Learn2read
Member
Greta Van Susteren ‏ @gretawire
Governor Mitt Romney did not say etch a sketch remark: I think everyone should stop hammering Governor Mitt Romney
lol
Poor Mittens

Greta Van Susteren ‏ @gretawire
Governor Mitt Romney did not say etch a sketch remark: I think everyone should stop hammering Governor Mitt Romney
lol
Greta Van Susteren ‏ @gretawire
Governor Mitt Romney did not say etch a sketch remark: I think everyone should stop hammering Governor Mitt Romney
lol
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.
The prior week's figure was revised up to 353,000 from the previously reported 351,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 354,000 last week.
Greta Van Susteren ‏ @gretawire
Governor Mitt Romney did not say etch a sketch remark: I think everyone should stop hammering Governor Mitt Romney
lol
People here are only talking about Louisiana, but Missouri also wraps up their caucuses on the 24th. In fact, Missouri has more delegates up for grabs!
Thats two big Santorum wins, with over a week for that to settle in before Romney gets a win in liberal land.
Romney will take 100 delegates on April 3rd, but will it matter? Obama will win DC by 99% anyway.
I thought that Romney was leading in the last poll from Missouri sometime last week?
Yeah, there were several articles over the past couple days about Romney and Paul completely outflanking Santorum in securing delegates.
Missouri Surprise: Rick Gets Rolled
It doesn't help that the primary process in general is convoluted as fuck and no one knows what's going on. It doesn't help that they seemingly change the rules on a whim ("Santorum and Romney tied in Michigan? Our at-large delegates are now assigned to Romney! So now he wins!").
Greta Van Susteren ‏ @gretawire
Governor Mitt Romney did not say etch a sketch remark: I think everyone should stop hammering Governor Mitt Romney
lol
true. The whole process is such a mess I am not sure who it even benefits. Sure, you can point to things like Michigan where the at-large delegates were rewarded after-the-fact, but with a dearth of winner-take-all contests as in years past, hangers-on like Santorum and Gingrich have more impetus to carry on, especially if they can prevent Mitt from hitting 1144.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.phpHouse Speaker John Boehner lent his full support Thursday to undoing a key part of the debt-limit deal he struck with President Obama and the rest of the congressional leadership last summer.
Republicans in the House, Boehner confirmed, will advance legislation to replace automatic cuts to the defense budget from taking effect on Jan. 1. Those cuts are part of an enforcement mechanism he and a majority of his members agreed to accept, but that would only be triggered if Congress was unable to pass a significant deficit-reduction bill. They included the defense cuts, intended to force GOP cooperation and domestic-spending cuts, intended to force Democratic cooperation.
I think this will backfire, badly.Boehner officially backs out of the original deficit deal
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.php
here we go again
Boehner officially backs out of the original deficit deal
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.php
here we go again
Boehner officially backs out of the original deficit deal
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.php
here we go again
BTW, John Fugelsang is pretty funny. He is the son of Franciscan brother and Catholic nun such that he really knows his Bible. He does a great act about how Jesus was really liberal
Yeah, and Obama said he would veto it.So what happens? From what I understand those cuts are law. Would they have to pass a law canceling those cuts?
He's going to cry and hold his breath until it gets passed.What kind of leverage do they have to get that passed then?
Yeah, and Obama said he would veto it.
He's going to cry and hold his breath until it gets passed.
Pretty much. Reid and Obama will not back out of the deal, so the Senate and House will be in a standoff on the budget for the year. Boehner will back down at some point. I'm anxious to see how far down the rabbit hole they run before doing so.
To be fair, Obama could decide to cave first. Especially as the Washington drama builds while Romney stands on the outside criticizing both sides for typical bickering.
Are you asking "Can Nationalizing an oil company increase drilling and thus reduce prices?" If so, the answer is a resounding "NO!" For a variety of reasons, National oil companies tend to produce oil MUCH SLOWER than private oil companies. This is what drives people on the right crazy about Hugo Chavez. That guy is sitting on some of the world's largest reserves but their oil production is dropping because they just don't reinvest enough. They divert the money to social programs. In the long run, they may end up being a great for the country since they'll have a pile of oil later when it is more valuable. But it drives capitalists bat shit crazy.
But it is true all over . . . the IOCs (private) tend to produce faster and NOCs tend to produce slower. The NOCs just don't have the drive for profits, stock price, etc.
To be fair, Obama could decide to cave first. Especially as the Washington drama builds while Romney stands on the outside criticizing both sides for typical bickering.
I'm deeply hesitant to say this, but I don't see it happening.
With this move, Boehner and the House GOP showed they can't be trusted to keep any deal. I can't see how any future negotiations are possible.
Yeah, I don't understand. Wouldn't there be ramifications for breaking a deal? How could any deal made between the parties ever be trusted again?
This is a pretty good way of framing the current budget debate, and makes it much harder to justify continuing the Bush tax cuts or avoiding a Buffet rule / capital gains tax.
Me too. How do you give a sad high five?I've been beating that drum for awhile.
There should be zero reason to extend the Bush tax cuts anymore. It's fiscally irresponsible to keep kicking that can down the road. There is no amount of "Buffet Rule" or other taxes on the 1% that can offset these huge amounts of revenues that are being lost every year.
The sad reality is that we have one party that fights any tax "increase" no matter what it is and we have another party that sees them as "easy stimulus" to help keep them elected. (Sorry for the sweeping generalizations. When I say 'party', I am inferring about those with the power to make decisions and influence others)
Obama leads Romney 48-44 in a new PPP poll.
And rasmussen being... rasmussen (consistency?) has him up 51-42 in Virginia over Romney.
Bam boom bibbity bop.
I wonder. Looking at his approval rating, is Obama really being saved from the lack of serious contenders of the GOP? Or is it the fact that during a recession nobody looks at any candidate favorably so they'll just stick to Obama just to be safe?
"I think their assessment is that Romney is much less a threat to them as events are a threat to them, and I agree with that. Romney cannot beat Obama, only events can beat Obama."
I swear you just pull things out of your ass sometimes.I wonder. Looking at his approval rating, is Obama really being saved from the lack of serious contenders of the GOP? Or is it the fact that during a recession nobody looks at any candidate favorably so they'll just stick to Obama just to be safe?
Larry Bartels said:I examine the outcomes of 31 parliamentary elections in 26 OECD countries in the period just before, during, and after the Great Recession (from 2007 through early 2011). I attempt to account for the outcomes of these elections on the basis of three factors: (1) economic conditions, (2) the general ideology of the incumbent party or coalition, and (3) specific policy choices in response to the economic crisis. My analyses suggest that voters consistently punished incumbent governments for bad economic conditions, with little apparent regard for the ideology of the government or global economic conditions at the time of the election. I find no evidence of consistent ideological shifts in response to the crisis, either to the left or to the right, but some evidence of electoral responses to specific fiscal policy choices—most notably, a boost in incumbent governments’ electoral support associated with spending on economic stimulus programs. These general patterns are illustrated with brief case studies of elections in Spain and Portugal, Germany, and the United States. In general, my results underline the significance of retrospective voting even in periods of severe economic and political stress.
Boehner is more concerned about keeping his Speaker position than honest governing. Look how many times he let the tea party wing lead him by the nose. He knows any action he takes against the tea party wing can only go so long before he knows he has to cave. He's a very weak Speaker, and he knows it.
I swear you just pull things out of your ass sometimes.
Obama's re-election effort is likely being aided by the improvement of the economy generally, and this is much more important the particular strengths or weaknesses of an admittedly flawed Republican field.
Obama leads Romney 48-44 in a new PPP poll.
Obama leads Romney 48-44 in a new PPP poll.
And rasmussen being... rasmussen (consistency?) has him up 51-42 in Virginia over Romney.
Bam boom bibbity bop.
It's worth mentioning Obama is down a point since the last PPP, and Romney is up 2 points.
Your question presented a false dichotomy. You said that either Obama is polling well because the GOP field is weak, or he is polling well because of economically motivated general disdain for all the candidates. I say he is polling well because the economy is improving broadly, and that this is more important than perceived weaknesses in the GOP field. How does that not answer your question?That like didn't answer my question at all...
It's worth mentioning Obama is down a point since the last PPP, and Romney is up 2 points.
Your question presented a false dichotomy. You said that either Obama is polling well because the GOP field is weak, or he is polling well because of economically motivated general disdain for all the candidates. I say he is polling well because the economy is improving broadly, and that this is more important than perceived weaknesses in the GOP field. How does that not answer your question?
And the quote I posted was to debunk the baseless assertion that all candidates are disdained equally in times of economic distress. The research indicates that economic distress causes voters to punish incumbents independently of those incumbents' political affiliation.
Gingrich said:Both Santorum and Gingrich sought to extend the issue into a second day.
Santorum brandished the toy during a speech on health care in San Antonio, Texas, telling his audience, "I can tell you as someone who doesn't have my policy positions on an Etch A Sketch -- and I carry one of those around now -- my policy positions are written out of conviction."
Gingrich also used an Etch A Sketch for a prop when speaking at a rally in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which votes next in the primary process on Saturday.
"You have to stand for something positive, and you have to stand for something that lasts longer than this," he said, showing the audience the toy.
Gingrich also continued his attacks on Romney's well-financed campaign and the help he's getting from the super PACs that support him.
"People aren't stupid, and so we have a real challenge, and I need your help this Saturday," he said. "Because the fact is that the sheer weight of money from Wall Street -- our money coming back to us through big donors who got the money that is part of the tax break, these are all guys who stayed wealthy because of us. So they are now giving money to keep somebody safe whose vision of a platform is an Etch A Sketch."
He could also lose, you know!I wonder. Looking at his approval rating, is Obama really being saved from the lack of serious contenders of the GOP? Or is it the fact that during a recession nobody looks at any candidate favorably so they'll just stick to Obama just to be safe?
He could also lose, you know!