I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
That's for the EC forecast. It's a minor shift as polling in several swing states has gone both ways. His summary of the popular vote is +0.2% for Romney, which seems pretty negligible compared to past races. We might have more complete polling next week, though.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I keep thinking about that study, and how it draws all these conclusions but then seems to show that actually the conclusions aren't all that solid, except you wouldn't know unless you knew what R-squared was
I feel like I must be misreading it because the alternative is unpleasant
Obama never incited that argument, the GOP took something he said out of context. He was saying that we all work together to make a prosperous country and the GOP took that as an example of how Obama is anti-business.
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
What argument would that be, exactly?
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Obama never incited that argument, the GOP took something he said out of context. He was saying that we all work together to make a prosperous country and the GOP took that as an example of how Obama is anti-business.
His comments in-context were still foolish and his point was poorly made.
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Druhim on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Or it's pointing out that these "business owners" can fairly claim responsibility for their successes because it's not like they're utilizing these resources for free. "the rest of us" were compensated for their work the same way every business pays rent, buys supplies/equipment, and pays employees. I really don't understand where Obama thought that speech would take him.
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Or it's pointing out that these "business owners" can fairly claim responsibility for their successes because it's not like they're utilizing these resources for free. "the rest of us" were compensated for their work the same way every business pays rent, buys supplies/equipment, and pays employees. I really don't understand where Obama thought that speech would take him.
To a place where people don't pretend that the fruits of their "Labor" are not built on the back of the State. Also a place called reality.
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Or it's pointing out that these "business owners" can fairly claim responsibility for their successes because it's not like they're utilizing these resources for free. "the rest of us" were compensated for their work the same way every business pays rent, buys supplies/equipment, and pays employees. I really don't understand where Obama thought that speech would take him.
It started off as a pretty reasonable "you didn't get there on your own", and by implication "let's come together"; nothing wrong with that assertion.
But I cannot imagine how he thought saying the sentence "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" would go over well.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
that's not what it's suggesting
it's suggesting that successful businesses built this country's infrastructure with all the taxes they pay and implying that all us citizen schlubs are basically getting a free ride
which is even dumber
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Or it's pointing out that these "business owners" can fairly claim responsibility for their successes because it's not like they're utilizing these resources for free. "the rest of us" were compensated for their work the same way every business pays rent, buys supplies/equipment, and pays employees. I really don't understand where Obama thought that speech would take him.
To a place where people don't pretend that the fruits of their "Labor" are not built on the back of the State. Also a place called reality.
A State that is financed by...
Also, I was unaware that the State's role in infrastructure development was a point of contention.
because according to republicans we don't need infrastructure spending. in fact we don't need any spending outside the military according to paul ryan.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I would very much like to see a citation that shows Paul Ryan speaking out against infrastructure spending.
I retract the earlier statement, since I'm looking through his plan right now and can't find infrastructure stuff. I do really like the "super majority required to pass anything that would ever increase revenue" bit though.
That constitutes a difference of opinion on how much the State can afford to spend on it in a given year
so, in a word, no.
Also, said spending that's not attached to something else he is against.
There is no doubt much of this election is about what the role of government should be but infrastructure spending (at least in general) is not part of that debate.
April 2, 2004 HR 3550 Highway Trust Fund Bill Bill Passed - House (357 - 65) Nay
June 14, 2006 HR 5576 Transportation, Treasury and Housing Appropriations Act Bill Passed - House (406 - 22) Nay
June 29, 2006 HR 5672 Commerce Department Appropriations Bill FY 2006 Bill Passed - House (393 - 23) Nay
Nov. 14, 2007 HR 3074 Appropriations for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Conference Report Adopted - House (270 - 147) Nay
Dec. 6, 2007 HR 6 Energy Act of 2007 Concurrence Vote Passed - House(235 - 181) Nay
June 11, 2008 HR 6003 Amtrak Reauthorization Bill Passed - House (311 - 104) Nay
June 26, 2008 HR 6052 Public Transportation and Alternative Fuel Grants Bill Passed - House (322 - 98) Nay
July 24, 2008 HR 3999 National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act Bill Passed - House (367 - 55) Nay
Dec. 16, 2009 HR 2847 Employment, Infrastructure, and Transportation Appropriations Concurrence Vote Passed - House (217 - 212) Nay
Paul Ryan's Statement In The 2013 Budget Proposal
In the first two years of the Obama administration, funding for the Department of Transportation grew by 24 percent — and that doesn’t count the stimulus spike, which nearly doubled transportation spending in one year. The mechanisms of federal highway and transit spending have become distorted, leading to imprudent, irresponsible, and often downright wasteful spending. Further, however worthy some highway projects might be, their capacity as job creators has been vastly oversold, as demonstrated by the extravagant but unfulfilled promises that accompanied the 2009 stimulus bill, particularly with regard to high-speed rail.
As a resident of a state whose Republican governor rejected high speed rail stimulus funds... Wha?
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.
Posts
good job political cartoon for pointing that out
How is your election going?
naknaknaknaknak
Sup Paul Ryan.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
But Silver qualifies it by saying that it's probably mostly a veep nomination bump, and a below-average one in the world of VP bumps
That's for the EC forecast. It's a minor shift as polling in several swing states has gone both ways. His summary of the popular vote is +0.2% for Romney, which seems pretty negligible compared to past races. We might have more complete polling next week, though.
I don't know where you are getting the "free ride" part. It looks like a fair response to a dumb argument Obama never should have incited.
I feel like I must be misreading it because the alternative is unpleasant
What argument would that be, exactly?
His comments in-context were still foolish and his point was poorly made.
The standard conservative trope is that the rich pay too much in taxes and fuck the government for daring to take so much from successful businesses that "create" jobs and wealth because those companies don't need the government. Because somehow that infrastructure that we all contributed toward and benefit from I guess was just magically summoned by Corporate Jesus back in yon olden days. In response to pointing out that taxes built the infrastructure those businesses benefit from, the cartoon is trying to suggest that successful business and wealthy citizens paid for it with their massive tax burden. The whole cartoon doesn't make any sense (from a conservative, tax dodging perspective) if it's simply pointing out that everyone's taxes paid for that infrastructure, because then poor, beleagured businesses and wealthy dudes can't cry about their tax burden killing jobs and destroying the trickle down economics.
Or it's pointing out that these "business owners" can fairly claim responsibility for their successes because it's not like they're utilizing these resources for free. "the rest of us" were compensated for their work the same way every business pays rent, buys supplies/equipment, and pays employees. I really don't understand where Obama thought that speech would take him.
It started off as a pretty reasonable "you didn't get there on your own", and by implication "let's come together"; nothing wrong with that assertion.
But I cannot imagine how he thought saying the sentence "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" would go over well.
A State that is financed by...
Also, I was unaware that the State's role in infrastructure development was a point of contention.
aka mr bridges falling down
because according to republicans we don't need infrastructure spending. in fact we don't need any spending outside the military according to paul ryan.
That constitutes a difference of opinion on how much the State can afford to spend on it in a given year
so, in a word, no.
Also, said spending that's not attached to something else he is against.
There is no doubt much of this election is about what the role of government should be but infrastructure spending (at least in general) is not part of that debate.
also our generally pathetic public transport and infrastructure. why is high speed rail unamerican
http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/08/14/paul-ryans-fortune-comes-from-the-infrastructure-spending-that-paul-ryan-wants-to-slash/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/14/689581/ryan-undermine-infrastructure/?mobile=nc
http://grist.org/politics/picking-ryan-means-picking-a-fight-on-transportation/
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/paul-ryan/64/transportation-issues
Paul Ryan's Statement In The 2013 Budget Proposal
you know, cut the middleman
wanted that fucking train
(that's basically the governor, for you americans)
massive cuts to every aspect of the public service and such fun things as literary awards and every climate change program
thousands of jobs lost in what was once a fairly stable economy
so i am planning to leave the state and watch it collapse from a safe distance
hth LOL
Fandy
Fandy
I love Doc Martin so fucking much
High-speed rails are money pits. I think there's like one high-speed rail on earth that doesn't operate at a loss. Maybe its worth it to you but it's not completely senseless to reject funding that has to be allocated towards something you know will become a burden in the future.