boats?

How do you sleep at night?

December 07, 2012 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Darling, did I express an opinion on abortion? I thought we were discussing the definition of the word organism. Would you like to hear my thoughts on the definition of "rude?" or "sloppy thinking?"

December 07, 2012 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the near future, the 98% are going to feel pain from cutbacks that will emerge from negotiations to reduce the deficit -- not to mention the expiration of the Social Security payroll tax holiday.

Most people will put up with those cutbacks for the longterm benefit of all --"

there's no reason to believe that

they will vote for any politician who tells them someone else will sacrifice- and they won't have to

that's what Obama did

right now, he's refusing to make any changes to entitlement programs, cut any spending, or raise tax on anyone who makes less than 250K

he's trying to make wealthy people the scapegoat for all of society's troubles

but, if his hike on the wealthy was already in effect this year's deficit would have been 1.02 trillion instead of 1.1 trillion

for this, he's saying all our taxes will go up unless he gets his way

the House of Reps should call his bluff

right now, Repubs have done a poor job explaining this to the American people but it is explainable

don't think it can't happen just because it hasn't happpened yet

"but only if they believe that the very rich (who have not had to sacrifice much of anything, and many of whom profited from the insanity that led to the 2008 meltdown) are going to sacrifice, as well"

the "very rich", as in those people who are married and both spouses make 125K?

don't know what country you're living in but those people have made plenty of sacrifices

"Increasing the marginal rates is the only way to assure the 98% that this will, in fact, happen, and the election results show that most people feel this way. (When politicians talk about adjusting deductions, most people correctly assume that rich people's lobbyists will find ways to subvert the effort and protect their clients.)"

David, I'm surprised someone as intelligent as you would say this

history shows it is much easier to evade tax rate hikes than reducing deductions and exemptions

"So if the Congressional Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, they will agree to an extension of the Bush tax cuts WITHOUT the cuts at the high end."

why? it won't reduce the deficit

if history is any guide, reducing marginal tax rates produces government revenue and lowers the deficit

see Collidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush

"The President has offered a clean bill on this issue -- meaning that he is prepared to engage in the tough bargaining later without his ace card: Increase in marginal rates at the top"

in other words, he hasn't heeded the mandate of the American people that he negotiate in good faith

"Rep. Cole and even Ann Coulter have figured this out, but the Congressional Caucus is too blind to their misguided ideology to see the reality."

they both have given up on the PR battle, which is all that's happening

meanwhile, we all tick closer to the real fiscal cliff

when American goes bankrupt and the socialism becomes inevitable and freedom becomes a memory

December 07, 2012 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Darling, did I express an opinion on abortion?"

no you didn't, sweetie pie

but like eugenicist did for Hitler, you're providing the rationalization for the pro-death crowd

how do you sleep at night?

December 07, 2012 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

So "fact", "science" and "knowledge" are determined by "moral" constraints? I'm not sure if I would disagree with that. Lunch-table discussion topic today.

December 07, 2012 8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"he's trying to make wealthy people the scapegoat for all of society's troubles"

No he isn't. He's trying to get rich people to pay their fair share of income taxes after 10 years of the Bush tax cuts -- cuts Theresa never complained about before, but suddenly have her squealing like a pig on the thread below and her own website.

Most American agree with the President on this and he just won re-election and added more Democratic House and Senate members to Congress. The country rejected the GOP's Romney Ryan plan to lower taxes even more on the wealthiest among us while cutting benefits to the elderly and poor.

Americans remain on the President's side in this battle as evidenced by the recent Trio of polls: Support for raising taxes on wealthy

As more and more House GOPers hear from their constituents back home, more of them every day are coming around to supporting the President's plan, which is to keep taxes as they are on everyone's first $250K in earnings but to raise rates on income over $250K so we can pay our nation's bills.


And look at that:

Unemployment edged down to 7.7 percent

December 07, 2012 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon starts with the judgment that abortion is murder, then insists that all scientific facts must be arranged to support that judgment. Anyone who views biology objectively, and not through a veil of moral certainty, is evil and will have trouble sleeping at night.

Anon, you will need another line of proof. The sperm and ovum are living cells. Their merging represents the initiation of a process that recombines the parents' genetic information, possibly with some mutations; if this new combination survives to maturity then the process may be reinitiated, a new genetic pattern may be generated, and so on. Some patterns survive, some do not. There is no "beginning" to the process, it cascades along over time, adapting to the environment. Well, there was a beginning, billions of years ago, but we don't know what caused the first self-reproducing RNA to appear. Maybe it was God.

If you are going to get indignant about abortion as murder, then you should start by making a case that war is murder. Once you demonstrate that you are actually opposed to the killing of human beings, your argument against abortion will at least sound like something more than self-righteous rightwing parroting.

December 07, 2012 9:02 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

You are missing the point. As a general matter, people do not trust politicians these days. An amorphous statement that we will cut deductions to have the most fortunate pay a larger share (and thus share the sacrifice of the budget cuts) is seen as Washington-Speak.

That is why Obama so strongly pressed the marginal tax rate argument, and why the polling shows that even people who did not vote for him agree with him on this point.

So, politically, if you are serious about creating a political environment in which programs and benefits will be cut to reduce our long-term deficit problem, you have to go the route that Obama campaigned on -- and that Congressman Cole and even Ann Coulter agree with.

There will be plenty of time to discuss these thorny issues once we get past the simple proposition that it is unambiguous that the electorate wants to raise the top rates. You can argue until the cows come home that the electorate made the wrong judgment, but our democratic process yielded this result. Other details may be arguable in terms of what the public decided, after much debate, what we should do. But what to do with the Bush tax cuts is not. The public has spoken through the election.

While the gerrymandered House of Representatives still has a Republican majority, a majority of voters voted for Democrats nationwide in the House races. While we should not expect the House Republicans to vote like Democrats across the board, there are some points that they need to concede if they are serious about actually governing the country.

December 07, 2012 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

We had our lunch table discussion. Several points were made:

1. Science is an essentially human activity, so the determination of about what to ask questions, what to study, what to discuss in the public arena, even the patterns of discoveries and theories, are based on psychological, historical and sociological concerns in human affairs.


2. There is such a thing as scientific truth, and all knowledge is good knowledge; i.e. there is nothing that shouldn't be studied for "moral" reasons.

3. In contrast to "2", the point was made that at least some "scientific" discussions have "moral" repercussions, and it is perhaps better to leave some things unsaid.

There were other points, but I've forgotten them.

December 07, 2012 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, sounds interesting, I'll read later and respond (and David).

meanwhile, here's something starting up:

Illinois has voiced the "Obama For Senate" call before, but according to one poll, the Prairie State may want to repeat it — for Michelle.

In a Dec. 5 roundup of Illinois poll data, Public Policy Polling said Michelle Obama leads Sen. Mark Kirk in a hypothetical 2016 Senate matchup.

The polling firm said the first lady leads Kirk 51-40 in the could-be race. Kirk's approval rating, according to voters polled, is 34 percent, with a disapproval rating of 19 percent. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama tops out with a 60 percent approval rating, with a 33 percent disapproval.

The first lady even surpasses her husband in popularity in their home state: President Obama's approval rating is 57 percent positive among Illinois voters.

December 07, 2012 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Michelle outpolls Barack by three points.

Woo hoo!

Laura Bush has outpolled George W. by a lot more than that!

Gallup reports:

Laura Bush Leaves White House as Popular Figure

January 14, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds 76% of Americans saying they have a favorable opinion of first lady Laura Bush. The public has viewed her very positively during George W. Bush's entire term as president, with her favorable ratings ranging between 63% and 80%.

Laura Bush's favorable rating is nearly twice as high as her husband's current 40% (his job approval rating is slightly lower at 34%). The president began his tenure in office with high favorable ratings himself -- never falling below 60% until his fourth year in office. His favorables began to decline in his re-election year of 2004, and have declined further since then, following the general trajectory of his job approval rating. His current favorable rating actually represents an improvement from last year's term-low 32%.

Laura Bush is rated more positively by Republicans (89%) than by independents (76%) or Democrats (66%). But all three groups have a very positive impression of her.

In contrast, only Republicans (77%) have an overall favorable view of the president, given that just 37% of independents and 11% of Democrats have a positive opinion of him.


Neither First Lady is planning to run for office even if that's what they're hyping on Fox News.

Now Hillary Clinton, that's another story. She's a highly regarded former First Lady, former US Senator, and Secretary of State. If she decides to run for President in 2016, she will be very successful at that too.

December 07, 2012 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOOKS LIKE THAT FIRST LADY JOB IS HARD TO MESS UP

December 07, 2012 3:27 PM  
Anonymous “This room likes a winner” said...

Leaders of the American business community, who have long indulged the Republican far right as an instrument toward their own ends, seem to be growing weary of its political excesses. Recognizing the public verdict of last month’s election, corporate officialdom is moving toward moderation on taxes and other issues, showing support for the Obama White House and edging away from congressional Republicans.

The latest top executive to endorse the president’s position on rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent is Fred Smith, CEO of Federal Express and a former economic advisor to Senator John McCain — who denounced as “mythology” the notion that raising the top rate would damage the U.S. economy.

Smith joined a lengthening queue of business leaders from all sectors who have stepped up over the past week to voice their acceptance of increased taxes as part of a budget agreement to break the stalemate on Capitol Hill — not only to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff on December 31, but because fairness requires the wealthy to pay their fair share. Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, the nation’s largest telecom company, told Business Week that higher taxes and more revenue must be part of any budget agreement. So did Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And so did a group of defense industry executives from companies such as United Technologies, RTI International, TASC and Northrop Grumman.

Income tax rates “need to go up some,” said David Langstaff, the CEO of TASC, at a Washington press event organized by the Aerospace Industries Association, a defense lobby. “This is a fairness issue — there needs to be recognition that we’re not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we’ve fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up.”

Indeed, the president was warmly received this week when he visited the Business Roundtable, a powerful Washington lobbying group that officially prefers Republican policy on maintaining the Bush tax cuts unchanged. “This room likes a winner,” said Roundtable chairman James McNerney, the CEO of Boeing, as his members applauded the president, who worked the room as if among old friends. They didn’t seem terribly upset when the president told them that tax rates — their tax rates — would have to go up, and in fact, they are reportedly supporting him on the need to avoid another destructive struggle with Congress over the debt ceiling. Evidently they won’t go along with the kind of blackmail game that congressional Republicans played with the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, leading to a credit downgrade and slower growth for months afterward.

The suddenly sensible sounds emanating from the business community are astonishing when contrasted with the anger displayed toward the president by many of these corporate suits only weeks ago, when they berated Obama as “anti-business” and loudly yearned for a corporate-style Romney presidency. Resoundingly rebuked by the electorate, which overwhelmingly favors Obama’s positions on taxes and entitlements — and stands ready to blame the Republicans if no budget agreement is achieved — the business leaders are backing ever so subtly away from their traditional alliance with the GOP.

These brand-conscious executives suddenly have realized that the Republican brand, especially at the congressional level, is politically toxic. And they would rather not be too closely identified with it at this dangerous moment.

Remarkably, the Tea Party Republicans have now alienated their party’s most important constituency — the upper echelon of the business community. It is a profound irony that the issue raising friction between these politicians and their erstwhile backers is a fanatical partisan determination to defend the tax benefits enjoyed by those same wealthy executives.

December 08, 2012 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sometimes you just gotta laugh ..."

or play the fiddle while our freedoms burn

Jim, I can't see the image for some reason so that may be an inappropriate comments

let's see, the Republicans would like to take a number of actions to soak the rich but the Dems are interested in nothing but raising rates

Repubs would close 800 billion in tax deductions and exemptions to the wealthy

Repubs would means-test Social Security and Medicare, making the wealthy ineligible and saving these programs for those who really need them

and yet, Dems insist on rate increase

why?

Dems are obviously interested in advancing toward complete socialism and reject the idea that anyone shouldbe self-sufficient and not have their personal lives supervised by the government

December 09, 2012 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and yet, Dems insist on rate increase

why?"


That's easy.

Look at the facts and do the math.

Under Bill Clinton when the top earners paid 39.6% income tax, jobs grew 18.1%, but under Bush and his infamous tax cuts, which lowered the top rate to 35%, job growth slowed to half the rate it had been. Not only that, but wages, the median real income fell from $60, 804 to $58,718 a year, and too many American manufacturing jobs were shuttered and shipped overseas by corporate raiding companies like Bain Capital.

During Clinton's first term, the average increase in jobs was 2.60% and in his second term, was 1.60%. Under Bush's first term, the average increase in jobs was 0.51%, and in his second term, was -0.84 -- that's NEGATIVE 0.84%.

Under Obama there has been +0.97% job growth through Sept 2012.

After the near destruction of our economy by Bush's raiding of the treasury to redistribute wealth from the middle class up to the top, we can't hide from the facts anymore. The only way to grow our economy is to grow the middle class, to pay workers a living wage, and for the fat cats to pay their fair share in taxes like they did under Bill Clinton and our last period of job growth and prosperity.

Hide your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears, scream SOCIALISM all you want, and remain as ignorant of as many facts as you wish, but, sorry Charile, that doesn't change the facts one bit.

Repub math, just like Romney math, does not add up to increasing living wage jobs for the middle class in America.

December 10, 2012 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The average income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans has fallen back to the level of 1966, when Johnson was president. The top 1 percent of the top 1 percent has gone from 4 million to 22 million. In 2010, the first year of the recovery, 37 percent of all the increased income in the entire country went to 15,600 households. We have created a privatized system to redistribute upwards and the reason people at the top are sharing a larger portion of income taxes is because their incomes are growing at an enormous rate, but their burden is falling. To suggest we don’t need to raise more revenue by applying it to people whose success depends on this government and living in this society with rules that make it possible to make that money is outrageous."

David Cay Johnston

December 10, 2012 9:32 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

JimK: “Those people who "want their country back" have a point: the generation before mine lived in a world where white people ran everything, the generation after mine does not.”

Brilliant and lasting observation, Jim.

December 13, 2012 12:38 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

Sociopathanon: “here's some new friends for you fringers:

"The Mormon church has launched a new campaign encouraging its members to be more compassionate toward the LGBT community. … Church spokesman Michael Purdy told the Deseret News that the site is also part of an effort by the Mormon church “to teach and clarify" the church’s position on homosexuality.”

--
The Mormon Church’s position was instrumental in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, constitutionally damning marriage equality in the state. Until they take responsibility and atone for their dishonest and surreptitious role in that hate campaign, they can go intercourse themselves.

December 13, 2012 1:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home