Showing posts with label paul krugman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paul krugman. Show all posts

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Bye-Bye Bundy

 photo BmQBRiXCAAA38Us.jpg

Here we are at another weekend and Cliven Bundy and the Libertarian/Gun-Totin'/Cow-Lovin'/Obama-Hating/FoxNews/TeaParty Stand-Off at #BundyRanch is still a hot topic on the interwebs. The only difference is, Bundy's fifteen minutes of fame are pretty much over, and suddenly all the pundits are slamming him. His racist dog whistle wasn't subtle enough, and his rambling non-apology apologies just highlight how bizarre his views are.

Even the Koch Brothers are wiping the cow poop off their Super Pac, especially now that Rachel Maddow has connected Bundy's "Sovereign Citizen" views with the "Posse Comitatus," a racist Christian anti-tax group rooted in post-Civil War reconstruction. Bundy will ride off into the sunset, or perhaps to jail whenever the BLM comes back to collect the payment for 20 years of grazing rights. Adios, Jerk. At least he served the purpose of once again revealing the racism behind Fox News and the crazy Libertarian far-right.

Previous Related Posts:
Cliven Bundy Talks About "The Negro" As the GOP Stampedes Away
Wingnuts Declare Victory as Feds Leave Bundy Ranch
Bundy Ranch Stand-Off Attracts Wingnuts and Militias

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of an Apology (but not really)as Bundy tries to "whitesplain" what Martin Luther King thought of Rosa Parks:

From CNN's New Day Transcript, Interview with Chris Cuomo, April 25, 2014

BUNDY: No, I'm not a racist. But I did wonder that. Let me tell you something. I thought about this, this morning quite a bit.

CHRIS CUOMO: Please.

BUNDY: And thought about what Reverend Martin Luther King said. I thought about Rosa Park taking her seat at the front of the bus. Reverend Martin Luther King did not want her to take her seat in the front of the bus. That wasn't what he was talking about. He did not say go to the front of the bus and that's where your seat was.

What Reverend King wanted was that she could sit anywhere in the bus and nobody would say anything about it. You and I can sit anywhere in the bus. That's what he wanted. That's what I want. I want her to be able to sit anywhere in the bus and I want to be able to sit by her any where in that bus. That's what he wanted.

He didn't want this prejudice thing like the media tried to put on me yesterday. I'm not going to put up with that because that's not what he wanted. That's not what I want. I want to set by her any where in that bus and I want anybody to be able to do the same thing. That's what he was after is not a prejudice thing, but make us equal.

CUOMO: Mr. Bundy, nobody --

BUNDY: You understand what I'm saying?

CUOMO: You know what -- I kind of do. I'm not sure that I understand it. I understand that Martin Luther King's message was one of peace and freedom. And that when you suggest that you were wondering if blacks were better off as slaves, that's the opposite of freedom and very offensive to people. I think you probably know that.

BUNDY: Well, let me tell you -- I took this boot off so I wouldn't put my foot in my mouth with the boot on. Let me see if I can say something. You know, maybe I sinned and maybe I need to ask forgiveness and maybe I don't know what I actually said.

But you know when you talk about prejudice we're talking about not being able to exercise what we think and our feelings. We're not freedom -- we don't have freedom to say what we want. If I call -- if I say Negro or black boy or slave, I'm not -- if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be offensive, then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet. They should be able to -- I should be able to say those things and they shouldn't offend anybody. I didn't mean to offend them.





More from the same CNN interview, as Bundy cradles a dead calf on live TV then gives his interpretation of the Constitutional Right of the government to own public land:

CLIVEN BUNDY, NEVADA RANCHER: Well, this dead calf died this morning. He's been without his mother two weeks, and we found him -- actually Fish and Wildlife people down in Overton, Nevada, found this calf and called us.

We picked this calf up last night and tried to save his life. He's been too long without a mother. He's been badly abused -- you can see his tongue here. Let me lay the calf down --

CUOMO: That's probably a good idea given it's a little early. A lot of families are watching, Mr. Bundy so we don't want to upset them too much.

BUNDY: Well, you know they ought to be upset. What's wrong with America? They can't even stand a dead calf. We have a lot of dead calves around here. I want to show you these bottles right. These bottles right here, they're going to feed calves that their mothers are dead or gone somewhere.
In other words, we've got about 27 calves. This dead calf only represents one of many. Americans too darn soft-hearted to see a dead calf?


. . . CUOMO: Well, let's talk about that, Mr. Bundy . . . Why do you think that calf is dead? Is that calf dead because somebody -- let me finish the question -- is that calf dead because somebody killed it or is it dead because of your reluctance to follow through with the laws that every other rancher in your state complies with? Who is responsible for the death of the calf?

BUNDY: I'll tell you who is responsible for it. This calf would be -- produce something for America. Now this calf's dead. That's what I did, produce. And that's what all the rest of the ranchers do, produce for America. They're producers.  We're not out here just having fun and having a party. We're out here trying to produce food for you people. That's what we're doing.

. . .  CUOMO: The constitution in article 1 section 8 and in the in the Fifth Amendment gives the federal government the right to appropriate and purchase land. Your state constitution recognizes --

BUNDY: For what person -- for what purpose?
CUOMO: For purposes that it deems appropriate.
BUNDY: For what purpose can they do it? No, it don't say that.

CUOMO: It absolutely does. You should read the book instead of just holding it in your pocket maybe. But when you look at your state constitution, it says that it respects the federal law. That's why your ranchers, your brother and sister ranchers pay the fees that you refuse to.

Now, you come on the show, you hold up a dead calf and that makes everybody upset. But you should look at yourself for why the calf is dead because if you paid the fees, this wouldn't have happened. Isn't that a fair point?

BUNDY: No, it's not.
CUOMO: Because?

BUNDY: Not a fair point at all. This is the United States of America. I live in a sovereign state, the state of Nevada, and I abide by all the state laws. I'll be damned if this is property of the United States. They have no business here.

They have no business harassing my cattle, abusing this calf to the point he's dead. They left this calf for two weeks without a mother. Now we happen to find it and we wasn't able to save it last night.

CUOMO: Mr. Bundy, nobody wants to see a dead calf. I'm sorry you lost the livestock. Nobody wants to see a loss of animal life. The question is how did we get to this situation? You have to be honest with yourself about what the law is.


Rachel Maddow On the Posse Comitatus
(Power of the County)
Which Explains Bundy's World View




(My transcript from video)

Rachel Maddow: There was a man named William Potter Gale. A self-styled preacher, he held a really long grudge. By that I mean he held a grudge that started half a century before he was born.
William Potter Gale's beef with the universe began in the 1860s, right after the Civil War when the Southern States were far from being folded back into the Union. They were still under the control of Federal Troops.

. . . They were kind of "Occupied Territories" and they hated it. So after years of Reconstruction, after years of state capitals being occupied by Federal Troops after the Civil War, white southern lawmakers used a series of political machinations that would make a senator blush to wrangle through Congress at the time to get those Federal troops, those hated 'Yankee" Federal Troops, out of the South.

From and after the passage of this act, it shall not be lawful to employ any Army of the United States as a posse comitatus

That last part means "Power of the County" and throughout history, going back to England, it refers to the county government, specifically the County Sheriff, as the supreme law of the land.

Our Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 said that federal forces could no longer supplant local authorities in the South ...in the handling of law enforcement of the population. And that act came out of a very specific time for a very specific purpose: that Act said 'Union Troops, get out of the South, our counties are going to take it from here.'

And so roughly a dozen years after the Civil War, the Federal Government did pull the troops back from the Southern States and local white officials in the South were thereby essentially cleared to reassert their authority over their own communities. We know exactly what they decided to do with it, right? The end of the Reconstruction Era led to Jim Crow Segregaton and the lynchings and the cross-burnings and the organized terror campaigns used to enforce the Jim Crow rules. The years after Reconstruction were so difficult for our country that many people argued the Civil War hadn't really ended in the South.

. . . In 1957 President Eisenhower sent Federal Troops back into the American South ...to stand guard over the Desegregation of Little Rock High School in Arkansas. He sent soldiers to make that happen. The Federal Supreme Court had made it the law of the land but it took federal troops to make it the law of Arkansas.

By then old William Potter Gale was already preaching white supremacist claptrap which he put under the banner of the "White Christian Identity Movement." But that decision by President Eisenhower to send those troops to Arkansas in 1957, that so enraged William Potter Gale that he decided he was going to start his own new branch of that movement and he was going to give it a new name. A writer named Kevin Carey wrote a great piece about this in the Washington Monthly - William Potter Gale called his new movement "Posse Comitatus" named after that 1878 Law.

 photo 136010ef-42f9-4222-843e-c8218c15b85e.jpg

As Gale explained that County Sheriffs were the supreme law of the land and that county residents had a right to form a posse to enforce the Constitution - however they, as "Sovereign Citizens," chose to interpret it. Public officials who interfered, said Gale, should be hung by the neck at high noon.

So individuals are Sovereign, only the County Sheriff is in charge, the Federal Government has no authority in this guy's white supremacist world. And yes, his operating theory sounds crazy and sounds fringe ...but if that was your particular flavor of extremism in, say, the early 1970s and you didn't think the anti-Civil Rights, and you didn't think the anti-Fluoride John Birch Society was extreme enough for you, then you could join William Potter Gale and his extremist Posse Comitatus. All through the 1970s Mr. Gale worked the farm belt states specifically, planting chapters in Kansas and Texas...

(Discussion of Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City Bombing, Militia Movement, White Christian Identity Movement)

. . . Today you can still find William Potter Gale memorialized by the Aryan Nations online, but you can also find echoes of his ideas in the Oath Keepers, Guardians of the Republic, and the Ten Orders that they "will not obey." Also these folks, the Constitutional Officers and Peace Officers Association led by Sheriff Richard Mack, foremost purveyor of the "Sheriffs in-charge" rule today. Sheriff Mack was the one who made headlines in the middle of the Cliven Bundy Fox-News-Hyped Nevada Ranch Stand-Off recently when he said that he and the militia members flocking to Nevada to fight the Federal Government alongside that rancher might try to use their wives and daughters as human shields once the shooting started.

 photo bundy4.png

So the County Sheriff is the highest law in the land. There is no Federal Government There's only the Sheriff. "Posse Comitatus." The Power of the County. ...It is a weird idea, an old idea that is directly in a linear way, directly descendent of the people who came up with this cockamamie idea in the first place in the 1800s to argue that Federal Troops shouldn't be allowed into the South to protect black people.

(Plays video of Bundy telling Hannity that the Clark County Nevada Sheriff should take guns away from the Feds, and that he wants to fight against Harry Reid's "Army" from the BLM)

So the Clark County Sheriff is the highest authority in the land, if you live in Clark County, Nevada . . . Fox News Channel, conservative media broadly - I don't think they spent all this type hyping and glorifying this rancher in Nevada because he is a Posse Comitatus guy. ... I don't think Fox News has been celebrating him for weeks now specifically because of that. But somebody should have noticed that the guy kept bringing this stuff up, right?


 photo Bundy5.png

 photo BmRgcRpCMAEFgjO.jpg


Nevada Congressman Steven Horsford told Rachel that the other locals in Bunkerville want Bundy's Armed Militia to get out of their community.

I spent the day in Mesquite, meeting with residents who actually live in Bunkerville and who are neighbors of Cliven Bundy. ...And they, like myself, are extremely frustrated by the fact that we have these armed militia in our community, the fact that children in Bunkerville, which is a community of only about 12-1300 people, cannot walk around the corner from their home to their school without armed militia on the hills of our community. That they can't go to church on Sunday without armed militia being in or around the church because Cliven Bundy is there and the armed militia are there.
And his comments...do not reflect our community. They don't reflect the majority views of Nevadans, or the western way of life and the way most of us feel. His comments were racist, they're infused with bigotry and hatred and belong in the dustbin of history.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For historical reasons, the federal government owns a lot of land in the West; some of that land is open to ranching, mining and so on. Like any landowner, the Bureau of Land Management charges fees for the use of its property. The only difference from private ownership is that by all accounts the government charges too little — that is, it doesn’t collect as much money as it could, and in many cases doesn’t even charge enough to cover the costs that these private activities impose. In effect, the government is using its ownership of land to subsidize ranchers and mining companies at taxpayers’ expense.
It’s true that some of the people profiting from implicit taxpayer subsidies manage, all the same, to convince themselves and others that they are rugged individualists. But they’re actually welfare queens of the purple sage. And this in turn means that treating Mr. Bundy as some kind of libertarian hero is, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. 
Suppose he had been grazing his cattle on land belonging to one of his neighbors, and had refused to pay for the privilege. That would clearly have been theft — and brandishing guns when someone tried to stop the theft would have turned it into armed robbery. The fact that in this case the public owns the land shouldn’t make any difference.
~ Economist Paul Krugman, New York Times


From Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- Americans for Prosperity Nevada, the state affiliate of the Koch Brothers-backed group, appears to have hastily deleted social media posts expressing support for Cliven Bundy, the renegade rancher who exposed himself as a racist in recent press conferences.

A tweet sent by AFP Nevada on April 10 urging followers to read more about the #BundyBattle, which involves Bundy's refusal to pay fines for allowing his cattle to graze on public land, has been deleted. A Facebook graphic that the group posted criticizing the Bureau of Land Management for enforcing grazing laws against Bundy has similarly disappeared.

Previously, the page read: "The BLM spent HOW MUCH to round up cattle? ONE MILLION DOLLARS." As of Friday afternoon, it reads: "This content is currently unavailable"






Sunday, January 13, 2013

Treasury Rejects Coin Solution to Debt Ceiling Conundrum

Photobucket

Related Posts:
A Coin As Big as 89 Whales
White House Plays Coy on Minting Coin
Obama Should Mint Coin to Avoid Debt

From Ezra Klein on Washington Post
The Treasury Department will not mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin to get around the debt ceiling. If they did, the Federal Reserve would not accept it.
That’s the bottom line of the statement that Anthony Coley, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, gave me today. “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” he said.

Official White House Statement on Huff Post
There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation to be downgraded. The President and the American people won't tolerate Congressional Republicans holding the American economy hostage again simply so they can force disastrous cuts to Medicare and other programs the middle class depend on while protecting the wealthy. Congress needs to do its job.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

With this, the White House has now ruled out the two best options for preventing a default in the event that the House GOP refused to life the debt ceiling. The White House has been quite adamant that the other alternative (invoking the 14th Amendment) is not acceptable.
So now the stakes are high, as The White House has refused to negotiate with the GOP on a debt ceiling hike.
What bargaining chips does The White House hold? Unclear.
~ Joe Weisenthal on Business Insider

. . . the last debt ceiling confrontation crept up on the White House because Obama refused to believe that Republicans would actually threaten to provoke default. Is the WH being realistic this time, or does it still rely on the sanity of crazies?
The thing is, the coin option sounds silly, but it clearly obeys the letter of the law. As far as I can tell, none of the other options — other than outright surrender — has the same virtue.
. . . And default in any of these senses would risk a huge collapse of confidence.
So is there a plan, or will it just be another case of tough talk followed by a tail-between-the-legs retreat?
~ Economist Paul Krugman on NYT

















Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Obama Should "Mint the Coin" to Avoid Debt Crisis

Photobucket

Related Posts:
A Coin As Big as 89 Whales
White House Plays Coy on Minting Coin


Update: Nine Faces of the Platinum Coin from Talking Points Memo

...A stalwart band of merrymakers are finding a lot of fun Monday in the concept of a giant platinum coin.
~ Denny Gulino, MNI Financial News

From Joe Weisenthal on Business Insider
So where does the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin fit in?
In the section of the law which specifically relates to the Treasury's ability to create money (coins and bills) section K says this:
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
In other words, when it comes to platinum coins, the Secretary (who is currently Tim Geithner) has discretion on the designs, specifications, quantities, and denominations of platinum coinage.
So let's say, Tim Geithner decided to stamp out a $1 trillion coin. What does that accomplish?
The idea is that after it was created, Geithner could walk it over to the Federal Reserve, and deposit it in the Treasury's bank account. Then the Treasury, rather than having to issue new debt (because remember, Congress hasn't raised the limit) can make sure its checks clear against this money.
Voila, crisis averted!



Funny Money
Imagine sitting around the kitchen table, trying to figure out how you're going to pay off that next-generation HDTV you just bought.
Then someone has an idea. Brush off one of the old checker pieces in the attic, assign it a value of, say, $2,000 -- and use that newly minted "coin" to pay the credit card.
~ Fox News

I don't think there's even a remote chance that any court in the country would uphold a Treasury reading of this law that used it as a pretense for minting a $1 trillion coin.
. . . This whole notion is the kind of thing that Herman Cain would come up with. It's time to stop treating it seriously.
~ Kevin Drum on Mother Jones

. . . There is a Twitter hashtag – #mintthecoin – and a wan, spindly White House petition created on January 3 that needs around 25,000 signatures and currently has just under 2,000, which makes it resemble the winsomely pathetic Charlie Brown Christmas tree.
. . . This is an elegant solution – if you are a cartoon villain given to sitting in a vast underground bunker and innovating plans for world domination while petting a white cat. It makes less sense for real mortals. In fact, it has all the aspects of a group of well-financed mad scientists plotting to create a giant slingshot to avert an asteroid hurtling towards the earth.
~ Heidi Moore on Guardian UK

There’s exactly zero chance that the House Republicans, faced with the Coin Threat, will suddenly turn logical and decide that they’re not going to play political games around the debt ceiling after all. Rather, the Coin Threat is a political game, played by the other side: it’s the executive branch bringing itself down to the House Republicans’ level.
If you believe that the country is best run by grown-ups, you can’t believe in #mintthecoin, because it simply isn’t a grown-up strategy.
~ Felix Salmon on Reuters

My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt.
~ Congressman Greg Walden, R-Oregon, on a bill in which he wants to make it illegal to mint coins to pay the national debt























"That's silly/zany/juvenile!" This is probably true, but it's not a dispositive objection. Republican intransigence over the debt ceiling is juvenile. There is no particular reason that the president should not use a juvenile strategy in response.
The key question to ask about the platinum coin is not "is it juvenile?" but "will it work?" Minting the coin will allow the federal government to continue to meet its spending obligations despite hitting the debt ceiling. It will allow President Barack Obama to pressure Congress to repeal the debt ceiling. That -- not whether it seems silly -- is the important thing.
~ Josh Barro on Bloomberg



Photobucket

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.
. . . Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all.
So why not?
~ Paul Krugman

There are two possible trump cards for Obama. One is the “platinum coin” option, in which the government mints a trillion-dollar coin and uses it to pay its debts... There’s also the 14th Amendment option, which some legal observers believe empowers the President to ignore the debt ceiling.
. . . Obama appears cool to both ideas. But Scott Wagner, a former NYPD homicide detective with extensive experience negotiating hostage crises, says the President needs to at least hint at a willingness to pursue an alternative endgame. A hostage negotiator needs to persuade a hostage taker that he is totally isolated and that the negotiator is the only one who holds the key to his way out — that “deep down, he is not in control of the situation.”
Greg Sargent on Washington Post








Petition on WhiteHouse.Gov
Direct the United States Mint to make a single platinum trillion dollar coin!

With the creation and Treasury deposit of a new platinum coin with a value of $1 trillion US Dollars, we would avert the absurd-yet-imminent debt ceiling faceoff in Congress in two quick and simple steps! While this may seem like an unnecessarily extreme measure, it is no more absurd than playing political football with the US -- and global -- economy at stake.
Created: Jan 03, 2013
Issues: Economy
Learn about Petition Thresholds
Signatures needed by February 02, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000
18,882
Total signatures on this petition
6,118

Photobucket

Sunday, December 2, 2012

John Boehner - Nowhere Man

Photobucket

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
~ The Beatles


From Fox News
WALLACE: How would you characterize the deal the Treasury Secretary Geithner offered you on behalf of the president this week?

BOEHNER: A non-serious proposal.

The president is asking for $1.6 trillion worth of new revenue over 10 years, twice as much as he has been asking for in public. He has stimulus spending in here that exceeded the amount of new cuts that he was willing to consider.

It was not a serious offer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

WALLACE: Take us behind the scenes. Take us inside the room. What was the mood music when Tim Geithner sits there, like we are here and presented this to you? What did you say?

BOEHNER: I was flabbergasted. I looked him and said, "You can't be serious."
I've just never seen anything like it. You know, we've got seven weeks between Election Day and the end of the year. And three of those weeks have been wasted with this nonsense.


WALLACE: OK. So, if they are wasted, where are we now? And, quite frankly, what are the chances we're going to end up going over the cliff?

BOEHNER: Well, right now, I would say -- we're nowhere, period. We're nowhere.

We've put a serious offer on the table by putting revenues up there to try to get this question resolved. But the White House has responded with virtually nothing. They've actually asked for more revenue than they have been asking for the whole entire time.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

WALLACE: I want to ask you one other question about their offer, because this was a real surprise. Geithner also said they want you, Congress, to give up any powers over voting an increase in the debt limit forever.

BOEHNER: Forever. Silliness.

Congress is not going to give up this power. I've made it clear to the president, that every time we get to the debt limit, we need to cut some reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit. It's the only way to leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would if left alone.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

WALLACE: You've talked about the fact that the president won and you came out with a concession the day after the election. They point out that the president campaigned on raising tax rates, you know, and it was the big issue, between him and Romney. And, they say, just as he had to cave, after your victory in the 2010 midterms, now, it's your turn to cave on tax rates.

BOEHNER: Listen, what is this difference where the money comes from? We put $800 billion worth of revenue, which is what he's asking for, out of eliminating the top two tax rates.

But, here's the problem, Chris, when you go and increase tax rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow. Half of that income is the small business income. It's going to get taxed at a higher rate. And as a result, we're going to see slower economic growth.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Boehner is 'nowhere' because his owners, Norquist and the Koch brothers, will not let him go 'anywhere.'
~ comment by Mes on Yahoo News

Boehner reminds me of Sheriff Bart, in the movie Blazing Saddles, holding a gun to his own head.
~ comment by Zeph on Yahoo News

Well Mr. Boner..when 67% of Americans say tax the rich, you will be going somewhere...OUT ON YOUR (__!__) !
~ comment by Tim P. on Yahoo News

Operation Rolling Tantrum
Oh, boy. This isn’t going to end, even when or if a deal is reached on defusing the austerity bomb; John Boehner has just declared that he’s going to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage every time we hit the debt limit. Nor will it be a case of holding the nation at gunpoint until it meets GOP demands; Republicans are signaling that they don’t intend to make any specific proposals, they’re just going to yell and stamp their feet until Obama soothes them somehow.
~ Paul Krugman in NYT

Despite Boehner’s rhetoric, there is no economic evidence to suggest that taxing income above $250,000 hurts the economy. In fact, business thrived during President Clinton’s tenure, as the wealthy paid more.
~ Igor Volsky on Think Progress

Boehner just shot himself in the foot
. . . If he's saying that it doesn't matter whether we have revenue from the rich or spending cuts from the rest, this is pretty devastating. It shows how out of touch they are with the middle class, and if I was Obama, I would hammer that every day.
~ Coolelegans on Daily Kos

This is all a win-win for the President. If he gets what he wants in the negotiations he looks good. If we go over the cliff which is looks like we are, all the polls show the American people will mostly blame the Republicans.
~ comment by Jooce81 on Mediaite

Memo to Agent Orange: there was an election. Your side lost, big time.
~ comment by HuskersLoveBO on Mediaite











Friday, November 2, 2012

Pundits "Wagering" War on Nate Silver - Updated Sat. Nov 3



Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Blog on New York Times



UPDATE ~ FRIDAY NOVEMBER 2





Interview on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show
Rachel Maddow: You have been the subject of a lot of criticism this last week in particular, as if the polling model that you built at the New York Times and the way you've explained the polling is somehow biased or wrong or evil. I feel like you are waging a one-man war against innumeracy, in terms of explaining to people how polling works and how averaging works. How has this week been for you?

Nate Silver: It's been kind of a trip in some ways, right, in which you become the topic of conversation yourself. And there's this kind of celebrity level attached to it that's very new for me. But there are other websites that do the same thing that we do, even RealClearPolitics and Pollster.com and three or four others. And they all show basically the same thing.
There's no way you can slice and dice the data in Ohio or Iowa or Wisconsin right now and say that Romney's winning there. In fact, the polls would have to mess up by quite a bit for that to occur. And that could happen - there have been years like 1980 in which the race when way differently from the polling. But we're now in the phase when it's no longer a question of who's ahead in the electoral college in the polls so much as will the polls have a really bad year? And they could, and we account for that possibility.
But that's why you see some conservatives now - the smart ones - are no longer bothering to say we're winning in these states. They're saying the polling's just categorically wrong. And every now and then that's right, but usually that's just wishful thinking.

Rachel: Nate Silver you are a man at the center of the storm in a way that you did not expect to be, but thank you for continuing to be cogent and rational and patient through all of this.

Nate: Thank you, Rachel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nate Silver: Patron Saint of Confirmation Bias
When the history of the 2012 election is written, Silver deserves prominent attention. In the aftermath of Obama's debate debacle, Silver has been the left's oracle, reassuring them that everything is fine. His influence has been such that the Obama campaign didn't make any real course corrections in response to Romney's momentum. When the left wakes up on Wednesday, surveying the electoral wreckage around them, they may regret allowing themselves to be lulled into such a false sense of security.
Silver cut his chops on analyzing baseball stats. He has tried to apply that discipline to the messy world of American politics. But, as Dave Weigel with Slate noted to me in reference to Silver, "politics isn't baseball." No it isn't and we will be reminded of that on Tuesday.
~ Mike Flynn on Breitbart


What Silver has become is a handy resentment symbol for the right. They need a few every election. Last time it was Acorn and Bll Ayers. Now it's Silver. Someone to blame if and when things don't go their way on Election Day. I don't know how they're going to blame Silver; by insistently calling Obama the favorite, he somehow willed it to be so, I suppose. They always come up with something. They might blame it on Sandy this time around, too, of course. And pollsters generally.
Unskewedpolls.com, the right-wing site that sprang up a few weeks ago to "correct" liberal "bias" in the polls, right now has Romney at 321 electoral votes, including Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (what, no Minnesota?!). Silver has Obama at 299. I know which one seems more plausible to me. But you see how this works--predicting Romney at 321 instead of a more realistic 275 or 280-ish number gives them that much more to be pissed off about next Wednesday. They must be kept in a state of sustained outrage.
~ Michael Tomasky on The Daily Beast

~~~~~~~~~~~~

'New York Times' Bully Knocks Stack Of Polls From Nate Silver's Hands
NEW YORK—As part of his continued effort to torment the 34-year-old statistician and blogger, feared New York Times bully Derek Kriesel reportedly slapped a stack of opinion polls from Nate Silver’s hands Friday, scattering the surveys across the floor of the organization’s newsroom. “Pick them up, you little f***in’ dweeb,” said Kriesel, who eyewitnesses confirmed kicked the papers down the hallway before Silver could gather them up. “Hey, Silverdork, I got a poll for you. It says there’s a 90 percent chance that I’m going to beat the shit out of you, what do you think of that?” At press time, sources said Silver was hiding in a supply closet and analyzing the latest electoral data as a menacing voice from across the hall called out, “Oh, Silver! Where are you, Silver?”
~ The Onion

~~~~~~

I'm sure that I have a lot riding on the outcome. I'm also sure I'll get too much credit if the prediction is right and too much blame if it is wrong.
~ Nate Silver quoted on BuzzFeed

Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.
~ Josh Jordan on National Review

Silver’s facts are being fired like bullets into the heart of the Romney campaign.
~ The Telegraph UK

...the right — and we’re not talking about the fringe here, we’re talking about mainstream commentators and publications — has been screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasn’t changed the formula at all.
This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.
This is really scary. It means that if these people triumph, science — or any kind of scholarship — will become impossible. Everything must pass a political test; if it isn’t what the right wants to hear, the messenger is subjected to a smear campaign.
~ Paul Krugman on NYT



...if Obama wins, the right will insist that stories saying Romney was losing caused Romney to lose. There'll be right-wing books with titles such as In the Tank: How the Mainstream Media Stole the 2012 Election for Barack Obama. Large portions of these books will be devoted to the notion that Nate Silver, above all others, ruined Romney's chances with his evil math-based objective propaganda.
~ Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog

Now we’re seeing the emergence of ‘Nate Silver truthers,’ who attack the numbers-cruncher as if he’s a pundit expressing a personal opinion rather than a statistics geek who developed a very robust computer model. And they’re using the same tactics they deploy to deny climate change – launching ad hominem attacks on an expert — calling him corrupt — rather than offering a criticism of the methodology of his model, a criticism they don’t have the technical knowledge to come up with.
~ Joshua Holland on Alternet





Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Apparently, Nate Silver has his own way of “skewing” the polls. He appears to look at the polls available and decide which ones to put more “weighting” on in compiling his own average, as opposed to the Real Clear Politics average, and then uses the average he calculates to determine that percentages a candidate has of winning that state. He labels some polling firms as favoring Republicans, even if they over sample Democrats in their surveys, apparently because he doesn't agree with their results. In the end the polls are gerrymandering into averages that seem to suit his agenda to make the liberal Democrats candidates apparently strong than they are.
~ Dean Chambers, owner of Unskewed Polls, on The Examiner (update: this paragraph has since been edited out of the article



Nate Silver could be a one-term celebrity.
~ Dylan Byers on Politico

In short: Conservatives are outraged at Silver for “predicting” an Obama victory, and nonpartisan (but fiercely ideological) political press elites are all chuckling at his curious notion that fancy math can be used to determine what is most likely to happen in an election.
. . . But in a war between Politico and a funny baseball nerd who is good at math, I choose the baseball nerd.
What Silver does is actually fairly simple and many of the most prominent of his detractors seem disturbingly (and hilariously) incapable of figuring it out.
. . . don’t be scared of Nate Silver and his wizard numbers, Washington hacks. He can’t hurt you.
~ Alex Pareene on Salon

. . . I should treat polls as a fuzzy snapshot of a moment in time. I should not read them, and think I understand the future. If there’s one thing we know, it’s that even experts with fancy computer models are terrible at predicting human behavior.
. . . If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible/ The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land.
~ Political Pundit David Brooks, quoted by Politico

Then there’s the backlash from more traditional media figures. Some of the arguments here have been downright weird, as when Politico’s Josh Gerstein wrote, “Isn’t the basic problem with the Nate Silver prediction in question, and the critique, that it puts a percentage on a one-off event?” Or when Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote, “Avert your gaze, liberals: Nate Silver admits he’s simply averaging public polls and there is no secret sauce.” Or when Politico’s Dylan Byers wrote, “So should Mitt Romney win on Nov. 6, it’s difficult to see how people can continue to put faith in the predictions of someone who has never given that candidate anything higher than a 41 percent chance of winning.”
Come to think of it, a lot of the odder critiques of Silver have been coming out of Politico. But that makes a kind of sense. Silver’s work poses a threat to more traditional — and, in particular, to more excitable — forms of political punditry and horse-race journalism.
~ Ezra Klein on Washington Post

Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing. Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes.
~ Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe

We can debate how much of a favorite Obama is; Romney, clearly, could still win. But this is not wizardry or rocket science. All you have to do is take an average, and count to 270. It's a pretty simple set of facts. I'm sorry that Joe is math-challenged.
~ Nate Silver's reply to Morning Joe, via Politico


















Joe is so stupid...I mean, we knew that already, and he's condescending as hell, but it's worse when you're condescending AND stupid.
He's comparing apples and oranges.
50.1% support Obama nationally in polls. If Obama gets 50.1% of the national vote, he has nearly a 95% chance to win the election (provided there is no split between electoral college and popular vote, which I think Nate puts at 5.1% likliehood.)
The probability of Obama winning is at 79%. That means, Joe, that 79 out of 100 times that the test is run (the statistical test that Nate uses), Obama wins. It also means that 21% of the time, Romney wins, which is just scary. 20% odds are not that bad, actually. But I like ours better. :-)
Joe is mixing his polling data (50.1% of respondents said they were voting for Obama) with the probability tests that Nate is running.
~ comment by Wendy in FL on Daily Kos

Lets not forget this is the same honest Joe who said, mark my words, if Hillary isn't nominated, the Democrats can kiss the White House goodbye.
~ comment by King George the Turd on Daily Kos

But whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.
It’s also inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.
~ Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times

Clearly a very compelling reason for Silver to leave the NYT after the election.
His product was far better back in 2008.
~ comment by Theodore on NYT

You said that "When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. "
The fact is, his credibility comes from the reliability and trustworthiness of his work, not from his association with the New York Times. It is because of his credibility that you solicited his posting on the NYTimes website.
Mr. Silver is defending himself against attacks on his credibility, and is justified in doing so. He is defending his work, not Obama.
Your comments reek of taking the New York Times and its stature as a "prominent institution" too seriously.
~ Bill Towne, in reply to Margaret Sullivan


Sunday, September 2, 2012

Paul Ryan Lies About Marathon Race Time

PhotobucketPhotobucket
PhotobucketPhotobucket

gifs via pennywidmore

Paul Ryan Radio Interview with Hugh Hewitt 8-22-12
HH: That’s okay. Hey, in high school, what did you do in high school? Were you a speech and debate guy? Were you a bandie? What were you?

PR: No, I was student government and athletics, honor society, you know, that kind of thing. I was kind of a combination. I was class president my junior year, I was the school board rep my senior year. I lettered in varsity, you know, my first year in high school, mostly soccer and track. I was a distance runner and a soccer player. So kind of well-rounded. I can’t, I can play a cowbell. That’s about it for instruments.

HH: Are you still running?

PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or yes.

HH: But you did run marathons at some point?

PR: Yeah, but I can’t do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.

HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?

PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.

HH: Holy smokes. All right, now you go down to Miami University…

PR: I was fast when I was younger, yeah.


Research by Runner's World Newswire
A spokesman for the Romney-Ryan campaign e-mailed Runner's World today to say Ryan ran Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, while a college student in 1991.

When asked about Ryan’s finishing time, the spokesman said, "His comments on the [radio] show were the best of his recollection."

Ryan's name does not show up in the 1991 race results provided by Grandma's. Runner's World checked 11 years of results for Grandma's Marathon, from 1988 through 1998, and found a finisher in the 1990 race by the name of Paul D. Ryan, 20, of Minneapolis.

Ryan's middle name is Davis, and he was 20 in 1990. The finishing time listed was 4 hours, 1 minute and 25 seconds.

We are awaiting confirmation from the Ryan camp that the vice presidential nominee is the Paul D. Ryan listed in the race results – and, if he is, whether he ran any other marathons faster than 4:01:25.

The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight.
~ E-mail Statement from Paul Ryan to Runner's World

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

















We all know people like Ryan. Pleasant, generally harmless, and also compulsive fertilizers.
As they tell the stories of their life you realize that do all that they'd had to have graduated high-school sometime before they were born.
~ comment by columbiaboy on Globe and Mail

The man claims to be a deficit hawk but he voted to fund 2 unnecessary and murderous wars, plus a seniors drug plan that added together cost hundreds of billions that his grandchildren will have to pay for.
Marathon times is the least of his lies.
~ comment by wolfhall on Globe and Mail

I think it's funny that he went from Ayn Rand being his favorite writer to it now being St. Thomas Aquinas...what a shameless huckster. They do look pretty cool when they stand next to each other. Romney looks like he's got hydroencephalitis and Ryan looks like some South Pacific witch doctor has shrunk his head...the diminshed size probably helps him stick it up Adelson's and the Koch brothers' backsides.
~ comment by The Original Sheriff Pete on Globe and Mail

We are what we repeatedly do -- Aristotle
~ comment by B. Muzed on Globe and Mail
















Remember Rosie Ruiz? In 1980 she was the first woman to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon — except it turned out that she hadn’t actually run most of the race, that she sneaked onto the course around a mile from the end. Ever since, she has symbolized a particular kind of fraud, in which people claim credit for achieving things they have not, in fact, achieved.
And these days Paul Ryan is the Rosie Ruiz of American politics.
. . . Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona, which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t accomplished.
~ Paul Krugman in The New York Times

Ryan Marathon Man




Saturday, July 14, 2012

Obama Offers No Apologies in Bain Attack

Photobucket

WSJ: Romney's Bain Timing Fair Game
At issue is whether Mr. Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Winter Olympics, as his campaign contends, or a few years later, a view backed up by SEC filings that listed him as chief executive and chairman. Earlier this week, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Mr. Romney either lied to the SEC and therefore committed a felony, or is lying to voters now.

CNN Transcript July 13, 2012
ACOSTA: And do you believe you're being swift-boated in this campaign?

ROMNEY: Boy, I hadn't heard that term, but I'll give it some thought. I -- I -- I think what the president is doing is -- is terribly destructive to the political process and be -- beneath what the people of America expected from someone who said he was going to rise above partisan politics and bring a new era of change to Washington.
We're -- we're not seeing that in this campaign so far.

ACOSTA: Because both campaigns, on Thursday, Governor Romney, were basically calling each other liars.
Is that the kind of campaign the American people should expect?
And shouldn't your campaign take some responsibility for calling the president's campaign and their people liars?

ROMNEY: You know what the president's campaign has done so far is run advertisement after advertisement which is then shown by independent fact checkers to be wrong, false, misleading. And yet they keep running them. And they hold press conferences continuing to speak about them.
And at some point, you have to respond. You can't just have the -- the airwaves covered with these ads day in and day out without saying, look, those are false.


President Obama ought to apologize for the out-of-control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office he holds. Campaigns are supposed to be hard fought, but statements like those made by Stephanie Cutter belittle the process and the candidate on whose behalf she works.
~ Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades

Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."
~ Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca to John King of CNN

Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. ... After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone.
~ Anonymous Bain source to John King of CNN

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here.
~ Glenn Kessler, the "Fact Checker," on Washington Post

Glenn Kessler jumps the shark . . . in case you missed it: "much of the language saying Romney was 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president' was boilerplate that did not reveal whether he was actually managing Bain at the time."
Brad De Long, the liberal economics professor and deputy assistant Treasury secretary under President Clinton, has called on Kessler to provide one example of another person who has simultaneously worn the four titles while claiming no responsibilities whatsoever with the business.
Stand by on that... though you may want to sit.
~ Dylan Byers on Politico

Romney got caught telling a lie. Period. That isn't a swiftboat job, as CNN is implying. Romney was legally and factually sole owner, President, and CEO of Bain Capital between 1999 and 2002, and was paid a salary of at least six digits (maybe more, we don't know) as compensation for his services as president and CEO. These are FACTS.
. . . Keep in mind that as sole owner, Mitt Romney, and only Mitt Romney had the authority to appoint a president and CEO of the company, and set the salary. Mitt Romney picked Mitt Romney to be president and CEO, and decided that he, Mitt Romney, as president and CEO, should be paid a salary north of $100,000 per year (we don't know how far north, it could have been $20 million).
Seriously, can this be any more black and white?
~ Sarge in Seattle on Daily Kos

King's (CNN) reporting, which was widely circulated under the title "When Romney left Bain: Here are the facts" (now under the banner "John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012?") is a piece that attempts to whitewash Romney by incorrectly defining the issue as being whether Romney was in Massachusetts from 1999-2001, and then quoting a bunch of former Bain insiders (he keeps repeating that some are Democrats!) saying Romney was not in Massachusetts at the time. But he paints this as a definitive debunking of the story.
And then I realized every story on CNN must accept as an article of faith that Romney is a viable candidate. . . . the "fact-checking" on this story only makes sense if you assume that the for-profit media needs the election to be a close one for financial reasons. They need it to be a horserace because they are the ones who own the concession stands at the racetrack.
~ MarkC on Daily Kos

The sad truth is that the cult of balance still rules. If a Republican candidate announced a plan that in effect sells children into indentured servitude, the news reports would be that “Democrats say” that the plan sells children into indentured servitude, with each quote to that effect matched by a quote from a Republican saying the opposite.
. . . So running on the real policy issues by itself isn’t going to work. By all means, run on the real issues — but do so by creating a narrative, a pattern that registers with the public.
And Romney’s biography offers a golden opportunity to do just that. His policy proposals amount to a radical redistribution of income away from the middle class to the very rich; he’s also being highly dishonest about budgets and just about everything else. How to make those true facts credible? By associating them with his business career, which involved a lot of profiting by laying off workers and/or taking away their benefits; his personal finances, which involved so much tax avoidance that he’s afraid to let us see his returns before 2010; his shiftiness over when exactly he left Bain.
~ Paul Krugman in a column called "No Bain, No Gain"


"There is no whining in politics. Stop demanding an apology, release your tax returns."
~ John Weaver, a veteran Republican strategist, after presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney said anew that he won't go beyond releasing his 2010 tax records and, before the election, his 2011 taxes.

Mitt Romney ~ He sure asks for a lot of apologies.
~ New Obama Ad