SuperJerk

CPAC's straw poll picks Romney as the GOP frontrunner. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html So, if this CPAC conference is any indication, the motto for Republican Party for the next 4 years will be "we weren't conservative enough." On behalf of the Democratic Party, I'd like to say: Yes, that's exactly right. Keep believing that, and we'll be no match for you.

*Awaits Jerk's angry rebuttle. Being a Republican and being conservative are not always the same thing. Isn't this what we have dictionaries for? As smart as the kid is, it doesn't change that the middle part of his speech is him just making nonsensical sentences out of big words, like 13 year olds trying to sound like grown-ups usually do. He'll probably end up as a speech writer for Sarah Palin making more money than I do.

Half of what he said didn't even make sense, though. A 13 year old kid, regardless of ideology, lacks the background knowledge to understand the issues well enough to form enough opinions to write a whole book defining them. While its impressive that a 13 year old would have the motivation to write a book, and the intellegence to be able to organize the information (though by adult standards his speech was very disorganized), I don't think he's capable of actual value. He's programmed by listening to Bill Bennett's radio show for 3 hours a day since he was 8 years old. It is sad he isn't using his natural curiosity to explore other things besides reinforcing right-wing ideology.

Children shouldn't be allowed to listen to talk radio. Exhibit A:

I've got nothing else to say, but hey, look, here's a motherfucker with a Ph. D. and a Nobel Prize in economics talking about the stimulus plan and the Republican opposition to it... (Krugman's credentials don't make him automatically right, of course, and Olberman's show is definitely NOT a program devoted to looking at all sides of an issue, but we should at least listen to what he has to say.)

In case you missed it, David Brooks hit the nail on the head the other night....

The Bear McCreary short on the Season 4.0 DVD is pretty damn funny. "This show has music? I thought it was just Eddie on the set hitting things!"

He was in Sin City... I mean come on! Come on!

I also had a similar reaction to Jindal's entrance, but mostly along the lines of thinking it was the gayest entrance I've ever seen any politician ever make. This includes Barney Frank.

MSNBC vs. Fox News, round 1 million... What really happened... How Fox News reported it...

Yup....the 90s are over.

Or Kenneth from "30 Rock."

Or the guy makes $140,000, but supports his nagging wife with a $30,000 allowance and she borrows the $8000... ....did I already mention my head hurts?

I think the analogy is valid because that's what the country as a whole makes and is where the government gets its money from.

I'm not responding to Crimson G until my headache goes away. I'm glad you're here, because debating Marvin isn't much of a challenge, but your posts can be pretty wordy. Also...is this the wrong time to point out that the cost of stimulus plan ($787 billion), compared to the annual GDP of the United States ($14.3 trillion), is pretty tiny? Imagine someone who makes $143,000 a year borrowing almost $8000 to make some home improvements. I don't think anyone would think anything of it.

I'd put the asshat Krugman's reputation as a professional (and Nobel Prize winning) economist against most of the other asshats that have also been mentioned. And I'm not even remotely interested in discussing Ayn Rand. I have no idea what you're talking about in your first point. It's certainly not Keynesian economics. That first point was a brief critique of the supply-side economic policies championed by Laffer and most of the Republican Party who argue that tax cuts are the answer to every problem, ever. I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve, thanks (Arthur Laffer creditted Keynes with the idea, by the way), and only against the concept in the way conservative politicians and oundits have tried to make it into a revenue producing slope that is universally applicable to every economic situation. I'm well-versed enough in economic history to know that lowering a tax rate on the top 10% doesn't usually lead to an increase in productivity or job creation. There's a point where increasing the rate does get a lower return, but that point varies depending on the situation. In short, the guy who wants to start a small business isn't less likely to do so just because he'll be taxed at 40% instead of 30%. Some of the greatest economic growth in our history occurred during an era when tax rates were downright punative. But, following World War II, our spending priorities emphasized helping the people who needed it, not the people who were already wealthy. The money supply has to be able to expand, though. Too little money in circulation will lead to deflation, which can also be a problem. Homes have value to consumers beyond their appreciating value as investments. People are actually living in these houses, have poored money into them, and don't have the money to start over on a new house. One thing I do not think you are considering is how much interest adds to the monthly payments on a house. Because it is compounding interest and other added expenses, people can have a pretty significant size drop with a lower interest rate. If consumers are concerned about losing their jobs because the economy is bad, they pretty much are not going to buy under almost any circumstances. But the economy can't get better unless people start buying products. Recessions are a catch-22 that way.

But, Santelli's spot-on in his analysis here. What do you disagree with in the clip, other than the fact that the man manages stocks? There was nothing in that clip I agree with. He was yelling about irrelevant things like Cuban history, how he was going to start a revolution with the average guys who work in the commodities business, and rewarding bad behavior: i.e. blaming the victims of the economy rather than the people who have always benefitted from it. Basically, it was the same conservative noise we've been hearing since the late 70s. Common sense like if you tax the wealthy at 38% instead of 32%, somehow the extra money will be spent on creating jobs for the other 90% of society? You mean that kind of common sense? Or the kind of common sense that says you have to have at least some policies that look at the demand-side of the economy, because that's where most of individual economic decisions are made? Hmmmm.

The third option: If it makes a good soundbite, it doesn't matter if it is true.

It is actually good for Palin, Sanford, et. al., to refuse the stimulus money. I'm not actually IN FAVOR of any of any of them getting re-elected, of course. Or they can do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do in order to justify it, I suppose. Here's a clip from new CNBC show "Rich Stock Brokers Hate Obama."

If they want you for Nuclear Power Training, you made the right choice. I took the ASVAB as a junior, knocked it out of the park, and the Navy nabbed me for that the summer before my senior year. The recruiter was really good at giving me incomplete information about my training options to make it sound like going nuke was my best option to learn electronics, and being a naive 17 year old kid, I believed him. When it came time to do my physical and entry paperwork, the guy at the MEPS told me my only two options were nuclear power or storekeeper. I wanted electronics, so I picked nuclear, honestly believing that they wouldn't let me have a spot in regular Electronics Technician school if that's what I wanted. So, of course, after boot camp they stuck me in Machinist Mate school to learn about the pipes and valves instead of anything having to do with electronics or even electrician's work for that matter. For the next 4 months I was a miserable mess, hating every minute of my life and pissed off at myself for letting myself getting tricked into signing up for 6 years (nukes weren't allowed to sign up for the standard 4 years because the training took so long) of this shit I didn't want to have anything to do with. Since this was 1994 (back when the military was down-sizing), getting granted a discharge wasn't that difficult. I spent the next month scrubbing pots and pans for 12 hours a day in the base galley, happy to finally be free of having to spend 12 hours a day learning 1000 different kinds of hoses and valves, pop quizzes over wrenches, answering essay questions over water pressure, on top of standing watch in the middle of the night and standing for constant uniform and barracks inspections (which wouldn't have been so bad had that actually been the school I was trying to get in to).

This cartoon appeared in the New York Post yesterday. Everyone thinks the monkey represents Obama, but why are the cops shooting it then? And why would the Post print something obviously racist if the monkey is Obama? I don't get the cartoon at all. edit: The Post explained it was a reference to a recent wild monkey attack, and that the stimulus bill looked like it was written by monkeys (again, WTF?). Speaking of monkeys... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNiIOcCBpjI As if we need more proof that John Gobson is an asshole, did he really just say the Attorney General had a "bright blue scrotum"...you know...like a monkey... Wait...what? edit2: This was also debunked.

Exactly.

Apparently owing back-taxes is the new unforgivable sin, according to Republicans, therefore I submit this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...pay-back-taxes/ Somehow I don't think they will either remember or think much of this story in 2 years when she makes her official candidate declaration.