Friday Morning Open Thread

Busy day. No blogging by me.

Open Thread.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Twitter Provides Court with Tweets of Wall St. Protester >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Who says Mittens in out of touch? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

    But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.


    Skeptical (none / 0) (#2)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    I can't believe anyone (even Mitt) would say something this stupid ... and that's after his idiotic statements re: the Libya/Egypt attacks.  I wish the article would have quoted him.

    If it turns out to be true, this has got to hurt him.


    Sounds like we will hear it... (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

    There is a Pretty Clear Quote (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    "Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

    "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

    The 'and less' part seems to be forgotten in the headline, but what is crystal clear is $100k isn't middle class in Mitt's mind.  Which is pretty close to average income in a household.

    So it's very easy to believe IMO, that's what they always do, make a claim and stand by it.  Then when it's actually dissected, turns out they change the meaning of words.  Median income does not equal middle class I am guessing in this case.

    This week has been a real eye opener in regards to teachers salaries and the middle class and tax cuts.  They are all over the place depending on what S they are peddling.  Whether they consider them middle class depends on the argument, for their salaries they are overpaid, for tax cuts on the middle class they are on the bottom end, if they are even considered middle class.

    It would be nice to get all politicians to agree to the basics, like what is a good salary in America, who is the middle class, and at what point are they poor, regardless of the argument.


    It was a stupid question, and instead (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    of re-framing it in way that would have made more sense, Romney just joined in the stupid.

    Romney would have been better off saying, "George, I'm not going to get into an academic and highly subjective discussion about what dollar amount of income defines someone's class.  What I am going to do is say that those with taxable incomes of somewhere up to $200K - $250K should not have their tax burden increased.  Why?  Because we know that the vast percentage of people fall into that category, and we should be looking to maximize - or not further reduce - the disposable, discretionary income that people can put back into the local economies and communities to help spur demand and get the economy moving upward.  I don't want Joe Smith deciding he can't take his family out to eat because he's now paying more taxes.  I don't want the Jones family to decide that they're not going to be able to take a vacation this year because they're not getting a tax refund.  It doesn't really matter whether the Smiths or the Joneses are middle class or whether they think they're middle class - what matters is whether the tax burden on the Smiths and Joneses will inhibit their ability to improve their standard of living and help the local economy."

    But, no - for one thing, no Republican would ever have said that.  Beyond that, he just failed to maneuver the discussion to a place where he was in control - he just let Stephanopolous set the trap and then he walked right into it.  And now he's going to spend valuable time trying to chew his foot off to get out of it.

    By the time the election rolls around, he'll be little more than a nicely-coiffed head of hair and a torso with bloodied stumps hanging off of it.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    he just failed to maneuver the discussion to a place where he was in control - he just let Stephanopolous set the trap and then he walked right into it.  And now he's going to spend valuable time trying to chew his foot off to get out of it.

    Don't think so (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    Romney's response is awkward, but what he appears to be saying is that "middle income" would include anything below $200-$250K.  The question he is being asked is whether $100K is "middle income" and while he says "No, ..." the rest of his answer clearly indicates he thinks it is, since it is less than $200-$250K.  He appears to be responding to what he thinks an upper limit of "middle income" would be, and he's trying to say that income over $100K but less than $200-$250K would also be considered "middle income" in his mind.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    ...now that I have read it a couple times.

    No (none / 0) (#83)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    By saying that middle income starts at 250,000.00 and below....I don't care how far down he goes. He is trying to define that 200,000 to 250,000 area as middle income....and therefore shouldn't have their taxes raised.

    I think we agree (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:06:37 PM EST
    He's setting an upper limited on "middle income" at between $200-$250K, and suggesting those making less than this amount shouldn't have their taxes raised - sort of a backhanded version of Obama's position.  Obama wants to drop the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which he defines as more than $250K.  Obama's position is probably more accurate, IMO, since $250K puts you in the top 2% of income earners, which IMO is not "middle class".

    But because he said, "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less", I don't think it's fair to say that he's saying middle class is income of $200-$250K.


    agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    but what I mean to emphasize is that part...re "and below" isn't really the point. It is the fact that he wants to put the 200 to 250 crowd in the "middle class don't tax gang" As others have pointed out....that income is on the highest percentiles.

    Sh*t.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    I wonder what he calls real middle class people?  

    Inconsequential Class?  You're-so-f*cked class? A$$ class?

    Keep it up Mitt, you're making Leona Helmsley look like Emma Goldman.


    The help. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    The former help, that is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    When it comes time to tighten belts, Mitt and family have to go without so many valets.

    What, no uniformed operator... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by unitron on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    ...for that car elevator?

    Are they going to have to push the buttons themselves?

    The horror, the horror.


    "...look like Emma Goldman" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    When all things are factored in, compared to Leona and Mitt, Emma is a covergirl.

    From transcript (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:21:00 AM EST

    MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

    MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

    It's getting reported pretty harshly.  It doesn't seem that he necessarily meant only 200-250K is middle income.  But he also answered the question in a weird way.

    We'll see what happens with the latest gaffe.  I feel like his campaign could run with the idea that they are being hounded by the media or something if he continues to screw up/attract this kind of media attetion.  You know typical GOP "liberal media" mentality.  But I don't know how effective that will be as he really has alienated people with the stuff he's said.


    There is no need to distort what he said (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    He said his definition of "middle class" tops out somewhere between $200K and $250K.  That income range is in fact above the 95th percentile.  The middle fifty percent of American households -- to take a stab at a real notion of "middle class" -- have an annual income of between about $30,000 and somewhere below $100,000.    

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    although the numbers I found has Romney describing middle as anything under the top 3%.

    Obama described the wealthy as above $250,000 per year while Romney describes the middle as anything under $250,000. Huge difference in interpretation using the same number.


    Okay, help me out here... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    it's been one of those weeks, so maybe I'm just not getting this right.

    I don't think Romney knows how the tax brackets work - or maybe he does and he's just dazzling us with his weasel words.  When you lower taxes on the middle class, you lower taxes for the upper class, too - everyone gets the ride up the brackets, even if the rich have to get off that ride at $250,000.  If they get the advantage of the lower rate up to any amount of taxable income, there's no way their overall effective rate isn't lower - unless Romney is going to raise the rates above $250K - which he says he wouldn't do.

    Basically, I think this was a call to keep the Bush tax rates; it's typical GOP "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetoric that most people will completely miss.

    The "$200,000 to $250,000 and less" comment is going to sting, but probably not as much as we think, because those are Obama's numbers, too - he's just been better about framing them - and -  he says he wants the tax rates above that level to roll back to pre-Bush levels.

    As for Romney "alienating" people, well, I guess that's somewhat inevitable when you're an alien life form and incapable of relating to us earthlings...


    That's what I mean (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    The "$200,000 to $250,000 and less" comment is going to sting, but probably not as much as we think, because those are Obama's numbers, too - he's just been better about framing them - and -  he says he wants the tax rates above that level to roll back to pre-Bush levels.

    I don't know what Romney was trying to say, exactly, but for tax purposes 250k has been our "middle class"ish number for a while, regardless of accuracy.  What Mittens said makes it sound like he really believes 250k constitutes a middle class income, when it is upper middle class.


    that he won't raise taxes on anyone who makes up to 200-250K.

    Stephanopoulos threw him a curve ball with the middle-income question, and Romney tried to craft an answer to that question that also got his point across about no new taxes, but, wow, did he fumble.


    He's just so bad at this stuff. (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    If he had said simply, "if I raise taxes at all it will only be on the top 2%" and have would have been in great shape with everyone except his base, and they would forgive him if it helped him win.

    Of course the Ryan tax plan does no such thing according to the CBO - it does result in higher taxes for the middle income earners, but the fact that he is a liar is another story.


    He really is not good at this stuff. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    Maybe he'll improve with practice.

    He's been running for POTUS for 5 yrs (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    How much more practice does he need?

    And he's been refusing to show his own tax returns (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    for the past ten years, starting with his MA gubernatorial run. This latest gaffe is more proof the guy is totally out of touch with regular American working people. And it provides even more fodder for those demanding to see his tax returns.

    Fair point. (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    200-250 k is the top 2% (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    notmiddle income. Here is the chart form 2011.

    MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today.

    He just makes no sense. Once again, it is the arithmetic.


    Interesting chart (none / 0) (#73)
    by unitron on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    Notice how it looks like it's harder and harder to get more income up until you hit the 200K per year mark, and then it seems easier?

    Like whatever you make above that sort of snowballs?


    And after a certain point you (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:04:43 AM EST
    get to make money off of the people at the lower tiers, by steering their retirement funds into your investment accounts.  The game is rigged, as Warren said.

    In my experience that is not the case. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    In my experience many of the 200K-ish earners have extremely volatile incomes. iow, they don't at all make that kind of money every year. Couple up years, couple down, and then their high-flying co gets bought by another co who sucks all the cash out if it and their high commissions disappear and they're out of work looking for another job, etc.

    Have you seen the tape or just read it? (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    As bad as it reads, it looks and sounds 100 times worse.

    Stick a fork in him, he's done.


    One Week (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    I am so excited, we will be in Bonaire next Saturday.  No phones, no TV, and no politics; shooting for 14 hours under the surface, or 25 dives.  I have never been shore diving.

    I was a swimming fool this summer.

    El Caribe... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    nice one Scotty, nice one.

    Have some rum for all of us when you're on the surface, and say hi to the fishies.


    sounds great Scott (none / 0) (#24)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:29:33 AM EST
    but remember they don't like Americans very much down in the ABC's ever since we ruined their economy and lots of land during WW2 with all the oil refineries.  But that's mostly the older folks.  Also it's always windy down there too.  However the diving is spectacular and the resorts are super.  Have a great trip.

    One week on constant Aleve (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    And it is true.  Keeping the inflammation down in rotator cuff tendonitis leads to healing.  I have a high pain tolerance, knew I tweaked my shoulder, but couldn't understand why it was getting worse even when I was babying it.  I always thought pain relievers were for when you were in too much pain, strange injury for me.  Woke up this morning though and my shoulder forgot to remind me I tweaked it until mid day.  Hopefully only taking one Aleve daily now until it is done healing.

    What's the matter with Kansas? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Same ol' sh*t. The place is run by a bunch of wacko wingers. Today it is reported that the the Kansas GOP, led by the Kansas secretary of state, attorney general, and leut. governor, just can't decide if they're going to put President Barack Obama's name on the November ballot. Apparently, they have determined they have insufficient evidence to prove Obama was born in the U.S., and some fool who works at the veterinary college writes to the three stooges that he can show the birth documents were forged.

    Bleeding Kansas still bleeds the grand stupid.

    Don't you just wish (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    that we could tell them "You remove him from the ballot, you lose all federal funds that go to Kansas."
    Including closing our military bases there (Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, McConnell Sir Force Base) and the federal prison at Leavenworth (all of which would lead to lots of local job losses and hits to local economies), as well as all other federal funding, grants, and support that Kansas gets.
    Not that we would do this, but it sure is a tempting thought.   ;-)

    Yes, I had that same tempting thought :) (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    Ha! Well, that was a quick retreat: (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 06:34:40 PM EST
    Joe Montgomery, the tea bagger who brought the original complaint about Obama's birth certificate being forged, has withdrawn the challenge to Obama's name being on the Kansas ballot.
    He got upset because people were saying mean things to him about his trumped-up claims, and just couldn't take any more of the criticism.

    Waaaahhhhh, cried another right winger.


    Oh, I have to say (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    I feel SO sorry for his hurt feelings.  Not.
    Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Joe Montgomery.

    And These Gems (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    Tim Huelskamp KS-R:

    A Republican member of Congress equated Planned Parenthood to "slavery forces" and called it a "racist organization" that was "created with the sole purpose of killing children that look like mine."

    "Like the pro-slavery forces who invaded Kansas, the pro-abortion forces in Washington and elsewhere want us to believe that abortion is not murder -- that being born is worse than death, that the unborn baby is property, not a person. We've heard that before -- 150 years ago," Huelskamp said, in an apparent reference to the Civil War and slavery.

    "Besides slavery, abortion is the other darkest stain on our nation's character," Huelskamp told the crowd. "And this president is looking for every way possible to make abortion more available and more frequent, and he wants you to pay for it -- even if you disagree with it. Welcome to another provision of Obamacare.

    IOW, the black President supports slavery by murdering black babies and making you pay for it via Obamacare.

    Serenity Now, Serenity Now...  if that doesn't work, try Hoochie Mama, Hoochie Mama...


    Om (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    mani padme hum. Om mani padme hum.  Deep yoga breathing.  Meditation and relaxation.
    And if that doesn't work, try a couple of shots of Jack Daniels.    ;-)

    There's not enough yoga - or bourbon - (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    in the universe that could make that kind of fear-driven, fear-based, ignorance tolerable.

    Besides, numbing ourselves to it is how it ends up growing and spreading and putting down roots.

    People are entitled to believe what they want, but none of us has to agree to listen to it or even consider it as a credible point of view.

    I think it's a good thing I don't live in a red state, but even here in blue Maryland, we have the pass-marriage-equality-and-the-homosexual-recruiters-will-be-infiltrating-the-schools crowd.


    Too true, Anne (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    And I do despair about this country, as well as the whole of humanity.
    But we can only do what we can do.  Do as much as you can to protect yourself and those you love, and support and give to those causes that are working for the values that you hold dear (if you are financially able to do so).
    This is what we do.  And it's about all that we can do.

    Follow-up to our discussion about judges (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    who take misogyny to a new level, Maryland District Court Judge Bruce Lamdin, whose 10 year term is expiring in October, has decide that, instead of asking to be re-appointed, he will retire.

    A Baltimore County district judge who has been under fire for his handling of a domestic violence case plans to retire next month, a spokesman for the Maryland court system said Tuesday.

    Judge Bruce S. Lamdin, 64, was removed in August from hearing cases pending an investigation of his remarks to a White Marsh woman during a court hearing last December. On Tuesday, he submitted a letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley saying he plans to step down Oct. 1, according to Terri Bolling, a spokeswoman for the Maryland court system.

    I imagine it was a case of "quit or be fired;" either way, good riddance.

    Sounds like it (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    Either way, ... good riddens.

    Yee-haw! (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    Judge strikes down Gov. Scott Walker's end-to-collective-bargaining law.

    Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.

    The ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

    Yes, Walker will appeal it, but like I said a couple of days ago... its almost as if judges (not of the SCOTUS variety) are applying the constitution again.

    Glad to see (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    QE3 kicking in.  Hopefully it will run til at least the second week of November.

    The action of the Federal Reserve, with (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    the support of ll of its 12 members, seems to indicate its belief that President Obama will be re-elected.  The usually conservative and cautious Fed taking bold action on monetary easing close to the election, to me, signifies that the economy needs stimulation at this point and its decisive steps will not impact the apparent electoral outcome.

    And, with the knowledge that fiscal stimulation is likely gridlocked for the foreseeable future, money will need to be pumped into the economy until the job market improves "substantially."    The Fed seems to have considered the drawbacks  to be taken for the timing of its action, and determined that the need of the economy outweighs the partisan criticisms.


    Please explain this to me. The first two (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    rounds of QE did nothing to improve the jobs situation. How is this round going to have any appreciable effect on jobs?

    It's not like business are refusing to hire because they don't have any money. Corporate profits are pretty damn high. There is no demand. Actual human people, as opposed to corporations as people don't have jobs or if they do, they are earning such a pittance nobody can afford to buy anything. As Charlie Pierce so succinctly sums up our economic state, "f*k the deficit. people got no jobs, people got no money."

    So, please, someone explain to me how this move by the Fed is going to be somehow and miraculously different from the first two rounds of QE?


    It won't (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    But apparently, as intended, Wall Street is happy with it. Trickle down economics once again. The politics of urination. Hooray.

    It goosed the stock market, which appears (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    to be the one metric that matters to these people.

    It's been great for my retirement funds - and it'll spur larger dividend payouts, and boost executive pay, but it's not going to help create jobs.

    We have to stop thinking of the Fed as giving a rat's ass about the common folk; we aren't the ones they seem to be working for.


    My understanding is that (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    this action of the Fed will be somehow, but not miraculously, different from previous actions.  The magnitude is greater ($85 billion per month) and the timeline is open-ended rather than sporadic.  The open-ended plan is linked indirectly to downward trends in employment (to achieve about 7 percent).  Interest rates are already low, but the asset purchases are most likely to impact home mortgages--sales and re-financing, the most promising part of the plan, in my opinion.

    The low interest rates may promote investment in the stock market for better returns on money.   Perhaps the underlying reason for the Fed action is as a bulwark against assaults to the economy if the sequestering proceeds as scheduled and the tax cuts are allowed to expire.  Of course, who knows if any of this is certain to work--probably the Fed would be among those to raise their hands as doubters.  However,  in the absence of fiscal stimulus caused by  Republican recalcitrance, it is, in my view, the country's best try at the moment.


    The part (none / 0) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    that I don't understand is, if QE-1, and QE-2 didn't work, why are we thinking QE-3 will? Oh, I know, like Anne said, it's good for the stock market, and that does have some benefit for some regular folks. But, the flip side to that is, if you didn't want to play the volatile stock market, and simply wanted a safe, conservative "bank account," you're rewarded with a virtual "0%" return on your money. Of course, factoring in inflation, you'd actually be losing money. And again, like Anne said, it hasn't helped in creating jobs.

    The point is, while there are some incremental benefits to these QE's, the long term damage they are doing are huge. If anyone is interested in the "why" regarding the damage, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. But, for this short post, suffice to say that the QE's, more than any other program, shows us, once and for all, the total, 100% capture, of all our Government institutions.

    100% for the 1%, 100% of the time.


    Bernacke acknowledged in his remarks (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    that the insanely low interest rate was a killer for people who depend on CDs and savings accounts, people like retirees. Ben feels bad about the toll his policy is taking on those who depend on savings, but somebody has to be sacrificed. It may as well be the old.

    Seriously, that was the exact impression Ben's remarks made. If you are unfortunate enough to have your money in the bank instead of the market, well, too bad for you. The market rules!


    Bernanke is not concerned (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    about inflation.  His area of scholarly expertise was deflation during the Great Depression.

    So, that is why Bernanke does not fear trying to increase the money supply.

    The effectiveness of monetary policy is an endless debate.


    Anyone have details (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    on what is happening in Austin?

    I live here (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:26:41 AM EST
    I don't know what's going on.  Sounds like a prank to me but who knows...

    From what I can now find (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    I would agree. Probably closer to someone that didn't want to take an exam today. Old trick in a new world spreads fear quickly.

    Hope that's all it is anyway.


    MSNBC says whole campus being (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    evacuated due to bomb threats.

    Same with a college campus in Montana...


    North Dakota, not Montana (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    Did someone in the film school (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    make an offensive movie?

    I almost hate to say this, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    because I don't want to tempt fate, or malicious influences, or whatever, but since it seems as though the guy who made the film is an Egyptian-born Copt (or so the media is very widely reporting), I'm kind of surprised that no Coptic Christian churches have been attacked in Egypt especially, or elsewhere, for that matter. I was almost expecting it, when the news about Nakoula broke.
    I do know that, in LA, at least, police have stepped up patrols around Coptic Christian churches. Link. So they must have had the same thought.

    The mob mentality - wherever and whoever (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    is not logical.  By definition.  In this instance, Coptic churches and their congregations are no more responsible for the actions of one idiot who is or was a member of that sect than the US Govt is responsible for the movie-making activities of its most idiotic, stupid, prejudiced and adolescent-minded citizens.

    Oh, I absolutely agree, Peter (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    They aren't.  Just as the United States is not responsible for this film.  I happen to have a couple of Coptic Christian friends, and they are appalled at this whole thing.  But they are also worried about repercussions against the Copts.

    Unfortunately, when you get religion in the mix, too many people lose all reason.  And it doesn't seem to matter which religion you are, if you are an unthinking fanatic.

    It still flummoxes me that such unreasoning fanaticism is so prevalent in this day and age.  We are in the 21st Century, for crying in a bucket! I would have hoped that humanity would have progressed beyond the point of "You don't believe/look/behave as I do! We need to kill/eliminate/marginalize you!"

    I despair about humanity.  Is it late enough in the day to pour myself a glass of wine?  {{Sigh}}


    Buildings have been cleared. (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    Seems to have been a prank.

    Times sure have changed. (none / 0) (#17)
    by vector on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    In 1940, Wendell Willkie, the Republican Party nominee for President, denounced fellow Republicans who criticized the foreign policy decisions of the incumbent president, during a time of international crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWfYXJAX5Ow

    Yeah, the world has changed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by me only on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    Europe was at war in 1940.  The Third Reich opened the first ghettos in Poland in 1940.

    Only Republican I ever favored: (none / 0) (#53)
    by the capstan on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    Wendell Wilkie.  My 7-year-old mind was taken by one of his speeches against war.

    As a gambler follower (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    who doesn't gamble, I enjoy watching the numbers as people with large sums of cash and a gambling instinct make their plays. Like with polls, one gambler is meaningless. It's whether you can see a pattern developing between multiple polls or gamblers to decipher the general feel of developments as gametime (or an election) approaches.

    With that in mind, I have found a picture that best describes the Intrade betting action graph on Romney for President over the last five days.

    What?! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    No dog on the roof?  :D

    Damn (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    that would have been awesome if I had the brain and the technical know-how to think of and pull that off.

    Now I'll spend the next 2 hours trying to do it.


    Amateurish (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    but the best I could do

    Romney Intrade Betting Update


    LOL.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    Sell Mortimer Sell!!! Turn those voting machines back on!!!

    Looking good Barack Obama!
    Feeling good Joe Biden!


    Mortimer (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    does seem to be running for president this year.

    Paul Ryan = Clarence Beeks? (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 01:28:32 PM EST
    He fudges everything like the infamous orange crop report.

    Too Funny... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    Good in depth analysis !!!

    For Jennifer Granholm (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    OMG. (none / 0) (#74)
    by brodie on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    All I can say is she looks a helluva lot better now, age 53(?), than she did at 19.  It's also apparent that big hair and the shoulder padding look didn't start in the 80s.  Kinda bubbly and perky, but even there a tad overdone.

    I guess it's also too late for the Granholm forces to go around destroying all existing copies of that tape.


    Think she made a good choice (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    giving up her early aspirations for Hollywood, but those acting skills have surely come in handy in her political career.  Her academic career was impressive (BA, French/Political Science, Phi Beta Kappa; JD. Harvard Law, with honors) as was her political career (MI A.G. and Governor).   I think she still has a bright future, either in politics or cable TV (she seems to have improved with time).  

    o.m.g. (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 08:45:28 PM EST
    the clothes, the hair {head desk} yes, I lived through that period also. OY~

    JimakaPPJ update (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    Entitled - "He (Obama) is Standing With Muslims"

    In summary, the "Lefties" are blaming America and saying we should have prevented the making of this film.  This would have required a huge police force, perhaps the one Obama was alluding to in this video ( link to "Obama's Militia - Waffen SS").  This would be de facto Shariah law and Obama would approve given his statements re: religion (link to "W are not a Christian Nation" video).  This hatred of America is not new and is just the latest manifestation of the communists and their "useful idiots" 60's hippies, Bill Ayers, etc.  Muslims must be defended and events from 1,00 years ago justify the killing of innocent Americans.

    Etc., etc. etc.

    I kid you not.

    Poor ol' Jim (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 05:52:13 PM EST
    Sharia! haunts his dreams. And to think, that psychiatric reference is just a 211 phone call away.

    New Slogan? "Send Mittens to the (none / 0) (#76)
    by observed on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 09:31:44 PM EST