dayman

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf ...btw...we are at extremely low tax rate today...contrary to right wing fantasy land

I'll pile on Rob who I generally do not dislike...stupid post.

Most other retired politicians refuse to comment publicly on who they support? What?

This is how you make a God damn political ad:

LOL well it certainly was his responsibility. That doesn't mean he lied.

Never

Honestly is says it right there in the interview. He has disagreements and doesn't feel he trusts some of the voices that would be in Romney's ear...and he sees the inconsistency not just in the debate but along the campaign as Romeny seems to adjust on the fly as his advisers come on board and give him different advice. Long story short, he's not a fan of crowd advising Romney, and he sees Romney as a guy who will be influenced by that crowd much in the way Bush was. Of course not

In terms of the word "lie"...probably nobody. The groupthink steered them wrong...probably one of the reasons why Powell doesn't trust that group with power anymore.

Jesus Christ...Powell did not lie. Powell probably did put faith in others in the administration to reach the conclusion it was the right thing to do when he was iffy...but he did not lie.

Somehow I doubt you guys were the target for that one.

Ya Powell was pissed there were things he was not told about that raised serious concerns about the credibility of the evidence including one informant who was basically a known liar that was being relied on heavily since his info was what they wanted. Kofi Annan (a friend of Powell) wrote that in his view they basically used him for his credibility then tossed him off when things got going in terms of his involvement. Obviously he then left. Powell not a big fan of neo-con war machine for obvious reasons.

There is no point in arguing this. Either you see Obama as an absolutely terrible president or you don't (same w/ Romney as a candidate). Powell's endorsement won't change the mind of people who are convinced Obama is terrible.

Oh man, Mack? Did you watch the debates/have you seen what Mack is all about? Nelson is a dinosaur I can't deny it, but he's an ok dinosaur. Mack is, quite literally, an idiot. He can't even discuss things intelligently he's seriously less up on some things than many posters on this board.

For what it's worth he threw in that he wasn't comfortable with Romney's economic ideas or plans on education, climate, education, etc. As well as generally saying his view on the state of the country is that we are on the right track moving from 2008. Of this of course, is blasphemy to the narrative that Obama's foreign policy is a disaster and Romney would be better as well as contradicting the popular GOP view that America is falling apart.

And of course btw, Scott Brown will probably go down b/c his public reputation is basically the partisan stone on the scale that pushed the GOP bloc over the edge in the ACA showdown, probably the most politically heated event of the last few years...plus he's in a Dem state...so he'll be tied to the party either way...no matter how independent he tries to pitch himself as. And I dont' even really follow this race or know about Brown but you can see that from 10,000ft.

Bill Nelson v. Connie Mack Fla Senate Race There's a race a reasonable Repub could vote Dem. Nelson ain't bad, and Mack is a complete retard. And of all the Repubs up...Scott Brown is clearly on the more likable. Of course the GOP has a knack for making that basically the same as winning the special Olympics but it's still saying something. Bottom line is you don't want people who sign on to partisan quests to destroy people politically in December of 2008 when the country is in free fall...the idea that you can just sit on the sidelines and B word and not play and know that if the other side fixes it you'll get reelected b/c things are good and if they don't you resume power...that's the highlight of partisan hackery. I'm looking at you Mitch Mcconnell and Eric Cantor...and btw I'll throw Issa in there too just b/c the guy is about as transparently partisan as he could be. Of course there are partisan civilians (on this board) who look at this paragraph and say either 1) it isn't true (it is) or 2) that's brilliant (this is the saddest response). EDIT: And just to toss a Dem under the buss for a transparent attempt to be moderate...Mcconnell may have publicly declared their goal was a 1 term presidency...but Pelosi declared her goal was to elect more democrats when she gained the majority. So ...I'm willing to toss her to the wolves she deserves it. Then again it isn't what you say, it's if you work in good faith w/ the goal of reaching an agreement. There are tons of people who should to tossed out. Although it really comes down to the party powers who set the tone and whip everyone into line.

ARRA

Feb 4, 2009. Pretty significant date. 13 days prior to Obama dropping a science bomb like never before seen. Not to say btw, that defense of certain Bush budgets are not just.

Do they meet in December and then officially report the results to the new Congress in January? http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. New Congress convenes on January 3rd.

Hmmm...I'm not trying to argue that is an interesting link. Other sources claim differently.... What happens next? According to the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, a tied Electoral College, which reports results to the new Congress early in January, shifts the presidential choice to the new House of Representatives, with each state's delegation as a whole casting one vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-connelly/electoral-college-tie_b_2001724.html Also here's a non-huffington post claiming it's the newly elected house/senate: If there is a tie in the electoral college (and, as I explain below, there could be), it will be up to the newly elected House of Representatives to elect a President and the newly elected Senate to elect the Vice President. http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/1800-election/1800-election.html

I'll second Oxrock's "Hear, Hear!" Represent the people, no the party.

I don't have a link. But I believe it is very strange. I think the newly elected Congress votes but it is somehow1 vote per state. Which is quite strange. Then the Senate for some reason, votes normally. If that is a tie in the house. Boehner become President free and clear. lol

The machine is designed to convince us that we are always on the verge of victory, always have our enemies on the run, so that we feel the blood and money we waste is worth it. However, the threat will endlessly evolve and shift and thus require huge budgets, more money, continued "war time civil rights," and nonstop war for the rest of time. There is no need to reevaluate though, b/c we are always on the verge of victory. While this dynamic does little for our fiscal health, ability to address domestic issues, or our national security...it makes some people very rich and ultimately some of that money funnels back into campaign bank accounts of patriots on the Hill who keep us safe and ride the chicken hawk rhetoric to reelection.

This is more of a state issue. I agree that the political parties would still be "in line" and also there are positive effects to not having term limits. As much as Washington sucks, people do eventually get somewhat competent in specialized areas...it would be frustrating to those who must deal with government to have people they've worked with over the course of multiple sessions creating or refining things only to start over every 2, 4, or 6 years.

Drug war/other civil liberty issues, political reform, climate change, poverty