Augustus wrote:What was Franken's involvement in the Boys and Girls Club loan, beyond working for Air America at the time it occured?

What are the details of this dead soldier ad?

If Franken didn't actually win, should Pawlenty's administration take the hit on that? Why do you think he didn't actually win?

1. he knew about it and didnt do anything to stop it and still kept taking his paycheck
2. His ad, Ill find it, hitting coleman for voting for the war after some local soilder died, only coleman wasnt in the senate yet, which isnt really the point
3. I dont know. I dont know why they were so flat footed

Rand Paul sez accidents happen:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

I'm no Rand Paul fan, I wanted Grayson. But I agree with what he said above.

I love how the poor and the middle class of NJ are bearing the full load of Christie's budget balancing. Rich people <3

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I love how the poor and the middle class of NJ are bearing the full load of Christie's budget balancing. Rich people <3

Can you explain how his budget cutting is hurting me? I fail to see it.

pacino wrote:Rand Paul sez accidents happen:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Funny how much more often "accidents happen" when there's no regulation to speak of.

More broadly, after reading about where Paul does and doesn't apply his Libertarian "principles"--hint: anti-drug legalization, anti-gay marriage--I find it harder to give him credit for them. Which is legitimately a shame, as his evident willingness to criticize our military adventurism and overspending is great.

Rococo4 wrote:I'm no Rand Paul fan, I wanted Grayson. But I agree with what he said above.

Accidents happen a lot more to BP than others

Budget geeks, prepare for tumescence!

I'm proud to say that I got the debt down to 59 percent of GDP by 2018... a point lower than that spendthrift Douthat:

I’ve successfully reduced our debt to a relatively stable 60 percent of G.D.P. by the year 2018. All it took was means-testing Social Security and raising the retirement age to 68, keeping health care reform in place but slashing its insurance subsidies by 20 percent, increasing cost-sharing and premiums for Medicare and raising the retirement age to 67, passing tort reform, returning food stamp spending to 2008 levels, slashing subsidies for agriculture and biofuels, cutting the federal workforce by 5 percent across the board, cutting earmarks by 50 percent, converting the home-mortgage deduction to a smaller credit, replacing the tax deduction for employer-provided health care with a flat credit, increasing the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon, cutting foreign aid and military spending by $200 billion, drawing down troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 in 2016, taxing life insurance benefits, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high earners and partially phasing them out for the middle class, eliminating the state and local tax deduction, and cutting out a lot of smaller things as well.

This actually isn't that hard in terms of choices--and I tried to do it such that everybody's ox got gored at least a little. Cuts to defense and expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts, but also medical malpractice reform, higher Medicare premiums, raising the Social Security and Medicare retirement ages as well as the income cap and other changes for SS, Food Stamp reductions, etc. The other big-ticket items were imposition of a 5 percent VAT with partial rebate (the only tax increase conservatives seem remotely open to); enacting a carbon tax or cap and trade; curtailing the state/local tax deduction; and limiting itemized deductions for high-earners, as well as a bunch of other tweaks to the health care legislation and Social Security that would piss off liberal interest groups but save billions.

While doing all this, I was even able to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 30 percent, make the R&D tax credit permanent, expand the EITC and CTC, pass a Jobs Bill and increase funding for mass transit--again, a mix of liberal and conservative priorities.

Lesson: the problem is the politics. (Duh.)

momadance wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I love how the poor and the middle class of NJ are bearing the full load of Christie's budget balancing. Rich people <3

Can you explain how his budget cutting is hurting me? I fail to see it.

Maybe not you specifically, but Christie's cuts are hurting the public schools which the lower class and the middle class depend on. The rich can and do take advantage of private schools.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

momadance wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I love how the poor and the middle class of NJ are bearing the full load of Christie's budget balancing. Rich people <3

Can you explain how his budget cutting is hurting me? I fail to see it.

Maybe not you specifically, but Christie's cuts are hurting the public schools which the lower class and the middle class depend on. The rich can and do take advantage of private schools.

Christie's cuts aren't hurting the schools per se. He's forcing the school boa®ds to use their money more wisely. The school districts waste way too much money. There's no reason for 3rd graders to have "smartboards" in every classroom. The school boards around me are completely corrupt. Half of the Pleasantville school board from two years ago is now in jail. When school districts have principals who are 28 years old because of who they know, it's the districts fault. Some districts are paying administrators over $200k a year. There's absolutely no need for that.

When tuition for sending districts to a high school which is much higher than a college tuition (see Atlantic City), there's a serious problem. He's not hurting the schools. Just about every school budget in my county was voted down by public vote last month. That's not his doing. Most teachers that I know, including my parents will agree that his cuts are not hurting schools anywhere close to how people are making it sound.

Just because he cuts funding doesn't mean he's hurting the students. He's hurting the BOE much more than the kids. The schools get most of their money from the local property taxes to begin with. I'm not particularly happy that my $7,000 in property taxes are going to pay a superintendent $180,000 a year when the teachers and kids are getting shafted. But that's not the state's fault.

Well I don't really have a good enough understanding of how the school system works to argue with you. I just look at it from a very basic view.

On a completely unrelated note the fact that Rand Paul was lecturing people about not standing up for JIM BUNNING tells you all you need to know about him. I'm sympathetic to libertarian views, but Paul getting elected would be bad for America.

pacino wrote:Rand Paul sez accidents happen:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Other than at the quantum level, anyone want to explain to me how events happen without cause?

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:Rand Paul sez accidents happen:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Other than at the quantum level, anyone want to explain to me how events happen without cause?

Apparently Paul's view is that profitable activities are intentional, happening through the purposive exertions of people and organizations like BP. Accidents are unprofitable, thus the property of - everyone.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:Rand Paul sez accidents happen:

"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Other than at the quantum level, anyone want to explain to me how events happen without cause?

Apparently Paul's view is that profitable activities are intentional, happening through the purposive exertions of people and organizations like BP. Accidents are unprofitable, thus the property of - everyone.

As an aside, I think the more money Rand Paul has to campaign, the more he'll talk, and the better it will be for Jack Conway.

Here's an interesting analysis of why Paul and Rococco are wrong from an economic perspective.It's sort of like MAD from the good ol' days.

We won a House seat in Hawaii last night due to them having stupid special election procedures and stubborn Democrats. Yay.

i just spent the last thirty minutes reading about steve cohen's various primary opponents in 08 and the upcoming in 2010. his opponents are dopes.

Wow. Now we know where pakistan got the idea from. They were copying those crazy israeli cats!

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

TenuredVulture wrote:Here's an interesting analysis of why Paul and Rococco are wrong from an economic perspective.It's sort of like MAD from the good ol' days.

Perhaps you can explain what he means by this:

Because the incentive worked only because BP expected to get punished whether or not it was an accident. To prevent this, it is the politician’s job to stir up outrage, justified or not, in order to reignite the political will to dole out the punishment.

It was a short column, but this isn't jiving with my instincts leftover from old game theory classes. Besides, punishment for negligence would come through the court system, not through grandstanding politicians stirring up outrage. I dont accept his premise that punishment is more easily doled out if anger is stirred before blame can be placed.

If I turn on my oven, and then it blows up and burns down the neighborhood, I may or not be at fault (and thus liable, both morally and legally). How is is "benefifical," as the author seems to suggest above, to manufacture anger among the neighbor before establishing whether it was an accident (ie. unpreventable) or negligence (ie. gross oversight of risks)? Shouldn't we first establish whether or not I was storing fireworks in the oven, or whether I just had a contractor install the oven?