Saturday, 8/4/12, Public Square


Filed under The Public Square

18 responses to “Saturday, 8/4/12, Public Square

  1. Sounds like the Democratic party in Tennessee has a BIG problem! Are there sane people left in that state? I predict Republican Senator Bob Corker will win his bid to be reelected and our country will be better off because he did!

    Dems Nominate Anti-Gay Conspiracy Theorist for Senate

    Mark Clayton believes the federal government is building a massive, four-football-field wide superhighway from Mexico City to Toronto as part of a secret plot to establish a new North American Union that will bring an end to America as we know it. On Thursday, he became the Tennessee Democrats’ nominee for US Senate.

    Clayton, an anti-gay-marriage activist and flooring installer with a penchant for fringe conspiracy theories, finished on top of a crowded primary field in the race to take on GOP Sen. Bob Corker this fall. He earned 26 percent of the vote despite raising no money and listing the wrong opponent on his campaign website. The site still reads, “DEDICATED TO THE DEFEAT OF NEO-CONSERVATIVE LAMAR ALEXANDER,” whom Clayton tried to challenge in 2008. (That year, he didn’t earn the Democratic nomination.)


    • prairie pond

      I’m going to repeat myself. There is no one or no thing so stupid that voters won’t buy it.

  2. IRAs are intended to allow workers to put away modest sums of money each year in order to help finance a middle class retirement. The savings are tax deferred, but there’s a legal limit — now $6,000 — on how much each IRA holder can contribute annually.

    Now top Democrats on the Budget, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce Committees want to know how people of Romney’s wealth can end up with 100,000 times that much money in a single IRA, and how much the tax and investment strategies they employ cost the Treasury in revenue every year.

    Dem Lawmakers Want Answers About Romney’s Enormous IRA

    • I tried to copy and paste a digital picture of Prresident Obama on yesterday’s thread – but it came out way too large.

      But – it’s the thought that counts. LOL

      • Did you hear about this? Why can’t people just be able to put on their big boy and big pants and just grow up? Seriously, this goes to the basic problem we have in our society – lack of good manners and even common courtesy?

        Woiuld it kill these people to simply wish the president a happy birthday?

        Or better yet – if you cannot say something nice – then keep yiour mouth shut.

      • big boy and big girl pants

      • I hadn’t seen that or heard about it. It doesn’t surprise me. It makes me sad. It’s quite childish, and although I think children are wonderful I also think adults who haven’t developed adult skills are, at best, arrested in their development. I can easily think of other adjectives but I’m not a child and have no intention of lowering myself to that level of adults who behave as recalcitrant children. I’ll save my childish abandon to express joy, happiness, hope, innocence and wonder.

  3. To me this is sad. Adults behaving in this manner isn’t even rational, and yet I agree with The Votemaster that it is the way it is… 😦

    The Economy Is Now Part of the Culture Wars

    It used to be that your position on the economy (taxes, federal spending, etc.) had nothing to do with whether you believed a zygote was a full-fledged human being. There were plenty of politicians who were culturally conservative but progressive on taxes. Most Southern Democrats were like that. Many Northern Republicans were the opposite: socially progressive but in favor of lower taxes. All of that is gone now. Voters–and more to the point–politicians must now accept either package A (abortion is evil and government is evil) or package B (abortion is not a problem and government is good). Intermediate positions are no longer tolerated. Any politician who is great on social issues but bad on taxes or vice versa is likely to get primaried. This has made our politics completely inflexible and made it impossible for a politician who wants to ban abortion and one who wants to keep it legal to come to a deal on taxes, something that used to be possible. Andrew Leonard at Salon has a nice piece on the subject.

  4. Remember those two little girls on Fox News – the ones with the lemonade stand – and they were interviewed and were asked if the government helped them build their business?

    This is another kid – a little boy in Detroit. This is his story of his lemonade stand.

    This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats – IMHO. It’s like two completely different worlds.

  5. So … Harry grew a pair, or is playing perfectly into Karl Rove’s trap. I’m sure there are other theories I haven’t heard. [shrugs shoulders]

    What we know for sure is that Romney tells us we should just trust him — he paid taxes, lots of taxes — says the man who has at minimum two ‘takes’ on every issue, contradicts himself regularly — trust me. Like we’re stupid enough to trust anyone who has proven untrustworthy!

  6. Mitt Romney and his economic advisers have spent the week claiming that Romney’s economic plan will create 12 million jobs, as they attempt to change the subject away from a Tax Policy Center report showing that Romney’s tax plan would mean a big tax increase for middle-class families.

    A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis shows that, far from creating 12 million jobs, Romney’s economic plan would kill 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone. But this discrepancy is perhaps less surprising considering that the same advisers who gave Romney his number — including economists Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard, who both worked for former President George W. Bush — estimated that the Bush tax cuts would lead to massive job growth:

    Back in 2001, as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, Hubbard predicted that tax cuts slanted disproportionately to Americans in the topmost tier of income and wealth distribution would “quickly deliver a boost to move the economy back toward its long-run growth path,” starting with adding 300,000 more jobs and half a percentage point to the 2002 growth rate.

    Then in early 2003, as President Bush proposed another round of tax cuts, Hubbard predicted these would add another 1.4 million jobs to the U.S. economy, over and above the 3.1 million jobs the economy would create on its own from natural economic growth in that time. Mankiw — who took over for Hubbard as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers later in 2003 — co-signed a letter with Hassett (then-economist at the American Enterprise Institute) to President Bush “enthusiastically” endorsing more tax cuts because “it is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment [and] economic growth.”

    Unfortunately for American workers, these rosy predictions failed to pan out. In fact, total employment in the U.S. economy created only 2.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004, or less than half of what Hubbard predicted. By 2007 the economy was running nearly 8 million jobs short of what Hubbard predicted.

  7. How Romney Could Raise Taxes on 95% of the Country—in 1 Tall Graph

    Mitt Romney’s tax plan could force 95 percent of the country to pay more, while cutting taxes for the “1%” by tens of thousands of dollars, according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institution.

    The Romney plan begins by cutting marginal rates by 20 percent and eliminating the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, which would decrease federal tax revenue by $360 billion by 2015. This report considered what would happen if Romney eliminated tax expenditures to make his plan revenue-neutral, so that it wouldn’t blow an enormous hole in our budget. Here’s what they found: The revenue-neutral Romney plan would raise taxes on a typical family by more than $600. A household making between half-a-million and $1 million would get a tax cut equal to almost twice the disposable income of the poorest 20 percent.

    Think about this plan as two steps. Step one, Romney’s intended tax cuts, digs a hole. Step two is filling that hole by cutting tax spending, like the mortgage interest deduction and child tax credit. Even with a careful pruning of tax spending, the inevitable result is to massively swing the burden of taxes toward the “bottom 95%” because the top benefits so much from Romney’s step one.

    more (and the graph) —

  8. I read an interesting op-ed piece in THE New Yorker, titled, Fussbudget
    How Paul Ryan captured the G.O.P.

    “… To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life. The person to understand is Paul Ryan.”

    Read more

  9. This is very good, don’t miss it!

    Aug 3, 2012
    Rachel Maddow points out the seemingly double-standard in the saga over Mitt Romney’s tax returns after finding multiple instances in which Romney attacked his political opponents for refusing to release their returns.