Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

Enjoy it? I don't even understand it. I clearly missed something along the way.

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

Enjoy it? I don't even understand it. I clearly missed something along the way.

An online personality - I think it was Dan Savage, though I'm not sure and could be wrong about that - started a campaign to define "Santorum" as a particularly disgusting mix of bodily fluids. You can google it if you want a more precise definition than that. A lot of the Santorum comments in the thread are playing off of that.

My understanding is that this was in response to Santorum's awful anti-gay rights positions. I'd have thought that a better way to respond would be to call him a bigot, but what do I know.

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

msduncan wrote:

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

While the special election in NY was in a Republican district, it was in NY. I remain skeptical that all the Democrats swept in with Obama from southern and heartland states will be on stable ground in 2012.

msduncan wrote:

Defiant wrote:

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

While the special election in NY was in a Republican district, it was in NY. I remain skeptical that all the Democrats swept in with Obama from southern and heartland states will be on stable ground in 2012.

El Guapo wrote:Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing? It's so juvenile - basically just a dussied up version of calling him a poopyhead. And it only makes me think more about the, uh, imagery that is invoked, which is hardly something I want to do.

Plus I think it demeans opposition to Santorum. The guy's an extremist nutjob like Palin, only able to put together more coherent answers to questions. This stuff makes it look like his opponents are a bunch of giggling teenagers, while there are very good, substantive reasons to be appalled by his candidacy.

-Cutting the top individual income tax rate down to 25 percent;
– Having just two income tax brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent;
– Eliminating all taxation on capital gains, dividends, and estates;
– Cutting the corporate tax rate down to 15 percent

Exodor wrote:Pawlenty's economic plan? Cut taxes three times as much as Bush

By a wide margin, more Americans think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflated the national debt than the percentage who blame domestic spending or the tax cuts enacted in the past decade for doing the same, according to a Pew poll released Tuesday.

Those beliefs actually run counter to data recently released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that the Bush-era tax cuts have been the single biggest factor in ballooning the federal deficit. While the wars have also contributed greatly to the deficit, Pew's findings illuminate how Americans more readily perceive the visceral aspects of federal budgetary policy.

...

According to the CBPP, the Bush-era tax cuts by far account for the largest share of the federal deficit. Combined with the Iraq and Afghan wars, those policies will make up around 50% of the overall deficit by 2019, according to CBPP's figures.

msduncan wrote:Funny, I thought that the blame for the deficit is on the assholes that refuse to ever cut spending -- EVER -- to counter allowing American citizens to keep more of the money they earn. That kinda runs counter to this tired and repeated mantra that implies that the assholes in Washington (both sides) should somehow be entitled to waste most of what we earn trying to control, guide, and protect every phase of our lives.

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000.1 Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent.

gbasden wrote:

msduncan wrote:Funny, I thought that the blame for the deficit is on the assholes that refuse to ever cut spending -- EVER -- to counter allowing American citizens to keep more of the money they earn. That kinda runs counter to this tired and repeated mantra that implies that the assholes in Washington (both sides) should somehow be entitled to waste most of what we earn trying to control, guide, and protect every phase of our lives.

Most? Are you kidding? We have much, much lower taxes already than do the rest of the industrialized world.

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000.1 Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent.

As a country we've decided we want to fight a bunch of wars overseas, pay for health care for the elderly and keep our bridges from collapsing. Why don't we try behaving like adults and pay for the things we want?

msduncan wrote:
So because the rest of the world -- decidedly socialist -- has made decisions to have even higher taxes and that means we should too (or are somehow backward if we don't)?

Please enlighten me as to why we should follow in the rest of the world's footsteps instead of scaling back our government in favor of more personal and financial freedoms?

-- I'm paying loads of Ad Valorum and state income taxes to keep bridges from collapsing
-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.
-- Military defense is one of the few priorities the Founders charged the Federal government with.


The great social experiment in government is failing. Prior to the 1930's socialization of government, we had surpluses and were progressing by leaps and bounds. From the 1930's onward the march for government to have an increasing role in your life, your future, and your happiness has driven us to this point in time -- when none of the massive social government experiments are working to raise people's status, reduce crime, or any of the other goals they were set out to tackle, and they are all going flat bankrupt.

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile.[3]

In addition to unequal wealth distribution, it is also difficult for individuals in the lower income distributions to gain economic mobility which inhibits their ability to accumulate wealth.[6] In 2006, children in the lowest 20% of the income distribution only had a 17% chance of making it to the upper 40% of the income distribution.[6] In 2004, children in the lowest 20% of the wealth distribution had only a 7% chance to make it to the top wealth distribution.[6]

In other words, wealthy parents tend to produce wealthy children, and poor parents tend to produce poor children. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics shows how stratification is becoming worse and worse since 1984. The lowest percentile has become worse, and the highest percentile has become wealthier. The fifth percentile has dropped further into negative net worth, while the 90th percentile has gained over four hundred points within the last twenty one years.[7]

msduncan wrote:Prior to the 1930's socialization of government, we had surpluses and were progressing by leaps and bounds.

Wikipedia wrote:Source: The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 surpluses and only 2 deficits. The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the War of 1812. In the first 20 years following the War of 1812, 18 surpluses were experienced and the US paid off 99.97% of its debt.

The second dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. In the following 47 years America returned to the practice of running surpluses during times of peace experiencing 36 surpluses and only 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the US national debt was paid off.

The landowners have learned nothing, in spite of the war and of changed social and political conditions. They still intend to exploit their social position and their temporary advantage, to make no sacrifices and to profit as much as they can, even at the cost of their country and of other social classes

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

Smoove_B wrote:Goodnight Newt

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

“The professional team came to the realization that the direction of the campaign they sought and Newt vision for campaign were incompatible,” said Carney.

Gingrich was intent on using technology and standing out at debates to get traction while his advisers believed he needed to run a campaign that incorporated both traditional, grassroots techniques as well as new ideas.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 ... z1OoL5FAa2" target="_blank

msduncan wrote:I think Newt is finished after this exodus. He wasn't fully committed (or didn't show commitment) to do what it takes to win the job.

Will be interesting to see where some of these people land....

I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles

Scuzz wrote:republican leadership is pathetic...........

msduncan wrote: -- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote: -- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Arcanis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote: -- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Squirrels: More Capitalist than the rest of the country. Furrier too (in most cases)

El Guapo wrote:

Arcanis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote: -- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Squirrels: More Capitalist than the rest of the country. Furrier too (in most cases)

Just watch out for those socialist bees.

LordMortis wrote: I was thinking the same thing about ants and wondered if they were actually socialist, despotic, or aristocratic.

In recent times the fable has again been put to political use by both sides in the social debate between the enterprise culture and those who consider the advantaged have a responsibility towards the disadvantaged. A modern satirical version of the story, originally written in 1994, has the grasshopper calling a press conference at the beginning of the winter to complain about socio-economic inequity, and being given the ant's house. This version was written by Pittsburgh talk show guru Jim Quinn as an attack on the Clinton administration's social programm in the USA. In 2008 Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin also updated the story to satirize the policies of 'Barack Cicada'.

Smoove_B wrote:

LordMortis wrote: I was thinking the same thing about ants and wondered if they were actually socialist, despotic, or aristocratic.

You'd have to ask Aesop.

In recent times the fable has again been put to political use by both sides in the social debate between the enterprise culture and those who consider the advantaged have a responsibility towards the disadvantaged. A modern satirical version of the story, originally written in 1994, has the grasshopper calling a press conference at the beginning of the winter to complain about socio-economic inequity, and being given the ant's house. This version was written by Pittsburgh talk show guru Jim Quinn as an attack on the Clinton administration's social programm in the USA. In 2008 Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin also updated the story to satirize the policies of 'Barack Cicada'.

Mr. Fed wrote:This won't slow down Newt at all. He's been working with a younger, more attractive campaign staff for months.