dayman

Except it's mere projection to suggest that it's do this forever in his opinoin w/ long term shifts in policy contrary to this be damned. He says himself in that interview right there...he would turn into a fiscal hawk once jobs hit their stride and interest rates go up. And as for what happened to the economy...I think he might disagree with you as to why it tanked and has since had only modest bounce back....

Look if you want to fixate on it that's fine. His point was simple...that fixating on locking in cuts we think we'll need in 15 years is less important than applying brain power to growth now...and he say at some point that if we were run by philosopher kings it would be fantastic to do both now but given that we can't seem to the one of the two to pick is obvious...

He's basically just expressing a similar feeling as I did here; http://forums.twobil...of-the-sameimo/ In saying that being totally focusing on budget and long term fiscal issues and proceeding form crisis/showdown to crisis/showdown over that we aren't getting anything done regarding more urgent issues such as ways to stimulate the economy now. And at least a few people, including those who often disagree with me, managed to muster a "I don't disagree with you" in that topic...I mean it's easy for people (certainly conservatives) to pile on Krugman but it might be interesting to give it some thought with an open mind as to why he says what he says...

Hehe, I mean I don't know what to tell you I just watched the video. I heard what he was saying throughout the interview. He doesn't imply that we should simply ignore it, his point is that the priority should be jobs not locking into benefit cuts that take place in the future. And in his opinion, once again just stating his opinion since I just watched it, is that the climate change analogy is terrible b/c "every year we don't do something we put 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air, what exactly are doing this year that will make it harder for us to deal with healthcare costs in 2025?" He just saying that saying that we have to lock in healthcare changes now that we think we will have to make in 15 years is not comparable urgency....and in fact he would put job simulating measures ahead of locking in healthcare changes for 15 years from now in terms of urgency...

Topic prompted me to watch...video here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#50613650 Seems his basic point is that we're too focused the possible need to cut benefits in in 2025 that all our energy if focused on creating a plan to cut benefits in 2025 now...when he would rather have more political energy devoted towards doubling down on what he thinks distinguished us from Britain during the crisis which is stimulus.

I wonder what/if this will do anything to the Canadian borders or if they'll just beef up the Mexican border..

Seeing as we know that more people in Virginia voted for Obama than Romney, I think it's fair to say that most people would reject a system that would have awarded Romney the lions share of electoral votes. It's all moot anyway bot the Governor and the next in line GOP candidate reject it...

well I've been criticizing both and mainly the Virginia proposal...the other states come in to illustrate that this idea follows the election and circulates after the national GOP mee3t up naming certain blue states as targets...I mean I may never convince you but it's pretty clear it isn't about state culture but rather national GOP strategy infiltrating existing state structures.

That doesn't take away the reason why the article is bad. It admits at the top that it will would help the GOP in several states, all the states that it controls but lost in Presidential race, in other words the ones there is talk about doing this in. Then later on the he does this whole "it may or may not help depending on the state"...well we know the states, and it would, there is not talk in Texas of doing this etc... This comment is directed at my criticism toward the article, my friend Tasker...

Official details tomorrow apparently but from the article there seems to be nothing surprising. More border security and a verification plan in exchange for temporary legal status while those here wait for their turn w/ out line skipping and meet certain standards like background checks for taxes, criminal behavior, learn english etc...apparently a little more streamlined for the kids and certain provisions made for seasonal workers blah blah... http://www.politico....deal-86793.html

Well let's look at the fact that this comes right after the 2012 election where Obama won 51% of the vote, and under this plan produced by a Republican faction in the state legislature he would have been crushed in electoral votes. So if you were to ask "them"...them being the people of Virginia who voted for President if they would choose to represent themselves this way politically do you think they would say yes...that actually produces the outcome that the majority of us wanted? Does this more likely resemble the wishes of the voting public of Virginia or the wishes of a faction in power in the legislature? It's hardly an attack on state culture to do this simple math.... This I can agree with. As per the popular vote v. electoral college...independent of party loyalty there are good arguments for both. As to why the article is stupid, it's b/c it fails to recognize the GOP idea as reported is to do this a select few states, no talk of implement nation wide reform. So this whole "may or may not" stuff is just not relevant.

Care to elaborate on how that post makes you think I hate state cultures?

lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms. Whatever party you are, there has to be at least some legitimacy to our elections (something the Governor probably thought about before publicly saying he doesn't support this)...and it's already somewhat low for a variety of reasons to people on either side of the political spectrum. Certainly a national popular vote intuitive carries more legitimacy than that plan....and some would argue even more so than the current system although we need not discuss that as I'm not entirely convinced I've heard some good arguments for both...

Sounds like something that would violate most state constitutions and something SCOTUS would probably find a way to overrule on a federal level if it was argued right. In any event, I know the difference between not hating the federal government and loving it is hard to see for some, but I assure you I do not love the federal government. In any event, am I to assume you would favor this legislation? Sort of seems like admitting the GOP can't win the popular vote ... ever again. I agree that it works well enough as is....but to suggest a national popular vote is a worse idea than just splitting the electoral vote in states where GOP controls the legislature and Dems can win, while not doing it in places like Texas...well...clearly this is a worse idea.

Seems some in Virginia want to push for this...although it appears the governor and others are against it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/?hpt=po_c1 Washington (CNN) -- If at first you don't succeed, try to change the rules. A proposal under consideration in Virginia's Republican-led state Legislature would change how the commonwealth allocates its 13 electoral votes in the wake of Democratic President Barack Obama's re-election last November. Obama won the popular vote in the crucial battleground state to claim all 13 electoral votes, even though GOP challenger Mitt Romney beat him in seven of the 11 congressional districts. Under the proposed alternative system, electoral votes would get divvied up by congressional districts won. In addition, Virginia's two other electoral votes -- one for each U.S. Senate seat -- would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. If the district-based system had been in effect in Virginia last year, Romney would have gotten nine electoral votes to four for Obama. .... Overall in Virginia, Obama got 51% of the total vote -- more than 1.97 million -- compared to Romney's 1.82 million for 47% of the total. .... "It seems to me we ought to be focused on connecting with voters and bringing them into our party versus trying to change the game," Curry said. .... "I think it is a state issue, but personally I'm pretty intrigued by it," [Priebus] told reporters Friday. ..... Other GOP-controlled state legislatures reportedly contemplating changes to their electoral vote allocation include Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

I'm well aware of what you were referring to I just chose not to answer your obvious question directly. If you read my post, you will see that the logic I identified as a possible maneuver is that which has been used in that instance

I figured you had a guard cow

At the very least you can't really openly say you will not enforce a law unless you have or plan to in the near future have a public policy position against it. So while you can, in practice, not do anything about something and take the position that it's in your discretion to allocate limited resources...it would be tough to publicly guarantee a state you will NEVER enforce a law that you have no official policy position against. **although...if the polls are to be believed and there is in fact GOP support for not doing anything...then in reality you could just tell them you aren't going to do anything...but it would be a little crazy

Well if they go after it, supremacy trumps santa. I doubt they will though...but that is far from clear...hard line legal guys in the DOJ probably say they aught to b/c it really is kind of crazy to not enforce schedule 1 drug prohibition when violation is happening on a large commercial scale in a state that is collecting taxes and sanctioning it. But at the same time, there likely are some voices that understand the way things are going, the mood of the country, and feel "resources could be better spent elsewhere." In all likelihood they probably just hope they can avoid publicly saying they won't do anything, while at the same time not doing anything, and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. But we'll see...

hehe, a very Sarah Palinish way to cap off that conversation

Still...if you can avoid it by not telling someone to come meet your for a fight...probably worth it

Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi

Well Jeb may not see it exactly that way...Bob Dole may have a thing or two to say as well...

Well he made a thread a while back that told everybody who he is and where he lives so ... you don't want some crazy showing up at the door

Well...they are appointed by the one person who the entire nation votes on and while not likely to happen you can impeach them. I wouldn't be initially opposed to giving them terms of say...15 years and with lifetime pay though...but that's a whole different debate. The bottom line though is there is no getting around the fact that everybody can't just interpret the law as they see it...if we are a nation of law there most be one body that ultimately says what it is not many bodies saying what it is...