those things all need money though
where is that money going to come from?
reduce funding to the military as we draw down forces from our Iraq and Afghanistan missions. stop deploying our forces as occupation missions and return them to maintaining our defense along with quick, brief interventions if/when needed. the cost of maintaining an occupational force is exponentially more.
let the goddamn Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. there is no justifiable reason to maintain them. all they did was let the wealthy keep getting wealthy. no one's recognizing the fact that jobs haven't really appreciably grown during the period when the tax cuts were still in place. let them die.
heyyyyy
you're disassociating tax policy from economic performance
so I guess we can decouple Clinton's tax rates from the 90's boom then too, right?
good, done.
...what? i'm doing the exact opposite?
i'm pointing out that the tax cuts for the wealthy haven't magically stimulated those job creators to create jobs.
also, under the higher taxes of the Clinton years, the economy was booming.
so, er, i'm not sure what your point is. i'm pointing out that increasing the tax rate for wealthy Americans isn't going to drive so-called "job creators" away, and that a reduced tax rate for them certainly hasn't caused "job creators" to actually create jobs.
because you're making counter-intuitive points
In a vacuum, lower taxes stimulates economic growth, higher taxes stifle it
my point: overwhelming commercial/industrial/other forces override taxes 9 times out of 10
You said
no one's recognizing the fact that jobs haven't really appreciably grown during the period when the tax cuts were still in place.
You really think that the Bush tax cuts, during two foreign wars and a housing bubble, is the final referendum on tax policy?
Really?
I don't understand how those things affect job growth at all. Wartime is usually a boon for job growth, and a housing bubble, during the bubble, is as well?
The past 60 years have shown that top marginal tax rates have no immediate effect on economic performance of a country, only on income inequality. That income inequality itself will later negatively effect economic performance though.
those things all need money though
where is that money going to come from?
reduce funding to the military as we draw down forces from our Iraq and Afghanistan missions. stop deploying our forces as occupation missions and return them to maintaining our defense along with quick, brief interventions if/when needed. the cost of maintaining an occupational force is exponentially more.
let the goddamn Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. there is no justifiable reason to maintain them. all they did was let the wealthy keep getting wealthy. no one's recognizing the fact that jobs haven't really appreciably grown during the period when the tax cuts were still in place. let them die.
heyyyyy
you're disassociating tax policy from economic performance
so I guess we can decouple Clinton's tax rates from the 90's boom then too, right?
good, done.
...what? i'm doing the exact opposite?
i'm pointing out that the tax cuts for the wealthy haven't magically stimulated those job creators to create jobs.
also, under the higher taxes of the Clinton years, the economy was booming.
so, er, i'm not sure what your point is. i'm pointing out that increasing the tax rate for wealthy Americans isn't going to drive so-called "job creators" away, and that a reduced tax rate for them certainly hasn't caused "job creators" to actually create jobs.
because you're making counter-intuitive points
In a vacuum, lower taxes stimulates economic growth, higher taxes stifle it
my point: overwhelming commercial/industrial/other forces override taxes 9 times out of 10
You said
no one's recognizing the fact that jobs haven't really appreciably grown during the period when the tax cuts were still in place.
You really think that the Bush tax cuts, during two foreign wars and a housing bubble, is the final referendum on tax policy?
Really?
so if other forces besides taxes are the true drivers of the economy, what does it matter if the Bush tax cuts for wealthier individuals expire? it shouldn't have a significant effect on the economy, while freeing up revenue for education and infrastructure improvement.
the foreign wars are drawing down but still ongoing. and we are still feeling the effects from the housing bubble to this day. at this time, the tax cuts for the wealthy simply don't make sense. yes, in a vacuum, lower taxes generally allow the economy to grow. but out of that vacuum, the economy is affected by infrastructure, educational levels, outside factors like the EU, and other things.
i'm really not sure what your argument is. i'm not making some sort of blanket statement here about all taxes ever. i'm saying that the tax cuts for the wealthy are pointless because they haven't done what they were supposed to do and that we should return to Clinton-era level taxes for that bracket.
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
You've managed to take over from Butters the title of "King of Posts I Half Agree With, and Half Angrily Disagree With."
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
like what?
edit - this double quoting thing is getting super annoying
those things all need money though
where is that money going to come from?
reduce funding to the military as we draw down forces from our Iraq and Afghanistan missions. stop deploying our forces as occupation missions and return them to maintaining our defense along with quick, brief interventions if/when needed. the cost of maintaining an occupational force is exponentially more.
let the goddamn Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. there is no justifiable reason to maintain them. all they did was let the wealthy keep getting wealthy. no one's recognizing the fact that jobs haven't really appreciably grown during the period when the tax cuts were still in place. let them die.
heyyyyy
you're disassociating tax policy from economic performance
so I guess we can decouple Clinton's tax rates from the 90's boom then too, right?
good, done.
...what? i'm doing the exact opposite?
i'm pointing out that the tax cuts for the wealthy haven't magically stimulated those job creators to create jobs.
also, under the higher taxes of the Clinton years, the economy was booming.
so, er, i'm not sure what your point is. i'm pointing out that increasing the tax rate for wealthy Americans isn't going to drive so-called "job creators" away, and that a reduced tax rate for them certainly hasn't caused "job creators" to actually create jobs.
because you're making counter-intuitive points
In a vacuum, lower taxes stimulates economic growth, higher taxes stifle it
my point: overwhelming commercial/industrial/other forces override taxes 9 times out of 10
See, people keep saying "higher taxes stifle economic growth". I would like to call bullshit on this.
America has an infrastructure problem (actually, most countries do nowadays). If you raise the tax rate across the board by 1% and spend that money on infrastructure, you would almost certainly get a net increase in economic growth. More people employed fixing roads, shoring up bridges, doing actual work, with all the economic activity that entails... I fail to see how that 1% extra tax is going to do ANY stifling of anything.
Austerity stifles economic growth- if you substantially raise taxes, cut public sector jobs and use all that to pay down your debt, you are taking a switchblade to growth, no question. But I think Americans in general have a really distorted view on taxation and the way it impacts economic growth.
I mean, all things in moderation- things don't function well with a 90% tax rate. Nor do they function well with a 1% tax rate. But where America is (really fucking low tax rate compared to much of the world), you can afford to bump that up a few points and spend the proceeds on the things the government should be providing more of, and have a positive econimic impact.
El Skid on
+4
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Um...welcome to the post 1950s era where war time doesn't entail rationing of resources and industry collaboration to train soldier's wives to build B-17s. The US economy went to shit during the Vietnam war
See now, you can't say that and also claim to be a capital 'r' Republican...
Sure I can.
Wall Street: curtail electronic trading. The NYSE is a horrible dystopian cryptohacker playground of competing algorithms, using my 401k as the kickball. A little more SEC effort when it comes to IPO's wouldn't hurt. I'm not one to pity the poor idiots who overpaid for Facebook stock, but clearly there is a role for the SEC to play in not only protecting outside investors, but also protecting the poor workers for companies like Zynga who've seen their wealth disappear before they are legally allowed to sell their stock.
I don't think we have another tech bubble to worry about. Every big tech stock that came out last FY fell pretty hard save LinkedIn. Now what is needed is stability.
+1
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Early voted today. Feels good.
Now that whole day is free to play some fucking Halo 4 do something useful and civic-minded.
i don't think the evangelical wing of the republicans are going anywhere, jasc
evangelicals breed, buddy.
and there's a good chance an evangelical family will remain an evangelical family for generations
most of the current 20-something voting block (my cousins) believe almost exactly the same thing as their parents (my aunts and uncles), who believe almost exactly the same thing as their parents (my grandparents) who believe the same things for the most part that their parents believed
my cousins "gay people are weird, but i guess i don't care if i dont have to see it. black and most asians are OK. dot heads and mexicants are stealing our jobs"
i don't want to go any further backwards
While it's true families stay that way, I'd say as the old people die out we will at least make some progress. I have two friends from college who believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed, but still think gay people should be able to get married.
racism doesn't die out without outside influence. they were quite happy to hate blacks for 300 years in the south. if these people don't want to come to the 21th century on their own then we should drag them kicking and screaming.
See now, you can't say that and also claim to be a capital 'r' Republican...
Sure I can.
Wall Street: curtail electronic trading. The NYSE is a horrible dystopian cryptohacker playground of competing algorithms, using my 401k as the kickball. A little more SEC effort when it comes to IPO's wouldn't hurt. I'm not one to pity the poor idiots who overpaid for Facebook stock, but clearly there is a role for the SEC to play in not only protecting outside investors, but also protecting the poor workers for companies like Zynga who've seen their wealth disappear before they are legally allowed to sell their stock.
I don't think we have another tech bubble to worry about. Every big tech stock that came out last FY fell pretty hard save LinkedIn. Now what is needed is stability.
See this I don't get. When someone substitutes their own values for the Republican Party's and then sums it up as saying, "that's why I will vote for the GOP."
Except they have absolutely no plan to fix the NYSE . Where on earth did you even get that???
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
See now, you can't say that and also claim to be a capital 'r' Republican...
Sure I can.
Wall Street: curtail electronic trading. The NYSE is a horrible dystopian cryptohacker playground of competing algorithms, using my 401k as the kickball. A little more SEC effort when it comes to IPO's wouldn't hurt. I'm not one to pity the poor idiots who overpaid for Facebook stock, but clearly there is a role for the SEC to play in not only protecting outside investors, but also protecting the poor workers for companies like Zynga who've seen their wealth disappear before they are legally allowed to sell their stock.
I don't think we have another tech bubble to worry about. Every big tech stock that came out last FY fell pretty hard save LinkedIn. Now what is needed is stability.
See this I don't get. When someone substitutes their own values for the Republican Parties and then sums it up as saying, "that's why I will vote for the GOP."
Except the have absolutely no plan to fix the NYSE. Where on earth did you even get that???
I wasn't really tacking that to any party at all.
No party has a plan to do anything about what I just mentioned
it was just a side bar
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
racism doesn't die out without outside influence. they were quite happy to hate blacks for 300 years in the United States of America. if these people don't want to come to the 21th century on their own then we should drag them kicking and screaming.
racism doesn't die out without outside influence. they were quite happy to hate blacks for 300 years in the United States of America. if these people don't want to come to the 21th century on their own then we should drag them kicking and screaming.
Wrong. The north fought against slavery.
It is physically impossible for racism to exist in the north.
Yeaup. Those wonderful Northeners never made acid attacks against the Poor Man's March, their labor unions didn't disband immediately after blacks were allowed to join them, and they sure as shooting didn't run screaming from their cities when it looked like our government was going do the sensible thing and spread poor minorites out thinly so that slums wouldn't develop and they would see a faster rate of assimilation by poors into the greater culture. Nope nope nope.
They also never started shooting at a Black Panthers rally while McGovern was on the phone trying to get the Democratic Convention to open it's fucking doors so that innocent people wouldn't die. And since that never happened we can safely say that the backlash from this event didn't cause racist Democrats from the North and South to fuck off to the Republican Party and build a platform based entirely on race hatred.
And since the North isn't racist, America isn't, because those filthy scots-irish aren't human, let alone American! We're better than them! The last sixty years never happened!
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
Big Red Tiebeautiful clydesdale style feettoo hot to trotRegistered Userregular
Yeaup. Those wonderful Northeners never made acid attacks against the Poor Man's March, their labor unions didn't disband immediately after blacks were allowed to join them, and they sure as shooting didn't run screaming from their cities when it looked like our government was going do the sensible thing and spread poor minorites out thinly so that slums wouldn't develop and they would see a faster rate of assimilation by poors into the greater culture. Nope nope nope.
They also never started shooting at a Black Panthers rally while McGovern was on the phone trying to get the Democratic Convention to open it's fucking doors so that innocent people wouldn't die. And since that never happened we can safely say that the backlash from this event didn't cause racist Democrats from the North and South to fuck off to the Republican Party and build a platform based entirely on race hatred.
And since the North isn't racist, America isn't, because those filthy scots-irish aren't human, let alone American! We're better than them! The last sixty years never happened!
Just a quick thought about 'this isn't what a recovery looks like' talk from last page. I'm still on a pretty touch-and-go internet connection, so going to have to fly without graphs here, which is dangerous for an economist, but hey-ho. I'll whack it in spoilers because I'm aware that discussion has kinda moved on.
The comment that the recovery has been mediocre by historical standards is by-and-large, fine, but comes with a big old side dish of caveats. First, there really hasn't been a financial crisis in the US that's been anywhere near the severity of the financial crisis in 2008, so going 'oh, but we bounced back from the fallout from the Asian Financial Crisis in '97 really strong!' is pretty meaningless as it's not really like-for-like. Hell, I'd argue that we're basically reliving the 1920's /1930's financial crisis and fallout, but even then we're not fully taking into account just how much of a perfect storm preceded the crisis. Seriously, between the huge deficit/surplus inbalances on a global scale, the crazy amount of credit-driven consumerism (most notably in the housing sector, but credit card debt was also really substantial IIRC - at least, in the UK it was), and the myriad of ways that financial institutions repackaged debt to conceal the true risk, I'm really surprised the West isn't completely in a full blown depression (aside from a couple of European cases, but that's a distinct issue due to the Euro).
Second, perhaps the best benchmark for comparison isn't the same country through time, but with other countries of similar economic development. Basically, the US hasn't done bad by international standards - Asian/Latin American economies haven't been hurting largely because their state of development essentially precluded them from having as much sensitivity to the crisis, but they still took a hit at the time, so they're not really a fair comparison. The UK, in particular, has been back in recession since the start of this year. In chained-volume measures, the UK's output is roughly the same as it was at the start of the crisis IIRC. Think about that. The UK economy is no bigger than it was 3 or 4 years ago. Now, the US recovery is still plenty weak, but at least some tangible ground has been made, and there are signs of recovery in the labour and housing markets.
Of course, that's not to say parents skipping meals to ensure their kids eat dinner should be raving about Obama's economic record, but things could've been so much worse. The gap between what's going on now, and what could've been if Obama hadn't acted in the way he did should be the only true measure of how 'real' this recovery is. Perhaps a good analogue (flawed as they are) is a guy whose finger falls off in a finger-wagging contest. The doctor gets a tourniquet on it, takes him to hospital and the man is stuck in hospital for a while. Sure, the guy lost a finger, but he's alive and on the mend. Of course, you could take this in weird directions and call the lost finger 'productive capacity' but whatever.
There was a very good economist article recently on this - basically they came to the conclusion that Obama had done very well in preventing a crisis, and quite poorly in reshaping the economy in the aftermath; I only mildly agree with the latter. But then we get back into politics with an insane Republican party that simply refuses to play any sort of ball with the Democrats.
So the recovery isn't as strong as it could be, but it's still pretty good all things considered. Whether or not that's enough, and you feel that it would be improved by a change of party that's intent on following the same policies of the conservative Government in the UK (that drove us back into recession), is totally your call.
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
I can tell this is an issue you feel very strongly about
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
Mitt Romney is not in Congress
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
Mitt Romney is not in Congress
yeah let's pretend he won't veto a hypothetical bill designed specifically to keep all of his friends from doing whatever they want on wall street
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
Mitt Romney is not in Congress
yeah let's pretend he won't veto a hypothetical bill designed specifically to keep all of his friends from doing whatever they want on wall street
The dotcom bubble on the other hand is an unfortunate consequence of Wall Street. The dotcom era could have functioned without Wall Street fucking it up
We need stock exchange regulation because it's getting p. redic.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
Mitt Romney is not in Congress
And yet he has managed to come out against the debt ceiling deal
Which is pretty fucking retarded if you're worried about our credit!
+1
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
i gotta admit i find all of this projection onto mitt really unnerving
based on the demonstrated reality of his policies, mitt is going to lockstep with destructive republican policies we've already seen. why people choose to believe otherwise seems like it couldn't be anything but a coping method
i gotta admit i find all of this projection onto mitt really unnerving
based on the demonstrated reality of his policies, mitt is going to lockstep with destructive republican policies we've already seen. why people choose to believe otherwise seems like it couldn't be anything but a coping method
pffft reality is just a bogeyman
0
Options
Big Red Tiebeautiful clydesdale style feettoo hot to trotRegistered Userregular
i gotta admit i find all of this projection onto mitt really unnerving
based on the demonstrated reality of his policies, mitt is going to lockstep with destructive republican policies we've already seen. why people choose to believe otherwise seems like it couldn't be anything but a coping method
Posts
I don't understand how those things affect job growth at all. Wartime is usually a boon for job growth, and a housing bubble, during the bubble, is as well?
so if other forces besides taxes are the true drivers of the economy, what does it matter if the Bush tax cuts for wealthier individuals expire? it shouldn't have a significant effect on the economy, while freeing up revenue for education and infrastructure improvement.
the foreign wars are drawing down but still ongoing. and we are still feeling the effects from the housing bubble to this day. at this time, the tax cuts for the wealthy simply don't make sense. yes, in a vacuum, lower taxes generally allow the economy to grow. but out of that vacuum, the economy is affected by infrastructure, educational levels, outside factors like the EU, and other things.
i'm really not sure what your argument is. i'm not making some sort of blanket statement here about all taxes ever. i'm saying that the tax cuts for the wealthy are pointless because they haven't done what they were supposed to do and that we should return to Clinton-era level taxes for that bracket.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
You've managed to take over from Butters the title of "King of Posts I Half Agree With, and Half Angrily Disagree With."
like what?
edit - this double quoting thing is getting super annoying
See now, you can't say that and also claim to be a capital 'r' Republican...
but soooner or later, the borrower has to pay their debts back
but wall st really made a clusterfuck out of that
See, people keep saying "higher taxes stifle economic growth". I would like to call bullshit on this.
America has an infrastructure problem (actually, most countries do nowadays). If you raise the tax rate across the board by 1% and spend that money on infrastructure, you would almost certainly get a net increase in economic growth. More people employed fixing roads, shoring up bridges, doing actual work, with all the economic activity that entails... I fail to see how that 1% extra tax is going to do ANY stifling of anything.
Austerity stifles economic growth- if you substantially raise taxes, cut public sector jobs and use all that to pay down your debt, you are taking a switchblade to growth, no question. But I think Americans in general have a really distorted view on taxation and the way it impacts economic growth.
I mean, all things in moderation- things don't function well with a 90% tax rate. Nor do they function well with a 1% tax rate. But where America is (really fucking low tax rate compared to much of the world), you can afford to bump that up a few points and spend the proceeds on the things the government should be providing more of, and have a positive econimic impact.
Um...welcome to the post 1950s era where war time doesn't entail rationing of resources and industry collaboration to train soldier's wives to build B-17s. The US economy went to shit during the Vietnam war
You mean Sesame Street.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Sure I can.
Wall Street: curtail electronic trading. The NYSE is a horrible dystopian cryptohacker playground of competing algorithms, using my 401k as the kickball. A little more SEC effort when it comes to IPO's wouldn't hurt. I'm not one to pity the poor idiots who overpaid for Facebook stock, but clearly there is a role for the SEC to play in not only protecting outside investors, but also protecting the poor workers for companies like Zynga who've seen their wealth disappear before they are legally allowed to sell their stock.
I don't think we have another tech bubble to worry about. Every big tech stock that came out last FY fell pretty hard save LinkedIn. Now what is needed is stability.
Now that whole day is free to play some fucking Halo 4 do something useful and civic-minded.
Like play Halo 4.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
While it's true families stay that way, I'd say as the old people die out we will at least make some progress. I have two friends from college who believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed, but still think gay people should be able to get married.
but in a system of a hundred million voters, even small ratio shifts pay huge dividends over time
again, we're talking about issues that are already coming down to a few percentage points, and in some states, a few votes
And huge strides have been made in just the last decade
See this I don't get. When someone substitutes their own values for the Republican Party's and then sums it up as saying, "that's why I will vote for the GOP."
Except they have absolutely no plan to fix the NYSE . Where on earth did you even get that???
I wasn't really tacking that to any party at all.
No party has a plan to do anything about what I just mentioned
it was just a side bar
Wrong. The north fought against slavery.
It is physically impossible for racism to exist in the north.
They also never started shooting at a Black Panthers rally while McGovern was on the phone trying to get the Democratic Convention to open it's fucking doors so that innocent people wouldn't die. And since that never happened we can safely say that the backlash from this event didn't cause racist Democrats from the North and South to fuck off to the Republican Party and build a platform based entirely on race hatred.
And since the North isn't racist, America isn't, because those filthy scots-irish aren't human, let alone American! We're better than them! The last sixty years never happened!
no
whoosh
Second, perhaps the best benchmark for comparison isn't the same country through time, but with other countries of similar economic development. Basically, the US hasn't done bad by international standards - Asian/Latin American economies haven't been hurting largely because their state of development essentially precluded them from having as much sensitivity to the crisis, but they still took a hit at the time, so they're not really a fair comparison. The UK, in particular, has been back in recession since the start of this year. In chained-volume measures, the UK's output is roughly the same as it was at the start of the crisis IIRC. Think about that. The UK economy is no bigger than it was 3 or 4 years ago. Now, the US recovery is still plenty weak, but at least some tangible ground has been made, and there are signs of recovery in the labour and housing markets.
Of course, that's not to say parents skipping meals to ensure their kids eat dinner should be raving about Obama's economic record, but things could've been so much worse. The gap between what's going on now, and what could've been if Obama hadn't acted in the way he did should be the only true measure of how 'real' this recovery is. Perhaps a good analogue (flawed as they are) is a guy whose finger falls off in a finger-wagging contest. The doctor gets a tourniquet on it, takes him to hospital and the man is stuck in hospital for a while. Sure, the guy lost a finger, but he's alive and on the mend. Of course, you could take this in weird directions and call the lost finger 'productive capacity' but whatever.
There was a very good economist article recently on this - basically they came to the conclusion that Obama had done very well in preventing a crisis, and quite poorly in reshaping the economy in the aftermath; I only mildly agree with the latter. But then we get back into politics with an insane Republican party that simply refuses to play any sort of ball with the Democrats.
So the recovery isn't as strong as it could be, but it's still pretty good all things considered. Whether or not that's enough, and you feel that it would be improved by a change of party that's intent on following the same policies of the conservative Government in the UK (that drove us back into recession), is totally your call.
I still laugh when I think about it.
and yet you're voting for the party that completely torpedoed wall street reform
gotcha
I can tell this is an issue you feel very strongly about
Mitt Romney is not in Congress
yeah let's pretend he won't veto a hypothetical bill designed specifically to keep all of his friends from doing whatever they want on wall street
let's do that
i don't have to pretend
And yet he has managed to come out against the debt ceiling deal
Which is pretty fucking retarded if you're worried about our credit!
based on the demonstrated reality of his policies, mitt is going to lockstep with destructive republican policies we've already seen. why people choose to believe otherwise seems like it couldn't be anything but a coping method
pffft reality is just a bogeyman
there's nothing that can be done now
A gay bogeyman
with a liberal arts degree
and no job.