Third Party & Independents Archives

RE: Mitt Romney: Bold Lies From a Coward

What does that mean, Stephen Daugherty?
I have a semicolen and you have a semicolen.

Did I spell that right, Stephen Daugherty? “Semicolen”

The answer, Stephen Daugherty, is either, “Yes”, or, “NO”.

You link to: (semicolen) Romney supports bankruptsy

and then you link to: (semicolen)
Jon Stewart's parity to support your arguement!

You're loosing it, Stephen Daugherty. Arrogance is your demise. You're no longer making a valid arguement.

but we won't adopt successful "experiments" at the state level to the national level. Really! Why?

Posted by: Rich at May 10, 2012 7:24 PM

The "States" are being ignored, Rich. They have been ignored by the federal government since the 17th Amendment was "ratified". All that matters to the federal government is what the "people" think because the "people" elect both the house and the senate. The States and the 10th Amendment are being ignored!

As is your Constitution!
Repeal the 17th amendment.

Can you read this, Stephen Daugherty?

Posted by Weary Willie at May 11, 2012 5:09 AM
Comment #344109

It’s not a semicolon, there’s nothing semi- about it. Even if it were a semicolon, the “e” in semi would be the only “e” in the word.

There’s nothing arrogant in telling you this, it’s something you should be able to look up on a search engine if you’re unsure.

As far as the popular election of Senators, that still leaves Senators elected by the people of their states. As for why states have diminished in importance in politics?

It’s pretty simple, because distance has diminished as a problem for communication and travel, and post-civil war people think of themselves more as citizens of America, than citizens of any one state. My mother lived in Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio and other places before she settled down here in Texas. Her father was from Albany, New York. My grandfather on the other side, I believe, was from Missouri.

I think of myself as a Texan, but primarily as an American. If you want to be divisive, it won’t hurt me in any fashion.

You can talk about ignoring the Constitution, but you’re the only one between you and I who dislikes it as it currently is. I like the checks and balances it provides. I don’t think there’s an overwhelming need to change everything just so on some partisan issue a party can have some unearned political advantage. There are times when our founding document should be changed, but they should be rare, and I don’t think going back to the way we made people senators in the days of the political machines is a good idea. There are reasons people threw that idea away, and you disregard those because you think that’s somehow connected to the ignoring of the states.

As for my arrogance or lack of same, it’s funny you begin an argument that should be proven on the merits of your policy suggestion with an attack on me. Are you thirsty for attention? Well, you got it, but then its ridiculously easy to get my attention, not really an achievement. The real trick is getting rid of my attention once you have it.

Oh, if you really want to get the state’s will recognized in the senate, ending the neverending filibustering might work better. If it takes sixty votes to pass something, and there’s not a supermajority of that size to pass stuff, then nothing gets done, and the state’s basic respresentative body in government is paralyzed.

Compromise between interested parties (not the big ones, but the people of this country) is at the heart of our Republic. Without it, it’s just going to be people getting in each others way and howling about it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2012 11:33 AM
Comment #344120

WW, what the f- -k are you smoking?????????

Posted by: jane doe at May 11, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #344146

janedoe I don’t think it’s drugs but the lack of proper meds that is the problem.

Posted by: Jeff at May 11, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #344147

W/o revisiting history before the 17th I am apprehensive about going back. There were some valid reasons to add the 17th. I can vaguely recall corruption and cronyism at the state level. The governor and a clique had more power to fanagle the Fed. People thought that through the 17th the people would have an increased say in gov’t but the Corpocracy quickly usurped the people in that regard.

Seems most legislative change is hidden from the public unless one can hire a herd of lawyers to research for you. Like the ‘harmonizing’ of the world’s laws that took place over the last 30 or so . .. just seemed to happen with no debate on cspan, etc. Like anti=trust law, just stopped enforcing it. Same thing with immigration. They implemented 95% of the NAU without ever saying a word on cspan. About the only thing they didn’t get is the name, ‘north american union’.

If we are going to diddle with the Constitution, which is more important in the scheme of things? Allowing the state to appoint Senators or removing the influence of money from gov’t/politics. Where does the influence reside on the gay marriage issue for example? With the ‘one person, one vote’ crowd or with the ‘Clooney clan’ and the $15M donated last evening?

There is no doubt here that the place to start should be removing the money influence. That means abolishing Corporate Personhood law followed by REAL CFR.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 11, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #344232
I don’t think there’s an overwhelming need to change everything just so on some partisan issue a party can have some unearned political advantage.

hypocrite, hipocrit, whatever, I’ll look it up later.

You Democratics think it’s your job, your life-long ambition to change things, from day to day, change things, pass laws, be in session for a day and go on vacation for a day.
Goverment run by Democratics has been an example of hypocracy!

It’s pretty simple, because distance has diminished as a problem for communication and travel, and post-civil war people think of themselves more as citizens of America, than citizens of any one state.

I think of myself as a Texan,

Do you think every Democratic would choose to dissavow their State? Do you truly believe people think their state is immaterial? Do you suggest the dissolution of the state governments, Stephen Daugherty? Do you agree to dissolve the state governments with the reasoning being:

because distance has diminished as a problem for communication and travel, and post-civil war people think of themselves more as citizens of America, than citizens of any one state.

I’m being devisive, and I’m relieved you won’t be hurt, feelings or otherwise, Stephen Daugherty. I have no regard what-so-ever as to your position’s feelings, but I have to disagree with your major assumption that people think themselves citizens of America before they think of themselves as a citizen of a state, or a county, or a city/town, or a school district, or a family. It’s really arrogant to believe everyone should think the way you do, Stephen Daugherty.

I haven’t even read past your first few paragraphs of your response and already I am tired. My Weary Willie must rest so I will post these thoughts now. I hope you keep in mind, Stephen Daugherty, that I have read only a very small part of your comment.

I will read more.

To all of you, et al!

I will read your comments also.

..and keep your spam low.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 12, 2012 2:42 AM
Comment #344239

I get it now, Stephen Daugherty. It should have been an o, not an e, or an i.


Do you see how e z lee your arg! uement rhymes with subjugation?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 12, 2012 5:01 AM
Comment #344260

I find Stephen Daugherty’s writing to be completely boring with a total lack of reasoning ability.

The comments of Jane Doe and Adrienne remind me of two frustrated he/she old maids.

What we are seeing on WB; is the total flameout of the left. Obama is going to lose so big and he is going to take down many dem senators, congressman, and governors with him. And the left is about to fall apart.

Rasmussen’s latest poll has Romney 50/Obama 42.

Posted by: Frank at May 12, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #344274


Glenn Beck says this election cannot be close. If it is close the Democratics will steal it away.

I think the Democratics know that, and they have always known that, and they have always gained the advantage in that way in close elections throuout our country’s history.

With a bigger country comes a better connected country. The internet has been touted as a money maker for some candidates who would otherwise be ignored by the MSM. The Democratics do not understood how much more connected with each other, personally, the internet allows us to be. The Democratics are stuck in a fabricated mentality that originated in the ‘60’s or so. The Democratics started thinking about people as groups instead of individuals. I believe it was refered to as “group-think”.

Notice the hypenation? That started at the same time. Females started hypenating their maiden-married name. The Democratic Party started hypenating Fictious homeland-Americans as groups. The results of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, IL. were to catagorize people and treat them as groups.

Group-think is just another form of racism demonstrated publicly by the Democratic Party.

We just “refuse” to recognize it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 13, 2012 2:13 AM
Comment #344288

Little willy I too come up with crazy and outrageous thoughts when I think with my little willy.

Posted by: Jeff at May 13, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #344294

Weary Willie,
My oh my, you’re quite the constitutionalist, aren’t you. Here’s one that will make your head explode. When the document starts with the words “We, the people,” does it mean “we” and “the people,” or something else? Because I know how you insist no one knows what the Constitution says, and how everyone pretends words mean something other than what they actually, literally mean. And how many times does the document refer to “the people,” “we,” and “our”? How far do you have to go through it before you find a clear and direct reference to individuals and individual rights? Have fun, Mr. Constitution.

Democrats steal close elections? Uh huh. How do you explain the presidential election of 2000? Or 2004, when Bush won by a margin of 150,000 votes in OH?

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2012 2:30 PM
Comment #344301

phx8, if the dems had not padded the election results, Bush would have won by a larger margin in 2000/2004. I’m in agreement with Dick Morris; I believe obama is going to lose by a landslide. And, he will take a lot of dems with him.

I’ve noticed the usual liberal claptrap on WB has died down. I believe reality is setting in.

Weary Willie, you are correct. The new media has destroyed the old MSM’s ability to control the masses and the left, no matter how hard they try to divide America into classes, are failing. An example is the same old liberal play book; Republicans are going to cut SS to old people and starve children. It has now become a joke, due to the ability to get info out to people. At some point the left will actually have to come up with something other than the division of the American people.

Posted by: Frank at May 13, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #344305

Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. Bush won the presidency thanks to his brother, the Governor of FL, and the five conservatives on the SCOTUS. It is kind of ridiculous to accuse the Democrats of padding results and stealing elections, given recent history.

I would participate more on WB, but I can no longer write articles due to problems with Movable Type and a lack of response by the managers. Wish that weren’t the case, because I do like the site and the format. In addition, other authors seem to prefer topics other than current events, and I usually try not to hijack threads… or at least, not be the first one to hijack…

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2012 7:54 PM
Comment #344307

phx8, perplexing to me as well. It would seem that all are on board with globalisation, the debt, the un-underemployment, the whole ball of wax, etc.

Moderates, long in tenure are leaving congress in significant number.

We are waiting on the attny gen. to decide if a citizens case has merit to sue congressional persons for failing to carry out their sworn constitutional duties, i.e. refusing to allow citizens their constitutional right to article five convention.

The lack of CFR reform continues with our highest offices bought and sold by corporate donors who’s identity we can’t know. Foreign funding and so on …

Pass a HC care bill and wait until 2014 to decide what should be in it, etc …

Long live the Corpocracy/globalisation (good luck Europe)!!

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 13, 2012 8:32 PM
Comment #344308

Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000. Bush won the presidency thanks to his brother, the Governor of FL, and the five conservatives on the SCOTUS. It is kind of ridiculous to accuse the Democrats of padding results and stealing elections, given recent history.”

phx8, sour grapes. Good thing we have electorial votes for prez isn’t it?

Is this the same line we can expect from the left when SCOTUS shoots down obamacare?

Posted by: Frank at May 13, 2012 8:44 PM
Comment #344310

phx8, by the way, we have dems convicted of election fraud; can you name some Republicans?

Posted by: Frank at May 13, 2012 8:45 PM
Comment #344311

50 more heads roll near Monterey of late. Total killed over 50k thus far. But, hey, let’s party on …

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 13, 2012 8:46 PM
Comment #344317

I found 7 republicans convicted of fraud with two clicks on phone. So you are just spreading lies but I expect no less from the right.

Posted by: Jeff at May 13, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #344323

O’Keefe can’t step foot in the state of NH after attempting to expose voter fraud by committing voter fraud.

The SCOTUS can shoot down Obamacare. They are, after all, the Supreme Court, and a 5-4 majority is all it takes, and as long as Madison v Marbury is in effect, the Court has that power. Personally, I would be ok with that, since I want to see universal health care enacted.

By the way, if you’d like to look into a different and challenging take on the role of the SCOTUS, listen to Thom Hartmann. In a nutshell, he thinks Marbury v Madison should be revoked, and power should shift to the Legislative Branch. I’m not sure I agree with him, but it’s interesting to consider.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2012 9:53 PM
Comment #344352
There were some valid reasons to add the 17th. I can vaguely recall corruption and cronyism at the state level. The governor and a clique had more power to fanagle the Fed.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 11, 2012 8:31 PM

Roy Ellis, if you think a governor and a clique were a reason to amend the constitution of the U.S. Well…!
We still have governors and cliques dominating our political process!
What has changed? Was power centralized in the federal government by the 16th and the 17th amendments? Was the state’s influence diminished with the ratification of the 17th amendment?

I say it was. I say it needs corrected.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 14, 2012 2:51 AM
Comment #344410

Weary Willie-
When folks see your comments, do they feel an urge to agree, or do they simply gawp at the ideosyncratic nuttiness of it all?

I’ve quite established the right spellings and word uses, but you treat it like some sort of heroic rebellion to keep on repeating “democratic” as if it were an noun, rather than an adjective.

Doesn’t change a damn thing. If you’re not willing to concede your arguments to the plainest of reference book evidence, something you can verify just by looking at any one of a dozen online dictionaries, why should we trust your word above mine?

You then proceed to jump to dozens of other conclusions based on nothing else than your stereotypes of my beliefs.

I believe that certain values and institutions need to be preserved. I believe that we need to be careful in how we construct government and write rules, so that we’re more elegant, less heavy-handed in doing things. But you assume otherwise.

I believe that the world changes, so we must change with it. But I believe that change can’t be just for its own sake, it has to be a well thought out response to the problem, and policy needs to be flexible in order to deal with any mismatches that may occur between the results we want, and the results we actually get.

I’m fine with the state system, with the local governments and all that. It helps to have more distributed government when it comes to local matters. Unfortunately for those who want to imagine that the world would benefit just as much from 1700’s style government as our forebears did, our communications and transportation technology, and the change in the legal status and abilities of corporations means that just don’t make sense.

That’s my first concern. I’m not looking to destroy or devalue the constitution, contrary to your florid accusations. I’m looking to have it’s principles meaningfully expressed in a way that makes sense for our time and our situation.

Do the laws of ages when most people lived on and off of family farms makes sense for a time when most people live in the cities and their suburbs? Some do, where life has its common threads, but in many places, no, they don’t.

Do the laws of ages where people could only communicate as fast as somebody could ride a horse make sense for ages where telecommunications occurs nearly instantly?

Do the laws of ages where businesses, for the most part, were small and local affairs make sense in an age where businesses can be multinational giants with legal rights like a person?

Do the laws of times where banks and financial institutions could only trade and negotiate at the speed their paper could travel fit with a time where they blast paths through the northwest to shave milliseconds off of trades made hundreds of thousands of times a second? Where wealth in terms of electronic dollars vastly dwarfs the real economy?

We need to discern what is right for our time, not simply assume that some way of doing things is just naturally right. It is the human condition to struggle to get things right. True arrogance is to assume that you have it right, and that there is no reason to moderate your beliefs.

It’s also arrogant to just sample sparingly of a person’s words, yet apply broad brushed criticisms. I wonder, if you actually read what I wrote, what I express as my beliefs, whether you would level half the charges you do. Of course I believe my way is right, so do you! But I expect plenty of people to disagree, and there to be times when I am wrong.

You? You assume that I have to believe like you do, or else I’m some sort of constitution-hating, hypocritical, tyrannical moustache-twirler.

As for Glenn Beck, and what he says, consider this: there have been maybe a few hundred actual recorded cases of voter fraud nationwide, with your side looking hard.. Meanwhile, Florida’s elections this year are expected to see 81,000 fewer registrations, valid registrations at that, because of new laws cutting out third party voting registration groups. They aren’t reducing fraud, but participation in the system.

Do you want to justify this? Do you want to justify a system where a government, unsure of its prospects, decides to bias the supply of registered voters towards their party?

To be honest, I would be ashamed to see my people do this, and I’d just as soon see every state form its districts with non-partisan committees on non-political grounds, letting the chips fall where they may. Why? Because any system that depends on trying to defeat the informed consent of the majority of American is one whose days will be numbered, and whose policies will fade away much sooner.

I remember being given similar predictions during the previous elections. I will ignore yours as I’ve ignored yours, especially given the fact that it’s the Republicans who are compromising just about every demographic they can find with their political shenanigans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2012 11:38 AM
Comment #344422

Weary willie,
Spelling aside; you also don’t know the difference between a colon and a semicolon. You were apparently too busy coming with a nonsensical rant to notice the hint.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 14, 2012 4:04 PM
Comment #344445

A couple of excerpts from

re the 17th:

“According to Jay Bybee, those in favor of popular elections for senators felt that there were primarily two issues caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.[12] In terms of corruption, the general feeling was that senatorial elections were “bought and sold”, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought eight of his fifteen votes in the Montana legislature. However, Bybee and Todd Zywicki believe this concern was largely unfounded; there was a “dearth of hard information” on the subject,[13] and in over a century of elections, only 10 were contested with allegations of impropriety.”


“Reformers included William Jennings Bryan, while opponents counted respected figures such as Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar amongst their number; Root cared so strongly about the issue that, after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, he refused to stand for re-election to the Senate.[12] Bryan and the reformers argued for popular election through highlighting perceived flaws with the existing system, specifically corruption and electoral deadlocks, and through arousing populist sentiment. Most important was the populist argument; that there was a need to “Awaken, in the senators…a more acute sense of responsibility to the people,” which it was felt they lacked; election through state legislatures was seen as an anachronism that was out of step with the wishes of the American people, and one that had led to the Senate becoming “a sort of aristocratic body - too far removed from the people, beyond their reach, and with no special interest in their welfare”.”

Their reasoning still holds for Senator’s today. We just traded an ‘aristocratic clique’ for a ‘corpocratic clique’ in the current era. We don’t won’t a senate body so far removed that they believe they can ignore the constitution at will, AVC as an example. And we don’t won’t the corruption associated with their power. We had both before the 17th and it is still with us. What to do.

Remove the money influence and REAL CFR. But, that will required a new 3rd party with a diff pol att … .and abolishing corporate personhood law. Take some time but can be done.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 14, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #344450
My oh my, you’re quite the constitutionalist, aren’t you. Here’s one that will make your head explode. When the document starts with the words “We, the people,” does it mean “we” and “the people,” or something else?
Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2012 2:30 PM

phx8, if you’re trying to get me into a debate that will eventually result in my being called a racist, I must decline.

Stephen Daugherty, your argument seems to say our current position must be maintained because if it isn’t the entire system would revert back to the 18th century. This is utter nonsense. There are other alternatives. A return to the previous condition, ie. states electing senators, is only one. I doubt the repeal of the seventeenth amendment would cause a cascading failure of these united states. Returning to the original intent, ie. state legislatures electing senators, is to admit the same conditions are still present as Roy Ellis has pointed out. It also opens up an avenue of change that could be a real solution to the problems your comments constantly bring up as a defense of the seventeenth amendment. You cannot defend a solution that does not solve the problem.

Roy Ellis, repealing the seventeenth amemdment is campaign finance reform. The people of each state pay their legislatures to do the job. If their job included the election of senators to the U.S. Government there would be 0 dollars needed to elect senators. The people of that state can hold the legislature accountable for it’s selection. If the senator votes to confirm a justice’s appointment to the supreme court against the will of the people, it would be the state legislature that is held accountable by the people of their state. The people can select a responsive state legislature at must less cost.

Schwamp, you’re right! Thanks.

Et al, the real problem is believing the federal government is the beginning and end of everyone’s existance. It isn’t. It shouldn’t even be a consideration in an individual’s life, or a local community’s life. Local government can be much more effective in achieving the same goals the federal government has failed at, and the marketplace can be the catalyst for change.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 15, 2012 1:03 AM
Comment #344451

By the way, phx8, I believe WatchBlog should be considered an equal to The Federalist Papers.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 15, 2012 1:13 AM
Comment #344478
I believe that certain values and institutions need to be preserved. I believe that we need to be careful in how we construct government and write rules, so that we’re more elegant, less heavy-handed in doing things. But you assume otherwise.
We must pass it to see what’s in it.

For once you are correct, Stephen Daugherty. I do assume otherwise.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 15, 2012 3:38 AM
Comment #344519

Weary Willie, this corruption/corpocracy thing is not easy to control. Recall how the Ill. gov. was going to get big bucks for ‘selecting’ someone for Obama’s senator seat. The wiki article relates that prior to the 17th charges of selling a seat occurred only about ten times. But, how many times did it actually occur? If somebody hadn’t ratted out the Ill Gov he would likely have gotten away with it.

Note in the below excerpt that the legislator’s were concerned about a ‘runaway’ convention so they decided they’d better pass the 17th before things got out of hand. That is still the rallying cry for refusing to acknowledge our constitutional right to an Article V Convention. But, when you look at the 600+ applications on record there is absolutely nothing that would relate to a ‘runaway convention’. How could you have such a thing when 3/4’s of the states are required to ratify a convention request.

And, we’ve done a poor job of holding pol’s accountable. Abolishing the 17th wouldn’t change that an iota IMO.

The better way to hold pol’s accountable is thru a new 3rd party with a diff pol att … where members of that party can vote, on a national basis, to reject congresspersons of that party from the party. In that way we can bust up the cliques or corrupt practices, albeit thru one party. But, that would lead to other party’s following suit, IMO.

“By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries.[30] 27 states had called for a constitutional convention on the subject, with 31 states needed to reach the threshold; Arizona and New Mexico each achieved statehood that year (bringing the total number of states to 48[31]), and were expected to support the motion, while Alabama and Wyoming, already states, had passed resolutions in favor of a convention without formally calling for one.[32] To avoid a “runaway convention”, in which unexpected or damaging amendments could be considered, the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress; on June 12, 1911, it passed in the Senate by a vote of 64 to 24, with 4 not voting, and on May 13, 1912, passed in the House by a vote of 238 to 39, with 110 not voting. By April 8, 1913, the proposed amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the states,[33] adding it to the Constitution. On May 31, 1913, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan declared the amendment to have been adopted.”

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 15, 2012 9:45 AM
Comment #344555

I remember being given similar predictions during the previous elections. I will ignore yours as I’ve ignored yours, especially given the fact that it’s the Republicans who are compromising just about every demographic they can find with their political shenanigans.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2012 11:38 AM

Stephen, these statements are just precious. You post polls all over the place when it benefits Obama; but you don’t want to deal with them when they show Obama going down the tubes. Re/political shenanigans; you mean like Obama going on “The View” to try to prop up his standing with women. He’s running scared, hahahaha.

Buried in the NYTimes/CBS poll was this nugget:

Then we also have this:

Should we go back a few weeks and look at all the liberal BS about Romney’s war on women; guess what, it was BS.

Posted by: Frank at May 15, 2012 6:50 PM
Comment #344616

Go back and re-read the RCP article, before you get smug. Well, before you get more smug.

The contraception debate could dissuade independent female voters if, in autumn, the more extreme conservative positions come to the fore in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum’s strict social conservatism, for example, is outside the American mainstream. A slim majority of Virginia voters — notably, more men than women — opposed a new state law that required women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination at least 24 hours ahead of the procedure. A far larger share, seven in 10 Virginians, disagree with the government generally making laws “aimed at convincing pregnant women who plan to have an abortion to change their minds.”


Yet Mitt Romney has walked into electoral danger zones. He said he would “get rid” of government funding for Planned Parenthood. Nearly two-thirds of women, and a majority of men and independents, oppose Uncle Sam defunding Planned Parenthood, according to a Quinnipiac poll in February. So some of these stances could hurt Romney’s bid for the presidency. It’s simply false to report that they already have.

That article is from about a month ago. You know what else happened a month ago? Santorum quit the race. Romney finally had the floor to himself.

So, some things have changed, and Romney is a bit more even of a challenger. Not much use failing to concede evidence.

But as the analysis (which you so dutifully ignored in your second article) indicates, this doesn’t mean that Romney is safe catering to the misogynists His recovery among women may mean nothing more than that the Sandra Fluke controversy has a faded from the public’s consciousness. It doesn’t mean similar stunts don’t carry similar risks.

Did you know your Congresscritters are threatening a second debt ceiling showdown? This kind of points to something that should concern you: that Republicans are politicizing the basic responsiblities of government to the point that they are not being carried out properly. I doubt any founding father at the start of our nation’s history would have dared to suggest to America’s creditors that they weren’t going to get paid. And we were in significant debt, don’t be mistaken. We paid for a lot of the Revolutionary war in IOUs, and one of the great consequences of the Constitution’s ratification was that we were able to devise an orderly, successful way of paying down those debts.

Flashforward 220 years or so, and we have your party taking one of the best credit ratings, with dirt-cheap debt servicing costs, and endangering it all… and not even for the first time, but the second, having completely forgotten how completely bug-nasty the first controversy was for everybody involved. I know the the Republican line is this time I won’t flinch when I play chicken, but running this country off the cliff is a rather ill-conceived way to prove that youre a pure conservative.

That is if you actually define conservatism by a defense of a status quo way of life.

Our investors know that even if America has great debts and deficits now, it will recover, and what it owes, it will pay back. Are Conservatives truly conservative enough to let a beneficial circumstance remain, or are they simply radicals who call themselves conservatives to reassure folks about how innocuous they are, despite the realities of their behavior?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2012 11:17 PM
Comment #344667

SD; one question, do we have the industrial base or the ability to create wealth, for the purpose of repaying debt, that we had, say after WWII? Or are we increasing debt and at the same time decreasing GDP? You guys on the left always support higher debt and for what purpose? Why, government handouts, re-distributon of wealth, and a welfare state. It doesn’t matter that Europe is collapsing from the same problem. Do you handle your own private finances the same way you want the US government to operate?

Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2012 10:22 AM
Comment #344675

We have a 15 trillion dollar a year economy, roughly speaking. Just keeping that pretty much the same and increasing taxes a little at the high end would result in the resolution of the deficit, and the evenual resolution of the debt.

But you know what? If you increase growth, you’ll see more revenues, fewer people on assistance, and tax increases and spending cuts will have a less malign effect on the economy.

As far as supporting higher debt, I don’t always support it, just when we have big problems, and not a lot of ready cash or other methods to solve it handy. I didn’t support it when we were growing, I supported greater austerity. It was Republicans like yourself making the argument that the economy was too sensitive to get rid of the Bush Tax cuts.

Oh, but now the shoe’s on the other foot. That’s what gets me. Your people were deficit spending for years, with conservative approval, to stimulate the economy. You did the job poorly, but that was what you promoted. Now? Now your party thinks differently…

Or at least it wants people to think so. One of the biggest problems at this point is the hole left by the tax cuts, and that’s a whole your folks keep saying you want to dig. So, despite all your pretensions, this is really an argument about how to stimulate the economy with debt financing. Only trouble is, your side doesn’t even recognize this, despite the math that clearly establishes that your plan aggravates the problem.

As for Europe’s problems? They’re our problems, not to put too fine a point on it, you just have an enormous blindspot about how we got into this mess. Too much spending increases in times of plenty, backed by taxes which were too low.

Yours is a party in denial about it’s incompetence with fiscal matters. Quit messing things up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #344700

“Or are we increasing debt and at the same time decreasing GDP?”


If that were the case, we would be in dire straights. Fortunately, however, GDP has steadily increased since Obama took office. The rate of GDP growth and the rate of inflation though is too low to adequately grow the economy.

Debt is money in our monetary system. If all debt, private or public, was paid off, there would be virtually no money in the economy. Think about it. Why do you think that the Federal Reserve has been pulling out all its tricks over the past four years? It has been to induce people to borrow money. Lower the interest rate to zero. Increase the amount of bank reserves available for lending. Buy back existing treasuries from the private sector to push money into higher risk investments. Why do you think that conservative economists at the Federal Reserve would be doing that?

But, many have said that the Federal Reserve is pushing on a string. The private sector is tapped out with too much debt and is deleveraging and reducing debt not borrowing and increasing the money supply. That is the greatest fear of the Fed. That we will have deflation or inadequate inflation in the money supply and aggregate demand. That results in a contraction of the economy, reduction of consumer demand and increases in unemployment.

Thus far, the borrower of last resort has been the federal government. It stepped into the gap to maintain adequate demand in the economy and save jobs.

Cut off federal spending and borrowing and what happens to the economy? It contracts in the absence of private sector borrowing. That has been the experience in England following its austerity program. England is now in an official recession which looks like it will only get worse as further government cuts are experienced.

I don’t have any simple answers. But, it seems to me that any serious commentator should recognize that it was failure in the management of private sector debt that led to this economic problem. The long term problem of public debt servicing will be a problem for the government but only if the private sector fails to step up to the plate and invest (borrow) in new job producing enterprises. This isn’t a zero sum game.

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2012 10:41 PM
Post a comment