Rex Kickass

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) So 138 out of 1.4 million is commonplace? "reasonable" indeed. Based on the quick google search numbers I've found, its 138 out of about 4521. (About 3%) And those were people proven innocent and exonerated or had charges dismissed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) So 138 out of 1.4 million is commonplace? "reasonable" indeed. We don't have 1.4 million people on death row in this country. At least I really hope not.

I didn't watch it - I don't watch Presidential debates in a year where the President isn't actually getting elected, but I understand that some members of the crowd booed a soldier for having the gall to be gay. That's pretty classy. Not quite as classy as Obama Death Panels making decisions on the last debate, but still.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) No surprise he is winning, but I'd say it is a surprise he is winning by 27 points over anyone else, and 30+ points over anyone who might beat him to the nomination. Thats a huge lead considering he trails in national polls. Bachmann isn't going to win Iowa by that much if she wins at all. Bachmann is done. Perry hit his peak as well, it looks like. I think its really Mittens' nomination to lose.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) Pure class-warfare. Just once I'd like to see some class-warfare where the richest don't win every battle. That hasn't seemingly happened in my lifetime.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) If economy is so dependent on government, that it is going to collapse without it, government is too big. Waiting for stories about the Somali economic miracle then.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 04:58 PM) One thing should be clear here, this is not the bank's fault, at all. The son is the asshole. If the son did something illegal, he should be prosecuted. The question is, should the law step in to help with certain situations? And if so, where do you draw the line? Another thing should be clear here. HUD was the forecloser. Because of unpaid property taxes from a reverse mortgage.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) The first real suggestions, thank you sir. I see a lot in there that could help with the deficit and debt... but am unclear which of those would help the economy recover. Or do you believe it will do that on its own, a la Bush I? Just curious where you see the economic help coming from in that list. I like some of your ideas. Sort of a short term/long term situation. Tax rates increase federal revenues which allow us to spend money on stimulative programs without growing the deficit further. Although I don't think deficit spending is in and of itself a bad thing, it makes more sense to close a deficit that may be a little too high for comfort by raising revenues rather than cutting spending at a time when an economy clearly doesn't need contraction from one of its larger sectors. But employing workers immediately in sorely needed infrastructure projects will start growth immediately. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug company benefits will help bend the cost curve allowing people to keep more of their money not tied up in things like prescription drugs. My wish list is primarily off the cuff and seem like relative common sense things to do. It just seems like raising federal revenues will give the federal government the ability to step in more nimbly and flexibly when the economy requires a little boost.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) I knew Obamacare was gonna have the death panels. I just didn't know they were taking place at Republican presidential debates!

I would raise revenue by making Capital Gains taxes progressive and more closely aligned with real income tax rates. I would lower corporate tax rates but close many loopholes to ensure that the largest, most profitable corporations that do business within the US actually pay taxes on the income they receive. I would spend lots of money on infrastructure improvements nationwide, both on roads and rail, as well as air travel by fully funding the FAA and speeding up work on NextGen air traffic control systems, our national power grid and other non transportation related infrastructure projects. I would bolster the US Postal Service, by refunding the overpayments into the Federal Pension system that they have made and give them the flexibility to drop Saturday service as well as other flexibilities necessary. I would also allow them a one time 10 cent increase in postage to be phased in over two years. I would stabilize Social Security by raising the income cap on Social Security taxes. I would allow the Federal Government to negotiate directly with drug companies to provide better cost protections with Medicare, similar to what private health insurance companies are allowed to do. I would work with state and local governments to create small business incubator programs, where start up entrepreneurship is encouraged with partially subsidized office space and other assistance in exchange for guarantees to maintain a presence and hiring locally in urban areas with high unemployment. I would roll back the 2001 tax cuts over three years, in stages - with people making over 250k being done immediately and lower incomes having their tax cuts rolled back in stages over the next three years.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 13, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) And that's fine to call that s*** out, but why do it on that day unless you're just being an attention whore like the people you're complaining about. So what you're saying is, its fine to have feelings about the way 9/11 was handled by politicians and opportunists as long as you don't have them on 9/11? Gotcha. This wasn't an article in the New York Times. He made a short post on his blog. If he was really trying to be an opportunist about it, he probably should have written his 9/11 column in the actual paper about it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 06:52 PM) Paul Krugman says the Bush administration used 9/11 as a wedge. Gets ripped for it. You can't really state the obvious any more plainly than this, seriously. Bush's entire re-election campaign basically centered around either real or blatantly manufactured 9/11 drama. So did the domestic case for the Iraq war. It was extremely deliberate and well-coordinated. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. One of the things people also don't remember is that Guiliani tried to use 9/11 to either stop the 2001 Mayoral election altogether or delay it for 3 to 6 months so he could maintain his grip on the mayor's seat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Seriously? He quoted himself in the future no less.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) That profit needs a "consequence" said a lot, as if it were murder or something. I think outrageous profit can result in consequence. Just like outrageous speech can result in consequence.

Thanks a ton guys!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) It seems to be that way with economic rights, but not others. Yes that bothers me. I don't constitutionally see where your rights to profit are somehow less than the others. People throw a fit if someone tries to abridge speech, religion, liberty etc. But they are perfectly willing to give away their economic rights. People have a right to make profits sure. But that doesn't mean the government should bend over backward to make it easier to profit, or to allow your profit to exist without consequence.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) I think all presidents have their merits and their flaws. To say Reagan was one of the worst presidents in 50 years is just dismissible biased partisan insanity considering Carter and Nixon fall in that span. The fact that you heralded Carter as a "good" president says it all...Carter was one of the worst presidents of ALL time, not just int he last 50 years...and you consider him a great president? Shut off the bias, then we can talk. Reagan ushered in an era of prosperity unmatched by most, in a time where America was all but a blown engine that was stopped dead on the freeway. Do I think he did everything right? No. No president does. But was he bad? Hell no. To say otherwise is just, IMO, ignorant. The truth is, neither president was really that good. You could make that argument, but you would also need to ignore that the person that basically helped steer the government out of its economic morass was a Carter nominee. (He also, arguably, caused the 1981 recession in an attempt to curb inflation.) You can't really pin aiding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan on Reagan, because he just amped up a policy that Carter had already begun pursuing in 1980. Carter also stopped shipments of wheat to African nations in famine during the late 1970's as part of the US pissing match with the Soviet Union. The biggest peacetime proposal for defense spending increases happened under Carter in 1980 as well. It was Reagan who negotiated with terrorists, not Carter by the way. There were a slew of things that I disagreed with Reagan on, not the least of which was Iran/Contra. But he also did many things right. I wouldn't say that Reagan was a failed presidency by any means - but it also wasn't a Presidency that did big things. Conversely, I wouldn't call Carter's presidency a failure either, but I would call him a failure as a politician during that time.

If you think about it, its really two sets of two types of wireless companies. T-Mobile and ATT are the only two GSM providers, while Sprint and Verizon are the only two CDMA providers. I think if Sprint and T-Mobile merged and committed to providing both formulas, it really wouldn't be the issue that two of the same type of wireless providers would have merging at this point.

If you think about it, its really two sets of two types of wireless companies. T-Mobile and ATT are the only two GSM providers, while Sprint and Verizon are the only two CDMA providers. I think if Sprint and T-Mobile merged and committed to providing both formulas, it really wouldn't be the issue that two of the same type of wireless providers would have merging at this point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) The step right before that is 1929 to 1940, where you spend loads of money, and it still doesn't push the economy into a real recovery, and you end up having to cut anyway because there is no economic activity. Actually, that's inaccurate, in 1929, Hoover didn't spend stimulative money to help save the economy. He cut taxes. That worked out well.

FEMA Funding stalled in Senate because bill won't pass Filibuster without banning Federal Funding from ACORN. Seriously. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/08/...rn_funding.html

It's as much of a joke as she is.

There will be no trains from Trenton to New York in the morning, because the train station and track are under three feet of water. The highway I take to go to work is closed because its under 5 or 6 feet of water. The highway to go to the State House is closed because the 13 foot high tunnel under a riverfront park is about 60% filled with the Delaware River. I live on a hill, I didn't think we got hit bad. The truth is my city got socked, I made out alright.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 28, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Prior to that, FDR had swapped in Truman to improve his election chances. I believe FDR had three different VP candidates.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 28, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) Running mate switches used to be more common back in the days when Presidents wouldn't use their VP for anything. The last time I think it happened was Ford swapping in for Agnew. Ford was chosen after Agnew resigned. I don't believe Ford was ever actually elected to the position.