Althouse: "President Obama’s post-election offer to sit down with vanquished GOP rival Mitt Romney has spurred talk..."

November 8, 2012

"President Obama’s post-election offer to sit down with vanquished GOP rival Mitt Romney has spurred talk..."

"... of a possible White House role for Romney, a move that could help calm jitters on Wall Street and warm the partisan chill on Capitol Hill."

318 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 318 of 318

Drago said...: marshall: "I think we can all agree it's fun to laugh at people who claim this month's employment rate means "Reaganomics " has failed...."

LOL

Hey, remember when Reagan used the Dept of Energy to strangle development of energy sources on public lands and passed a looming and cripping healthcare bill that causes many small firms to downsize, cutback, defer capital investment etc?

Seems like only yesterday....; 11/8/12, 5:16 PM
Drago said...: I think it's amusing now that it's clear even to the obama backers at CNBC that we headed into an economic thicket that the very people who were telling us that obama had saved us with his policies (as opposed to those horrible conservatives) are now telling us that, hey, it was actually conservative policies all along pushed by obama that will lead us back into a no growth quagmire.

LOL

I guess that kind of stuff works on high school campuses.

Not so much in the real world.

And really not so much in the business world.; 11/8/12, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Okay, we need a limit on comments on a topic. Who has the time to read 200 comments or more on an individual topic? Doesn't anybody work for a living anymore?

Oh. Never mind.; 11/8/12, 5:21 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Drago said...
Hey, remember when Reagan used the Dept of Energy to strangle development of energy sources on public lands

It's almost like you don't understand the meaning of the word conservation. Why not just turn the entire country into a mountain top mining site?; 11/8/12, 5:30 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/8/12, 5:35 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Hey if it gets 50 cents a gallon gasoline then let's get her done.

This country was built on raping the enviornment. And stealing things from the Indians.

Let's see if we can steal Warrens seat in the Senate.

Maybe we can impeach her for practicing law without a license.; 11/8/12, 5:37 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Sexy Sadie?

Let's check out her modern picture.; 11/8/12, 5:37 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Get Joe Biden to fix it.

Joe Biden is soooo much smarter than Sara Palin in retardland

Paul Ryan is rejected. 51% of you retards picked Joe Biden over Paul Ryan, so no, no, no, no, no, no.

Which in retardland means cheerful yes and being a Mormon he most likely is inclined to help and as a fixer that impulse is probably strong and as a religious man he's probably willing to suffer retards, but I just am not. They're too mean and black of heart whereas I am sweetness and light, we clash, communication is quite impossible. I mean, where do you start with retards that think trillions in additional debt is a good idea. It's like trying to get your slave-minded maid to be your corporate manager. This election showed right out there they want and actually celebrate bondage. They know the president and want that over sanity. They'll say we're ungovernable, and they're right because we are ungovernable when there's a Democrat president hellbent on fundamental transformation. Those two thing go together and Romney is a retard to assist and give it any gloss at all, but then again, I am stunned with the retardation on displayed when my dumbass compatriots who I can't even talk to anymore want twenty trillion dollars in debt.

I don't know when, I hope it's far off because I sure am enjoying my life as it is, I'm having such a good time, but when I slip off this earth I'll be leaving you retards behind with the stupidest worst goddamn Supreme Court judges you could ever inflict upon yourselves. It's what retards do, and now you're stuck with it. You had a very good chance to avoid it but you chose instead twenty what? Twenty something, never mind, it's not important.; 11/8/12, 5:39 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Sadie gave birth to a boy and named him Zezozecee Zadfrack. Motherhood did not slow Sadie's desire to prove her devotion to Manson. The family spent their time doing drugs, having orgies, and listening to Manson prophesize about "Helter Skelter" a time in the near future when a racial war of blacks against whites would erupt. He said the family would hide under the dessert and once the blacks proclaimed victory, they would then turn to Manson to lead their new nation.

Maybe that's the winning candidate against Obama.

Here's the campaign song.; 11/8/12, 5:42 PM
garage mahal said...: this thread jumped the whale; 11/8/12, 5:44 PM
kentuckyliz said...: That was a copy paste from about.com.

I would never misspell prophesy or desert.; 11/8/12, 5:46 PM
ed said...: "... He said the family would hide under the dessert and once the blacks proclaimed victory, they would then turn to Manson to lead their new nation. ..."

As long as it's a lemon meringue I'm in.; 11/8/12, 5:50 PM
Baron Zemo said...: If it jumped the shark it was on porpoise.; 11/8/12, 5:51 PM
kentuckyliz said...: once the blacks proclaimed victory, they would then turn to Manson to lead their new nation

You know...this kinda makes you wonder if Manson's been really pissed off since Obama's first election. He's waiting for the phone to ring.; 11/8/12, 5:53 PM
ed said...: Makes you wonder why nobody asked the very salient question: if the blacks just won a race war against whites ... then why would they choose a drugged out white guy as their leader?; 11/8/12, 5:59 PM
ed said...: @ Inga

"So we serve a noble purpose here. You better hope we never leave for good."

Are we talking about this blog or the country as a whole?; 11/8/12, 6:06 PM
ed said...: Well nothing all that much amusing about the results of the election. Except that liberals now have to put up a workable policy on how to fix the economy. And that should provide a class of amusement all on it's own.; 11/8/12, 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Why ever would we leave our country? We have a Democratic president and a good majority in the Senate. I hear Methadras is moving to Canada:); 11/8/12, 6:11 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It should be impossible for a candidate to get 95% of the votes from any group yet Obama did [from blacks] and as a result, Repubs are told they are too white?

I say it is black people who have a racial problem not Repub candidates.; 11/8/12, 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you kidding me? If I were Romney I'd be hard pressed not to say publicly, "I'm reminded of then-VP Cheney's response to Sen. Leahy of Vermont on the Senate floor several years ago," and leave it at that. I think Romney's too classy to do that, though.

Rejoinders aside, it would be difficult for any person with a sense of honor to agree to work with the folks who just spent 10 months "killing" him (unless there were some sort of huge apology by Obama, and there won't be).; 11/8/12, 6:16 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: pogo101 said...
If I were Romney I'd be hard pressed not to say publicly, "I'm reminded of then-VP Cheney's response to Sen. Leahy of Vermont on the Senate floor several years ago," and leave it at that. I think Romney's too classy to do that, though

So you saying Cheney hasn't got any class?; 11/8/12, 6:27 PM
garage mahal said...: I hear Methadras is moving to Canada:)

I can think of at least two things he won't like about coping in Canada.

No Fox News
Universal health care; 11/8/12, 6:34 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "Romney would have to slam down the first gay bottom president and change his red diaper and then shred his 2,000 + page healthcare bill.

That would be a tremendous pleasure to watch but ain't gonna happen.

Yes.

The left are hell bent on "Single Payer". A system where the government pays! (the tax payer pays and then it goes through a bloated wasteful bureaucratic lunacy sieve) What the left do not know and refuse to understand and admit is that we will ALL have to ask the government for permission to do anything health related. Anything.

Need a new knee or a new hip? Just take a pain pill. Need some cancer treatments? Gov asks, How old are you? Need a liver transplant? Sucks to be you.

The Canadians have lived with socialized medicine for so long and it's so horrid for those who really need actual health care -- (not just whiny leftists with runny noses) they are moving away from it.
Can we learn from that? Why no! Like you say - Retardland.; 11/8/12, 6:37 PM
Matt said...: AprilApple
The Obama administration has one plan: Remove as much private economic wealth as possible from the private sector.

Why? Because he wants end tax cuts for the upper 1% and raise the marginal tax rate back to where it was under that wild socialist Bill Clinton? Come on now....; 11/8/12, 6:43 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...

It's almost like you don't understand the meaning of the word conservation. Why not just turn the entire country into a mountain top mining site?

This is why you can't have honest conversations with the left. More than 90% of the land in America is undeveloped, but any suggested change is met with howling and gnashing of teeth as if we're paving over the last inch of Eden.

There are three questions we should ask ourselves:

1. Are they so ignorant they don't know this?

2. Are they such dishonest people they refuse to admit it?

3. Does it really matter which of 1 or 2 is correct?; 11/8/12, 6:43 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Matt - they are called "tax rates". Not "tax cuts".
Tax rates move around. The rich already pay 70% of all taxes. If you think removing more private wealth during an economic downturn is going to give us the 1990s back - you're a fool.; 11/8/12, 6:47 PM
Michael said...: Buffalo, NY is experiencing a building boom of hotels catering to Canadians coming for medical treatment.; 11/8/12, 6:49 PM
garage mahal said...: Canadians escaping tyranny rarely have names.; 11/8/12, 6:50 PM
Matt said...: AprilApple
The left are hell bent on "Single Payer"

Forget for a moment what the left want and concentrate on reality in DC and in the US. There is no way the Democrats or Obama will try to push for single payer. They all know it would be doomed in the House and Senate.

Canadians may want to tweak their healthcare system but there is no way they want to trade their system for ours. I hope you can agree ours needs work as well.; 11/8/12, 6:50 PM
chickelit said...: AReasonableMan said...

It's almost like you don't understand the meaning of the word conservation. Why not just turn the entire country into a mountain top mining site?

I wonder ARM even knows the difference between conservation and preservation in the context of natural resources.; 11/8/12, 6:51 PM
Michael said...: Garage. They arent escaping tyranny they are coming to the US for medical treatments they cannot get in Canada. You can look it up. You wont but you could.; 11/8/12, 6:54 PM
Unknown said...: All I can say to Mitt is "Don't do it!"; 11/8/12, 6:55 PM
Matt said...: AprilApple

If you think removing more private wealth during an economic downturn is going to give us the 1990s back - you're a fool.

I never said it would. I simply stated what Obama wants. On the other hand if you think we arrived at the debt despite the tax cuts or can pay off the debt without taxing the wealthy [even a little more] then I'd have to call you the same.; 11/8/12, 6:55 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Levi Starks said...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I came late to this conversation, but reading the main blog before jumping to the comments, that is exactly what I was going to say.; 11/8/12, 6:57 PM
chickelit said...: Matt said...

Why? Because he [Obama] wants end tax cuts for the upper 1% and raise the marginal tax rate back to where it was under that wild socialist Bill Clinton? Come on now...

Clinton had a Randian in charge of the Fed who believed in more monetarist policy under Clinton before screwing things up under Bush.

I'm just saying you need to include more variables in your model for growth.; 11/8/12, 6:58 PM
Michael K said...: Marshal said...
Don't do it for us, we can find our humor elsewhere.

You can only spend so much time looking in the mirror.

11/8/12 5:02 PM
Blogger AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
Areasonableman, We have this thing called the Constitution and it says all tax legislation has to start in the House.

He had the most influential house member on tax issues on his ticket. This is not really a good excuse.

I assume you mean something with this.

I know we would have gotten tax reform from Romney. Now, it will have to wait four years and that will be too late.; 11/8/12, 6:58 PM
Matt said...: Frankly I don't think Obama would ask Mitt to join his cabinet because a) He doesn't need to - he owes him nothing and b) If Mitt said no it would be embarrassing.

I do think he may consult with Mitt over beer [or tea] in the garden perhaps.; 11/8/12, 6:59 PM
Michael said...: Matt. You can take all of the wealth of the one percent, their cash, their stocks, their income, the gold from their teeth and it will not make a dent in the debt. Sorry, but taxing the rich is only a method to make yourself feel better by taking some weird revenge on the successful. As an economic move it will backfire in a declining economy.; 11/8/12, 6:59 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
This is why you can't have honest conversations with the left. More than 90% of the land in America is undeveloped

OK. Finally a fact we can check. Good work.

"90% of the land in America is undeveloped."

For this to be true you would have to claim that farmland is not 'developed'. Not really a reasonable claim, even if it is technically correct. Not many people, although you may be an exception, want to live in country completely covered in suburban sprawl and asphalt. Not a lot of places to hunt in suburbia.

Much of the remainder will be in places like Alaska where no fool will develop until the earth warms up another 10 degrees. Maybe in a century of so.; 11/8/12, 7:04 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
I know we would have gotten tax reform from Romney. Now, it will have to wait four years and that will be too late.

I don't believe you honestly know for certain what Romney would have done. His tax plans had no specifics and with taxes it is all about the details.; 11/8/12, 7:06 PM
chickelit said...: Michael said...
Sorry, but taxing the rich is only a method to make yourself feel better by taking some weird revenge on the successful. As an economic move it will backfire in a declining economy.

I think POTUS needs to coax the rich back into investing in the economy. This includes calling off the OWS attack dogs who call for their demise and stabilizing the currency for the foreseeable future. Obama might get some mileage out of humanizing Mitt after overseeing his vilification.; 11/8/12, 7:09 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: I have had nothing but good experiences with our health care system. Amazing in fact.

Leftists think health care is a right and that it should be free. It will never be free.; 11/8/12, 7:09 PM
garage mahal said...: This includes calling off the OWS attack dogs who call for their demise and stabilizing the currency for the foreseeable future.

So Our Way of Life depends are whether or not a few hundred anarchists gathering at a park in NYC with signs saying mean things to Wall Street? We're fucked!; 11/8/12, 7:11 PM
Michael said...: ARM. Again, the maddening beauty of the Romney tax plan was to cap, cap, deductions based on income and to permit the taxpayer to choose which deductions up to the max allowable as available. The detail which would have to be negotiated wold be the caps available to the brackets.; 11/8/12, 7:12 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Not many people, although you may be an exception, want to live in country completely covered in suburban sprawl and asphalt

Right, there's no difference between 90.3 % undeveloped and 0% undeveloped. We magically bypass the interval.

Remember all, this is a "Reasonable" leftist. Consider what the Slightly Overwrought leftists must think.; 11/8/12, 7:13 PM
garage mahal said...: *gather at a park.

Oh, and Our way of Life also depends on People That Just Want Free Stuff finally see the light and vote GOP.

Things I learnt lately.; 11/8/12, 7:15 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Single payer is the long term goal that will happen once all private insurance has been demolished by ObamaCare.; 11/8/12, 7:17 PM
Michael said...: Chicklit. Agreed, but it wont happen without some reversals which the president is not likely to make. It is going to take a few months for the private sector to decide if they are going to go forward with hiring or are going to trim staff. We will see after that. What is disheartening is that much of the country is so innumerate they believe we are in a recovery.; 11/8/12, 7:18 PM
Michael K said...: " Why ever would we leave our country? We have a Democratic president and a good majority in the Senate. I hear Methadras is moving to Canada:)

11/8/12 6:11 PM
Blogger AJ Lynch said...

It should be impossible for a candidate to get 95% of the votes from any group yet Obama did [from blacks] and as a result, Repubs are told they are too white?

I say it is black people who have a racial problem not Repub candidates.

"

No, you are wrong there. In the Philadelphia precincts that expelled Republican poll watchers Obama got 99.5 % of the vote and 130% of registered voters voted. Now, THAT is turnout.; 11/8/12, 7:28 PM
Rusty said...: ""President Obama’s post-election offer to sit down with vanquished GOP rival Mitt Romney has spurred talk...""

That the bamster needs some man lessons?; 11/8/12, 7:33 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
Right, there's no difference between 90.3 % undeveloped

You failed to address what BS your talking point 90% number was. No reasonable person considers a farm, a forestry or a strip mine undeveloped.; 11/8/12, 7:34 PM
Michael K said...: AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I know we would have gotten tax reform from Romney. Now, it will have to wait four years and that will be too late.

I don't believe you honestly know for certain what Romney would have done. His tax plans had no specifics and with taxes it is all about the details.

Well, we can argue about the meaning of "honestly" and "for certain." I know those words don't have the same meaning in Obamaworld.

All I can go on is what Romney said and his web site.

The details on deductions were spelled out later in the campaign but he would need to work with Congress to get more specific. Of course, Obama rules by executive order so that's not a problem for him.; 11/8/12, 7:38 PM
Rabel said...: In 2007 6% of the land surface area of the USA was classified as developed by the USDA.

Developed land is defined as a combination of land cover/use categories: Large urban and built-up areas, Small builtup
areas, and Rural transportation land.

18% was cropland.

Some people need to get out of the city occasionally.

Paridise is still unpaved; 11/8/12, 7:40 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael said...
the maddening beauty of the Romney tax plan was to cap, cap, deductions based on income and to permit the taxpayer to choose which deductions up to the max allowable as available. The detail which would have to be negotiated wold be the caps available to the brackets.

There is no beauty, here mad or otherwise. The sensible thing to do is to eliminate all of these ridiculous deductions, which distort all manner of economic decisions.

This being said, I agree that this is the most politically practical way to achieve gradual tax reform. But, it would have to include corporate income. There is no way the left agrees to this for personal incomes while G.E. gets to pay 0% on corporate income.

One of the ironies regarding all the whining about double taxation on investment income is that for many companies it will be the first time the income is taxed.; 11/8/12, 7:40 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Yahoo is really gonna miss the daily fabrication of a Romney "gaffe."

Right now, their front page story is: Romney's campaign makes website gaffe.

The part about Obama winning that is regrettable is that the press will continue to cover for him. Get used to it all over again.; 11/8/12, 7:42 PM
Rabel said...: Good to see that ARM and Paul Ryan are on the same page (of the 1040).

"The fact that GE paid no taxes in 2010 was widely reported earlier this year, but the size of its tax return first came to light when House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan (R, Wisc.) made the case for corporate tax reform at a recent town hall. "GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions--it's legal," Ryan said."; 11/8/12, 7:45 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rabel said...
In 2007 6% of the land surface area of the USA was classified as developed by the USDA.

Developed land is defined as a combination of land cover/use categories: Large urban and built-up areas, Small builtup areas, and Rural transportation land.

Yes I know this, I can use Google also. Somehow I doubt that a factory pig farm in Iowa or a strip mine in Wyoming matches most peoples concept of the undeveloped natural world. YMMV.

The technical and the commonsense uses of the word undeveloped do not completely overlap with respect to land usage.; 11/8/12, 7:46 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
Right, there's no difference between 90.3 % undeveloped

You failed to address what BS your talking point 90% number was. No reasonable person considers a farm, a forestry or a strip mine undeveloped.

Why not just turn the entire country into a mountain top mining site?

No reasonable person believes an oil pipeline will result in 100% of the country being turned into a mining site. No reasonable person believes a random economic fact proves "Reaganomics" a failure. No reasonable person believes policy specifics are critical and then votes for a candidate whose entire campaign is Hopenchange. No reasonable person screams that someone doesn't have a policy and then when it's pointed out to them change their justification to "he didn't scream it loud enough".; 11/8/12, 7:49 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rabel said...
Good to see that ARM and Paul Ryan are on the same page.

Actually I noticed this at the time. The problem was that Romney's (vaguely) stated policy included more tax breaks for companies.; 11/8/12, 7:49 PM
kimsch said...: So, when does the 22nd amendment get repealed by the 28th? Or will there just be an executive order? President Obama issues executive orders when "congress won't do their job". Of course, it's not the President's job to do congress' job when they don't. The founders made it difficult to get laws through so congress wouldn't run roughshod over the people.; 11/8/12, 7:49 PM
test said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/8/12, 7:51 PM
Michael K said...: "garage mahal said...

Canadians escaping tyranny rarely have names. "

I used to go a good annual meeting on laparoscopy surgery in Saskatoon. Then he next year it wasn't held. The doctors had emigrated.

As far as patients are concerned, Spokane has four huge medical centers. Where do you think their patients come from? The Moon ?

Seattle will now have some competition as western Canada now has private care again. The supreme court ruled that "A health care plan is not healthcare."

Private care is growing fast Canada is no longer "single payer."

More here.

Sorry to burst your bubble garage.; 11/8/12, 7:51 PM
test said...: ARM says
The technical and the commonsense uses of the word undeveloped do not completely overlap with respect to land usage.

Shorter ARM: words mean whatever I need them to mean.; 11/8/12, 7:52 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "President Obama’s post-election offer to sit down with vanquished GOP rival Mitt Romney has spurred talk..."

Still makes me giggle.

Vanquished! Come back here, you.
Talk! Obama is good at the talk.
Talk will save us.; 11/8/12, 7:55 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
No reasonable person believes an oil pipeline will result in 100% of the country being turned into a mining site. No reasonable person believes a random economic fact proves "Reaganomics" a failure. No reasonable person believes policy specifics are critical and then votes for a candidate whose entire campaign is Hopenchange. No reasonable person screams that someone doesn't have a policy and then when it's pointed out to them change their justification to "he didn't scream it loud enough".

You really are a sad little fuck aren't you. You've got nothing much to say, just some personal animus to work out. I guess if this is therapeutic for you I am happy to help. I would suggest getting some professional help. It will be cheaper in the long run and you can avoid looking like an empty-headed twit in a public forum.; 11/8/12, 7:58 PM
virgil xenophon said...: MichaelK/

Didn't the court actually pointedly say: "A waiting list is not Healthcare?" LOL.; 11/8/12, 8:00 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
You really are a sad little fuck aren't you. You've got nothing much to say, just some personal animus to work out. I guess if this is therapeutic for you I am happy to help. I would suggest getting some professional help. It will be cheaper in the long run and you can avoid looking like an empty-headed twit in a public forum.

If having your own beliefs pointed out to you upsets you so much you you irrationally lash out like this why don't you just change them? I think it's either that or you'll have to change your moniker.; 11/8/12, 8:03 PM
Wince said...: I'm convinced one of the things that put Obama on his heels during the first debate was Romney's idea to cap deductions.

I don't think Obama truly understood the concept before that, right there, in the first debate, when Romney explained it to him.

It appeared Obama had been convinced by his advisers that all he needed to do to get DC's competing special interests to eat Romney alive was press Romney into revealing which deductions Romney would cap, or make Romney look evasive if he wouldn't.

Obama has been planning to crib the Romney approach ever since.; 11/8/12, 8:04 PM
LilyBart said...: If Obama just want to use Romney as 'window dressing', he should say no.; 11/8/12, 8:04 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
western Canada now has private care again. The supreme court ruled that "A health care plan is not healthcare."

Private care is growing fast Canada is no longer "single payer."

This is hardly news. Most single payer systems also have competing private health care systems. The reality is that rich people can always buy their way out of public schools, public health and military service.

Romney being an obvious example.

The point is that the US medical system costs twice as much as other systems and, at best, gives no better care than other, cheaper systems. Hardly a good reason to retain it unchanged.; 11/8/12, 8:04 PM
Michael K said...: "This being said, I agree that this is the most politically practical way to achieve gradual tax reform. But, it would have to include corporate income. There is no way the left agrees to this for personal incomes while G.E. gets to pay 0% on corporate income."

GE has become expert at crony capitalism. Actually, it's closer to corporate state as in 1920s Italy.

Immelt is one of Obama's biggest supporters. GE will never be taxed fairly while Obama is in office.; 11/8/12, 8:05 PM
chickelit said...: garage mahal deflects:

So Our Way of Life depends are whether or not a few hundred anarchists gathering at a park in NYC with signs saying mean things to Wall Street? We're fucked!

No. See, it's like the hippy movement was. The hippy movement was bigger than those few individuals gathered in San Francisco parks or at Woodstock--it included a great deal of the whole American youth.

The OWS crowds in that park were dippies. But the dippy movement is much bigger. You garage are part of the dippy movement.; 11/8/12, 8:10 PM
Rabel said...: ARM wrote:

"For this to be true you would have to claim that farmland is not 'developed'. Not really a reasonable claim, even if it is technically correct. Not many people, although you may be an exception, want to live in country completely covered in suburban sprawl and asphalt. Not a lot of places to hunt in suburbia."

I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. You seem to equate developed land with cities and suburbs on the one hand while conflating developed land with cropland and pig farms on the other. Sorry for my lack of comprehension, but next time you're flying over flyover country, look down, it's a jungle out there.; 11/8/12, 8:11 PM
Amelia said...: Kind of makes you wonder if Obama isn't fond of the old saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Certainly worked with Hillary...she's now an accomplice to all his crimes (perhaps literally as well as figuratively) and looks to have had all the political fire wrung right out of her by ceaseless globetrotting.; 11/8/12, 8:12 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
If having your own beliefs pointed out to you upsets you so much you you irrationally lash out

Not lashing, very comfortable with own beliefs. Just trying to help.

Seriously, you seem very disturbed, a strong desire to participate but no coherent concept that you seem to be able to articulate. Maybe a mild dyslogia. You should really get that checked.; 11/8/12, 8:12 PM
Michael said...: ARM. "The point is that the US medical system costs twice as much as other systems and, at best, gives no better care than other, cheaper systems. Hardly a good reason to retain it unchanged."

Twice as much as which equivalent system?; 11/8/12, 8:15 PM
Michael said...: Leslyn. Very odd indeed. Not to pry but what kind of surgery was available there at 80% off US prices?; 11/8/12, 8:19 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
GE has become expert at crony capitalism. Actually, it's closer to corporate state as in 1920s Italy.

Immelt is one of Obama's biggest supporters. GE will never be taxed fairly while Obama is in office.

By chance, I know someone who works in the GE tax department, or more accurately tax avoidance department. They claim that GE gets no special breaks relative to other corporations, which seems true.

To me, tax avoidance on this scale is unquestionably a sign of deep endemic corruption. Small businesses and most individuals (Romney being an obvious exception) are not playing on a level playing field with these people.

As far as I know GE has not received any special tax treatment during Obama's term in office but they clearly haven't done anything to fix the problem either.; 11/8/12, 8:20 PM
Lisaocean86 said...: Let Chicago Jesus figure this mess out on his own. Maybe just appoint a czar or two...; 11/8/12, 8:22 PM
Matt said...: Michael
You can take all of the wealth of the one percent...and it will not make a dent in the debt.

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts.
Here.; 11/8/12, 8:22 PM
LilyBart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/8/12, 8:22 PM
LilyBart said...: The question is: Is this all about Obama *looking* reasonable, or does he realize he's up a creek?

*looking* reasonable is what he excels at: he talked a good game about transparency, bipartisanship, lowering the deficit, compromise, etc. Didn't do any of that. But he did talk a LOT about it.; 11/8/12, 8:23 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Not lashing, very comfortable with own beliefs. Just trying to help.

Seriously, you seem very disturbed, a strong desire to participate but no coherent concept that you seem to be able to articulate. Maybe a mild dyslogia. You should really get that checked.

I see you've picked up on the standard leftist tactic of trying to delegitimize opinions you can't refute. I'm sure this will work tomorrow around the drum circle. Leftism seems so perfect when there are no meanies around pointing out inconvenient facts.; 11/8/12, 8:27 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael said...
ARM. "The point is that the US medical system costs twice as much as other systems and, at best, gives no better care than other, cheaper systems. Hardly a good reason to retain it unchanged."

Twice as much as which equivalent system?

OECD data here.

Bottom line, total expenditure on health, as a percentage of gross domestic product
U.S. = 17.6%
OECD Av. = 9.5%; 11/8/12, 8:29 PM
LilyBart said...: Hey, wasn't Obama the one who wanted his voters to vote for 'revenge'? Now its all kumbaya?; 11/8/12, 8:33 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
AReasonableMan said...
Seriously, you seem very disturbed, a strong desire to participate but no coherent concept that you seem to be able to articulate. Maybe a mild dyslogia. You should really get that checked.

I see you've picked up on the standard leftist tactic of trying to delegitimize opinions you can't refute. I'm sure this will work tomorrow around the drum circle. Leftism seems so perfect when there are no meanies around pointing out inconvenient facts.

You keep coming back. Good for you. We are going to beat this thing together. You know we are all rooting for you.

As I suggested previously, we need to start with some simple opinions first and work up to more complex ideas as our therapy sessions progress.

So, how is the weather where you live?

Take your time, don't rush. Use simple, declarative sentences.; 11/8/12, 8:44 PM
SGS1088 said...: I think this could be really good. While I understand that Obama should have his own business plan after all the stuff he spit out of his mouth during the debate, but Romney does know business and how to help create jobs....plus it could maybe get our government working together again; 11/8/12, 8:47 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Matt said...
Michael
You can take all of the wealth of the one percent...and it will not make a dent in the debt.

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts.
Here.

Very effective takedown.

Helping the helplessly confused to get in touch with reality, one dittohead at a time.; 11/8/12, 8:49 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
You keep coming back. Good for you. We are going to beat this thing together. You know we are all rooting for you.

I think it's cute when children mimick adults. Take a self-picture for your scrapbook.; 11/8/12, 8:50 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Matt- how many years would it take to save that $823 Billion? 10, 20, 100 , 200?; 11/8/12, 8:52 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: OT perhaps but why do liberal commenters like to use Screen Names like Pragmatist or The Moderate Voice or A Reasonable Man?; 11/8/12, 8:54 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
I think it's cute when children mimick adults.

Children also have trouble spelling.; 11/8/12, 8:57 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Very effective takedown.
Helping the helplessly confused to get in touch with reality, one dittohead at a time.

It figures our ignorant trolls think they've found the answer. Our current deficit is 900 billion, which means the ten year savings noted above is virtually entirely swalled by the deficit, leaving virtually no impact on the debt.

Get that: their ten year plan barely covers one single year's deficit and the fools think they know something.

I'm opening a beer, this is just too goddamn funny. I'm going with Leffe.; 11/8/12, 9:00 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
I think it's cute when children mimick adults.

Children also have trouble spelling.

Small minds worry about small things, scoolmarm seems about your speed.

But you let me know when you've figured out how long your ten year plan will take to pay off the debt.; 11/8/12, 9:05 PM
chickelit said...: OT perhaps but why do liberal commenters like to use Screen Names like Pragmatist or The Moderate Voice or A Reasonable Man?

Projection. I think ARM used to go by "Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene" or some such which at least carried some levity.; 11/8/12, 9:06 PM
LilyBart said...: AReasonableMan said...

Children also have trouble spelling.

I wouldn't be too judgmental; I've noticed you sometimes have trouble with your punctuation.

It seems petty of you to make it an issue.

Also, Ann's comment box doesn't check for spelling errors.; 11/8/12, 9:07 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: LilyBart said..
I wouldn't be too judgmental; I've noticed you sometimes have trouble with your punctuation.

It seems petty of you to make it an issue.

Also, Ann's comment box doesn't check for spelling errors.

I am not sure if you are serious or not.

I don't normally think of this as a spelling competition but Marshall is a pompous twit. To keep up the facade he has to at least spell correctly.; 11/8/12, 9:12 PM
Bob said...: ReasonableMan - fixed!

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 and President Obama's 2010 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush-Obama tax cuts.; 11/8/12, 9:14 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Chickelit- I always thought C4BDH was Ritmo?; 11/8/12, 9:14 PM
Bob said...: Allowing those Bush-Obama tax cuts to expire buys us exactly 8 months. Jesus man, not even a year! And this of course is by based upon static models. What could possibly be wrong?; 11/8/12, 9:17 PM
Bob said...: ReasonableMan - fixed!

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 and President Obama's 2010 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush-Obama tax cuts.; 11/8/12, 9:18 PM
Gospace said...: "Bottom line, total expenditure on health, as a percentage of gross domestic product
U.S. = 17.6%
OECD Av. = 9.5%"

And for that minimal expenditure, old and infirmed get the Liverpool Pathway instead of medical care. It's much cheaper to kill people off then actually, you know, provide medical care. And as far as worse results here in the U.S., I ost usually see the worse results come in infant mortality statistics. Which is complete and utter nonsense, because the U.S. calculates them differently then OECD, or anywhere else. In the U.S., if an infant is born alive, it is considered a live birth. Pretty good definition. In OECD, and most everywhere else, if the infant dies before 24 hours is up, it disappears from the statistics.

There is virtually no attempt at all in any European country to keep preemies alive. In the U.S., well, it is very different. We are exceptionally good and getting better. There are no comparable statistice for teh OECD, for they don't even make the attempt. And preemies are EXPENSIVE.

My family's experience with the U.S. healthcare system is that if the doctor decides you need surgery- you get it. Knee replacements, hernia repair, cardiac bypass, whatever.

And as for fancy diagnostic stuff such as MRI's- well, here in the U.S., it ain't fancy anymore. Routine for diagnostic, schedule it a week or two out. Emergency- get in line, or to the head of the line, dependent on how emergency it is. MRI's are a wait period in every other country, including Canada.

Yep, we spend more. We get more. A reform of the legal system and we could reduce some medical costs drastically. Especially for women's health. OB's who do chidbirth pay a fortune in malpractice insurance- which is passed on to patients in the form of increased fees, and provides zero medical care.; 11/8/12, 9:18 PM
test said...: Personally I love it when the guy teaching us how 900 billion over ten years pays for 900 billion per year with enough left over to cover 16 trillion refers to me as pompous. Some people are so far behond they think they're ahead.

No wonder leftists don't take economics seriously. They have no idea what's going on.; 11/8/12, 9:19 PM
LilyBart said...: I am not sure if you are serious or not.

I am serious. You've ragged on my spelling before. It made me laugh because I've noticed your sloppy punctuation. I just didn't post about it. You've also called me a douche something-or-other. (projection?); 11/8/12, 9:33 PM
Lydia said...: I went to Canada for surgery because the doctors were more experienced

Yeah, that must be why a couple of years ago a Canadian government official had his surgery done in Florida instead.; 11/8/12, 9:34 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Harold said...
Yep, we spend more. We get more.

We do spend more, we definitely do not get more, as assessed by reasonable measures of public health.

I have lived in two of those OECD countries and from personal experience I can tell you that the health care systems in those countries is simpler and more effective. All the BS about the British system may be at least partly true, I have never lived there, but most public health systems compare very favorably with the US for much less cost.; 11/8/12, 9:35 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Marshal said...
Some people are so far behond they think they're ahead.

Still gotta work on that spelling. Maybe there is some aphasia mixed in with the dyslogia.

I do like the neologism 'behond', sounds like something Buzz Lightyear might say.; 11/8/12, 9:41 PM
chickelit said...: LilyBart said to ARM: You've also called me a douche something-or-other. (projection?)

It's more like a tell. Connect the dots.; 11/8/12, 9:42 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: LilyBart said...
I am serious. You've ragged on my spelling before. It made me laugh because I've noticed your sloppy punctuation. I just didn't post about it. You've also called me a douche something-or-other. (projection?)

I apologize. I am a bad speller myself. There is spelling correction on my version of blogger or it would be more evident. I also apologize if I called you a douche something-or-other, but you probably called me something first. I rarely start these things.

I wasn't aware that I punctuated, exceeding my expectations on this.; 11/8/12, 9:45 PM
Chip S. said...: ARM, I'm glad that you had such good experiences w/ health care in Europe. But personal anecdotes aren't data. The evidence shows clearly that you're much better off being treated for serious illness in the US than anywhere else.

I'll use cancer treatment as my example. The 5-year survival rates for 24 types of cancers are reported on p. 8 of this study.

Read it and you will learn something important about the US health-care system's effectiveness.

Summary: We have the highest survival rates (by far, in most cases) for every one of those cancers compared to every other country (except Switzerland, which does slightly better in treating stomach cancer and about as well in treating leukemia).

The most distressing aspect of the "debate" on health insurance reform is that people routinely commit the mistake of treating life expectancy as a reliable indicator of the quality of health care (it's not), and pct. of spending as a measure of cost (it's not).

The US demands more health care partly b/c it's wealthy and is willing to pay for the highest-quality care. Also, we're a bunch of fatasses.; 11/8/12, 9:54 PM
test said...: AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
Some people are so far behond they think they're ahead.

Still gotta work on that spelling.

I think it's great you're learning to stick with what you're capable of. A man has to know his limitations and someday you'll be one.; 11/8/12, 10:20 PM
Drago said...: Bob: "Allowing those Bush-Obama tax cuts to expire buys us exactly 8 months. Jesus man, not even a year! And this of course is by based upon static models. What could possibly be wrong?"

Bob, perhaps you could explain why the tax cuts passed by GWBush and a Republican House and Senate are called the "Bush Tax Cuts" but when Tax cuts are extended by obama and a Dem House and Senate those tax rate extensions are called the "Bush-Obama tax cuts".

Why should tax rates established and passed by a dem president, house and senate be called by the previous presidents name?

The dems had complete power to set the rates at any level they wished.; 11/8/12, 10:57 PM
chickelit said...: AJ Lynch said...
Chickelit- I always thought C4BDH was Ritmo?

Oh yes, him too!; 11/8/12, 11:49 PM
brio said...: Before the election, didn't we hear that Obama loathed Romney on a visceral level? Asking for a meeting with Romney is nothing more than words again.; 11/9/12, 3:13 AM
Known Unknown said...: Need a new knee or a new hip? Just take a pain pill. Need some cancer treatments? Gov asks, How old are you? Need a liver transplant? Sucks to be you.

Not to mention behavior modification policies.

Institutional portion control and food labeling for everything you ingest.

"First they came for soda drinkers and I didn't speak up, because I was not a soda drinker ... "; 11/9/12, 9:57 AM
Known Unknown said...: On the other hand if you think we arrived at the debt despite the tax cuts or can pay off the debt without taxing the wealthy [even a little more] then I'd have to call you the same.

Tax policy will not cure the debt, one way or the other.

The only way is with sustained economic growth ... which happens outside of the purview of government policy.

And even that is extremely unlikely given the spending addicts we elect from both parties.; 11/9/12, 9:59 AM
Rusty said...: AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
No reasonable person believes an oil pipeline will result in 100% of the country being turned into a mining site. No reasonable person believes a random economic fact proves "Reaganomics" a failure. No reasonable person believes policy specifics are critical and then votes for a candidate whose entire campaign is Hopenchange. No reasonable person screams that someone doesn't have a policy and then when it's pointed out to them change their justification to "he didn't scream it loud enough".

You really are a sad little fuck aren't you. You've got nothing much to say, just some personal animus to work out. I guess if this is therapeutic for you I am happy to help. I would suggest getting some professional help. It will be cheaper in the long run and you can avoid looking like an empty-headed twit in a public forum.

So you can't reasonably debate him then?; 11/9/12, 1:51 PM
Rusty said...: Matt said...
Michael
You can take all of the wealth of the one percent...and it will not make a dent in the debt.

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts.
Here.

950 billion in ten years?
WE ARE 20 TRILLION IN DEBT NOW.
Sorry to yell, but you don't seem to be paying attention.; 11/9/12, 1:56 PM