Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

Your turn.

Open Thread.

< The Media and Bain | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Drum roll. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    The NYTimes has repoorted that Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic consultancy "often cited by policy makers", is giving us a rosy prediction for our floundering economy.

    They said they expect growth to pick up through the summer and into the fall and we can expect that the economy will progress all the way from "dismal" to "sluggish".

    I'm psyched.

    Woohoo! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    "Sluggish!" Wow, can't wait!      ;-)

    What comes after 'sluggish?' (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:47:40 PM EST
    Sputtering? or is it 'anemic growth?' Geez, it's like the color-coded terrorism threat advisory.

    When I was in London (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:36:01 PM EST
    a few years ago, pretty much every day was the same weather: cold and rainy.  But it was described differently nearly every day in the morning weather report, rainy, drizzly, wet, sprinkly ... I can't remember them all.  This reminds me of that.

    Heading home tommorow (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by CST on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    all packed and just about traveled out, staying up late in the hopes that my time will adjust reasonably, plus I'm finding it hard to sleep.

    Here are some photos of Germany, Istanbul, and Barcelona.  I took all of these with my fairly terrible camera phone, but I don't own any other camera and it's easy to carry around.  Istanbul was the hardest to capture, but I think I got a few good ones.

    It's been a whirlwind few weeks, and I've enjoyed every minute, but I am looking forward to sitting still for a bit.  I've got a lot to absorb, a lot to figure out, and a lot to look forward to.  It's time to come back to real life, hopefully with a little more perspective and some ideas for the future.  I've always wanted a more international life in some way, and this trip has only cemented that.

    Nice pictures... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:22:12 PM EST

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    Really nice pics !

    Great pics, CST. You did (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 10:18:44 PM EST
    a pretty good job with your phone camera.

    Istanbul is so beautiful. And so is Barcelona. I do so want to visit both cities.


    So happy for you (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    Thank you for sharing your journeys.

    Isn't the Gaudi's park (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:15:40 PM EST
    an amazing place?  I've read La Sagrada Familia is now completed?  Is it?

    not until 2030 (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:18:04 PM EST
    Guess I know when I'm heading back to Barcelona!

    It is amazing, although to be honest I think we spent a bit too much energy in day 1 chasing monuments, since we only had two days here.  It would have been nice to sit and absorb it a bit more, which is what we did today at La Sagrada Familia (which I now realize I've been misspelling all day - oops).


    When we were in Barcelona we just took off (none / 0) (#13)
    by Angel on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    walking every day with no set agenda and found treasures galore.  We still speak of those special days and long to return.  I love the photos you shared with us, thank you!

    thats pretty much what we did (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:32:51 PM EST
    We played "ooh look at the shiny object".  It's just that there were so many!

    Tapas at a good people-watching outside table. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:38:03 PM EST
    But instead I took a cab at dusk to chase that last Chillida sculpture hung across a gorge in a park. Beautiful. "In Praise of Water." Parc de la Creuta del Coll.

    Remembering the fantasy (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:17:35 PM EST
    that is the Ramblas & the cooling view of the harbor from the mount.  I want to return.

    Me too. Terrific city. Why, (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    I even got to see the San Francisco Ballet dance Mark Morris choreography to the music of Leroy Anderson @ the Teatro.  

    In honor of Woody Guthrie's 100th Birthday (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Peter G on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    yesterday, July 14, 2012, here is Bob Dylan performing Guthrie's "I Ain't Got No Home" ("The gambling man is rich, the working man is poor, and I ain't got no home in this world anymore.") and "Dear Mrs. Roosevelt" (Refrain: "This world was lucky to see him born.") with the Band at the Guthrie tribute, 1968 at Carnegie Hall, a few months after Woody's death in 1967 of Huntington's Disease.  This was during Dylan's Woodstock "basement tapes" period; I don't think he was performing much at the time.  I was at this concert.

    A Smithsonian expert re Woody stated on NPR (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    Guthrie was named after Woodrow Wilson, who was then Gov. of  NJ.  

    Yes, of course. His full given name was (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    Woodrow Wilson Guthrie.  I think it would be more accurate to say, based on an interview with his daughter, Nora, that I watched the other day on Democracy Now!, Woody was named after Wilson because he was then (in the summer of 1912) the Democratic candidate for President, and Guthrie's father was an avid Democrat in his local area of Oklahoma. It did not involve any affinity for New Jersey.

    I wonder how many ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    ... sons born in 1952 and 1956 were named after Adlai Stevenson.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#182)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    This is the reason for the comma after (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    Wilson's name!

    I just saw an ad on TV (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:01:51 PM EST
    depicting several scenes of people, from babies to older folks, receiving an assortment of medical services. From infant check ups, through adolescent counseling, to diabetes monitoring.

    The voice-over said something like, "Due to certain changes in health laws, some preventative treatments are now available to you. But, don't do it because there are no co-pays, or deductibles. Do it because everyone deserves a healthier tomorrow."  

    Brought to you by something Gov't.org.

    I'm beginning to think "Obamacare" is, and will become, a bigger deal than I previously thought. My first impression in watching this ad was, "This" is what the government should be doing for its people. And, if it's allowed to survive, and as more people become familiar with even some of the services, it will be harder to kill it in the future.

    We are on our way (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:48:25 PM EST
    To better healthcare...I feel more optimistic than ever.  Glad to hear about your new take as well.

    As flawed as the ACA is, (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    I am starting to feel the way you do about the future of healthcare. I think progress on universal (and perhaps single-payer) coverage will also accelerate as certain GOP state governors feel the heat from constituents who favor the law's Medicaid expansion.

    Folks on Medicare use to pay (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    a 20% deductible unless the had a supplemental policy for doctor visits and various tests. (Yearly blood work up comes to mind.)

    There is no co-pay now.

    Maybe others will be covered in the future, but I don't think they are now.  The ad seems misleading. But then most ads are.


    And on FOX (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    Carl Rove blasts the Obama campaign for gutter politics :)  This headline only available on Fox.

    Rove is an expert on gutter politics, it's his (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    bread and butter.  What Obama is doing isn't gutter politics by a long shot.

    Anyone ever tried (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:57:19 PM EST
    "Bob's Red Mill 10 grain cereal? Picked up some at the health food store last Thursday, and I'll be going back for more.

    I also want to order their Cream of Rye online.

    The 10 grain, one serving provided 20 percent of the RDA for fiber. I like the taste and texure.

    Either suger, or as I discovered today, pancake syrup, makes me a happy person. It's delicious, and has a great grainy texture.

    Sprinkle some on 0 fat Greek (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:16:39 PM EST
    Yogurt and report results.  

    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    of cooking it in yogurt instead of water, or a half and half mix.

    Could you really cook the cereal in yogurt? (none / 0) (#174)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    Wouldn't the needed high temperature cause the yogurt to separate or curdle or something?

    I dunno... (none / 0) (#176)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:11:18 PM EST
    Maybe mix it in right after removing from the heat... Zorba? resident yoghurt expert?

    Depends upon (none / 0) (#178)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:40:04 PM EST
     how much cooking "Bob's Red Mill" needs. I'm not familiar with it.  If it is basically an "instant" type of cereal, it might be okay.  I suspect that it is not, though, in which case the yogurt would best be added after cooking.  Cooking anything, for any length of time, in any milk product is tricky, and risks curdling.

    Bob's Red Mill is just down the road apiece (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    from me. Great place to visit.

    I like my hot cereals with a touch of brown sugar or real maple syrup and walnuts and dried cherries or dried cranberries.


    I put in some canned fried apples, (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:09:35 PM EST
    some vanilla, nutmeg, and cinammon along with the syrup. I think nuts and dried fruits sounds great in it.

    The spices sound tasty. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    The dried fruit is a nice taste touch. I throw it in toward the end of the cooking time and the fruit softens to just the right texture.

     I love walnuts. It is a happy accident that they are good for me. I toss them in cereal, into bowls of fruit and yogurt, into salads. Just love them.


    Anybody want some (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    Zucchini?  Yellow crook-neck squash?  Patty pans?  Come on up; I've got a zillion of 'em.

    that reminds of what they say around here (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by DFLer on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    that the only time Minnesotans lock their cars is when zucchinis are ripe....to avoid being dumped with a plethora of produce from their neighbors gardens.

    National "Sneak Some Zucchini Onto Your (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:36:14 PM EST
    Neighbor's Porch Day" isn't until August 8.

     No jumping the gun, Zorba. If people don't respect the boundaries society has set for the dumping of unwanted gourds, well, what kind of country will we be then?


    Ha Ha (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    they say the same thing down here in the south.

    Except down here (the south)... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    ...it's just as likely to be tomatoes, corn, or watermelon.

    Oh, yeah... (none / 0) (#55)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 11:43:25 PM EST
    ...and cucumbers.

    Those Minnesotans (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:53:00 AM EST
    really know how to put food on other people's families!

    If I lived (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    close, I would be showing up at your doorstep!

    What Ga6thDem said. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Angel on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    Once upon a time (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    I lived  in farm country...I loved this time of the year....the fresh garden vegetables....makes my mouth water.

    We have (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    Green beans, potatoes, tomatoes, broccoli, and a bunch of different kids of peppers are coming in, too.  Too early for the okra, though.  The lettuce has now bolted-  too hot for it.  We'll put in more lettuce seeds later.  We have winter squash, too, for harvesting later.  We'll have a fair crop of apples, but the deer ate all our peaches.

    My sister who lives in the mountains near (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Angel on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:25:13 PM EST
    Asheville, NC, grew her lettuce in pots on the back deck this year.  Talk about beautiful...!!!

    Zorba It sounds (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:32:34 PM EST

    I made (none / 0) (#23)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    Cherry jelly and froze cherries for pies, too.  I'll make quince jelly later, too, when the quince are ready.  I was going to make peach jam, peach nectar, and peach pies, but the stupid deer..............
    But, am I bitter?  Why no, not at all.

    We pickled peppers yesterday and (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    made dill pickles this afternoon...our first canning adventure, so hoping everything turns out well.

    Tomatoes will be coming in in earnest in the next week - we just can't wait for all-things-tomato!


    Fresh summer tomatoes (none / 0) (#49)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    Every year I have a friend who visits me late summer and when she arrives she has a huge basket of new tomatoes for me as a gift.....I so enjoy every morsel ......

    You (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    are going to be mad about the deer and those peaches for quite a while I think since you keep mentioning them. LOL!

    You bet (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    I am!   ;-)

    If it were me . . . (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:17:19 PM EST
    I'd hang onto the bitter for awhile!

    I'm still p!ssed at the birds/snails/and yes, even Roxy! for 2 rounds of garden destruction and a rocky 3rd start . . . {sigh}


    There is a spray called "Repels" (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    that you can purchase at Lowes or Home Depot (and others) that  you can spray just a bit around the edge and no squirrel, rabbit, deer or dog will come near. There's also a noise maker that is battery operated that will keep the birds away.

    Probably too late this year but there is always next year!


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:22:32 PM EST
    Luckily, where I live I can harvest tomatoes etc into late Oct/mid-Nov unless something drastic happens, so I'm  chugging on. Mom will supply the summer squash and some peppers and I'll trade her with some things that survived my early destruction that she didn't plant. And the farmer's market is 3 blocks from me for fill in. I'm  concentrating on some plantings coming up soon for the fall and winter garden in the meantime. My winter carrots and stuff rocked last year. I also have winter squash etc out there now :)

    Problem with the dog is, she normally respects boundaries, like I can lean a baby gate against a doorway that she could easily jump and she doesn't. In the yard, she normally respects the veggie bed boundaries, except when she thinks she's an agility star and goes on a round of jumping the fencing . . .  I thought of blocking the whole area off, but that would cut down on her leg stretching room . . .  Oh, the things we do for a spotty monster pup  :)


    Love that spotty monster! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    A deer rifle (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:23:17 AM EST
    Or slugs in a shot gun work well, too.   ;-) Unfortunately, there are too many deer to shoot them all- I'd have to get a back hoe to dispose of all the bodies.  Only one would fit in my freezer.

    I'll call your zucchini and squash (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:38:52 PM EST
    and raise you okra,tomatoes and banana peppers.

    Our okra (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    Aren't ready yet, but we're starting to get plenty of both sweet and hot peppers, and tomatoes.
    Good to see that you grow okra, too.  I don't know many people who do any more.

    I spell okra (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    c a n d y.... ;-)

    I planted a hybrid this year. The pods are longer but smaller around and taste delicious.


    What do (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:00:19 PM EST
    you do with the okra? I usually fry it as that's about the only way my family will eat it.

    Gumbo. Yummmm! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Angel on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:19:56 PM EST
    I deep fry (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    I also freeze it. Prepare for frying as usual and then put on a cookie tray and flash freeze. Place in freezer bags in meal size portions and all come December all you have to do is heat cooking oil, dump and cook.

    I like it in gumbo but my boss doesn't.


    For something different (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:02:18 AM EST
    You could try some barbequed okra.  Good reviews and (I imagine) healthier, too.

    Also, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    Okra pickles- really good.  
    And I make (and also pressure-can) Greek-style mixed vegetables with okra, green beans, summer squash, potatoes, tomatoes, onions, olive oil, garlic, dill, and oregano.  Everyone likes this mixture.    ;-)

    I bought some Christmas ornaments made (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    out of dried okra last year.  A local polymer artist dried the pods and then put a very nice Santa head in polymer clay over the pod top.  How can I live in the South and ignore that mixed media?  They will be three years old this Christmas, every year I'm afraid the pods may have begun to fall apart since they are straight out of nature but they are hanging in strong.

    Maybe butter is kryptonite to (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by observed on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:04:31 AM EST
    okra, so if your pods aren't in a gumbo, they won't become a mucilaginous monstrosity.

    PT: why is the Russian (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:26:10 AM EST
    space launch/landing in KZ?

    Those evil racist (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:35:49 PM EST

    Elections Canada requires you to:

    show one piece of government identification which shows your photo, name and residential address (e.g. a driver's licence)


     show two pieces of identification from an authorized list, with both containing your name, and one your residential address


    be vouched for by a voter whose name appears on the voters list in the same polling division who has acceptable pieces of ID. Both of you will have to make a sworn statement.

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:36:56 PM EST
    still less stringent that what the GOP wants here. Having someone vouch for the person would be okay with me but that's not what is being proposed.

    And I love how conservatives who yammer about "government is not the solution" have now embraced that "government is the solution".


    And Option 2 (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    of the Canadian law gives dozens of ways to satisfy the requirement including a library card and a utility bill or two utility bills or a national health card and a student ID card or SS card plus lease/rental agreement.  

    The number of Canadians who manage to not be covered who couldn't meet the requirement has to be a very tiny sliver of a fraction of a slice of the overall potential electorate, perhaps numbering in the hundreds nationwide, whereas estimates of eligible voters in the US affected by GOP voter suppression laws numbers some 5 million voters in various states.


    Bottom line brodie (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:57:32 PM EST
    it is still an ID requirement.  

    But not a strict (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    Photo ID requirement.  Just name on any two pieces of identifying pieces of paper and name plus address on the other.  National health card, library card, phone bill are listed among four dozen different ways to satisfy the law.  Even the destitute probably have the health card and library card.

    Quite a contrast with some of these Republicant voter suppression laws in key states which demand govt issued photo IDs (affecting the poor and minorities and non-driving elderly), some requiring current names (impacting many recently married women).  

    It's no secret what the GOP is doing, as that PA Repub state legislator recently let slip.  This is all about handing the WH and Congress to the Repubs by preventing enough Dems from voting in enough swing states.  Just an updated version of the old Jim Crow voting laws in the South.  


    Try to cash a check (none / 0) (#40)
    by BTAL on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:56:40 PM EST
    without your ID.  Nice try but try again.

    What does (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:08:39 PM EST
    Cashing a check have to do with voting?  I don't remember anything in the Constitution about our right to cash a check.

    I do it all the time at my CU (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:12:00 PM EST
    just like voting. They verified me once and don't hassle me again . .

    What (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:16:45 AM EST
    does cashing a check have to do with voting? Do you think people should be required to have checking accounts in order to vote and who the heck even cashes checks anymore? I haven't cashed a check in probably 20 years.

    I know someone (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    who doesn't even have a checking account.  She lives simply, and uses cash, or gets a money order if she can't use cash (man, talk about living "off the grid"!  She doesn't even have a credit card).
    Yet she votes in every election.

    My son (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    just got a job and he is paid with a debit card. There is no need to show ID for these and apparently it's how a lot of businesses are doing business these days. If you don't have a checking account, it's really not a problem. You can cash them out at any ATM in the country. This kind of thing depends more on pin numbers and security questions than anything else.

    You know two such someones... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    I like your friend's style dude, my long lost sister!

    Used to be easy to cash a check without ID, sign it over to a friend with a bank account, or the neighborhood bar would cash it for ya at Happy Hour.  But the banks have gotten kinda funny about accepting checks endorsed by others from their account holders.  Used to be standard stuff, now its a big hassle if they will do it at all.  


    The problem that she is facing (none / 0) (#117)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    will be when she gets old enough for Social Security (yes, she long since qualified with enough work time in).  The way I understand it, Social Security no longer mails paper checks.  They will only either "direct deposit" it, or have the money electronically zapped into a pre-paid debit card.  I suspect that she'll be going for the debit card.  That might be better for her than getting an old paper check, anyway, since it is getting harder to find places that don't charge you an arm and two legs to cash a check made out to you.

    Don't get me started... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    on the "no more checks"...it's ridiculous.  More bankster welfare.

    I'm waiting for the shoe to drop on tax returns too...


    I would feel (none / 0) (#133)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    even more angst about "no more [paper] checks" if it were easier to find a place to actually cash them, and as I said before, without charging you an "arm and two legs."  At least they have the "debit card" possibility.  Which ain't perfect in and of itself.
    Tax returns?  Oh, I think that eventually everyone will be required to "file electronically."  No doubt about it.  Which means, of course, for poorer or older people who do not have computers connected to the internet (and yes, America, there are, indeed, people like that left- I know a few, myself), they will have to use their limited funds to pay some accountant or someone official to electronically file for them.

    You can e-file (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    for free if you qualify

    That is all good and well (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    If (and it's a big "if") you have a computer and internet access yourself, or if you are using a professional tax preparer.  I know a few, mostly elderly but not all, people who do not have, nor do they know how how to use, a computer, and who do and submit their own, paper, tax forms.  I looked at the website you gave, and it does not seem to give an answer that does not include using a computer or using a "tax professional."  And said professional will, of course, except to be paid.  Unless you can find someone qualified who will do this "pro bono."  Not so easy in an extremely isolated, rural area.  So, what about them?  

    I don't have as much ire... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    for the check-cashing place as you do...yeah, the rates can be high, but they provide a service to all us non-account holders with no where else to go with a check.  I frequent them, and take the solace in the fact that at least it's a small local business and the fees collected have a much better chance of funneling into the local economy than the fees collected by a BofA or Chase or Citi.

    I can stomach a small local business profiting off of my labor a lot easier than a big bank or pre-paid debit card outfit...not to mention those debit cards take a bite out of the local vendor's profits everytime you swipe.  A double leechery whammy.


    Well, this is true. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    They have to make a living, too, I guess.  But when you're talking about someone with a limited income, those fees add up and may amount to "well, I guess I can't eat today and maybe tomorrow."  It's not like the old days, when Mike the local bar owner, or Sally the local grocery store owner, would cash your check for free.  Those days are long, long over, I'm afraid.

    Yes they are... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    Long gone...and I think the big banks are to blame...the banks just don't accept endorsed checks anymore, not even for deposit only.  My hunch is it is another way to try and force people like me into opening an account and becoming the next victim...same as the new fee to cash my paycheck at the issuing bank!  I still can't get over that one...

    My guess is (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    If they do away with paper forms (which would be better, environmentally), then the IRS will have to staff centers with people who can help those kinds of people.

    Already, there are many places that help poor and elderly for free or a very nominal fee - churches, civic groups, etc.


    See my comments below (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    regarding help churches try to provide.  But that type of volunteer help doesn't get them any closer to filing electronically.

    You can also see (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    my comment #139, besides sj's comment.  Sure, there may be "churches, civic groups, etc." who may help.  And even the IRS may staff "centers with people who can help those kinds of people."  But not in extremely poor, and very, very extremely rural and not heavily-populated areas.  I do not know of anyone out here, for instance, who would have the expertise to help our poor and elderly.  And getting into an urban area that would have some of these hypothetical "IRS centers" would be a problem for some of the people up here.  We are talking about hard-working, rural, farming people who have "made do" all their frigging lives with little, if any, outside help.  And you are willing to tell them that they should search around for a church or civic group or IRS center that would help them?  You need to expand your horizons beyond where you apparently live.  
    I don't mean to be snarky or anything, jbindc, but there are lots of people in this country who really cannot get to the type of help that you envision.  Would that it were so, but there just aren't.  It's a huge country, with a whole he!! of a lot of people who live in areas where they are unable to do so.

    I'm saying (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    If the IRS went to mandatory e-filing and got rid of paper, then they'd have to staff places where people could get help with e-filing.  

    Out here? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:58:42 PM EST
    Where there are so few people that the Postal Service is talking about closing rural post offices because there are so few people that use them?  Dream on.  I am not talking about places that are even 15-20 miles away from possible help, but maybe farther than that.  Which would pose a problem to many rural, poor people in this country.  And, yes, there are such people in this great country of ours.  Where even  those 15-20 miles would be a hardship.  Not to mention even farther.  You simply must get way, way out in the country to know what I am talking about, jbindc.

    And PS (none / 0) (#161)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to ensure that every single poor, rural person would have access to to these "free" IRS services for e-filing?

    I've been way out in the country (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:36:45 AM EST
    Spent many summers at my grandparents' in western PA - a town so small it had under 1000 people and no stop light.

    I'm sympathetic to those people, and yes, would be willing to pay more to help them.  But my point is, if the IRS is going to make something mandatory, they are going to have to help facilitate that process.

    I don't see e-filing as a big change -  how do those older people file with paper?  I don't think there's many 80 year-olds doing their own taxes now, are there?


    It would not surprise me if, for some (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:23:11 AM EST
    taxpayers who might be filing the short form,  the IRS came up with a system for people to file by telephone, using the keypad when prompted (for example: "if you have Social Security income, please enter the amount that appears in Box 5 by pressing the appropriate numbers on your telephone keypad.  If you entered "12,400" please press the pound sign to confirm.  If this number is not correct, please enter the correct number").  

    You can pay bills by phone, check bank and other account balances by phone, so why not file your taxes by phone?  Would there be potential for fraud?  Of course, but that already exists, even for e-filing.   Yesterday, I read that some tax preparers changed the returns of taxpayers after those taxpayers had signed the returns, increased the refunds and pocketed the difference between what the client was expecting to get and the "new" amount.  I guess we can't really trust anyone anymore.

    I do agree that if the IRS wants to eliminate the paper filing of tax returns, it will have to establish a means for those without computers to do so, whether this is a phone system, or staffed computer filing centers at libraries, post offices or other government buildings.

    The challenge - and it should be the IRS's challenge, not the taxpayers' - will be managing the filing of electronic returns for those who don't have computers, who live 20 miles from the nearest library, post office or government facility, and have limited means or ability to get there.

    Could the IRS handle it?  I would hope they would set up pilot programs to see if whatever plan they have works before making it a nationwide requirement, but I won't hold my breath!


    Out this way, (none / 0) (#183)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    a town of around or just under 1,000 counts as a respectably-sized city.  A virtual metropolis!     ;-)
    And I do know a few 80-year-olds who do their own taxes.  Short form, but they do them.

    PS to Ga6th (none / 0) (#42)
    by BTAL on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    Read it again.  The vouching requires someone who has already met the requirement.

    And you better bring a link if you think what the GOP is attempting is anywhere near as strict.


    Not the (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:14:58 AM EST
    same. Lots of people have friends who have ID but they don't. No where near as restrictive as the GOP wants to do. One person with ID could vouch for probably ten or more people if need be.

    I think I saw something like (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    this on a legal show on TV.

    Lots of people have friends who have ID but they don't.

    "Assumes something not in evidence, your honor."


    Lots of people also assume there (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by observed on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:40:03 AM EST
    is a big problem with undocumented aliens voting in US elections. I have never once seen a single piece of evidence adduced to support this claim.

    Who knows?? They certainly get (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:01:32 AM EST

    Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: "I want to help, but I don't have papers."

    It was translated and Busby replied: "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."

    (Emphasis added.)



    And Busby immediately explained (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    ... that she misspoke when she included voting in her reply, as opposed to volunteering for a campaign.

    But if that's the best answer you can give when asked to show evidence of undocumented aliens voting in the US (after complaining about "facts not in evidence"), ...

    ... that says it all.


    Probably (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    nd Busby immediately explained
    that she misspoke when she included voting in her reply

    Because Busby remembered the press was filming?


    Probably not (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    But not the slightest bit of evidence of voter fraud.

    When voter fraud was rampant in the 1920-50s (2.00 / 2) (#158)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    as we now know,

    No one ( especially the newspapers ) uncoverd it either.

    Yet the shot for a vote at the precinct houses was available for anyone to see.

    Why are you so positive that fraud is not a big issue?
    Are you aware of any LE initiatives to uncovered voter fraud. How about in the areas that traditionally supported fraud ( Poor urban) ?


    Because I believe in evidence (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    Despite their many efforts to scare people with the illegal voter boogeyman, wingers haven't been able to provide any evidence of such fraud.

    Same reason you can't provide any.


    Are you claiming I can't find evidence of (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    voter fraud in Tammney Hall or in the James Michael Curley's regime in Boston?

    Ever heard the song - Vote Early and Often for Curley.I can find the evidence easy. Any student of American Urban Politics 101 has studied the history of these corrupt machines.

     Can you find evidence of the contemporary press investigating and reporting on illegal voting activities of these machines? Or the Police investigating them?


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    I'm sure you could find evidence of significant voting fraud from decades or centuries ago.  Of course, without a modified DeLorean or some other time travel mechanism, the laws we're discussing will have no effect on Tammany Hall, etc.

    But keep trying!


    The point is (2.00 / 1) (#191)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:01:33 AM EST
    that if this voter fraud was not known to the general public then. Why do you assume it would be obvious now.

    Because the laws ... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:26:04 AM EST
    ... and enforcement mechanisms are much stronger.  There is plenty of evidence, OTOH, of the voter disenfranchisement that occurs with photo ID laws.  There is no evidence of any significant amount of (current) vote fraud, which is why you still haven't provided a single link.  You may want to look up Crawford v. Marion County Election, for example.  The Court noted "flagrant" voter fraud with regard to Tammany Hall in 1868, but only isolated, "scattered" instances of voter fraud currently.  In fact, from October 2002 through September 2005, the DOJ had convicted only 17 people of casting fraudulent ballots.

    But if you have any evidence of significant voter fraud, it would be nice to see it ...


    If people like you spent (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    half as much time convincing those who are eligible to vote to register and show up at the polls, as you do hunting down the miniscule percentage of people who are not eligible, and drafting legislation that makes it harder for people to vote, we might have a more participatory democracy.

    But that really wouldn't work too well for you and your ilk, would it?  Because the truth is, and always has been, that Republicans and conservatives don't really want more participation, because that might mean more Democrats, and that's the group you want to keep out of the voting booth.  

    The zeal with which right-wing conservatives attack ineligible voters is matched only by their indifference to the actions of Bush and Cheney and their minions, Wall Street's fraud on America, the ongoing and increasing violations of our civil and constitutional rights, endless war.  

    I am, frankly, just sick of it.  Sick of the litmus tests for patriotism, the not-so-subtle racism, the overt and ugly contempt for women (proudly on display in the Zimmerman threads, for anyone who wants to see it in action), the lack of respect for the old, the poor and the sick.  It's disgusting.

    But there is a silver lining:  you - as an apparent representative of that mindset - reminded me why it is I became a Democrat in the first place, reminded me of the many things I find so off-putting about the GOP, made me realize that there are way too many ignorant, small-minded and petty people determined to infuse government with those character traits and the legislation to match.  

    So, congratulations - the right-wing stylings of you and your ilk here may be just about the best GOTV - the liberal, progressive vote - strategy ever.

    Way to go!


    Oh ok (2.00 / 1) (#194)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    I never considered myself right wing or conservative but I guess you know better.

    Actually I am all for the widest possible participation in democracy.
    Participation in democracy as opposed to just voting require that the voter fulfills at least some responsibilities required to make an informed vote.

    I would never deny or allow anyone to deny a qualified citizen access to the ballot box period.

    I certainly would get involved if people actually had difficulties in state ( like NH ) acquiring the proper credentials to vote. Despite all the bombast that does not appear to be an issue.

    On the other hand you would not find me cruising for compliant voters who will agree to spend the time to vote in  return for a pick up and a free cab ride to some other location

    Its effective but improper.


    If people like you spent (none / 0) (#195)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    If people like you spent

    I resent that. Is it race, sex, religion, ethnicity?

    what ever it is don't group into some category and then criticize that category. You don't know me well nearly well enough!


    Pathetic: (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by observed on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:33:14 AM EST
    to live 3 score and 10 in the modern world and not to have the slightest concept what "evidence" is.

    Really pathetic (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    to not recognize snark when you see..

    And that's three score and 14....


    You mean that THIS time, you were (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by observed on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    offering anecdotal evidence as a jest, as opposed to the 1,000 other times you do it seriously?

    Stop snarking (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by sj on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    I know how much you despise the technique because you are always telling others to stop it.  

    Reagan's and Bush 43's two terms (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    are evidence of voters from another planet, IMO.

    Here's your evidence (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    Most prominently, the study found that 11% of voting-age American citizens--and an even greater percentage of African American, low-income, and older citizens--do not have current and valid government-issued photo IDs.

    - confirmed by multiple independent studies.


    Unless, of course, you want to make the claim that these millions of people don't have friends among the 89% who do have photo IDs.  Now that would be "assuming facts not in evidence".


    and every one of them (1.00 / 3) (#93)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    can vote with a provisional ballot

    And if they're lucky, ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    ... their provisional ballot might even get counted.

    I think you mean (1.00 / 3) (#154)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    If the contest is in doubt theirs could be the deciding ballot

    I see you're still determined (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    to hold on to your misconceptions about the voting process and the purpose of casting a vote.
    If the contest is in doubt theirs could be the deciding ballot

    You "think" wrong ... again (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    That's the least of many issue with provisional ballots.  If you actually believe provisional ballots guarantee that peoples' votes will be counted, it's time to do some reading.

    This should get you started.


    a compromise (none / 0) (#103)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    I'd be curious how many of those 11% vote now.

    Churches, community centers, nonprofits, etc., can help get photo IDs for people. No one needs to be driving without a valid license, and people need IDs for many transactions in this country. In my city, this has long been an issue for homeless people, who often lose their ID or get the card stolen.

    If you go to this link, for example, and search by "ID," you will see that several nonprofits help homeless and poor people get IDs each week. My church has also worked on getting people IDs.


    My objection? This just gets us one (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    step closer to national ID cards - papers - that we will all have to have and produce when asked; it will be one more tool that authorities will have - and use - to stop people, hassle them, stash them, fine them, whatever.  Then what comes next?  Checkpoints at the borders between states?

    I don't want my country to be that country, sorry; I don't care how "easy" it is to have photo IDs, or how helpful community groups and churches might be willing to be in getting them for those for whom it might be difficult.  

    And you can call me paranoid, or tell me I'm overreacting, but the extent to which our liberties have been reduced over the last decade would suggest that I'm not.

    I don't understand why people don't see that that's where this is going.


    Anne, the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    that many people need a photo ID to do many things now. Do you have a driver's license or other form of ID? I do. I say this sincerely: I'm sure you don't want to use poor people as a doorstop to prevent the U.S. from requiring a national ID.

    Of course, I realize why the Republicans are doing this, and why Democrats are responding the way they are.


    Anne, I think that (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    we're going to lose that battle on the national ID card.  And I'm absolutely on the same page that you are on this, my sister.  
    I hate, hate, hate the idea of a "your papers, please" society.  The steady erosion of our civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America is something that has driven me up the wall for the last decade or so.  Starting with the "Patriot" Act.  Sigh.   :-(  

    You DO have a National ID (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:54:58 AM EST
    It's called a "Social Security Number".

    The card says, or used to say.... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    "Not to be used for identification purposes"...
    We got taken for a ride on that one, cheeky bastards.

    no picture, or address on the card (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    That's nice, ... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    ... but it's not really about photo IDs.  It's about using an imaginary problem (voter fraud) to create as many hurdles as possible for people to exercise their right to vote.  Photo ID laws are just one of those hurdles.

    This is true, and it's a problem, actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    No one needs to be driving without a valid license, and people need IDs for many transactions in this country.
    A friend of mine volunteered at his church as kind of a general assistant/advocate to the public (didn't even need to be a church member) out in the 'hood.  One thing that shocked him was that there were several young people who could not document themselves.  Parents absent/dead/incarcerated, no idea where they were born (Baltimore has so many hospitals), under what name -- any number of issues.  At least one wasn't even certain of the year.  

    These kids will always be under the radar.   My friend didn't even know where to start to help them.


    I'd start with the County Clerk (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    and the state's Sec of State's office.

    County clerk also requires paperwork (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    SS card (no birth certificate, you really those parents bothered with the SS card?), pay stub (need an SS card to get a job), bank statement (need an ID), lease/rental agreement, copy of income tax return/W-2 form (see above).

    Now to get a new SS card for EITHER a child or adult the first thing you need is (wait for it) original documents proving US citizenship, age and identity.

    I left one item out of the list for birth certificate:

    . Letter from a government agency requesting a vital record

    That's the only prayer they have of documenting themselves -- if they can find a way to make that happen.  And hopefully the agency in question isn't the department of corrections.

    It's really sad.  

    I'm assuming you meant vital statistics and not secretary of state.  Because this the function of MD Sec of State:

    The Office of the Secretary of State monitors and enforces the standards of law in a variety of areas, including charitable solicitations, notaries, condominiums, certifications and publication of State regulations. The office vigorously promotes Maryland's active role in international relations.

    In TN it is SecState (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    I think statistics are part of it.

    Anyway, someone should be able to tell you what is needed for the individual to get a birth certificate. There is a way.


    Oy (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    hmmm (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    I couldn't see on the TN Sec of State's website where they are involved in birth certificates. *

    And I just told you

    what is needed for the individual to get a birth certificate.
    Do you think I made that list up?  My friend was tapped for this effort because he is very resourceful.  He doesn't wave his hanky and sigh when he encounters an obstacle.

    Also, I was just speaking with my friend and I asked him about it.  There is one family of siblings that aren't even sure of their birthdays.  Not one of them.

    * Since I typed that I got curious about TN.  It is the Tennessee Office of Vital Records (part of the Department of Health) that manages dup BCs.  Here is their list:

    *One item from the following list:
    1.Current drivers license, including the issue and expiration date.
    2.Current passport
    3.Military I.D. card
    4.Alien, temporary or permanent resident card
    5.Employment authorization card
    6.U.S. Certificate of Naturalization
    7.Certificate of Citizenship or Citizenship I.D. card

    *Two items from the following list:
    1.Current pay stub or W2
    2.Vehicle registration with name and current address
    3.Voter Registration card
    4.Military Discharge (DD214)
    5.Utility Bill, Bank Statement or deposit slip with name and current address
    6.Health care coverage card
    7.Medical record
    8.Application page of an insurance policy
    9.Signed Social Security Card
    10.For those person who have had their I.D. stolen, a copy a police report or other official documents which support the theft.

    However TN does have an option that MD doesn't have which could actually get these kids out of their mess:
    1.If the application is signed and notarized, no additional identification documents are required.
    Then "all" the kids would need to do is befriend a notary.

    My mother didn't have a birth certificate (none / 0) (#164)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    but she was able to get a driver's license, passport, etc., in Texas by  showing other records. I can't remember now what we used.  

    My grandmother didn't either (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    She was born at home.  But ID requirements weren't so stringent back then.  When did your mom get her documents?

    Please update your post (none / 0) (#186)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    Most prominently, the study found that 11% of voting-age American citizens--and an even greater percentage of African American, low-income, and older citizens--do not have current and valid government-issued photo IDs.
    - confirmed by multiple independent studies.
    Has been refuted

    The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification


    No it hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:30:18 AM EST
    In fact, if you had looked at the link I provided, you would notice it was a rebuttal to the very paper you cited.

    But linking to the Heritage Foundation was good for a laugh!


    Apparently (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    you don't have a whole lot of friends then.

    Or... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    ...a neighbor or relative, you don't need a friend in Canada to vote, just a soul who will validate you are who you say you are.

    I don't think anyone has much of an issue with some sort of validation process to vote, the problem is the GOP always seems to find the methods that reduce their opponent turnout the most.  And while anyone can sit and argue about their motives, the fact is if it favors one political party more then another, and it should be scraped.  And any person who believes in democracy should not only understand that, they should fight for fairness.

    But of course that isn't what any of this is about, it's about disfranchisement, and either you are playing dumb or you are dumb if you think their goals are anything nearing fairness.

    Canada seems to have figured it out, regardless of how the right wants to distort it, it's fair.  If only they could pretend to care about that here, we could actually implement a system in which people aren't purposely disenfranchised for political gain.

    Clearly BTAL wants to use code like 'ID' to somehow make their system equal to what the right wants, when it's clear it not.  You want to push the Canadian system, then start knocking down the GOP BS, and push for what Canada has.  This non-sense of acting like anyone from the GOP wants anything but the 'ID' moniker from the Canadian system is so transparent in it's deception.


    Most of the new restrictive voter id laws (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:19:18 AM EST
    propose the showing of picture id by voters, many of whom have been on the registry for years...never had to show one before...seniors will be impacted.

    Additionally, voters whose picture ids do not match their current residence will be impacted (students, younger, mobile workers) Additionally, it will impact absentee voting and overseas military voting.

    The constitutional amendment on the MN ballot this year requiring id only says that, and does not fill out any details...(what kind of id, how can it be obtained, how much $, overseas requirements etc.) So voters are being asked to affirm legislation that has not yet been written. It's a mess and should be rejected.


    heh (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:38:43 AM EST
    So voters are being asked to affirm legislation that has not yet been written. It's a mess and should be rejected.

    Do you mean like...

    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
    - Nancy Pelosi



    comment does not apply to this proposed (none / 0) (#72)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:48:31 AM EST

    My comment made (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:51:32 AM EST
    a definitive point.

    If Pelosi embarrasses you then I have hope for you.


    Sorry, but you're full of it. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    Is/was there a national referendum vis-a-vis whatever legislation Pelosi was talking about?

    Your attempt at "false equivalency" (words of the day here, apparently) is what is embarrassing, and I'm afraid I have no hope for you...sadly.


    Not false at all (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:03:06 AM EST
    Both comments relate to wanting people to take actions where the end result is unknown.

    Speaking of unknowns (none / 0) (#113)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    "The message is that there are no 'knowns'. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns...but there are also unknown unknowns...The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

    Def Sec Donald Rumsfeld, NATO press conference, 2002

    set and match! ;0)


    True (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    It ain't what you know you don't know that hurts you... it's what you don't know that you don't know that'll do it every time..

    And that defines the results of Pelosi's comment.


    sss...snore...... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    So?? (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    propose the showing of picture id by voters, many of whom have been on the registry for years...never had to show one before...seniors will be impacted.

    What does a name being on the registry have to do with knowing that the person showing up is that person??

    And the answer is? Nothing.

    Will seniors be impacted?? Seniors must have the same photo ID to get a debit card, a credit card, a bank account, to cash a check, to get a library card, to check into a motel, to get on an commercial airplane flight, to rent a car, to get a driver's license, to sign up for Medicare, to sign up for Social Security... Heck, in most casinos you have to have a player's card, which takes a photo ID to get, to play the slots....

    Face facts. You are talking about a very, very, very small minority that can get a photo ID with readily available help from friends, church groups, etc.

    The Repubs remember Chicago in 1960 and saw that many people in FL were registered in two states in 2000... Yes, they are suspicious.


    in MN one arguement is to prevent fruad, which (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    hardly exist in the first place.....a lot of money and time spent on something useless.

    Voting is a right, not a privilege. Credit cards, stays in motels are not rights.


    The Fake Problem it Solves... (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    ...not one case during the Bush administration of a person impersonating an eligible voter.

    Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud - and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.


    86 people were convicted and their laws are going to disenfranchise how many thousand ?  Talk about wasteful government spending, for what, to ensure no one does what not one person was convicted of during 5 years of republican rule ?

    I wonder if Jim's hatred of manufactured controversies applies here ?  It doesn't get any more manufactured than this.


    Scott..I also wonder if (none / 0) (#165)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    SCOTUS had to show a picture ID when they elected President Bush? <srk>

    They Only Accepted... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    ... the Grand Ole Party secret handshake for that one, no ID's necessary.  But that year, their disfranchisement wasn't about fraud, it was about hanging chads.

    Win at all costs, including fictitious fraud problems to bring their brand of 'democracy', much like their 'free' markets, always swayed to favor them, but never actually fair.

    Only with a republican run system would an election be determined without actually counting every legitimate vote...


    Armando has a very entertaining (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    Post up @ DK re "himself" and retroactivity.

    I plan to have read it (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:59:45 AM EST

    More shooting guns ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by heidelja on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 11:03:36 PM EST
    ...in Central Florida in the past 24 hours.  This time in Lake County (Leesburg) which borders Orange County (Orlando) to the NW.  (Seminole County [Sanford] borders Orange County to the NE.) More can be found here1 and here2.

    Situation reported by WKMG Channel 6 was that deputies went to wrong house and didn't identify selves when pounding on door to arrest an occupant they believed to be in the house.  An occupant of home had his gun pointed when door was opened and he was shot dead by deputies.  First version of story was that deputies did identify themselves, but that story was changed with the explanation deputies had not identified themselves to maintain the element of surprise. The Orlando Seninel account is slightly different making it a situation that most certainly should have been one coppers identified themselves.  Actually, per the OS account it is a situtaion they should have just cooled their jets before knocking on the first door they thought to at 1:30am!

    What to watch for? (none / 0) (#62)
    by heidelja on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:01:30 AM EST
    1. Whether the person who had been pursued by the coppers will be charged for murder since a deputy in pursiut had gone to the wrong apartment door when he shot the innocent occupant who allegedly was holding/pointing a gun inside the apartment when the door was openned.

    2. Whether a perceived cause of this will be seen by authorities to be having a gun. (Note: Never was this seemingly been seen as a cause for Trayvon Martin being shot.)

    3. Will a grand jury be used to possibly indict the deputy who shot an innocent person for holding a gun inside his home?

    I saw President Obama on CNN (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:47:36 AM EST
    This morning quickly and sincerely address a reporter asking him if his campaign was going to stop attacking Romney over his Bain.  The President said simply that No, they would not end it.  Mr. Romney is running for President using his Bain credentials to demonstrate economic expertise and experience and Americans want to know exactly what that is.  And he said that during political campaigns he understands that candidates will play these kinds of games and he wasn't talking about himself.

    Then CNN cut away to their anchor and their anchor said that the Obama campaign is also claiming that Mr. Romney may have committed a felony submitting documents to the SEC.

    I'm very happy with President Obama and how he is dealing with the Romney economic expertise issue.  I'm happy with him as CIC.  I have grown happy getting to experience some relief via ACA.  I'm happy with how he is handling Mr. Bain.  Romney would be so economically devastating to what remains of our economy and our broke local government structures, I can never vote for him and I must fight in every way to keep him out of office.  I'm not excited by Obama's economic record, he has failed to rein in big casino, but Romney would never attempt to do it.  He would probably usher in a Great Depression where we would have starving in the streets.

    It's not hard to rip the Romney (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    economic expertise - but it sucks a lot of the oxygen out of a room so people don't notice so much that Obama's been pretty crappy on the economy as president.  Yes, Obama made the right decision on Detroit, but it doesn't do much to outweigh the many decisions  he made - or failed to make - that weren't right and didn't help.

    The two of them would probably have a high old time chortling over the use of drone technology, warrantless surveillance, the killing of American citizens with impunity, "fixing" entitlements - to name a few - so while those of us who wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney for dogcatcher can enjoy Romney's current discomfort over Bain, we don't take comfort from knowing that the Obama option isn't taking us anywhere we want to go, either.

    Happy for you that ACA is helping and making a difference in your situation, but whether it's Romney or Obama, we will continue to be a country whose highly dysfunctional approach to making care accessible and affordable will be harmful to our economy, and will harm both the physical and economic health of too many of its citizens.


    I agree with you on many things Anne (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    But not on the nonfact that President Obama chortles about drones or killing people.  I can't believe you are placing that on him. He has never sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", and I have never ever ever had any proof that he would consider chortling about any of his war decisions.

    Okay - that's fair, and you're right - I don't (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    have any knowledge that Obama's enjoying these things, or chortling over them with or without Mitt Romney in the picture, but I am disturbed/troubled/angered/frightened by Obama's attitude that he doesn't feel the need to be accountable for them to anyone.  

    Glenn - and Al Gore - say it better than I do:

    When Al Gore delivered his major speech on the Washington Mall in 2006 denouncing the unrestrained Bush/Cheney assault on core American values, he asked: "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?" That's exactly my question here for the far more extreme power claimed by Obama: if you believe the President should have the power to order people, including U.S. citizens, executed with no due process and not even any checks or transparency, what power do you believe he shouldn't have? It's impossible to see what answer someone could offer after defending this level of secret power.

    Pretty serious question...I'm open to answers.


    I agree that he has taken (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    power, and he isn't explaining well legally what allows him this empowerment.  I had President Bush, and he blew this country all to hell using such powers.  Another President coming in after Obama, will he too claim such powers and what if he is as crazy as BushII?  I have no answer.  Thank you for taking Obama out of the Romney chortling room.  I would think that McCain and Romney would chortle together.  Romney doesn't seem to understand what constitutes terrorizing animals, in fact thinks it is okay.  He might chortle, I already know McCain can chortle about killing off and on.

    The increased use of drones though, that is the small footprint plan for controlling Al Qaeda in failed states and the Af/Pak border area.  What are your answers since you threw sort of a connip when Obama increased troop strength in Afghanistan, and now he is going to pull out and increase his drones?

    It is his job to protect this nation and he has a duty to aid other democratic countries in that endeavor as well.  That is why Afghanistan is a NATO endeavor and most troops are ISAF and will likely remain so.  If so many world leaders took a look at the intel and decided they had to join this struggle, how can Obama be THAT WRONG about the dangers?


    It's not like you to avoid answering (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    a direct question, MT.
    "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?"

    Add to that, the prerogative he has claimed to order the death of anyone -- US citizen or not.  Forget the whole "it's his job to protect this nation" stuff, and really think about that question.

    I understand that is your nature and in the best interests of your family to want to support the CiC.  I don't have that disability -- I'm a civilian.  But I don't have an answer to this question.  Do you?


    Eavesdropping and spying (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    I think that's only job creation going on.  I don't know what to do about it because first of all it is ALL secret.  I get some figures here and there, it sounds like four different agencies are listening and spying on all of us at all times.  I don't know what you do about it because I am not allowed to know anything specific about it.

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    Meant to say that it is the only job creation going on.  Seems like we can get congress to cough up money anytime anywhere to spy a little bit more on all of us.

    I'm confused: (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    What does job creation have to do with "the question"?

    I have tried to track what (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    goes on in the spying realm, and the money given to all of it is so staggering.  They've built buildings all over the place that are hidden from you and I, they've hired ears and analysts.  My husband started out in military intelligence but he won't tell anybody $hit.  It was released what you would need to qualify to be one of these spy outposts for construction.  I can't even remember where and I think it was over a year ago.  Anyhow, you must have special walls, and then a room with a special name in the center with even different wall construction.  And they have outposts now all over the place.  There may even be one in Enterprise.  But much of it is privatized, contractors are doing this.

    I started talking about what I read and my husband got all jumbled and weird and he demanded to know where I had got this information from.  So I showed him, and then he felt I guess that he shake his head yes.  But he used to do that sort of thing listening outside the country a long time ago, sitting in that little special room.  And now we all have one of those close by listening to all of us.  And as far as I know that has been the only serious job creation, the only thing that can get all the funds it needs.


    MT, honey, slow down (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    I think you missed the significant part of this:
    "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison [sj: and/or execute] American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?"
    So I "bolded" it.  It's okay if you don't have an answer.  I can't come up with one myself.

    Executing Americans who are terrorists (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    And hiding in failed states where boots on the ground cause even more damage....I'm fine droning them.  And I do not feel that Obama abused any power.  I know some people don't think Awlaki and everyone like him is a terrorist.  I am not one of them though.

    Did you see, that the Taliban now considers Al Qaeda the plague considering what siding with them and aiding and abetting them has cost them?  That needed to happen too.


    Okay, (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sj on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    I'm going with "you don't have an answer" when it comes to what can the President not do.

    Yeah, and I missed that whole (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    "due process" thing citizens are supposed to be afforded, too.

    There must be something wrong with me that when I read "Americans who are terrorists" and we get from there to dead with nothing in between, I start to wonder, is there any chance some non-terrorist citizen could end up on a kill list?

    I mean, what are the chances?


    Well, were you okay with those drones (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    killing Awlaki's teenage American son? A boy who was not thought to be a terrorist? A boy who was, after his death, labeled by the U.S. government as "collateral damage", surely one of the more despicable phrases devised to muddy the public's understanding of what it is the government is doing in our name.

    Drones are equal opportunity killers. They do not distinguish between the suspected terrorist and anyone else in the neighborhood. They kill babies and mothers and grandmothers and neighbors, anyone who is around.


    Plus the teenage boy was killed (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    via drone a couple weeks after his father was killed the same way.  It's not like the boy was walking with his Dad.  

    What was he doing with 9 Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    militants.....sigh?  I think he was only classified as collateral damage because he was still a minor by U.S. standards. And they do care about who is there during strikes.  To say something like that is just B.S.  President Obama cares about collateral damage.  David Petraeus cares, and even Stanley McChrystal that I never could stand came to care.  Because you can't win when dealing with ANY insurgency if you are creating collateral damage.  It isn't that the military Generals that I listed are great humanitarians, it is only that they can't do that and hope to get anyplace and they know this.  

    We have lost many many special forces troops too who in the Af/Pak areas I know for a fact went in and neutralized booby traps.  The people that were in the Haqqani network that we really needed to capture or kill, they would booby trap entire blocks so that if you hit them they took 50 people out with them if they could.  Our special forces soldiers spent much time, unbelievable time, dismantling booby traps, even if the target wasn't there.  And sometimes they lost, and they lost their lives doing it.


    I just don't see how we are ever to agree (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    about the use of drones, MT.

    You, if I am reading you correctly, view drones as a way to save American military lives. And who doesn't want to save American military lives?

    To me, drones are a not very well controlled, as in they cannot be clearly targeted to hit only the terrorist, mechanism that makes it all too easy for us to open up military operations anywhere it strikes our fancy.

    When U.S.ground troops are involved we have to at least have a conversation about putting all those American lives in jeopardy. There is some, not enough but some, public discussion about whether or not military action will be worth the loss of American lives.

    With drones there is none of that. For the most part the American people don't even know where drones are being used. And with no American soldiers coming home in body bags the "war" virtually ceases to exist.

    And that, IMO, is a very bad place for us to be as a nation.


    I think our real disagreement is whether (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:02:53 PM EST
    U.S. military should ever have been deployed in the first place.  

    MT, tell me why (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:47:29 AM EST
    Romney would be devastating to what remains of our economy.

    Love to read your take on it.


    He has no concept (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    Of what constitutes a stable economy or how to create one.  He only knows how to exploit an economy and he thinks that is healthful, if that happens to a larger degree in this country at this time our economy will completely collapse.

    He said that Detroit should have been allowed to fail, so if he had been President that is what he would have allowed to happen.  If that had happened we would be in even deeper and darker trouble, particularly with our already gutted export and industrial base.


    Just put the country in the dog crate... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:16:58 AM EST
    ...and strap it to the roof!

    Money matters more than humans.  People you can lay off, cut their benefits, profit from.  Money just sits there without people to use.  Oh, that's right, because it's an inanimate object of human creation and over which humans have COMPLETE control.  To be fair, however, neither party will tell you that.  The casino paradigm that is killing us doesn't look to be going anywhere.


    Dadler (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    assume you have some money to invest.

    Would you put it at risk in today's environment when no one knows what the government regulations will be next week much less next year??

    I don't think you would unless the rate of return was very high.

    You play poker. You understand you don't take 5 to 1 odds unless the pot is very large.

    Companies and corporations are no different except they have money from their investors. And they are obligated to not take silly risk and try to get a profit for the investors.


    Sometimes you are such a dope (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    I was the runaway bride, engaged so many times it's pathetic.  Once I was engaged to this guy whose family purchase a drilling rig and sent it to the middle east.  They worked for a sheik, it was great too until the sheik decided the oil rig was his.  He threw them out of country, and took their oil rig, and they were never able to obtain any kind of damages.  Funny as hell if you ask me, they were kind of bunch a-holes...very entitled to everything they wanted.

    Civil society and rule of law costs, people like you act like the world is a uniform stable safe place.  IT IS NOT!


    MT, your personal economic (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:29:49 AM EST
    position relates to stable employment by the government. But for millions it does not.

    If the company you work for runs into trouble then you are in trouble.

    Groups like Bain buy the company and infuse cash, change the management, change the business plan and try to make the company successful. In almost all cases some people lose their jobs but others do not.

    Would you prefer that the company closes down and everyone lose their job?

    It is a risky situation and to persuade investors to put their money at high risk you have to offer a high rate of return to compensate for the times the attempt fails and the investors lose all of their money.  

    Romney was right about Detroit. First of all, Ford  survived and has done well without my tax dollars.
    And before you tell me all the money has been paid back:

    Our tally of ProPublica's work on General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial Services shows that of $80 billion spent by taxpayers on the entire bailout, we're still waiting on nearly $40 billion, a number confirmed by the Treasury Department.


    So, new Chrysler has "repaid its loans," as has Chrysler Financial Services. But old Chrysler was lent $1.3 billion that won't be repaid.


    As with Chrysler, new GM has repaid its "loans," while old GM may fail to repay $850 million. Unlike Chrysler, the government still owns a third of GM and more than 70 percent of the former GMAC -- stock that taxpayers can hope will one day earn enough to make them whole.

    Politifact link

    Both GM and Chrysler are apparently doing well. They could have done so without a bail out. Said bail out was more about union votes that saving non-union jobs.


    Having personally (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    been through a buyout back in the 80's I can tell you the rule of thumb is that the more you are paid and the higher you are up on the ladder the more likely you are to lose your job. They want their "own" people in these positions. So, yeah, the people making minimum wage usually get to keep their job because what point is there in replacing them? These kind of situations do no create jobs, they lose jobs. Romney is claiming that he created jobs and even you aren't making that argument. You are arguing that it would have been worse if Bain had not come in and taken over the business. Maybe, maybe not.

    So let me understand (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:54:24 AM EST
    The bosses are replaced but the workers aren't.. and I don't think we're talking minimum wage workers but I won't argue the point.

    It seems to me that you are making my point.

    And yes, the prevention of the company closing has prevented people from losing their jobs so jobs have been created. Plus the survival means that additional jobs will be created.

    And there is no arguing that if Bain had not rescued the company things would have been better.

    Unless, of course, you want to claim that some mythical company with a board of directors consisting of Unicorns and Tooth Fairies would have swooped in an poured gold dust into the coffers.


    Actually (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    my point does not disagree with you that much the point of it is that it is not "creating" jobs. There still is a "net" job loss because the total workforce number declines at lot of times because of the duplication of jobs in a merger.

    So you now agree with Obama that he "saved" jobs with what he did?

    Bain also closed down companies. So you cannot say that Bain coming in was always a good thing. Many companies were broken into pieces and sold off because it was more profitable to do it that way. In those cases EVERYBODY lost their job. So if you add it all together the breaking up of the company and the "saving" of the company Bain's record has been not one of job creation but job loss.


    In your world it is okay for the (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    whole world to have certain trade parameters that benefit their people and the stability of their people but the U.S.  I'm tired of the burned out rhetoric about our free markets because it is a lie.  We have fixed markets that allow for the exploitation of the 99% and it is destroying our economy, our strength in the global economy, and is now threatening our currency benchmark position in the world because our current finance world is so overleveraged it is now obviously a scam, suspect, and dooming itself.  Romney was all about creating that, and he is all about maintaining that.  He has enough money that if he destroys the stability of my country and people take to the streets rioting he will move to the safety and social security of Switzerland.

    I'm sick to death of people who thrive on ignorance and stupidity, and then when everything they argue for blows up want to change the subject or don't show up here to comment for a few months.