31 December 2011

Never Learning

More proof that Republicans are out of their f***ing minds:

Caller: If you’re fortunate enough to be nominated, would you consider having Sarah Palin as your running mate?

Gingrich: She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities. There are also some very important Cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well. I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider.

It is weird enough that Gingrich was, however briefly, a contender to be the nominee this year for the Republicans. But that anyone would consider having anything to do with Sarah Palin? A "remarkable reform governor?" What, precisely, does she "bring a great deal" of?

Why can't anyone on or of the right just be honest and admit that the woman is an idiot? She was out-witted by Katie Couric for Christ's sake.

These people are idiots.

21 December 2011

Big Lies

In a post titled "Romney's Big Lie," Paul Krugman places the following hypothetical in Mitt Romney's head:

Mitt Romney believes that corporations are people, and that only corporations and the wealthy have a right to be paid for the efforts. He wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever pay corporations choose to give them.

His point being that Romney would be excoriated if he said such things. But the policies Romney favors would actually amount to this statement.

Romney's belief that corporations are people is not quite as nutty as Krugman would have his readers believe. I've asked before, why should a voluntary arrangement of several people have fewer rights than an individual person? At what point, at what critical mass, are rights forfeited? And how does requiring wealthy people to continue to pay more to the federal treasury, just not as much as the Obama administration and Krugman would like, constitute reducing middle-class to serfs? Who has been forced to accept the wages chosen to be given to him? A person may not like the wages being offered in return for his labor, but as far as I can tell these are still voluntary exchanges of labor for wages. If the genius professor has any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

He then quotes Romney directly to contrast it with his imagination and then writes, "But nothing Obama has ever said and none of his actions bear any resemblance to Romney’s portrait."

But Obama did say, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This supposes that elected officials and bureaucrats are less self-interested than their private sector brethren. They aren't. It also presumes that the "fair" distribution of wealth that is generated and earned by other people is a legitimate function of government. It isn't.

Beyond being completely wrong about everything, another spot-on piece by Professor Krugman.

14 December 2011

When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase

This is something I've mentioned around these parts before. Allowing a law to expire that will result in higher taxes means you are effecting a tax increase. At least, that's what the Democrats and Obama administration are now saying. If Republican intransigence is allowed to continue and they won't budge on increasing taxes on the wealthy (getting the "millionaires" to pay thier "fair share" of Obama's plan), then the payroll tax cut won't be extended. And the middle-class will be hit with a tax increase.
But they weren't saying that last year, when letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire was not a tax increase.
So whether status quo ante is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how much you make.

Are these millionaires really job creators? Would an increase in the highest marginal rates harm the economy?

Stay tuned.

Thank Goodness the Liberals are in Charge

and we got rid of that fascist Bush. Because liberals don't believe in summarily executing citizens without trial (& here); expanding our military footprint or indefinite military detention. You see, because I remember liberals (rightly) decrying the Bush administration for its intransigence regarding the constitution. And yet I have seen no sustained, credible criticism of the Obama administration for not only continuing every single one of those policies, but expanding them and claiming more executive discretion as far as the constitution is concerned.
Where is the outrage?