dajafi wrote:I hadn't heard about this bit of whorishnessfrom Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Talk about a broken system.

dajafi wrote:Brad DeLong uncorks an awesome takedown of the whiny-ass bitchery that seems to be our norm in political discourse these days.

In the Special Election to fill the final 2 years of Hillary Rodham Clinton's term, incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and former Congressman Republican Joe DioGuardi today finish effectively even, with Gillibrand's nominal 1-point lead being within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error.

O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:I hadn't heard about this bit of whorishnessfrom Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Talk about a broken system.

I read the article, & have to admit I recall the Jerky Boys making crank calls saying they were whomever. The article doesn't say how or if it was confirmed that Norton's the gal on the phone.

I'm not saying it wasn't but phone messages are pretty easy to fake, no?

traderdave wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:I hadn't heard about this bit of whorishnessfrom Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Talk about a broken system.

I read the article, & have to admit I recall the Jerky Boys making crank calls saying they were whomever. The article doesn't say how or if it was confirmed that Norton's the gal on the phone.

I'm not saying it wasn't but phone messages are pretty easy to fake, no?

Yeah, this is Eleanor Norton - Eleanor Holmes Norton, open your $#@! ears jackass.

jerseyhoya wrote:You think they should pass the extension for everyone making less than 250k? And if you're OK with the 75% being made permanent, why do you think the last 25% is going to cause the end of the world?

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You think they should pass the extension for everyone making less than 250k? And if you're OK with the 75% being made permanent, why do you think the last 25% is going to cause the end of the world?

I think politically they should have done something to illustrate the point that the Republicans are more interested in non-stimulative tax cuts than deficit reduction.

The last 25 percent causing the end of the world is more symbolic than substantive. If they can't even let that go, when it's politically popular and won't unduly hurt the economy (because that money wouldn't be recirculated anyway), what can they do to take a step toward solvency?

What will be grimly hilarious is when the same people who today are willing to die on the wall for Paris Hilton's continued tax cut ask the guy who cleans the grout out of her bathtub tiles to take a Social Security cut because "everyone must sacrifice."

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm hopeful if the system remains ridiculously effed up, that leaves the window open for radical tax reform, and not a bandaid fix like hiking the taxes on a small segment of the population a modest amount.

The 21-page pledge is divided into five parts: jobs, size of government, healthcare repeal, Congressional reform, and national security.

Jobs is about tax cuts. Extend Bush tax cuts, new tax cuts for small business, and an interesting plan to "rein in the red tape factory in Washington, DC" by requiring congressional approval of any new federal regulation that costs $100 million or more. All of this would create like three jobs. (There is not even a fucking payroll tax holiday here.) It would also do wonders for the deficit.

But don't worry, they're working on the deficit, too. Cancel the stimulus. "Roll back" government spending (excepting spending on veterans, seniors, and our troops -- three very expensive groups) to 2008-levels. "Strict budget caps." Weekly votes on spending cuts. Cancel TARP, which I'm told is currently making the government money back. Destroy Fannie and Freddie. Federal hiring freeze. And, here we go, "a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid," "preventing the expansion of unfunded liabilities."

Health care is simple: Repeal. Malpractice reform. John McCain's old plan to allow people to purchase health care "across state lines," also known as the plan to allow every insurance company to relocate to whichever state ends up with the least regulation of their horrible practices. Expand HSAs. Keep the bit about pre-existing conditions, which has turned out to be pretty popular. And "permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion," one of the very few sops to the social conservatives in this documents.

Congressional reform is just that thing about forcing everyone to READ THE BILL, the thing about how every bill has to explain how the Constitution says it's ok, allowing amendments on spending bills, and advancing legislation "one issue at a time." This is the most tea party-influenced section.

National security is Gitmo forever, no immigration reform in defense authorization bills, and a demand for billions to be spent on useless missile systems to protect us from Iran's cardboard rockets. (The deficits!!!) Also, bomb Iran. And build the danged fence.

At the end there is some nonsense about "card check" and "cap and trade" and also "We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain."

This is a deeply depressing document -- I never thought I'd find the Republican party stripped of its god-and-gays element even more moronic, but here you go. None of the policy prescriptions even pretend to address the actual problems they're supposedly about, when those problems actually exist. There's not a single word about Afghanistan. I guess I should be grateful that there wasn't a section on dealing with ACORN.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm hopeful if the system remains ridiculously effed up, that leaves the window open for radical tax reform, and not a bandaid fix like hiking the taxes on a small segment of the population a modest amount.

it's confusing to see you calling for radical tax reform when something as tame as allowing a tax break for the wealthiest to lapse makes you queasy.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm hopeful if the system remains ridiculously effed up, that leaves the window open for radical tax reform, and not a bandaid fix like hiking the taxes on a small segment of the population a modest amount.

it's confusing to see you calling for radical tax reform when something as tame as allowing a tax break for the wealthiest to lapse makes you queasy.

Who said I was queasy about it?

Raising these taxes will cost jobs in the short and medium term, but less than raising other taxes and you can make the argument that the job losses in the short run are a small price to pay for the long term budget health and all that.