Seriously, GOP? Really?

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, you're doing so well under his regime.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And I suppose Card and Krueger aren't "reputable,

I was wondering if this was the rationale for the 90's economics reference.

This is such old news. This has been discussed ad nauseum here at poly with the acknowledged outcome being that the Card Krueger study was hackery and poor methodology.


To refresh memories:

Greg Mankiw http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...imum-wage.html

http://epionline.org/studies/epi_njfastfood_04-1996.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5224

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan98/w6127.html

As for the rest of it, no comment.

[Boris Godunov]

I was wondering if this was the rationale for the 90's economics reference.

This is such old news. This has been discussed ad nauseum here at poly with the acknowledged outcome being that the Card Krueger study was hackery and poor methodology.


To refresh memories:

Greg Mankiw http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...imum-wage.html

http://epionline.org/studies/epi_njfastfood_04-1996.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5224

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan98/w6127.html

As for the rest of it, no comment.

None of which deals with the point that there are plenty of "reputable" economists who don't think the minimum wage is "stupid" as HC asserts, and his claim of "universal" disapproval among them is laughably wrong.

Unless, of course, a majority of the members of the American Economic Association are to be deemed "non-reputable."

[DaShi]

Ogie doesn't come here to make points on the topics discussed. Just drop the name Obama and what him go on a non-sequitor rant.

[Dinner]

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics...0YK/story.html

That won't last long. I expect Romney to follow his usual policies of avoiding any and all things which would force him to not just read off pre-made talking points (so limit the number of debates or avoid them completely if possible and for sure don't talk to reporters if at all possible) and then to let his crony Super PAC carpet bomb the opposition with negative ads. Supposedly one of Romney's favorite tactics is to buy up all the prime air time just so the other guy can't buy any of it and why not if you have nearly unlimited Super PAC money?

[giblets]

[giblets]

Spoiler:

The four remaining GOP candidates have a simple and straightforward plan for the direction of our federal debt. Up. Way up.

That's the conclusion from a new report comparing the tax-and-spending plans from Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Today, public debt is equal to about 70% of our economy. If Congress allowed current law to play itself out, the Bush tax cuts would expire and that number would fall to about 60%, according to various estimates. That's pretty stable. But nobody wants the "current law" scenario to play out. Not Congress, not the Senate, not the White House, and certainly not the Republican field. So we need another plan. Problem is, most of the other plans don't get us anywhere near stability. In fact, the GOP plans would raise our debt burden to anywhere between 67% and a whopping 126% of the economy by 2021, according to CRFB.

This graph compares the moderate estimates for each candidates' debt plan against the president's. This is all smart guesswork, mind you, but it offers a nonpartisan view of the sort of "deficit reduction" we're really getting under these proposals. This Y-axis starts at 60, which is the target debt/GDP ratio for CRFB.



Okay, so beating 60% is too hard. Let's move the limbo bar up a notch. CRFB also calculates its own "realistic baseline." This sounds complicated, but it's the deficit reducer's equivalent of Beginner's Level. This baseline assumes that the Bush tax cuts are extended, some scheduled spending cuts are ignored, and Congress upholds its proud tradition of pushing off hard decisions while it pushes up our debt burden. Sounds reasonable and easy to beat with a few smart cuts and tax changes. But even playing the game on Beginner, every GOP candidate that has ever led a national poll loses the game. Only Ron Paul wins, with a whopping $7.5 trillion in spending cuts.



According to White House projections, the president's budget (red in the graph below) wins the deficit reduction game (on Beginner's Level, at least). The reason is all in the taxes. Each of the GOP candidates cut taxes dramatically and can't find adequate savings, while the president proposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases concentrated on the richest 2%.



Let me anticipate some of your objections. First, the White House relies on optimistic growth numbers that might not play out. Slower growth would lead to higher deficits, because tax revenue wouldn't keep up with mandatory spending. Second, this is all guess work, and there's more than one way to guess. Conservative economists who support tax cuts might want to sell you on "dynamic scoring," which presumes that tax cuts lead to growth, which makes us richer, which increases tax revenue. This is the "tax cuts pay for themselves" argument, and it might be true in the future, but it has a spotty record in the past. Effective and marginal tax rates have fallen for the last 30 years, and growth since 2000 hasn't been so hot.

These plans don't accidentally raise the deficit. They just don't care about the deficit. Deficit reduction isn't hard to do, arithmetically. You raise taxes over time. You control discretionary spending. You clear the way for health care cost innovation while introducing policies that will limit health care in the future. It's not rocket science, it's math. The hard stuff is getting Congress to agree to your math. But how is that supposed to happen if pols refuse to do even the basic addition and subtraction when it's just them and a blank sheet of paper? What does it say about a party that believes "deficit reduction" is a worthy phrase, but not a worthy goal? And what does it say about our political system, and the GOP candidates in particular, that we're normalized to the idea that politicians offer debt-reduction plans that can't even live up to their name?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-big-deficit-lie-every-gop-debt-plan-leaves-us-with-more-debt/253501/

[Dinner]

Previous Irish governments screwed the pooch pretty badly but their current President seems to have some level headed policies and I like the way he speaks his mind. Check out this video of Irish President Mchael D. Higgins taking on the tea bagger Michael Graham.

[Uncle Sparky]

I think he was the 2nd Dr. Who.

[Dinner]

To compare where the GOP traditionally was vs how far to the extreme right they've moved know... Did you know Reagan was for closing loopholes which allowed millionaires to evade taxes and he thought it was just a bit of basic fairness to have millionaires pay higher rates than working stiffs? Compare that to the modern GOP who won't even close loopholes.

http://www.huliq.com/3257/ronald-rea...ir-share-video

Quote:
Reagan would not have been ideologically pure enough for today's GOP.

Bruce Bartlett, former top Reagan advisor, for asst treasury secretary under Bush 41, still alive to see what the GOP has wrought -

1) Supply side worked great in the 70s and 80s
2) It doesn't work now because of the changes in the global economy (I've been saying this for years)
3) We were on pace to entirely pay off the debt under Bush '43. Instead, because of tax cuts, 911 dump of the economy, two costly wars, and an unfunded Medicare mandate, we doubled the debt. The Wars and the Tax Cuts contributed equally as the largest reasons for this.
4) Current GOP is bat**** insane, and don't understand basic math. We can't cut taxes to stimulate revenue growth. We've seen that didn't work last decade.

http://www.huliq.com/3257/bruce-bart...key-prosperity

[Dinner]

Let's not forget the HNIC (I'll let you figure out what that stands for ) is out to destroy America so god fearing real Americans need to make ready for the end of days. Just ask the Wyoming GOP:

CHEYENNE — State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.

The task force would look at the feasibility of Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, R-Riverton, has said he doesn’t anticipate any major crises hitting America anytime soon. But with the national debt exceeding $15 trillion and protest movements growing around the country, Miller said Wyoming — which has a comparatively good economy and sound state finances — needs to make sure it’s protected should any unexpected emergency hit the U.S.
Several House members spoke in favor of the legislation, saying there was no harm in preparing for the worst.

“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case,” state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. “To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad’s going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy.”
Wyoming’s Department of Homeland Security already has a statewide crisis management plan, but it doesn’t cover what the state should do in the event of an extreme nationwide political or economic collapse. In recent years, lawmakers in at least six states have introduced legislation to create a state currency, all unsuccessfully.

The task force would include state lawmakers, the director of the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security, the Wyoming attorney general and the Wyoming National Guard’s adjutant general, among others.
The bill must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration. The original bill appropriated $32,000 for the task force, though the Joint Appropriations Committee slashed that number in half earlier this week.

University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future.
But King noted that the federal government set up a Continuity of Government Commission in 2002, of which former U.S. Sen. Al Simpson, R-Wyo., was co-chairman. However, King said he didn’t know of any states that had established a similar board.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-advances-doomsday-bill/article_af6e1b2b-0ca4-553f-85e9-92c0f58c00bd.html#ixzz1nRkcYOK8

I'm not sure why the Wyoming GOP wants an Aircraft Carrier ( ) but I have to admit Nebraska would never expect a carrier sneak attack.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wtf, wyoming

[DinoDoc]

Spoiler:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’d think Democrats would be better in the sack, because they’re usually, well…better human beings in general. Plus, they’re so em-oh-tional and sen-sitive and they genuinely care about your day. And how you feel. And how you felt yesterday. “Is there anything you need?” they whimper. Oh, shutthe****up! This is sex we’re talking about! After numerous years of intensive research on both sides of the aisle—and sometimes in the aisle—I am here to report that Republican men (except the closet cases) are infinitely better to have sex with. Here’s why.

1. NO CONSCIENCE!
A Republican man will never whine in the middle of the night—let alone in the middle of screwing you—about the girlfriend/wife/whatever he is “devastating” by sleeping with you. He just does it. It’s all about him—he needs to be the best you ever had, and that can be a good thing if your getting off is contingent on his. He doesn’t even stay for breakfast. (Though if you do make him breakfast, he is eternally grateful and will go down on you for another several hours.) One word: pancakes!

2. NO TEARS!
A Republican man will never, ever cry. Not on election night (no matter what happens). Not when you’re breaking up with him (what, you think he cared?). Not even when he’s having “a problem I’ve never had before, really, I’m not kidding, I swear.”

3. A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
I’ve dated Democrats whose nights have been ruined (forever!) due to some stupid-ass comment by Bill Frist on Hardball. I’ve watched them go all mopey, argue with the TV…and then their little weenies disappear. Not so with GOPers. Republicans, particularly when naked, do not want to sit around and talk about Social Security privatization. Or Iraq, for chrissake. Or why (oh, boo hoo, get over it!) Kerry lost. They don’t even want to sit around naked and talk about George W. Bush. They just want you to sit on them.

4. A SENSE OF HUMOR
Republicans are happy to watch Jon Stewart with you. They think he’s a riot. They don’t parse every word he says in an effort to figure out if “The Huffington Post” will approve. They just laugh, pour another cocktail, and decide upon which couch they will **** your brains out after the show.

5. FOREPLAY
Democrats often need something incredibly erotic—like Meet the Press—to get revved up, particularly on a Sunday morning (there are only so many sections of The New York Times). Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even need Fox News to get it up. They understand that foreplay is about sex. And lots of it. Democrats are too busy checking if the condoms you keep in the jar by the bed are good for the environment. And by the time they figure that out, we’ve all lost our erections.

6. SIZE
It is absolutely, positively, 100 percent true that Republicans have bigger dicks. Just ask Lynne Cheney. (Dick is the Liam Neeson of Washington!)

7. EFFICIENCY
Republicans are much more likely to whip their dicks out during the cab ride back from dinner. (This is not an urban myth.) They are also more inclined to get started in the elevator, pin you against a wall, do you on the kitchen sink, wherever. Democrats bring jammies, spend at least twenty minutes prior to “sex time” doing God knows ****ing what in the bathroom, and then emerge with a big grin that says: “After all I did for you supporting equal pay and abortion rights, the least you could do is make love to me.” Democrats always think you owe them. Republicans, because they’ve never done a goddamn thing for you, have no such delusions.

8. LARGESSE
Republicans have great taste in restaurants and will never make the wussiest of pre-date proposals: “You pick.” They understand that a woman wants a guy who knows how to pick a restaurant by himself. And who doesn’t feel the need to tell you what Zagat said about it before you get there. A Republican also knows how to order wine without getting all prissy about it, never dissects the bill (they don’t even look at it!), and will never, ever—ever—say, “Well, yes, I think that’s fair; your half comes to $39.25, but you had one more drink than I did,” if you offer to pay. They won’t let you think about offering to pay. This is so sexy! The best part: There’s never any guilt involved; we all know they got their tax break.

9. WOOING TECHNIQUES
Republicans will never send you group e-mails that consist of the entire text of Al Gore’s last speech (that was “woefully underreported” but “I knew you’d want to read it in its entirety”). Or the sign-up sheet for Democracy in Action, or whatever the hell those weirdos from the Howard Dean campaign are up to now. Or forms to send your congressperson because something terrible is happening to some woman you don’t know in Niger. (And you’d better send it to a hundred more friends or her labia will be removed tonight!!!) Nah. Republicans send e-mails that say: “I can’t wait to eat your *****.”

10. NIGHTSTAND READING
You will never hear a Republican say, “Let’s just cuddle and read The New Yorker tonight.” They understand you do not want reading materials in bed. You want a man.

10.5. THE BIG CAVEAT
Yes, Republicans are the better lay—but only the Republicans you’ve never heard of. The more prominent they are, the less ****able they are. The opposite is true of Democrats. Think about it. Is there any woman on the face of the earth who wouldn’t **** Bill Clinton? (Didn’t think so.) But with a gun to your head, could you even think of doing Santorum? DeLay? Lott? Yuck, yuck, yuck! Okay, with a gun to our head, we might do W. And Cheney. Definitely Cheney. As long as we’re blindfolded. (But that’s okay. Republicans are into that, too.)

*The author wishes to remain anonymous for fear of cutting off her supply.

I figured I would throw this in to liven things up: Ten (and a half) reasons why Republicans—yes, Republicans—are the best party in bed

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm not sure why the Wyoming GOP wants an Aircraft Carrier ( ) but I have to admit Nebraska would never expect a carrier sneak attack.

Wrong, as usual. The Great Navy of the State of Nebraska exists for just such a contingency.

[Dinner]