Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

It plays lip service to the fact that it doesn't say that but it calls for spending and cutting taxes to solve all problems because it can just pring the money to pay for it. Theres nothing innconsistant about that? The intrest rates are going go up and all that newly printed money is just gonna go into the debt (which isn't "real") not to actually real things that EV talked about. Inflation doesn't exists? (but we can just print more!)

It doesn't necessarily call for anything. It is a description of what we're already doing. Some (or perhaps most? I dunno) people that subscribe to the theory might call for spending (during a recession) and cutting taxes (again, during a recession), because those would be logical things in order to kick start the economy. And from what I understand even people who aren't MMTers, but are still highly regarded like Krugman still believe in those exact same things. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with saying inflation doesn't exist... The MMTers I've read from surely believe inflation exists, they just don't think it's a big risk during a recession like now. Right now aggregate demand is down. There are too few dollars chasing too many goods. Inflation happens with the opposite scenario, too many dollars chasing too few goods. MMTers aren't saying push the system into the opposite scenario. That'd be ridiculous. They say spend and cut taxes on those who would spend until there is enough aggregate demand to kickstart the economy and keep it going.

Speaking of evolving
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf

ho ho ho

Lol, dude'll say or be anything in order to get elected, apparently.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney's camp should just respond to the gay rights issue by continuing to point out Obama's cowardice on the issue. Biden kind of torpedoed the deck yesterday, and now Arne Duncan has come out in support of gay marriage too. Meanwhile the president sends surrogates around to express his muddled position.

Just do it. The people who won't vote for people who support gay marriage wouldn't vote for Obama if he decided to imprison every gay person and try Lady Gaga for treason

 

[eznark]

Romney's camp should just respond to the gay rights issue by continuing to point out Obama's cowardice on the issue. Biden kind of torpedoed the deck yesterday, and now Arne Duncan has come out in support of gay marriage too. Meanwhile the president sends surrogates around to express his muddled position.

Just do it. The people who won't vote for people who support gay marriage wouldn't vote for Obama if he decided to imprison every gay person and try Lady Gaga for treason

They'll also refuse to vote for Romney. For the lunatics who care about the issue it's a deal breaker.

 

[el retorno]

It doesn't necessarily call for anything. It is a description of what we're already doing. Some (or perhaps most? I dunno) people that subscribe to the theory might call for spending (during a recession) and cutting taxes (again, during a recession), because those would be logical things in order to kick start the economy. And from what I understand even people who aren't MMTers, but are still highly regarded like Krugman still believe in those exact same things. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with saying inflation doesn't exist... The MMTers I've read from surely believe inflation exists, they just don't think it's a big risk during a recession like now. Right now aggregate demand is down. There are too few dollars chasing too many goods. Inflation happens with the opposite scenario, too many dollars chasing too few goods. MMTers aren't saying push the system into the opposite scenario. That'd be ridiculous. They say spend and cut taxes on those who would spend until there is enough aggregate demand to kickstart the economy and keep it going.

They say deficits don't matter.

I'll post this again. I'm not arguing against deficit spending. I'm Keynesian.

http://www.businessinsider.com/weekender-the-trouble-with-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-2011-1
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/

Deficits do matter, just not now.

 

[PhoenixDark]

They'll also refuse to vote for Romney. For the lunatics who care about the issue it's a deal breaker.

But how many of them are there, tbh? I could see a Steve Deace type conservative writing in someone on the ballot, but ultimately most conservatives will vote for Romney, even the hardcore Evangelicals. They want Obama gone, period.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Civil unions are all that is needed to be recognized by the government for heterosexual or homosexual couples.

 

[Tim-E]

Civil unions are all that is needed to be recognized by the government for heterosexual or homosexual couples.

Might as well just call it marriage.

 

[Manmademan]

But how many of them are there, tbh? I could see a Steve Deace type conservative writing in someone on the ballot, but ultimately most conservatives will vote for Romney, even the hardcore Evangelicals. They want Obama gone, period.

I asked a friend who works in a republican administration about these things, and he said his approach wasn't so much about getting evangelicals to vote republican (since they will anyway), but motivating them to get out and actively canvass and participate in get out the vote efforts, and drive up participation among republicans and independents that tend to be less involved.

So Obama being vague on the issue might not convince evangelicals to vote for him, but it DOES make them less likely to come out in force and campaign against him, which does count for a lot.

The romney enthusiasm gap presents the same issue. Will evangelicals who voted for santorum, gingrich, etc vote for him in the primary? absolutely. 100%. I'd bet a ban on it. But will they spend long hours manning telephones? handing out flyers? pounding the pavement and knocking on doors for Romney? That's grueling, thankless work and if they're not "sold" on Romney it's not happening.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Civil unions are all that is needed to be recognized by the government for heterosexual or homosexual couples.

Might as well just call it marriage.

Makes me think of this.

 

[Tim-E]

Makes me think of this.

Yep. It might be "the same thing," but to keep your distance from it you call it something other than what us Superior Straight People are allowed to call it.

 

[RDreamer]

Yep. It might be "the same thing," but to keep your distance from it you call it something other than what us Superior Straight People are allowed to call it.

Are you guys sure that's what he's saying? I took his comment to mean that the government shouldn't be giving anyone a marriage. It should be civil unions whether you're straight or gay. Then marriage can be appropriated by whoever the fuck wants to appropriate it, and a church can't really get mad at that.

It's something I agree with, but it's improbable and impractical now. If the government had started out doing that, then that'd be great. But it didn't. Getting them to recognize civil unions for straight people only and not marriage would be political suicide. People would be lined up angry about the government taking away their marriage or something stupid like that. We've forced ourselves into this mess, and thus the church going people are just going to have to accept that the government can marry whoever it wants and maybe that doesn't mean the same thing as marriage to them, or whatever, but our government should still call it the same thing, because separate but equal doesn't work.

 

[Blergmeister]

They say deficits don't matter.

I'll post this again. I'm not arguing against deficit spending. I'm Keynesian.

http://www.businessinsider.com/weekender-the-trouble-with-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-2011-1
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/

Deficits do matter, just not now.

I don't think you understand what MMTers mean when they say "Deficits don't matter." They are not saying that we can print all the money you want, they are saying that the Deficit, as a statistic of money coming in and going out, is not what we should use to decide our policy. What we should use instead as a statistic to guide our monetary policy is the rate of inflation. It doesn't matter what the deficit is as long as the economy is cruising along at a reasonable level of inflation (say 2%). If inflation is high then we should tax more and cut spending. If inflation is low then we should tax less and spend more. That is all*.

*Notice how issuing bonds has nothing to do with this. It is just another service government offers just like any other it can, and does, offer.

 

[Chumly]

Bob Kerrey has no skeletons in his closet.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166531/bob-kerrey-mass-murderer

But republicans would be proud of that skeleton! Republican challengers got much bigger problems if they are going to use that to combat their own skeletons

 

[Tim-E]

Are you guys sure that's what he's saying? I took his comment to mean that the government shouldn't be giving anyone a marriage. It should be civil unions whether you're straight or gay. Then marriage can be appropriated by whoever the fuck wants to appropriate it, and a church can't really get mad at that.

It's something I agree with, but it's improbable and impractical now. If the government had started out doing that, then that'd be great. But it didn't. Getting them to recognize civil unions for straight people only and not marriage would be political suicide. People would be lined up angry about the government taking away their marriage or something stupid like that. We've forced ourselves into this mess, and thus the church going people are just going to have to accept that the government can marry whoever it wants and maybe that doesn't mean the same thing as marriage to them, or whatever, but our government should still call it the same thing, because separate but equal doesn't work.

Oh, I agree. I didn't think that was what he was suggesting, I was just making a comment on how many dance around the issue with those words.

 

[empty vessel]

They say deficits don't matter.

They say deficits per se don't matter. They do not say that spending does not matter.

I'll post this again. I'm not arguing against deficit spending. I'm Keynesian.

http://www.businessinsider.com/weekender-the-trouble-with-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-2011-1
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/

Deficits do matter, just not now.

MMT does not deny that net spending matters. I don't know why you are taking issue with a point that MMT does not put forward. These articles, like yourself, both terribly misrepresent and reflect a misunderstanding of MMT. As Scott Fullwiler commented on the first link at the blog where it originally appeared:

Allow me to add a few things to Warren's fine comment, since, as he says, you haven't really offered a critique as much as setting up a straw man and knocking it down. No MMT'er will actually take this critique very seriously, at least.

Regarding the first two points of your "summing up," good for you that you understand. I would agree with you that it's a "meh" if our policymakers actually understood as much as you do on this. Obama thinks we can run out of money.

Regarding holding non-$US and converting as needed, that in no way contradicts MMT. We've written about this many times. The size of the demand for "cash" is irrelevant. The point is, there will always be a "non-trivial" demand as long as tax liabilities can be enforced (of course, that's an "if" that relies on some of the points both you and we have made above). Same goes for the "special rules" for the govt--as long as it is the issuer of the currency necessary to settle a tax liability, and the tax liabilities are enforeceable, it's "special." If not (and there are many reasons why it might not be, as again you and we have noted above), then not special.

Regarding the "boom-bust cycle," apparently you haven't seen the volumes of research we've done on cyclical and secular financial fragility/instability, a la Minsky. Or the research of Bill Black. Or the fact that Rob Parenteau, an MMT'er, writes the Richebacher Letter, which at its core takes an Austrian view of the boom-bust cycle, again blended with Minsky.

As Warren pointed out, ALL WE EVER SAY is that it is the REAL ECONOMY that matters. The operational ability to create full employment is given. The REAL ability to do so is not. If you haven't seen us say this, you haven't been paying attention at all.

Again, Warren addressed the others, which are generally misinterpretations of MMT or overlooking things MMT'ers have already said in general agreement with your points.

http://mercenarytrader.com/2010/12/weekender-the-trouble-with-modern-monetary-theory-mmt/

Indeed, the writer of the first link says as much and subsequently denies that his piece was a critique of MMT at all but rather was "largely fashioned under the influence of, and in direct response to, vocal MMTers in the financial blogosphere who have repeatedly and aggressively underscored their (incorrect) belief that the government can operate without policy constraints." Of course, that isn't MMT. And my guess is that this blogger was also failing to understand other MMT advocates, much like you misunderstand me (still not sure if it is willful or not). I've never read anybody advocating MMT (including laypersons who post here) assert that the government can spend without policy constraints. That's ridiculous.

Krugman, too, has been called out numerous times for his misrepresentations of what MMT economists say, including the linked piece. For example, Krugman falsely puts forward the assertion that MMT posits there are no limits to government net spending. That isn't true.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

But republicans would be proud of that skeleton! Republican challengers got much bigger problems if they are going to use that to combat their own skeletons

What?? Are you trying to say that Republicans are all mass murderers or are supporters of these types of things? I don't understand.

 

[Tim-E]

What?? Are you trying to say that Republicans are all mass murderers or are supporters of these types of things? I don't understand.

All Kerrey was doing was trying to stop Communism from spreading to the west by killing those innocent people. Gotta weigh the good with the bad. </republicandefense>

 

[Chumly]

What?? Are you trying to say that Republicans are all mass murderers or are supporters of these types of things? I don't understand.

Republicans don't fault people for what happens in a war zone. You should know this by now. Considering how strongly Nebraskans support the military and military members there no way this is going to be an issue with them.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Republicans don't fault people for what happens in a war zone. You should know this by now. Considering how strongly Nebraskans support the military and military members there no way this is going to be an issue with them.

Nor had it been in the past when he held the highest offices of Nebraska for longer than most people here have been able to think for themselves.

 

[jamesinclair]

Big primary day tomorrow!

I expect Santorum to sweep

Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia

Thats 130 delegates up for grabs.

I wouldnt be surprised to see Romney end up in third place in at least one of those.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think you're way off on the Indiana reading, Aaron. Pence is running essentially unopposed and that fact alone is going to hurt the Dem turnout in November. Mourdock and Lugar both would both win handily over Donnelly. I'm guessing you didn't follow the right to work stuff very much this year? I don't blame you, there was very little outcry (relatively speaking) as the GOP rammed it through.

If I had to assign ratings

Pence vs. John Gregg is Likely R

Obama vs. Romney is Likely R

Donnelly vs. Mourdock is Lean R

While I'd say Pence is the favorite in the governor's race, Gregg is hardly a nobody, and Pence himself is very polarizing.

The polling in the Senate race has Donnelly and Mourdock tied or Donnelly leading, but with a large amount of undecideds. There's definitely a lot of material to work with, least of which Lugar himself saying that Mourdock is unfit to be a senator.

 

[Tim-E]

The only entertaining thing that can come from the primaries at this point is Ron Paul getting enough delegates to be kind of obnoxious at the convention.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I asked a friend who works in a republican administration about these things, and he said his approach wasn't so much about getting evangelicals to vote republican (since they will anyway), but motivating them to get out and actively canvass and participate in get out the vote efforts, and drive up participation among republicans and independents that tend to be less involved.

So Obama being vague on the issue might not convince evangelicals to vote for him, but it DOES make them less likely to come out in force and campaign against him, which does count for a lot.

The romney enthusiasm gap presents the same issue. Will evangelicals who voted for santorum, gingrich, etc vote for him in the primary? absolutely. 100%. I'd bet a ban on it. But will they spend long hours manning telephones? handing out flyers? pounding the pavement and knocking on doors for Romney? That's grueling, thankless work and if they're not "sold" on Romney it's not happening.

The republicans I talk to are quite enthused to oust Obama, but aren't working for Romney (whereas they did work for McCain). Most of their focus seems to be on house and senate races. I've talked to a couple people who are beyond confident Obama will lose, and instead want to lay the groundwork for taking the senate.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The republicans I talk to are quite enthused to oust Obama, but aren't working for Romney (whereas they did work for McCain). Most of their focus seems to be on house and senate races. I've talked to a couple people who are beyond confident Obama will lose, and instead want to lay the groundwork for taking the senate.

Even the more optimistic Republicans I've heard from are more concerned about winning the Senate than beating Obama at this point, simply because it's likelier.

I could see something of a "least change" election taking place in which Obama wins about 300 EVs (2008 minus NC/FL/IN), Democrats pick up NV and MA but lose ND, NE, MT, MO, and King (ME) caucuses with the Democrats, and Democrats pick up about a dozen or so seats in the House but not enough to win. More gridlock but maybe Boehner would be more willing to compromise on some things.

 

[RDreamer]

The republicans I talk to are quite enthused to oust Obama, but aren't working for Romney (whereas they did work for McCain). Most of their focus seems to be on house and senate races. I've talked to a couple people who are beyond confident Obama will lose, and instead want to lay the groundwork for taking the senate.

lol

I wonder just how right you might be with them creating too much of a bubble where hard right wingers think it's completely unthinkable for Obama to be re-elected.

 

[Suikoguy]

Big primary day tomorrow!

I expect Santorum to sweep

Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia

Thats 130 delegates up for grabs.

I wouldnt be surprised to see Romney end up in third place in at least one of those.

Santorum is an odd way to spell Ron Paul, since he already has all of the delegates.

 

[Averon]

lol

I wonder just how right you might be with them creating too much of a bubble where hard right wingers think it's completely unthinkable for Obama to be re-elected.

They'll just claim massive vote fraud despite the fact that ACORN--the greatest and biggest vote fraudsters as far as they were concerned--is dead and voter ID laws are popping up everywhere. Democrats, much less Obama, winning? No, no, no. Something must be amiss here!

 

[CharlieDigital]

Are you guys sure that's what he's saying? I took his comment to mean that the government shouldn't be giving anyone a marriage. It should be civil unions whether you're straight or gay. Then marriage can be appropriated by whoever the fuck wants to appropriate it, and a church can't really get mad at that.

It's something I agree with, but it's improbable and impractical now. If the government had started out doing that, then that'd be great. But it didn't. Getting them to recognize civil unions for straight people only and not marriage would be political suicide. People would be lined up angry about the government taking away their marriage or something stupid like that. We've forced ourselves into this mess, and thus the church going people are just going to have to accept that the government can marry whoever it wants and maybe that doesn't mean the same thing as marriage to them, or whatever, but our government should still call it the same thing, because separate but equal doesn't work.

It's "separate but equal" all over again.

We've been through this before. Either everyone has marriages or everyone has civil unions under the law and I emphasize this because in my personal opinion, I don't give a fuck if you want to call it a "civil union" or a "marriage" as long as the legally recognized terminology is consistent.

 

[RDreamer]

They'll just claim massive vote fraud despite the fact that ACORN--the greatest and biggest vote fraudsters as far as they were concerned--is dead and voter ID laws are popping up everywhere. Democrats, much less Obama, winning? No, no, no. Something must be amiss here!

You should have seen the troll posts all over the internet when the recall petitions were handed in. Some of the far right are absolutely convinced the thug unions just get Mickey Mouse to vote for everyone thousands of times.

It's "separate but equal" all over again.

We've been through this before. Either everyone has marriages or everyone has civil unions under the law and I emphasize this because in my personal opinion, I don't give a fuck if you want to call it a "civil union" or a "marriage" as long as the legally recognized terminology is consistent.

Right. I think you said it better than I did. Would have been nice if government had backed off right when it began and only did civil unions for everyone, but they didn't. Getting the terminology for both gays and straights to civil unions wouldn't work now. We're stuck with pushing the term "marriage" for all, whether the wacky religious people like it or not.

 

[NullPointer]

It's "separate but equal" all over again.

Separate but equal along with an understanding that it would never fly may just hint at playing the long but permanent game again. I may be naive and or overly optimistic though.

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol

I wonder just how right you might be with them creating too much of a bubble where hard right wingers think it's completely unthinkable for Obama to be re-elected.

I've been thinking about that since the Tea Party emerged. From the town halls to the 2010 election aftermath, their agenda is based on a silent majority re-taking the country and ousting an extremist, illegal Obama who doesn't have the support of most people. If he wins handily, how will these people rationalize it now that the bubble has been burst for the final time? They're only going to get more extremist, and they'd be in a perfect position to strangle progress/growth until the next congressional elections.

In some ways it reminds me of 2003/2004 on liberal blogs/message boards. A lot of people who completely convinced Bush was fucked, Kerry would win and end the war, etc. I remember going to school the day after that election in a daze, and people everywhere were like "Kerry lost? wut." And then there were the Diebold allegations, Kenneth Black, etc. Ultimately Bush fucked himself over by trying to change social security based on his "mandate," and Iraq got worse ultimately leading to the 2006 election. But if the economy actually continues to improve and the US continues to blow up terrorists...what will republicans be running on in 2014?

 

[Skiptastic]

We've been through this before. Either everyone has marriages or everyone has civil unions under the law and I emphasize this because in my personal opinion, I don't give a fuck if you want to call it a "civil union" or a "marriage" as long as the legally recognized terminology is consistent.

I'm pretty sure that's what AlteredBeast was arguing for.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I've been thinking about that since the Tea Party emerged. From the town halls to the 2010 election aftermath, their agenda is based on a silent majority re-taking the country and ousting an extremist, illegal Obama who doesn't have the support of most people. If he wins handily, how will these people rationalize it now that the bubble has been burst for the final time? They're only going to get more extremist, and they'd be in a perfect position to strangle progress/growth until the next congressional elections.

In some ways it reminds me of 2003/2004 on liberal blogs/message boards. A lot of people who completely convinced Bush was fucked, Kerry would win and end the war, etc. I remember going to school the day after that election in a daze, and people everywhere were like "Kerry lost? wut." And then there were the Diebold allegations, Kenneth Black, etc. Ultimately Bush fucked himself over by trying to change social security based on his "mandate," and Iraq got worse ultimately leading to the 2006 election. But if the economy actually continues to improve and the US continues to blow up terrorists...what will republicans be running on in 2014?

White Power!

Spoiler

lol...Actually they will move even further to the right

 

[Measley]

This is what I think the electoral map looks like for now. The 3 new dem states in the west are safe for Obama, I think. Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are the only swing states. Florida is one where I don't feel too confident about for Obama, but the others are very much doable. It's still very possible for Romney to win, but he's got a really tough electoral path.

Its important to note that McCain lost NC, IN, FL, and VA, and he's a far superior politician than Romney is. Also his running mate was a conservative darling.

Also watch the Southern states closely. The evangelicals could really screw Romney over.

 

[PhoenixDark]

White Power!

Spoiler

lol...Actually they will move even further to the right

Yup, they'll have nowhere else to go. We won't get a peace phase where republicans wait a bit before going on the attack. They'll be aiming at January right away due to the various tax increases that might go into effect, plus the military spending cut.

What if dems retake the house and start spending money again (the rest of the Jobs Act)? What if Obama pursues immigration reform? The insanity will be amazing

 

[eznark]

If I had to assign ratings

Pence vs. John Gregg is Likely R

Obama vs. Romney is Likely R

Donnelly vs. Mourdock is Lean R

While I'd say Pence is the favorite in the governor's race, Gregg is hardly a nobody, and Pence himself is very polarizing.

The polling in the Senate race has Donnelly and Mourdock tied or Donnelly leading, but with a large amount of undecideds. There's definitely a lot of material to work with, least of which Lugar himself saying that Mourdock is unfit to be a senator.

So, given your rosy optimism the reality is hard R, hard R likely R.

Also, get your Act 10 griping in today. After Barrett wins by 40 tomorrow he will run as far away from the supposed issue that got Walker recalled as possible.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So, given your rosy optimism the reality is hard R, hard R likely R.

Yeah okay.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-indiana-senate-mourdock-vs-donnelly

Both men are tied in the last poll of the race (which are rare, given Indiana's robopolling laws). It's still early out, and there are many undecideds, but I'd say assigning a Lean R rating to a tied race is generous to Mourdock.

As for Barrett, I'm sure he'll start kissing up to unions as much as possible. The unions would be stupid not to get behind him 100%, either.

 

[eznark]

Yeah okay.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-indiana-senate-mourdock-vs-donnelly

Both men are tied in the last poll of the race (which are rare, given Indiana's robopolling laws). It's still early out, and there are many undecideds, but I'd say assigning a Lean R rating to a tied race is generous to Mourdock.

Mourdock is one Mitch Daniels endorsement away from a 10 point lead.

As for Barrett, I'm sure he'll start kissing up to unions as much as possible. The unions would be stupid not to get behind him 100%, either.

Supposedly he cancelled a "Day of Unity" with Falk and the unions set for Wednesday because he doesn't want to be associated with it. He has yet to run on Act 10 at all, which makes sense since he used it and pushed for the cops and firemen to be included as well. It's worse than Romney crying about Obamacare.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Mourdock is one Mitch Daniels endorsement away from a 10 point lead.

Just like McCain, right?

 

[eznark]

Just like McCain, right?

Have you met Joe Donnelly? I have, and Joe Donnelly is no Barack Obama.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Have you met Joe Donnelly? I have, and Joe Donnelly is no Barack Obama.

Maybe so, but Richard Mourdock is no John McCain.

 

[eznark]

Maybe so, but Richard Mourdock is no John McCain.

True, Mourdock has the support of the base!

 

[Aaron Strife]

True, Mourdock has the support of the base!

Base support sure helped out Sharron Angle!

If you want, we can do an avatar bet on this, since I seem to be the overly-optimistic yin to PD's increasingly pessimistic yang. Donnelly beats Mourdock in the Senate race, winner changes the other guy's avatar for a month. Bet's off if Lugar wins the primary, he'll run away with it if he does.

 

[eznark]

I don't do avatar bets and if I did it surely would start with someone in NFL gaf. I'm perfectly happy to lord it over you with no compensation required. Are you sad that you never got to wear a Ron Johnson face?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Are you sad that you never got to wear a Ron Johnson face?

A little. I mean, come on.

Look at that man. He's so clean he may as well be plastic.

 

[Oblivion]

He voted for TARP, voted to raise debt ceiling 8 of 11 times, voted for ethanol subsidies, voted against earmark reform, voted to increase the stimulus, and has supported countless pork projects. In 2010, when he saw the winds start to shift he absolutely did the smart thing and tried to tact right, but apparently his constituents aren't buying it. He has only been partisan in the last couple of years.

I'd argue that almost none of those things you stated are partisan issues, but ESPECIALLY the bolded.

 

[eznark]

I'd argue that almost none of those things you stated are partisan issues, but ESPECIALLY the bolded.

I didn't say they were partisan issues I said he liked to spend.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Aaron Strife with another wildly off base congressional election prediction? Oh my

 

[Oblivion]

Romney's rally in Cleveland:

 

[eBay Huckster]

Aaron Strife with another wildly off base congressional election prediction?

Now now, let's not throw bricks on the subject of wildly off-base election predictions