Pants on Prairie Fire

Comments

1
That's not just any old AP feed HuffPo's robots grabbed, either - it's by Tom Raum, who's been covering D.C. for the Associated Press since 1973. Awesome to see a true newshound make another great contribution like this. Thanks for linking, Paul.
2
Because the debt going up by half of all prior Presidents is so much better?

Seriously, the "debt fear" everyone freaks out about is a bunch of bullshit anyway. It's just the corporatists way of scaring everyone into embracing austerity for the poor and middle classes.
3
Reporters can always contact a campaign's press spokesperson to schedule an interview.

Days to election: 174
4
@3: Yes, and the press spokesperson can always refuse to grant an interview appointment to any reporter they feel might ask Romney any difficult or inconvenient questions.
Crawl back under your rock.
5
I'd love to see a breakdown of how the debt went up by half "under Obama"*. I vaguely recall seeing James Fallows link to a bar chart of the recent debt contributors in his Atlantic blog.

* The phrase "under Obama" is such a misrepresentation. We have a president, not a dictator, and with the filibuster in the Senate, there's never been a time when Obama hasn't been at the mercy of the Republican caucus and a handful of bluedog Democrats.

Under Bush and the Republicans, driving up the debt was a deliberate act: two rounds of tax cuts, two unfunded wars, a new unfunded prescription drug entitlement. Under Obama, most of that $5 trillion increase of debt has been out of his control:
* When the economy goes into freefall, revenues inevitably go way down and expenditures go way up.
* He inherited the structural shortfalls Bush and the Republicans programmed into the system, plus the expanding cost of Medicare.

Sure, there was the stimulus, but that was less than a trillion dollars, and most of that was tax cuts and aid to state and local governments.
6
Still 5 trillion, maybe it will be another 5 trillion if he gets elected?

Seems like a dumb comment to debunk. I expect this from Goldy.
7
@3 yes, I see so many of those requests are being granted too. NOT.

DAYS TIL YOU'RE AN IDIOT: -5000
8
@2 yeh
9
Am I the only one who heard this whole "prairie fire" theme and how clumsily imagery of fire was injected into this speech and thought, "Wow, how did this make it past the first draft stage?" And "when did George Lucas start writing Mitt Romney's speeches?"
10
@5: Great point. The Bush administration and its congressional lackeys purposely increased the debt so that we'd get to the point we're at now with people arguing that we simply can't borrow more. Obama's just trying to clean up the shitshow he was left by the previous administration.
11
bush blew up a debt bomb, leaving no money for obama to clean it up. its really quite simple, but the american public is even simpler than that.
12
Well, not half. But obviously Obama's rate of debt increase compared to the other 43 is quite astonishing.
13
He can only hurt himself by talking to reporters if he says the wrong thing. All he has to do is not be Obama and try not to piss anyone off to get a chance at the election.
14
Goldy, it's a strategy that - unfortunately - seems to work pretty well for GOP candidates, so why WOULDN'T Romney's handlers make use of it? After all, they're going to hit upon one or two successful strategies somehow, even if only by accident.
15
BREAKING NEWS: Professional Politicians are Liars!

/acts shocked
16
@12 Your man wants to continue the policies we see here. So zip it about the debt.

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834…

DAYS TIL YOU PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS: (number too large to display)
17
@16: Then please tell me what "your man" intends to do about it? How about appointing a presidential commission and following their recommendations?
18
@14
"Goldy, it's a strategy that - unfortunately - seems to work pretty well for GOP candidates, so why WOULDN'T Romney's handlers make use of it?"

It seemed to go pretty badly during the last election.

Eventually Obama's team will start to point out that a guy afraid to face a reporter probably isn't the brave leader that this country needs.

They'll probably wait on that piece until the reporters are chomping for a chance to become the Katie Couric of this cycle. And Romney may not be able to memorize enough answers to the questions that he's avoiding right now.
19
"Lie with every breath and avoid the press" worked pretty well for Palin, so why not Mitt? It's not like the GOP has any respect for the office or the people who would put him in it, so why not go with it, right? They'll just have to make sure Mitt goes nowhere near a hot mic, as he can't pull off the whiny martyr routine like Sarah can.
20
@18: Conversely, Obama only has to remember a few answers for the press's infrequent and softball questions.
21
@17: let the bush tax cuts expire for a start. i believe there was a balanced budget before "your earlier guy" irresponsibly cut taxes willy nilly. but it will be on everyone, not just the wealthy, due to the intrasigence of "your guys".

what obama NEEDS to do is cut the living fuck out of the military, including ending many of our overseas committments, but "your guys" won't allow that.
22
@21: Actually, getting out of Afghanistan has both "my guys" and "your guys" support.
23
@20
"Conversely, Obama only has to remember a few answers for the press's infrequent and softball questions."

Again, to whomever is paying you, I can do better and possibly for less money. At least I understand Romney's platform.

Preaching "I don't like Obama" only gets you points with the "We don't like Obama" crowd.
24
@12,

Reagan tripled the debt. Try harder. Perhaps start by reading the fucking post.

In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.


@17,

Tax increases and spending cuts, which he has been trying to push through for four years, but Republicans won't accept it. Surely it's not possible for someone to actually be as stupid as you pretend to be.
25
@17 Your man's economic plans, decreasing federal revenue by 20% with tax cuts, without a plan to pay for those revenue decreases. Decreases in entitlement spending only account for a small portion of paying for that tax cut. Sounds like more of the same to me. Only actually worse than Bush.

End the Bush tax breaks. Plan #1. Do you see the large chunk of the deficit that entails?

Also, check out the decrease in the deficit from the Bowles-Simpson plan. And Paul Ryan's. Your man/party has no ideas worth wiping one's ass on.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2013…

NEXT!
26
@25
"Decreases in entitlement spending only account for a small portion of paying for that tax cut."

Not only that but the cuts in "entitlement programs" will further reduce tax revenue for the government as the money is not "churned" at the local level.
27
@25: I am not against tax increases, and neither are all Republicans.
In fact, I would vote for another term of Bill Clinton over Romney or Obama. Bill understood how to use the presidency far more effectively. And more importantly, has an understanding of the role of the government that is is in line with the American people and our heritage.

Obama is still a rank amature, I know that, Bill Clinton knows that, Hillary knows that, and you all know that but won't admit it.
28
@23: No one is paying me, but please, go right ahead.... Post your essay on the virtues of a Romney presidency for us all to see.
29
@27 Hmmm. Then how come your elected Republican officials don't feel the same way about taxes? Why do they all sign the Grover Norquist pledge? Why do you vote for people who don't hold your views? Why do they feel so beholden to "no new taxes" but go back on their word daily (see abandoning agreed upon defense cuts and offsetting those cuts from social programs for the poor)?

Romney is against tax increases. Isn't that the guy you're supporting? What the fuck is your argument?

Which policy or position exposes Obama as a rank "amature (sic)"? Attempting to negotiate with Republicans?

You are an empty hole of an argument.
30
I am not against tax increases, and neither are all Republicans.


All Republicans in office and YOUR candidate. You claim not to oppose tax increases but your feigned ignorance about Obama's proposals for reducing the deficit and your support for a party and a candidate that oppose all tax increases even when the Democrats meet them more than halfway on spending cuts belie what you truly believe.

No one here is fooled. Fuck off.
31
@29: Do you really think that all people within a party, R or D, are in sync with each other on the issues?
People take the aggregate sum of the prevelant opinions of their party, compare it against their own (prioritizing as needed), to determine if said party is acceptable to them.
Do you not do the same?
32
@31: Hm. So, your guy is not with you on social issues (marriage equality), and apparently not with you on fiscal issues either (tax increases). Why exactly are you voting for him?

It's the hair, right? It must be the hair.
33
@32: To preserve individual liberty against the increasing nanny state, for starters.
34
@33: Like the liberty to get married! Oh, wait, no, not that one.
35
@31 It certainly seems like all the R's are in sync on this issue. Only six House Republicans have not signed the Norquist pledge. That's 6 out of 242 -- 98% against any tax increase whatsoever. Seems pretty in sync to me.
36
@33 Which specific individual liberties are you so concerned about? Do tell.

Abortion? Contraception? Marriage?

Your party rails against big government but then gets up in people's relationships, health care, and ultimately their vaginas. Who is the party of individual liberty again?
37
@33
"To preserve individual liberty against the increasing nanny state, for starters."

Let's see ...
"preserve individual liberty" is meaningless.
Romney is against gay marriage.

"increasing nanny state" is meaningless.
Romney pushed for Romneycare.

So your original statement ends up being:
"To blah against the blah, for starters."

And "against" is kind of useless. With two meaningless phrases you can link then with "against" or "for" and still have the same meaningless statement.

In the old days a troll would know more about a subject than the newbs that he was trolling.

The best you have is that you don't like Obama.
38
@37: Are you ready under Obama to:
- Not be able to choose or keep a prefered doctor as its no longer promised under Obamacare.
- Have your health care subject to guidelines and review by the Department of Health and Human Services?
- Be required to file a 1099 for every business transaction over $600.00?
- Have your land subject to EPA regulations and be required thousands of dollars a day for non-compliance?
- Be required to pay Medicare a percentage when you sell your home?
- Have your insurance mandate status tracked by the Internal Revenue Service?
- Have your business required to provide status reports to the Office of Financial Research as part of Dodd Frank?
- Have your food choices increasingly limited because of the government's anti-obesity campaign?
And above all....
Deal with the sense of sense of shared misery because government, not the indivdal, is the most valued?

Fundamentally, f.b., it's not the issues - it's the ideology. So you're really not being as clever in your replies to me as you think you are.

39
GDFR: Wow, in this entire thread you said not one positive thing about Romney. Not one thing! It's all just more Obama bashing.

Hard to blame you though, since Romney has no specified policies of his own. All he does is Obama-bash, too, with no specifics on how he would do it any different.

(Well, to be fair, he is for lowering millionaires taxes while increasing military spending - with no specifics on what he'd cut to pay for it. That does draw quite a contrast.)

Even so, please change your handle: You are NOT "Gay Dude for Romney." Like every Romney "supporter," you really are just against Obama.
40
@38. To answer your questions:
--yes
--yes
--yes
--yes
--yes
--yes
--yes
--yes
41
@39. How about Dude Gay for Romney. That would make more sense.
42
@38 Or maybe we should just call you "Romney" since you lie as much as he does.

1. What fucking country do you live in? Here in the United States, you don't have any ability to keep a preferred doctor. Do you have group insurance? Do you know how it works? If your employer changes your health insurance, say from Blue Cross, to Group Health, you are required to use the doctors in the new plan's network under managed care plans.

2. You mean kind of like the insurance companies do now?

3. Total falsehood. Repealed in 2011 and repeal effective Jan 1 2012.

4. Yes, unless you live on an island. By yourself. Thousands of miles away from anyone else. Then you get to pollute to your fuckin lungs bleed out.

5. Also false. At least the way your fear mongering implies.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/rea…

The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013.


6. Who do you want to enforce the mandate? Mary Poppins?

7. Yeah, I can't possibly see why we as a society might want to monitor the economy. Please tell me you just woke up from a coma you've been in since 1999.

8. Jesus fuckin Christ, nobody is going to take your cheeseburger out of your fat fucking mouth.

You're right -- it is a matter of ideology. And the ideology you're spouting stinks and is what got us into the gigantic social and financial mess we're in now. No regulation, no accountability, no brains, no results for anyone who's not already a gazillionaire.
43
@38
Sorry, but I have to agree with @41 on this.
You still have not shown how Romney would be any better than Obama.
Or maybe "Gay Dude Against Obama".
Since all you keep doing is claiming that Obama is bad.

To whomever is paying you. I can write a script that will that. Contact me and we'll discuss pricing.
44
@42: There shouldn't be a mandate, nor should the economy be subjected to tedious regulation. THIS is the Obama nanny state I've been talking about. What Romney brings to the table is an America where citizens can go about their daily lives without checking in with the government every five minutes.
And you're not making any points with your personal attacks on me.