Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

The bigger problem is that we're not investing in the future, while much of the world is. We could raise taxes and use that extra revenue to finance unemployment training, not just handing people a check. We can use extra revenue to provide daycare services for working mothers. We can use extra revenue to build more community colleges, or rebuild infrastructure, etc. But we don't.

I agree with your framing of the bigger problem. But we don't "use" taxes or revenue for anything. Raising tax rates on the rich is about fostering a more egalitarian and functional society. We can train the unemployed, provide daycare services for working mothers, build more community colleges and rebuild infrastructure without any additional revenue at all.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I agree with your framing of the bigger problem. But we don't "use" taxes or revenue for anything. Raising tax rates on the rich is about fostering a more egalitarian and functional society. We can train the unemployed, provide daycare services for working mothers, build more community colleges and rebuild infrastructure without any additional revenue at all.

You're right of course, but my comment is in the context of the Laffer/Krugman/Gingrich debate on taxes. Specifically whether we should raise taxes (yes) and what the revenue should be "spent" on (investment in America).

Sadly I don't think we'll see any stimulus or tax increases in a very long time.

 

[Oblivion]

I could have sworn JFK's tax cuts got passed when he was still alive...

 

[TacticalFox88]

I could have sworn JFK's tax cuts got passed when he was still alive...

I wish I could see a world where JFK served two terms.

 

[Jimothy]

I wish I could see a world where JFK served two terms.

Meh. Probably would have gotten a watered down Great Society and Civil Rights bill. LBJ was able to use JFK's death to pass stuff that maybe wouldn't have passed otherwise.

 

[Oblivion]

By the way, the righties shouldn't get too carried away backpatting JFK. Even though he supporting cutting taxes, he wanted most of the monies to be distributed to the lower brackets. Not to mention he also supported massively increasing spending in areas like science, which is anathema to conservatives.

 

[East Lake]

Anyone see this tax free NY thing from Cuomo?

Tax-Free NY includes:

Tax-Free Communities: All SUNY campuses outside of New York City and designated private colleges north of Westchester will be tax free (no sales, property, or business/corporate taxes). An additional 200,000 square feet will be included in the tax-free community, located within one mile of the campus. ESD would have the authority to grant a waiver to go beyond 1 mile. For projects on public education campuses, plans will be reviewed by SUNY and ESD. Plans that do not meet the Tax-Free NY program requirements will be disapproved by ESD.

Employees Exempt from Income Taxes: Employees of businesses that open in Tax-Free NY communities will be exempt from paying income taxes.

Businesses Eligible for Tax-Free NY: Eligible businesses include companies with a relationship to the academic mission of the university and companies creating new jobs, including new businesses, out-of-state businesses that relocate to New York and existing businesses that expand their New York operations while maintaining their existing jobs.

Private Campuses: A total of 3 million sq. feet of tax-free commercial space at private campuses will be available under the Tax-Free NY initiative. All independent colleges are eligible, but property must be located north of Westchester. Campuses will apply in a competitive process to designate commercial space on their properties as tax-free. The selections will be made by a majority of a 3-member board selected by the Governor, Senate and Assembly. Preference will be given to private campuses with existing business incubators.

Start-ups Launched from Existing Incubators: Startups “hatched” from a NYS incubator will be eligible to move into a tax-free community, even if they are not a new business. Currently, an estimated 75% of high tech start-ups launched in New York State leave in the first year.

Strategically-located State Property: Tax-Free NY will designate 20 strategically located state properties as tax-free communities. The properties will be selected by a majority of the 3-member board.

Protecting Against Fraud: Tax-Free NY will include a series of provisions to protect against fraud. Businesses will have to submit certification to ESD, and falsifying certifications will be a crime. The initiative will include strict provisions to guard against "shirtchanging," or when a company reincorporates under a new name and claims its existing employees are now new jobs. The initiative will also include measures to prevent self-dealing and conflicts of interest. In cases of fraud, the state will be empowered to claw-back benefits granted to the business.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/05302013-tax-free-new-york-genesee-community-college

 

[The Technomancer]

Anyone see this tax free NY thing from Cuomo?



https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/05302013-tax-free-new-york-genesee-community-college

...am I missing something? Do they like...lose anything for no longer paying taxes?

 

[B-Dubs]

Anyone see this tax free NY thing from Cuomo?



https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/05302013-tax-free-new-york-genesee-community-college

Looks like the idea is to help build up SUNY schools, which are very good already, and bring some investment to upstate, which frankly is like Kentucky and pretty barren. I'd like to hear more about the plan, but I remember when I went to Binghamton SUNY to see if I wanted to go there and the college was nice but the town reminded me of rural Kansas.

All that said, I want more info on this.

...am I missing something? Do they like...lose anything for no longer paying taxes?

They have to operate within a mile of a SUNY school or partner with a school and run something on the campus.

 

[The Technomancer]

Looks like the idea is to help build up SUNY schools, which are very good already, and bring some investment to upstate, which frankly is like Kentucky and pretty barren. I'd like to hear more about the plan, but I remember when I went to Binghamton SUNY to see if I wanted to go there and the college was nice but the town reminded me of rural Kansas.

All that said, I want more info on this.



They have to operate within a mile of a SUNY school or partner with a school and run something on the campus.

Yeah, I definitly like that its linked to the schools and the education system, its just some of the phrases used in the document seem weird to me

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeah, I definitly like that its linked to the schools and the education system, its just some of the phrases used in the document seem weird to me

Yea, it's typical hype stuff. I'm interested in the details of what would be eligible and how they decide, it looks like tech stuff is going to be the main focus.

EDIT: I also like how they mention that companies can't just fire all their employees then set up shop near a SUNY school to take advantage of this.

 

[speculawyer]

Whoa, Laffer advocating a tax on unrealized capital gains. I'd love to see the right wing response if Obama said that.

That being said, most of Laffer's arguments are so disingenuous. The United States economy has boomed with taxes as high as 70%. On one hand he praised JFK for "cutting taxes" (from 90% to 70% mind you), on the other hand he argues high taxes kill growth. If the US economy could flourish at a 70% tax rate it'll survive Obama's meager tax rates.

The bigger problem is that we're not investing in the future, while much of the world is. We could raise taxes and use that extra revenue to finance unemployment training, not just handing people a check. We can use extra revenue to provide daycare services for working mothers. We can use extra revenue to build more community colleges, or rebuild infrastructure, etc. But we don't.

Yep. Cutting the tax rates down was good from 90% and 70% rates. I think the main reason for the 90% rates was the war and paying debt down after the war.

But when you are down at 36%, cutting them more does more harm that good.

But the GOP just over-simplifies the situation to make an appealing but ultimately stupid argument . . . cutting taxes was good when JFK did it . . . so we should do it too! Hence the obvious and well-deserved joke of "Cut taxes to zero . . . INFINITE REVENUE!"

 

[Piecake]

Yep. Cutting the tax rates down was good from 90% and 70% rates. I think the main reason for the 90% rates was the war and paying debt down after the war.

But when you are down at 36%, cutting them more does more harm that good.

But the GOP just over-simplifies the situation to make an appealing but ultimately stupid argument . . . cutting taxes was good when JFK did it . . . so we should do it too! Hence the obvious and well-deserved joke of "Cut taxes to zero . . . INFINITE REVENUE!"

But if we lower corporate taxes to zero and income taxes to zero, that creates two zeroes, and if we combine those two zeros it will create the infinity sign, which obviously means infinite revenue.

Or better yet, lower both to 8! Double infinity!

 

[East Lake]

...am I missing something? Do they like...lose anything for no longer paying taxes?

I don't know tbh. We'll see when they release the bill. Like B-Dubs said there's bad areas in upstate NY. I go to SUNY at Buffalo and they could put that tax free zone by the medical campus they're building right now downtown where business is desperately needed or they could put it in a well off white suburb that doesn't need the help. Don't know if they plan to account for this.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't know tbh. We'll see when they release the bill. Like B-Dubs said there's bad areas in upstate NY. I go to SUNY at Buffalo and they could put that tax free zone by the medical campus they're building right now downtown where business is desperately needed or they could put it in a well off white suburb that doesn't need the help. Don't know if they plan to account for this.

According to the plan it has to go near a SUNY campus, so they can't do that.

 

[East Lake]

UB is split into two campuses currently. One in a suburb north of the city and another closer to the city itself. They're building a third medical research building near the hospitals downtown so I imagine the zone could be in any of those three areas.

 

[speculawyer]

http://wonkette.com/518117/how-sad-...to-run-a-pathetically-stupid-correction-again

Edit: The "Where's Waldo" hat is a nice touch.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://wonkette.com/518117/how-sad-...to-run-a-pathetically-stupid-correction-again

Is this self-parody?

WTF

Also Dax, no marrying gay for you. If you wanna be here, you got two options.

1. Welfare queen

2. three jobs, each 8 hours shifts, to support us.

No time for lovin'

 

[B-Dubs]

Is this self-parody?

WTF

Also Dax, no marrying gay for you. If you wanna be here, you got two options.

1. Welfare queen

2. three jobs, each 8 hours shifts, to support us.

No time for lovin'

What's with the one or the other crap? She's got to be on welfare and have those three jobs if we're all going to sit on our asses all day and do nothing.

 

[TacticalFox88]

What's with the one or the other crap? She's got to be on welfare and have those three jobs if we're all going to sit on our asses all day and do nothing.

Don't forget we're that 2% that smokes weed!

 

[speculawyer]

Paling around with terrorists?

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain was photographed during a trip to Syria with a man implicated in the kidnapping by Syrian rebels of 11 Lebanese Shi'ite pilgrims a year ago, a Lebanese newspaper said on Thursday.

McCain, a Republican, has been an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad and made a short, highly publicised trip to meet rebel commanders in Syria three days ago.

He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

However, he may have crossed paths with men linked to a group notorious in the region for kidnapping the pilgrims, the Daily Star said.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-senator-mccain-pictured-syrian-rebel-kidnapper-paper-172141362.html

 

[rocketknight]

Don't forget we're that 2% that smokes weed!

She can run that business from her Obamaphone.

 

[Oblivion]

I'm one minute into that Krugman v. Newt/Laffer debate, and Kthug's already coming out with the haymakers. He just told Newt to fuck off with his (eventually brought up) bullshit excuse that he was responsible for the 90s boom. Krugman pointed out that the massive job growth already was well underway long before Newt and his fellow mouthbreathers came to power. It's one of the arguments I used the other day when I was comparing the economies of Carter/Raygun/Clinton.

Hopefully Krugman keeps this up throughout. Can't wait to see what Newt's response will be.

edit: Haha! That fat fuck just said he's not gonna address anything Krugman said about the 90s. Guess that was easy.

edit 2: Oh god, he's starting off with the strawmans. He's saying that we're punishing, and attacking people for daring to be successful.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Sometimes I want to feel bad for McCain but I just can't. The guy is a nutcase and deserve to go out in shame.

 

[The Librarian]

You're arguing semantics. The Revenue Act of 1964 was JFK's tax reform package. Laffer's argument was based on the effect of that bill, which indeed cut taxes. Him saying "JFK cut taxes" is accurate, and generally accepted because it was his bill, passed 3 months after his death.

Oh, yes, PD, I'm arguing semantics. Sure. Anybody who read your post or listened to what Laffer said would've thought JFK got the bill passed himself, because you and he said, "JFK cut taxes." No he didn't. That was LBJ. For crying out loud, JFK's staff thought his tax cut bill was dead in Congress by time Kennedy was assassinated. They couldn't find a way to make Harry Byrd budge – and you don't make Harry Byrd budge – and they weren't going to budge on the federal budget.

I suggest you limit your trolling to something that might get a laugh, however unlikely that may be.

ugh how am I even about to be graduating before you

I am young and spry and always willing to have some fun!

Is this self-parody?

WTF

Also Dax, no marrying gay for you. If you wanna be here, you got two options.

1. Welfare queen

2. three jobs, each 8 hours shifts, to support us.

No time for lovin'

What's with the one or the other crap? She's got to be on welfare and have those three jobs if we're all going to sit on our asses all day and do nothing.

She can run that business from her Obamaphone.

I don't know what to do Government, please tell me.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Laffer didn't think taxing the rich worked. I'm pretty sure his arguments commit him to arbitrarily low tax rates.

I'm pretty sure his argument goes along with the idea of the Laffer curve.

Where zero taxation will yield zero revenue and complete 100 percent taxation will yield zero revenue.

So where in that range between 0 and 100 is the most effective number to yield the most revenue?

I suppose he believes in a much lower number. Of course this is a very simple way to look at things since we use progressive taxation.

 

[Matugi]

am I the only one who likes to follow the LiberalLogic account on social media? i feel like it's a really convoluted way of actually making good comedy jokes, ya feel?

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm pretty sure his argument goes along with the idea of the Laffer curve.

Where zero taxation will yield zero revenue and complete 100 percent taxation will yield zero revenue.

So where in that range between 0 and 100 is the most effective number to yield the most revenue?

I suppose he believes in a much lower number. Of course this is a very simple way to look at things since we use progressive taxation.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure his arguments commit him to arbitrarily low tax rates. It doesn't seem like he recognizes that his Laffer curve probably increases until tax rates are some finite distance away from 0. The observation that lower taxes can produce more revenue, depending on current tax rates, is taken to justify the claim that lower taxes will produce more revenue. There's not really any other way to interpret his argument, except as intentional dishonesty.

Edit: Although, really, most of Laffer's recent anti-tax advocacy hasn't had much to do with the Laffer curve. He mostly understands that it's counterproductive to allow people the obvious out of suggesting that we're on the rising part of the curve. The main implied argument now is that lower taxes will produce more growth and end up making the poor better off and producing more revenue over time.

 

[The Librarian]

Medicare Trustees Report says Medicare trust fund will be exhausted in 2026, two years later than the last report.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Graves drops out
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...llenger-declares-mission-accomplished?ref=fpa

I wonder what House leaders/strategists think of this decision lol

Oh, yes, PD, I'm arguing semantics. Sure. Anybody who read your post or listened to what Laffer said would've thought JFK got the bill passed himself, because you and he said, "JFK cut taxes." No he didn't. That was LBJ. For crying out loud, JFK's staff thought his tax cut bill was dead in Congress by time Kennedy was assassinated. They couldn't find a way to make Harry Byrd budge – and you don't make Harry Byrd budge – and they weren't going to budge on the federal budget.

I suggest you limit your trolling to something that might get a laugh, however unlikely that may be.

This does not change Laffer or my point that the bill proposed was Kennedy's, and saying "JFK cut taxes" is accurate; in fact, most historical and business references to the bill and it's impact on the economy refer to it as "Kennedy's tax cut" so this is far from controversial. Your new LBJ convert zeal is getting tiring, and reminds me of people who first discover Noam Chomsky or Ayn Rand and set about on changing the world one facebook post at a time, or (worse yet) a new Tool fan championing how complex their music is compared to everything else. But whatever, I'm done with semantics. Maybe you'll read a JFK biography in a couple years and flip flop.

 

[The Librarian]

This does not change Laffer or my point that the bill proposed was Kennedy's, and saying "JFK cut taxes" is accurate; in fact, most historical and business references to the bill and it's impact on the economy refer to it as "Kennedy's tax cut" so this is far from controversial. Your new LBJ convert zeal is getting tiring, and reminds me of people who first discover Noam Chomsky or Ayn Rand and set about on changing the world one facebook post at a time, or (worse yet) a new Tool fan championing how complex their music is compared to everything else. But whatever, I'm done with semantics. Maybe you'll read a JFK biography in a couple years and flip flop.

You're not saying anything that's refuting my point, which is that Kennedy didn't cut taxes. Johnson did. I guess ACA is Chafee's bill, and he passed that. Also, I'm not on an LBJ zeal. I'm just correcting you and Laffer where you're wrong (which you should be used to).

 

[PhoenixDark]

You're not saying anything that's refuting my point, which is that Kennedy didn't cut taxes. Johnson did. I guess ACA is Chafee's bill, and he passed that. Also, I'm not on an LBJ zeal. I'm just correcting you and Laffer where you're wrong (which you should be used to).

If Obama died three months before ACA passed it would still be Obamacare/Obama's health care bill, and I use the same standard for the 1964 Revenue Act.

I'd be more open to calling the 1964 Civil Right's Act LBJ's, given the process and compromises it took

 

[RustyNails]

Graves drops out
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...llenger-declares-mission-accomplished?ref=fpa

I wonder what House leaders/strategists think of this decision lol

Aaron Strife am cry

 

[The Librarian]

If Obama died three months before ACA passed it would still be Obamacare/Obama's health care bill, and I use the same standard for the 1964 Revenue Act.

I'd be more open to calling the 1964 Civil Right's Act LBJ's, given the process and compromises it took

You're once again saying nothing that refutes my point, and LBJ didn't make compromises over the CRA of 1964.

 

[el retorno]

Graves drops out
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...llenger-declares-mission-accomplished?ref=fpa

I wonder what House leaders/strategists think of this decision lol

You know what? good.

we don't need people that have no desire for actual service in the house. they'll get another gop stooge who might not say stupid things but will vote the same.

 

[rocketknight]

I had no idea they were even trying to sling mud this dry:

The Daily Caller -- which really didn't need another bogus story dragging down its reputation even further -- ran a report this morning, echoing a report from Fox News' Bill O'Reilly last night, that said former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House 157 times between 2009 and 2012.

This, O'Reilly said, may very well be the "smoking gun" Republicans have been hoping for.

[NOT VERY JUICY WHITE HOUSE VISITOR LOG DEETS]

So, Shulman, the Bush-appointed head of the IRS, was cleared to attend 157 gatherings at the White House. How many did he actually attend? Eleven. The former IRS commissioner attended 11 events at the White House over the course of three years. Why is that interesting? It's not.

To borrow a phrase, this isn't a smoking gun; it isn't even a lukewarm slingshot.

I'd really hoped Republican media would know better by now. Not only is it silly to think the White House would conspire with the Bush-appointed head of the IRS to add scrutiny to Tea Partiers seeking tax-exempt status, but as long-time readers may recall, conservative media outlets have been tripped up by the White House visitor logs before, too.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Conservative journalism

Right Uses Bush Comments To Fan Opposition To Immigration

Conservatives are taking comments made by former President George W. Bush out of context to fan opposition to the current immigration reform bill, writes The Huffington Post's Jon Ward on Friday.

Ward attended Bush's third annual Warrior100K mountain bike ride in Crawford, Texas, where he writes that Bush had "a warning about the party's mad dash for immigration reform."

"The right reason is it's important to reform a broken system. I'm not sure a right reason is that in so doing we win votes," Bush told the Huffington Post. "I mean when you do the right thing, I think you win votes, as opposed to doing something that's the right thing to win votes. Maybe there's no difference there. It seems like there is to me, though."

Ward noted how quickly media outlets and blogs on the right misconstrued Bush's comment, and clarified that the president does indeed support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants:

The Washington Examiner picked up on Bush's comments and wrote in their headline that Bush was "skeptical of current immigration push." The Drudge Report posted the Examiner story. And on Thursday evening, Breitbart News wrote a similar piece to the Examiner's, with the headline: "George W. Bush Skeptical of Senate's Immigration Bill." The Heritage Foundation, which has been a leading voice in opposition to the current legislation, tweeted out the Breitbart story.

Bush made clear in the interview at his Texas ranch, however, that he remains in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which is one of the thorniest issues in the reform push for some on the right, along with the border security component. Bush also said fixing the immigration system was the right thing to do because the current system is "inhumane."

"I mean we ought to be doing it. One, it's right. Two, because the system is broken," Bush said. "It's a system rife with corruption and the corruption being smugglers bringing individuals to do jobs Americans won't do. And it's, to me it's an inhumane system."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/right-uses-bush-comments-to-fan-opposition-to

This has always been a thing, but it became more visible during the election when you had site after site passing blatantly false information (with absolutely no editing/vetting process). Eric Erickson took a beating here yesterday (for good reason) but this reminds me of his lament about the lack of quality among conservative bloggers/journalists. The focus is entirely on telling readers what they want to hear (Obama is going to lose the election, Obama is going to get impeached, Obama's committed acts of treason, etc), and creating an echo chamber where people like Glen Beck and Dick Morris can get rich.

(That's not to say liberal blogs don't tell readers what they want to hear too. But I don't remember the last time I saw Daily Kos skewing poll numbers, hyping conspiracies, etc)

 

[Owzers]

I had no idea they were even trying to sling mud this dry:

You will never hear this on Fox, they went on an on about it for the last few days.

And out of curiosity i checked foxnews.com, on the front page there is a link about the 157 visits.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Hilldog runnin' shit in VA.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/virginia-cool-on-mcdonnell-16.html

 

[rocketknight]

Here's a solution for proponents of the confidence fairy theory of economics: Northern Ireland Town Fakes Prosperity for G8 Summit

A town in Northern Ireland is getting spruced up for the arrival of some special guests.

World leaders are gathering in the town of Enniskillen for the G8 summit next month.

And to get ready, the town is putting up fake storefronts on shuttered businesses.

 

[speculawyer]

Fox is shameless. They bashed Tesla for years.

And then when Tesla succeeds they try to act like Tesla never got government help (loans).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WcHkIWkecY8

 

[Aaron Strife]

Aaron Strife am cry

Gosh dang it!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Digby hitting the nail on the head with respect to the Daily Caller/Fox vine of misinformation

I recall this sort of exaggeration happening a lot during the Whitewater/Lewinsky imbroglios but this may be among the most sloppy. (Or perhaps the internet makes it more difficult for what used to be mostly talk radio gossip to stick.) Either way, this debunking of the story should put this mini-scandal to rest.

I said should. The right wing noise machine rarely lets the facts get in the way of a good scandal. The test will be how the major media deal with it and how much oxygen the right wing gasbags give it over the next few days. They tend not to care too much about facts when they think they've got a juicy scandal on the hook. We'll see. Remember, the idea here is to create an atmosphere of scandal. Each scandal point is less important than the impression of "where there's smoke there's fire." Not that you don't have to knock this nonsense down. But there is never any end to it, once the right gets it into their heads that they can completely cripple a president.

Everyone thinks trumped up scandals work against the right, but even if they lose in the short term it feeds their long term project. It's such a beautiful scam. They are the greatest practitioners of that which they claim to loathe but the more they demonstrate their own dishonesty and decadence, the more they convince the general public of their central thesis that government is unresponsive to the people's needs, too big and essentially corrupt. And we know where that leads.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[GaimeGuy]

In other words, we're a nation of retards that elect assholes.

 

[Link]

There really needs to be some kind of regulation on news. Why should Fox, et al even bother telling the truth about anything if all their viewers/readers believe it and there's no consequences?

 

[GaimeGuy]

There really needs to be some kind of regulation on news. Why should Fox, et al even bother telling the truth about anything if all their viewers/readers believe it and there's no consequences?

In before slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

You're not saying anything that's refuting my point, which is that Kennedy didn't cut taxes. Johnson did. I guess ACA is Chafee's bill, and he passed that. Also, I'm not on an LBJ zeal. I'm just correcting you and Laffer where you're wrong (which you should be used to).

From any outside observer, you are appearing the unreasonable party here. You seem to ignore any of the work that the Kennedy administration did on the bill in favor of whoever's name was signed on the bottom. Your technical claim of them being "LBJ's tax cuts" because they passed under his three months of leadership is almost analogous to 2009 being "Obama's budget deficit." I think a fair metric to assigning recognition would be to actually look at who did the lion share of the work which was unquestionably the Kennedy administration. Or you can be a fanboy and just say it was your guy LBJ.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I could be wrong here, but it seems like a clear pattern with Rubio. He spent two years voting against everything imaginable in the Senate, and it worked: Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Lauryn Ingram, and all the other big right wing voices aren't telling their audiences that he's a RINO or questioning his conservatism. During the Gang of 8 rollout he was getting a lot of feint support from them too. Now things are changing as the bill comes into focus more and the right is slowly boiling, but Rubio has yet to be injured by any of it.

Oh, I definitely agree with you. Still I think it remains to be seen how he actually does with non-Cuban Hispanic, I personally don't think he can win them over at all. Just thought I'd poke you a little

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Ever since my cinema and media class I'm almost a full on Marxist

Yissss.

 

[el retorno]

There really needs to be some kind of regulation on news. Why should Fox, et al even bother telling the truth about anything if all their viewers/readers believe it and there's no consequences?

no