U.S. Politics, 7

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And there's no effort to repeal ARRA.

Actually, the GOP has attempted on a number of occasions to divert ARRA funds to pay for other proposed spending, such as the so-called "first responders" bill, extention of unemployment benefits, etc.

[TrackerNeil]

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not a fan of those Republicans either. The Tea Parties are a blunt instrument with some significant laws, but I am glad they have raised the issue of booting out Republicans who spend too much money. It's an internal GOP debte that needed to happen.

I've actually reversed course on this issue in the last couple of years. I used to agree with the concept of electing as many Republicans as possible, even if the Republicans we were electing were Lincoln Chafee, etc. Now, I'd rather have fewer seats and at least have the folks who wear the GOP mantle act like what the party is supposed to stand for. If it means we don't get the Senate, I'm actually fine with that.

Two points:

1) The Tea Party isn't going to significantly cut federal spending no matter how many lunatics they elect. Fact is, Americans like federal spending, and many of those teabaggers bitching and moaning about federal spending collect Social Security and avail themselves of Medicare. The likes of Rand Paul might nibble at the corners of a few social programs, but history has shown time and time again that redistributive programs expand far more often than they contract. Because that's the way Americans want it.

2) We do agree, however, that it's just fine if the Republicans don't take control of the Senate. :thumbsup:

[Shryke]

Here's a nice bit of blatant fraud on the part of Fox News:

[alguien]

Here's a nice bit of blatant fraud on the part of Fox News:

Oh yeah. Saw that on the Daily Show. That was some straight up bullshit. Hannity already apologized once for a TDS found error. I won't be holding my breath for another, even though this one is rather more blatant and misleading.

[TerraPrime]

The Tea Parties are a blunt instrument with some significant laws, but I am glad they have raised the issue of booting out Republicans who spend too much money. It's an internal GOP debte that needed to happen.

Hey, I'm confused.

I thought the Tea Party movement is a loosely associated group of independent groups with no central theme other than that they don't like the current situation? How can we say Tea Party is doing X? Isn't it a bit unfair to them to paint them such a broad brush?

[TrackerNeil]

Hey, I'm confused.

I thought the Tea Party movement is a loosely associated group of independent groups with no central theme other than that they don't like the current situation? How can we say Tea Party is doing X? Isn't it a bit unfair to them to paint them such a broad brush?

:lol: All right, TerraPrime...now you are abusing sarcasm.

[DanteGabriel]

Hey, I'm confused.

I thought the Tea Party movement is a loosely associated group of independent groups with no central theme other than that they don't like the current situation? How can we say Tea Party is doing X? Isn't it a bit unfair to them to paint them such a broad brush?

Tea Partiers, Muslims, and overprivileged males do not act as a bloc when those actions support a point FLoW is arguing against, but can be judged as a bloc when those actions support a point FLoW is arguing for. Pretty simple, really. You're sharper than this, Terra.

[TrackerNeil]

You know, FLoW, if I genuinely thought the GOP was serious about deficit reduction, I could in some way get behind the party. (Although I do not think the greatest economic downturn since the Depression is the time to worry overmuch about debt.) However, it seems as though whenever Republicans actually hold the throttle, deficit reduction always seems to take a back seat to tax cuts. They had control of all three branches of government for six years, and they not only forgot about deficit reduction, they engaged in deficit inflation with Medicare Part D and tax cuts and wars of choice. It was insane and unsustainable.

Now, you can say the party has changed its ways, but the recent struggle over the Bush tax cuts demonstrates the current GOP is no different from the one in charge 2001-2006. They opposed the deficit-reducing ACA but have insisted upon extending the deficit-increasing Bush tax cuts. Has Rand Paul noted this inconsistency? Sharron Angle? Christine O'Donnell? Clearly, then, the Republican Party has not changed its tune since the Bush years, and if they bring in new players intend only to perform a reprise. Who needs that?

[Alcibiades]

Murkowski is going write in. Nate Silver says she's viable:

Can Ms. Murkowski win? Sure she can. There is plenty of precedent for write-ins being elected to the Congress, although fewer have done so successfully in recent years. Meanwhile, a poll by Public Policy Polling found Ms. Murkowski getting 34 percent of the vote against Mr. Miller’s 38 percent and Mr. McAdams’ 22 percent. Private polling has also shown Ms. Murkowski running closely with Mr. Miller, according to The Hotline.

I'm wondering what Democrats might be able to get out of this? Perhaps the best we can hope for is a Murkowski win, resulting in a slightly more moderate senator, since she won't be beholden to the party. But there's little hope in much moderation, I think, since Alaska is so red. And she'll caucus with the Republicans, for sure.

I'm developing a fantasy whereby Miller and Murkowski spend the next 40 days beating each other up, allowing the Dem candidate to sneak in! Remember Iowa in 2004, where Dean and Gephardt spent months slinging mud at one another, then, right at the end, Kerry and Edwards surged into first and second place? I'm thinking that kind of scenario.

[Fez]

Murkowski is going write in. Nate Silver says she's viable:

I'm wondering what Democrats might be able to get out of this? Perhaps the best we can hope for is a Murkowski win, resulting in a slightly more moderate senator, since she won't be beholden to the party. But there's little hope in much moderation, I think, since Alaska is so red. And she'll caucus with the Republicans, for sure.

I'm developing a fantasy whereby Miller and Murkowski spend the next 40 days beating each other up, allowing the Dem candidate to sneak in! Remember Iowa in 2004, where Dean and Gephardt spent months slinging mud at one another, then, right at the end, Kerry and Edwards surged into first and second place? I'm thinking that kind of scenario.

Thing is, Alaska isn't really the reddest of states; Sarah Palin not-withstanding. The State House is only 22-18 in favor of Republicans, and the State Senate is tied at 10-10 with a coalition between the Democrats and 6 of the Republicans actually in charge. The other US Senator is a Democrat, and as recently as 2002 so was the Governor. Its just that for so long all 3 federal spots were controlled by absolute icons in the state who racked up impressive win totals every election, and the lack of Democratic support at the Presidential level, that give the impression that its some Ruby-red state.

If the national mood towards were not so sour on Democrats this year, I'd give McAdams a real good shot in this race. He still might pull it off, so long as the other two pile up on each other, but it is certainly a long shot.

[Alcibiades]

Oh fair enough, regarding Alaska not being as deep red as I was thinking. I tried to remember dem senators from Alaska, and the only guy who came to mind was Mike Gravel, haha. Totally forgot that democrats got the Ted Stevens seat.

[Trebla]

If you want to see a perfect example of the battle going on right now for the soul of the GOP, watch

this.

Former Senator Al D'Amato (R-NY) let loose with a string of profanities as he blasted a fellow Fox Business Network guest for his comments about Africans

The blowup came during a discussion on Thursday's edition of "Money Rocks" about whether or not to privatize the US Postal Service. Though all of the guests appeared to agree about the issue at hand, several took offense at the comments of GOP strategist Jack Burkman.

Burkman launched the discussion by saying, "most of these guys working in the Post Office should be driving cabs, and I think we should stop importing labor from Nigeria and Ethiopia. That's the skill level."

When it was his turn to speak, D'Amato started by criticizing Burkman, saying, "Jack would've done well without all the name calling."

Tamara Holder, an attorney who was also on the show, chimed in, saying, "Making all these somewhat racist statements about Nigeria is a spinning of sorts...this has to do with government waste."

Burkman then tried to defend himself: "Most people employed by the United States Post Office...are thoroughly unskilled labor," he said.

This proved to be the last straw for D'Amato, who cut in and unloaded:

"You are a nasty racist..that's a bunch of bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself and have your mouth washed out." When Burkman tried to cut in, D'Amato shot him down: "Wait a minute...shut up. I listened to your racist bullshit."

[ThinkerX]

For those that don't want to read it, the main point is that it may not have fixed the moral hazard (meaning that banks and Wall Street may believe that future bailouts are implicit), but it certainly worked as far as stabilization and making a small profit.

The truth is that the TARP, despite the profit, has come with significant negative costs. It has preserved the structure of the banking system in its current, over-concentrated, too-big-to-fail form. And it has created an absolutely massive moral hazard problem. And so in a way, we're all still paying the cost of TARP, because the legacy of that intervention continues act as a de facto subsidy to size and risk. And one day that bill may come due, in the form of another costly crisis.

I would argue that the 'small profit' was entirely illusionary because there were what amounted to major off the books payouts to the TARP banks. I would further argue that by and large, the TARP banks are essentially criminal entities:

We have Wachovia, which was acting as the drug bank for the cocaine cartels (but they're going to skate with a piddling fine, no jail time to speak of, and the lucrative cocaine trade will almost certainly be passed over to another TARP bank if it hasn't already).

We have Citi, whose criminal nitwits in charge deliberately lied to their shareholders about their exposure to the subprime slime mess - but again, they'll skate, and go on to award themselves even bigger bonuses for scams well done.

We have Goldman, who was urging clients to buy into garbage that they turned around and shorted - essentially screwing their own customers over - and no, I don't buy that this was the work of an isolated trader or three, it was company policy.

We have the Fed that is currently embroiled in court battles over their refusal to reveal which banks got how much TARP money, under the utterly preposterous argument that this would be damaging. Note that the disclosure they are fighting was part of the original TARP package in the first place. Breach of contract or something similiar?

We also have Fannie and Freddie, the current mainstays of the housing industry. Problem is they are so completely broke they cannot be saved, period - yet they are so dang big there is no way to get rid of them - and the nitwits in charge of those entities continue to award themselves massive bonuses for jobs well done.

And let us not forget AIG, Chase, ect....each with their own multibillion dollar fraud in the closet....

These people deserve long prison terms, not bailouts. And if the companies go under...tough. That is what the free market is all about - yes you can win, but you can also loose as well. And if it cripples the economy - so what? It just shows what fools we all were for letting the mess get that big in the first place.

[TrackerNeil]

In her announcement, apparently that Lisa Murkowski has taken a subtle jab at Sarah Palin:

In a veiled reference to former Gov. Sarah Palin, a Miller supporter who defeated Murkowski's father in the gubernatorial primary but resigned before her term ended, Murkowski said: "All the political guys, they tell me that this cannot be done, that this is a futile effort. Well, perhaps it's time they met one Republican woman who won't quit on Alaska."

Nice.

[lokisnow]

In her announcement, apparently that Lisa Murkowski has taken a subtle jab at Sarah Palin:

Nice.

she's running as an independent, run with that line, hell, run ON that line and she'll win most of the independent voters and probably a good swath of AK republicans who are still annoyed with SP, quitter in chief.

[Alcibiades]

I don't understand how anyone can take Sarah Palin remotely seriously as a presidential prospect, after she quit halfway through the Alaska job. Being President is hard, ya know. Even if I agreed with all the populist right wing stuff she peddles, I'd have to reconsider after she quit.

[Atreides]

These people deserve long prison terms, not bailouts. And if the companies go under...tough. That is what the free market is all about - yes you can win, but you can also loose as well. And if it cripples the economy - so what? It just shows what fools we all were for letting the mess get that big in the first place.

Now the analogy I'm about to make here isn't really a good comparison at all, but its the best I can think of off the top of my head. It's sort of like when Hitler wanted to have all German infrastructure destroyed at the end of World War II, since they lost and didn't deserve it. Sure, you could say Americans deserve to lose everything for creating the current mess, but if the economy fails completely many innocent people are going to be ruined. And then they'll be able to say, "Sure, the economy's dead and I'm ruined, but at least those who were responsible are in jail being fed and housed." You can't just let the economy collapse out of spite--to much collateral damage.

Apologies for the Godwining btw, I'll edit it out if I can think of a better analogy.

[Alcibiades]

This O'Donnell stuff gets more and more bizarre.

Said O'Donnell: "I dabbled into witchcraft -- I never joined a coven. But I did, I did... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do... One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

[Kelli Fury]

This O'Donnell stuff gets more and more bizarre.

Anybody who said things like this woman is saying, I would be more than hesitant to put in charge of anything. If one of my friends started talking this level of crazy, I'd remind myself never to ask them to feed my cats while I was away, much less vote them into political office.

[DanteGabriel]

Can someone tell me why the fuck Republicans keep trying to bring up Sharia law like there's some danger of it becoming the legal standard in America? Is it because we have a black President with a funny name?

The second morning of speeches at the Values Voter Summit here in DC was dominated by a man who is swiftly becoming the nation's spokesperson for Islamophobia -- former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Fresh off the release of his Islam-focused film "America At Risk," Gingrich told the crowd at VVS that it's time to take federal action to prevent Shariah Law from infiltrating courtrooms in the US.

"We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich said to a standing ovation from the audience. The law will let judges know, Gingrich said, that "no judge will remain in office that tried to use sharia law."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich-calls-for-federal-law-banning-shariah-law-in-us.php?ref=fpa