Tea Party

Rand Paul Calls for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Resign

|

A press release sent this morning by Sen. Rand Paul's office: 

Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement calling for the resignation of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from his cabinet post, effective immediately, for his gross mismanagement of federal economic policy and for his role in the first-ever downgrade of United States debt.

"Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt," Sen. Paul said. "He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences"

This is not the first time Secretary Geithner and his team have failed to correctly diagnose or manage an economic problem. During his tenure at the Federal Reserve and as Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner has had a direct role in the failure of the Fed to diagnose and act on the housing crisis. He presided over bank bailouts, auto bailouts and failed trillion-dollar stimulus plans.

Last year, he announced to the American people "welcome to the recovery," when in fact the our economic crisis has continued. He has contributed not only to the first-ever debt downgrade, but is on the record as clearly disputing it could ever happen.

"There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties have contributed to our $14 trillion debt. But it is hard to say this crisis wasn't predictable, because it was. House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan," Sen. Paul continued. "We must rescue our finances through a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we must do it soon. We must cut spending immediately. And we must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called for Geithner to resign yesterday shortly after the S&P announced its downgrade of America's credit rating. 

NEXT: Attn, Cincinnati-Dayton-Oxford (Ohio) Reasonoids: Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch Talking Declaration of Independents Saturday July August 13!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. That article is crap of course, but there is an entertaining Mr. Bean video in the sidebar.

      1. It’s from Slate. Of course it’s crap.

        1. Hitchens writes for Slate, and he’s top-shelf, even when you disagree with him.

          1. A spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine is still sewage.

            1. Awwww what’s wrong the truth hurts. Libtards are being stopped now obama and u can go live in Kenya and ruin them too what asshats yuk

                1. She thinks we’re liberals because we’re criticizing neocon chickenhawk hero Christopher Hitchens.

                  1. Stupid bitch make no sense.

          2. Fancy words mean nothing when they are put in the service of warmongering.

            You can stuff a lot of knowledge in a brain, but anyone who still pimps the wars in the middle east cannot be too talented in handling common sense.

            1. Well said.

          3. I’ve come to believe that Hitchens’ writing is the triumph of prose over logic. He’s often brilliant, but only occasionally in the service of a logical argument.

    2. a massive Keynesian stimulus that averted a much deeper recession

      “… because… because… because I just say it did, is all! THAT’S why!”

      [::flings self to floor, begins drumming heels on the linoleum and shrieking::]

      1. Yeah, that’s the stock comment now. As if what the country’s going through right now is the new golden age (although considering the current price of gold, perhaps we’re on our way).

    3. Amazing. I suffered through reading that article. And survived.

    4. Jeebus. When will people stop thinking that growth, merely for growth’s sake, is a good thing?

      Oh yeah, right after we get rid of a fiat currency that relies on the expansion of credit just to stay alive.

      IOW, apparently never.

    5. What a charming quote this was:

      …here, the extreme right threatened to shut down the U.S. government, confirming what game theory suggests: When those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don’t get their way confront rational individuals, the former prevail.

      1. It’s also a complete lie, but that never stopped him before.

        1. *groan*

          okay so “fiscal sanity” = irrational commitment to destruction. Okay then.

          What a dunce.

  1. Who would believe that Timothy “What taxes?” Geithner could ever misunderstand anything to do with money?

    1. After heading the NY Fed for 8 years I think not.

  2. Tony’s gonna have a helluva time trying to argue against this, but I’m betting he will. Like a dunce.

    1. Clearly, we should have nationalized Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard&Poors; back in 2008. Then none of this would have happened. /DU

    2. To preempt Tony, whoever he is, the only problem with Paul’s excellent statement is “House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan”. Horseshit. Either spending cuts or the alternative plan (spending cuts + tax increases) would have sufficed to prevent downgrade. That they all royally dicked it up is a purely bipartisan thing.

      1. it was the only solution actually offered.

        and this tax-obstructionist narrative that S&P is buying into is bullshit. Democrats couldn’t raise taxes when they controlled congress. THE PUBLIC flatly refuses to accept raising taxes. Speaking about alternatives that involves serious tax increases is a meaningless theoretical exercise.

        1. THE PUBLIC flatly refuses to accept raising taxes.

          The polls have consistently said otherwise, so I don’t know from what orifice you’ve pulled this one.

          1. Yeah, right;

            Most Voters Fear Debt Deal Will Raise Taxes Too Much, Cut Spending Too Little

            On July 22: 62% of Likely U.S. Voters are worried more that Congress and President Obama will raise taxes too much rather than too little in any deal to end the debt ceiling debate. Just 26% fear they’ll raise taxes too little.

            56% worry that Congress and the president will cut spending too little in the final debt ceiling deal, while only 25% are concerned that they will cut spending too much

            1. Recourse to Rasmussen Reports. Typical. I suppose you’d have to since Gallup, PPP, and *everyone else* shows a different story.

              1. Well, if you’re going to discount the accuracy of polling (due to political affiliation, question bias, sample error, etc.), then you must admit that it’s conceivable that your version of *everyone else* could be just as flawed.

                If your suspicion is due to political affiliation, for example, then you need to factor that aspect into the political affiliation of Gallup, PPP and the rest.

              2. Rasmussen has proven to be extremely accurate, especially when it comes to measuring likely voters. What’s the problem?

                1. @apogee

                  I agree, though it is comparatively unlikely that everyone is wrong and one is right, rather than the other way around, and would be stranger still if all the “everyone else” shared functionally identical biases.

                  @Fatty Bolger

                  From Wiki:

                  After Election night that year [2010], Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] – a difference of 40 points, or “the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.”[27]

                  and even better

                  Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[33][34] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[35] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: “Agree or Disagree: ‘Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party — he says jump and they say how high.'”[34]

                  So they’re more wrong than everyone else–literally–and they come up with patently idiotic question wordings. Hmm.

          2. THE PUBLIC flatly refuses to accept raising taxes.

            The polls have consistently said otherwise, so I don’t know from what orifice you’ve pulled this one.

            I’m pretty sure that what most polls show is that the public has absolutely no problem with raising taxes.

            Just not any taxes that they think they will have to pay.

            1. 98% of the people have absolutely no problem with raising taxes on the top 2%.

              Let’s vote on it.

  3. I don’t want Timmy to resign; I want him to go to jail.

    1. You’re way too kind, Epi. The worst Timmeh can get in prison is a shank in the back, after being gang-raped.

      Or before.

      Point is, a long painful death doesn’t even begin to cover it.

      1. Most excellent violence fantasy! May I quote you?

        1. Sure, why not? It’ll never happen.

    2. I want him raped by a pack of rabid rhesus monkeys.

      1. I want him to be, too! Right in my ass and mouth! Uh… I mean, _his_ ass and mouth. Yeah.

        1. You ain’t woman enough to take my man. Heifer.

      2. Would that make him a rhesus piece?

        1. OK. That’s funny.

    3. I want him to go to jail.

      Finally a voice of sanity in these troubled times!

    4. Other then not paying his taxes, what crime did he actually commit?

      1. Living off the productive labor of others?

  4. TurboTax Tim will resign if, and only, if Obama decides that his departure will take the heat off of Obama.

    Sadly, within days of his resignation, he will have a 7-figure sinecure somewhere in lower Manhattan.

    1. And a 7-figure brownstone in somewhere in Upper Manhattan.

      1. Wall Street takes care of its own.

    2. Obama wouldn’t accept Geithner’s resignation right now any more than Clinton would have accepted Janet Reno’s in the aftermath of Waco.

      It makes it look like this was all somehow the Administration’s fault–and that just can’t be!

      Right now, most Americans of voting age still blame the Bush Administration for the current state of the economy–and Obama would be foolish to do anything that might change that perception.

      1. Obama is a narcissist. So nothing is his fault.

        1. Most people will be narcissist for Obama. He doesn’t even have to do it himself.

          1. Let me be clear.

            I do not need my supporters to be narcissist for me. I will gladly take that burden on my shoulders.

      2. If Geithner wanted to resign and Obama didn’t want to accept it, what would there be to stop Geither from simply not showing up to work?

        It wouldn’t be any worse than the job he’s currently doing.

        1. Geithner won’t resign if resigning would be bad for Obama.

          This isn’t a sex scandal.

          He works for the president. His primary responsibility is making the president and the president’s polices look good to the markets and the public. If him resigning would make the president and the president’s polices look bad–going into an election year? Then he won’t resign.

          It’s like Rumsfeld resigning after the Dems won the midterms in Congress. Geithner won’t resign until after the next election–unless there’s a scandal. And sadly being woefully incompetent isn’t a scandal.

          1. “Geithner won’t resign if resigning would be bad for Obama.”

            Agreed.
            For a career politico, acting on principle is suicide.
            The man would have to start earning a living.

        2. You can’t just quit the Obama outfit.

          1. When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way…

          2. You can check out anytime. But you can never leave.

      3. Ken Schultz wins!

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..quest.html

    3. Sadly, within days of his resignation, he will have a 7-figure sinecure somewhere in lower Manhattan.

      That 7 figure salary will have a good ROI. He gave the company that eventually hires him billions in other people’s money. It’d be poor form not to cut him in for a small share of that.

      1. Let’s not forget something even more valuable: if Geithner were somehow, someway to be prosecuted, he’d have his li’l homie Barry ready to hook him up with a pardon.

        what a dick

  5. …and replace him with whom? Jamie Dimon?

    1. Someone like Dave Ramsey, minus the religious stuff.

      1. What about Volcker?

        1. What about me?

          1. Pauly Krugnuts

            1. Pauly Krugnuts

              Duh….

              It’s not like he hasn’t been campaigning for it for the last 7 years.

              1. Can I bring my cleverly named cats with me?

          2. You’re an asshole.

            Except in those Bourne movies. Those were pretty damn spiffy.

        2. Tall Paul is 58 million years old.

      2. I’m thinking Clark Howard . . .

    2. I would settle for a random person picked out of the phone book. Can’t be any worse.

    3. John Corzine is the purported “front runner”.

      1. Replace one criminal with another. Brilliant!

        1. Did you expect Obama to come up with someone that has integrity?

          We’re talking politicians, right?

          1. True enough.

      2. What he did for Joisey, he’ll do for America.

        1. You mean, what he did for Goldman Sachs. Unfortunately, he didn’t do for Jersey what he did for Goldman. Although he did bring in a special team of investors to handle the pension fund. At one point I believe they were raking in 17% returns. But of course, in NJ, the crooked politicians always spend more than what comes in. Always.

      3. Corzine lobbied hard for it in 2008. They didn’t want him then, I doubt they’ll want him now.

      1. I’m going to put my dick up your nose.

        1. now that I wouldn’t do.

    4. …and replace him with whom?

      I’ll do anything you want me to, Mr. President.

      1. That’s so 1998!

    5. STEVE SMITH?

    6. I vote for a broom with an upturned bucket for a head.

    7. What’s funny is that Dimon would be a huge step up in competency. Unless he’s a closet masochist, though, he’d probably just laugh off the offer.

    8. What’s funny is that Dimon would be a huge step up in competency. Unless he’s a closet masochist, though, he’d probably just laugh off the offer.

      1. Here’s a monday morning reading assignment for the squirrels.

  6. Goddamn I love me some Rand Paul.

    All the noise coming out of the White House seems to be that Geithner actually wants to leave but that Obama has been pressuring him to stay, not the other way around. I think forcing Geithner to resign would make it look like Obama had made a mistake and needed a course correction, and I can’t ever picture Obama admitting to any sort of failure. Well, I can’t picture him admitting to any failure other than his classic “We didn’t do a good enough job communicating our policies” excuse.

    But yes, if there was any justice in this world both Geithner and Bernake would be hauled away to jail in chains.

  7. We don’t need a BBA, the debt roof works fine… if it isn’t raised they have to spend no more than they take in.

    1. Agreed. I doubt the amendment would ever be ratified anyway, at least legally.

      1. Maybe they should first come up with an amendment to stop unreasonable searches and seizures.

        Oh wait a minute…

        Yeah, lets go for a balanced budget amendment. I’m sure Washington will be bound by it.

        1. It might pass. Our masters need fresh ass-wipe.

  8. Weigel blathers at Slate:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei….._bomb.html

    *yawn*

    1. I fail to see anything wrong with that piece, or derogatory toward Ron or Rand in any way. Your hate for the Weigel is clouding your mind.

      1. I shoulda said “more blathering from idiot posters at Gawker due to the Weigel piece”.

        My bad.

        1. Oops… Slate.

          Fuckin’ website name recognition… how do it work?

      2. If you want TEAM BLUE partisan bullshit on the debt downgrade go read Megan McCardle

        1. I’d need to bleach my brain out if I did that.

        2. Mrs. McSuderman has really come off the rails during the debt-limit debate. I think this was a real case of her not being able to separate her bias towards the people she knows personally and what a “default” would do to them, and what the actual point for the GOP/TP’s stance was.

          In the time I’ve been reading her at The Atlantic she was generally even in her condemnation of both parties and what they’ve done to the economy, but in the debt ceiling fight she just, apparently, refused to think that a large faction in the GOP had a philosophical objection to raising the debt ceiling, and that they had a legitimate point with reference to the likelihood of no real cuts in spending being made.

          1. Another reason raising taxes doesn’t work: politicians would spend the money, keeping the deficit constant.

        3. Wow. It amazes me how many people in the comments think if we could just raise taxes, everything would be okay. There’s also a lot of economic theory posited as unimpeachable fact that’s just wrong.

          1. Of course, they only want to raise other people’s taxes. They think the burden of any tax increase will fall on somebody else – so, yay!

  9. The 3 U.S. Policy Mistakes Most Responsible for S&P Downgrade August 6, 2011 2:52 PM EDT

    http://www.ibtimes.com/article…..l-debt.htm

    1. I knew it was bush all along.

      1. as do analysts & economists; tax cuts w/o spending cuts, the unfunded perscription drug plan, & using credit to fight 2 wars.

        1. So, you’re defending Obama, then…

        2. Tax cuts w/o spending cuts, unfunded Obamacare, and using credit to fight THREE wars. IN YOUR FACE, BITCH!

          1. obamacare & libya are newer than our debt, & the gop wouldnt extend unemployment for millions unless the bush tax cuts were extended for millionaires. btw – when will the wealthy [JOBZ] creators create [JOBZ]?

            1. When I quit scaring them by sticking my incompetent nose where it doesn’t belong. So… not any time soon.

            2. Why should they?
              Is government being nice to them?

            3. try reading the jobs report dumbass.

              1. try reading the jobs report dumbass.

                I’ll wait for the revision.

            4. “obamacare & libya are newer than our debt,”

              Right. Just give him time:
              http://www.hyscience.com/archi…..eficit.php
              He’ll show those pikers!

              1. Yeah. Ignore that TARP, stimulus, unemployment, auto bailout, and cash for clunkers behind that curtain. The great and powderful O’Bama has spoken!

                1. Gee, OO, you sure changed my mind. I’m going to go get a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book from the library.

            5. In other words, despite holding a majority in both houses at the time, Obama and the Dems couldn’t bring the minority party to heel and completely fucked up the media narrative to sway public opinion in their favor to boot.

              Maybe the Dems really are The Stupid Party after all.

            6. btw – when will the wealthy [JOBZ] creators create [JOBZ]?

              Since it’s small businesses that create most of the jobs, when will Obama and his Chicago Fluffer Brigade get out of the busybodies out of their way so they can hire people again?

            7. The jobs creators are staying lean to prepare for Obamacare, and whatever shit the government decides to throw at them next. Given that, I doubt tax cuts would do much at this point. Tax increases could easily make things worse.

  10. Rand Paul is a showboat and a poor imitation of his fabulous father. Here, he is merely trying to shift the blame from Congress to the administration.

    Plus, the BBA is a gimmick and will take forever to pass, as he knows. This is political grandstanding of the worst sort.

    1. Showboat? Let me show you my Inbox full of emails from his dad trumpeting how he’s leading the cause of liberty.

      1. I have the Ron Paul emails too. He is after all running for president. And, I’m going to be doing phone calls for him before Ames.

        But Ron is usually pretty fair in assigning blame. He’s not a total partisan. Maybe Rand is being hatchet man for his dad, but I find Ron Paul to be a lot more humble.

        1. Ron paul is not humble. Love the guy but he’s not humble.

          1. He does a good job of impersonating a non-threatening, grandfatherly sort of d00d.

        2. He certainly was the Hatchet Man during the Patriot Act extension debate in the Senate.

        3. Ron Paul is humble and unfortunately that kind of approach doesn’t win presidential elections. Ron will not be President in 2012. Rand has a pretty good shot in 2016.

          1. Rand doesn’t have a shot in 2016 if the GOP wins in 2012.

          2. Ron paul is not humble.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..paign.html

            A humble man would have taken the greyhound, or something. I say this as someone who wore my Ron Paul ’08 shirt all around town today while buying parts to fix my car.

            1. How is making the most of your limited time in Iowa not humble? Time spent traveling is time not spent campaigning, and Ron has a full time job in Washington to attend to that restricts how long he can stay there. Frankly, it’d be more arrogant of him to waste my donation dollars by NOT making all the time for campaigning he can while in-state.

            2. If you can drive a car, it’s kind of stupid to go by horse just to show you’re humble, while advocating the benefits of the free market.

              Sure, he could go by Greyhound; maybe he’ll be finished campaigning around America in the year 2017.

    2. It’s actually pretty run of the mill political grandstanding

  11. I was just following orders — Obama is the guy….

    1. You know who else just followed orders…

      1. judah?

        1. The Joos?

          “Into the cattle car. SCHNELL!”

      2. The late night McD’s drive thru crew?

        1. Definitely not them…

      3. Boone and ED-E?

        1. Lily and Rex?

      4. Otis?

        1. Those three black guys, always lurking behind me?

        2. Bradley Manning?

  12. So Rand Paul is reduced to +1’ing Michelle Bachmann now? How sad.

    Anyway, it’s pretty stupid to call for something that you know isn’t going to happen and you can’t force it to happen.

    1. I have to agree here.

      I like Rand Paul all right, anybody who cooks up that Aqua Buddha shit is at least entertaining.

      But the ‘calling for resignation’ shtick is so yawny-yawn D.C.

      1. I demand that I am Vroomfondel!

    2. So Rand Paul is reduced to +1’ing Michelle Bachmann now?
      +2’ing

      Jim DeMint was the first sitting Senator to call for Timmy’s resignation.
      The Huckster called for his being replaced with Donald Trump.

      Calling for a resignation calls attention and sparks the press to repeat it as a question.

      1. Wait, there’s a chance we might someday have US currency signed by Trump?

        That’s… awesome.

      2. Donald Trump? The bankruptcy king?

        1. Perfect timing.

    3. Tulpa:

      “All you Amnesty International people writing letters to dictators asking for the release of political prisoners are assholes.”

      1. They’re not assholes, they’re just stupid. I guarantee those dictators are laughing their asses off at these idiot Westerners while reading those letters.

        1. Obama is not a dictator. Turning up the heat on him this way can be an effective political strategy. That’s what this is obviously about. Paul doesn’t really believe that Geithner would be replaced by somebody better.

    4. I like the way you just called most forms of political advocacy stupid.

      “Dumb old Wilberforce, he knows abolishing the slave trade isn’t going to happen and he can’t force it to happen. Why’s he flapping his gums about it all the time?”

      Pro-tip: the point of advocacy is to change people’s minds, and therefore what is possible.

      Keep it up, Rand.

      1. Out of curiosity, I was wondering how many people here recognized the name Wilberforce? What passes for a public education these days definitely does not include the mention of men like him.

        If you don’t know the name, educate yourself. He should be near the top of the list of Great Men for all lovers of Human Liberty.

        1. Must confess I only recognized the name as that of the nearby historically African-American university. Even in these parts I’ve never heard about the namesake.

        2. I do, but I sure didn’t learn about him in school. The internet is a beautiful thing for self education.

          There was a pretty good movie about him a few years ago. Of course, it grossed about 1/25th of what Transformers pulled in.

          1. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t learn about him in school, either.

            I will check out Amazing Grace!

        3. I was wondering how many people here recognized the name Wilberforce?

          I just figured it was a Mr. Ed reference.

    5. It’s also pretty stupid making people believe you don’t mind Geithner staying in his position as he throttles the neck of America’s economy.

  13. Y’all be missing one great progressive circle jerk on Gawker right now:

    http://gawker.com/5828322/us-c…..first-time

    1. I hit the link, and didn’t miss a thing.

    2. No, we’re not…

    3. I propose a motion that we follow a “Gawker-free Weekend” policy here.

      Do I have a second to that motion?

      1. Second and adopted. Benevolent despotism has saved the day again.

        1. I actually agree to this proposal. I don’t know why I do this to myself… I have a problem.

          Also, any ideas on fantasy football sloopy?

          1. I posted it in another thread. Yeah, I plan on setting it up later this weekend. I’ll start posting the link as soon as I’ve got it set up. Probably have the draft next weekend.

          2. Get your fix all you want, just refrain from dragging that sewage over here. If we wanted to read left-wing SWPL faggotry, there’s always the local “independent” newsrags to peruse.

    4. I’m helping take care of my year-old niece today, and there is a crisis I see over what has been served for lunch. Its kinda the same thing.

      1. Well, I take that back. My niece is pretty cute. Even when she’s mad. The Gawker mess is not.

        1. Introduce me.

          1. Introduce me

            I should be mad at that. But damn it was funny.

          1. Steely Dan FTW!

    5. Is it wrong to hope that Schwartznegger’s flight attendant sues Gawker into Bolivian?

  14. “Welcome to the recovery” = “Mission accomplished”

  15. Cut, Cap and Balance is crap. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and get rid of the Fed. Problem solved.

    1. Calls to repeal the 17th are silly. Usually libertarians say that the people should make their own decisions, not politicians for them, but then they run out and yell for state politicians to choose the senator for the people. Nice.

      And I have to wonder how that would help us out of our federal debt problem. Local pols have been known to rack up some serious debt, and effectively putting them in charge of one federal branch to enrich their states on the federal dime would be foreseeable disaster imo.

      1. The initial idea was that House of Reps was the People’s House in Federal government and the Senate was the chamber where States were represented.

        Ever since the 17th, the States themselves have no voice or say in Federal government, and one of the biggest institutional reasons for the slow power-creep of the Feds over the States since.

        And after passage of the 17th, you can’t reasonably argue that the quality of Senators or their ethical conduct exactly rose either.

        1. The point about states no longer having a say in the Federal government (and subsequent developments) is a good one.

          I’ll say this – it’s unlikely we’ll see a repeal of the 17th Amendment. However, so long as it’s in place, there need to be term limits. Right now, all the incentives are lined up for politicians to be pimps for organized blocs of voters and high money donors. If they weren’t constantly running for re-election, they might think about the good of the nation once in a while.

            1. Holy Christ, does EVERYBODY who posts over there have Assburgers’ syndrome?

          1. I’ll be focused like a laser on the public good in my second term, that’s for sure!

            1. You suck.

            2. So we can safely assume that you won’t be?

              That’s a relief.

          2. “all the incentives are lined up for politicians to be pimps for organized blocs of voters and high money donors”

            Of course the same is true for state pols. They do use state government to extract favors for blocs of voters and donors. Now imagine if they had a compliant house of Congress and the federal teat under their control as well!

            You don’t have a bad point about term limits and electioneering, but again it seems strange to see a libertarian argue that people can’t be trusted with their choices. Term limits would free up people from the bad side of electioneering, but also the good side (being responsive to voter movements like the Tea Party for example).

            1. Elections aren’t the same thing as market choices.

              1. What Tulpa said. The political “market” is badly distorted. Let’s take one example: say a computer company has an ad that claims it’s computers will process information better, not be subject to routing conflicts, and will be user friendly, working with the user.

                Then they put out their computers, and they’re crap. They barely work, and all of their promises were lies. What happens? They’re sued by dozens of lawyers as their sales plummet. The lawyers fight for scraps as the company files for bankruptcy.

                Now say you have a politician claiming that his administration will be the most transparent ever, will stop a conflict in the middle east, and will end the constant illegal power grabs that have come to characterize the office. Then it turns out he is a FUCKING WORTHLESS LIAR who does the exact opposite of what he promised. What “market” actions are available?

                If Obama were a company, he would be out of business for false advertising, shoddy products, and probably racketeering. But he is a politician.

                1. BP-You’re idealizing the market (plenty of false advertisers make it just fine) and demonizing the political realm (the situation with Obama is much more complicated than you describe, he’s thrown bones to people in the areas you describe, and there are areas that if he went there he would face primary challenges).

                  Tulpa-in what relevant way are they different that would justify taking the choice away from the people and giving it to, of all people, professional pols?

                  1. Tulpa-in what relevant way are they different that would justify taking the choice away from the people and giving it to, of all people, professional pols?

                    I guess by this logic, all promulgated regulations should be up for a referendum. Also, do you realize that by only holding elections every two years, that you are “limiting my choice” right now?

                    Anything that is done to constrain the federal government is fine and has nothing to do with the constraint of choice. Government exist at the behest of, and through the delegation of rights from, the people. Anything the people decide to do or not to do to constrain the government is not limting “choice”.

                    Do you think that having states limits choice? Local governments?

                    1. “Anything that is done to constrain the federal government is fine and has nothing to do with the constraint of choice”

                      How do you know repeal of the 17th would constrain the federal government? State pols would be happy to use a empowered federal government to do its bidding were they given the reins. Besides, given history I’m not sure that giving the states more power relative to the feds does anything for individual liberty.

                    2. Because with the repeal of the 16th there is no individual income tax and the cost of the federal government is apportioned amongst the states according to population you dimwit.

            2. Term limits would make politicians even more responsive to movements like the tea party, by opening up the primaries.

              1. I don’t think that’s right. Without term limits you can challenge any incumbent you want, with them the same but with one constraint-you could not support any incumbent you happen to like…Term limits are another matter to take away the choice of the electorate because you don’t trust them.

                1. Did you know the First Amendment constrains our choice to permit the government to limit speech? Outrage!

                2. Did you know the First Amendment constrains our choice to permit the government to limit speech? Outrage!

                3. Term limits are another matter to take away the choice of the electorate because you don’t trust them.

                  Incumbency limits choices due to the two party structure, which was not part of the Constitution – it just naturally evolved that way. There are good things about that, but one of the bad things is how it gives to much advantage to incumbents. Term limits would simply fix that. It doesn’t take power away from the people, it takes power away from the political parties to force the primary selections to be limited.

                  1. Drop “primary” from the last sentence. Really need to start using preview more.

        2. Just remember when you say things like “the States have no voice or say in Federal government” what you mean is that State pols have no voice or say in Federal government. The people of the state have say, and with the 17th that say is direct.

          1. That’s actually the problem.

          2. Just remember when you say things like “the States have no voice or say in Federal government” what you mean is that State pols have no voice or say in Federal government.

            Technically the state legislature, but essentially that is the case. I don’t think anyone here would deny that.

            Look up “Division of Powers” on Wikipedia to continue your education on the US political system. There you may discover that there was this radical idea of having various groups and institutions that lusted for power check and balance each other. The state legislatures were intended to be one of those groups, hence their representation in the Senate. The people had a direct check on federal power through the House of Representatives.

          3. Just remember when you say things like “the States have no voice or say in Federal government” what you mean is that State pols have no voice or say in Federal government.

            Technically the state legislature, but essentially that is the case. I don’t think anyone here would deny that.

            Look up “Division of Powers” on Wikipedia to continue your education on the US political system. There you may discover that there was this radical idea of having various groups and institutions that lusted for power check and balance each other. The state legislatures were intended to be one of those groups, hence their representation in the Senate. The people had a direct check on federal power through the House of Representatives.

            1. I’m afraid I think the better check on power are the people themselves who should be trusted to make their decisions on who represents them best, not professional pols making that decision for them. You’ve already got enough principal-agent problems in a republic without throwing in another level of agents. It woould be like the nation was a corporation where you can elect the board that chooses the management, but not the management directly.

              1. The people are represented by the House you retard, how can you not understand that?

          4. Just remember when you say things like “the States have no voice or say in Federal government” what you mean is that State pols have no voice or say in Federal government.

            Technically the state legislature, but essentially that is the case. I don’t think anyone here would deny that.

            Look up “Division of Powers” on Wikipedia to continue your education on the US political system. There you may discover that there was this radical idea of having various groups and institutions that lusted for power check and balance each other. The state legislatures were intended to be one of those groups, hence their representation in the Senate. The people had a direct check on federal power through the House of Representatives.

            1. People forget why their arose a political movement capable of moving through the built in hurdles of passing a constitutional amendment like the 17th. Corruption with the state legislatures and their appointment was seen as a real problem and the representation was seen a huge principal-agent problem with state pols using the Senate for the good of…state pols (why this is such a hard thing for libertarians of all people to digest is beyond me).

              1. Yeah, and it makes TOTAL SENSE! If the State legislatures are corrupt concentrate even MORE power on the National level, because those guys are corruption proof! Power corrupts and ultimate power creates Utopia?!

                So, you are saying that those who favored the 17th’s passage were as nonsensical as you are?

                1. Er, the 17th REMOVED a layer of professional pols between the people and their government. It’s you that thinks adding that layer back is a good thing…

                  You still have Senators with or without the 17th, and they can be corrupted. Without the 17th you also have the potential corruption of the state legislators.

                  1. The whole concept of a republic is to put an institution, peopled with politicians, between individuals and the tyranny of the majority. Once you accept that basic approach, the rest becomes an matter of organization and mechanics. The Framers had various mechanisms and organizational schemes in mind to pit self-interest against self-interest, in hopes of yielding “the right thing” in the end, after long periods of contention, gnashing of teeth, etc. Representation of the States in the Senate, and the selection of Senators by the State Legislatures, was important among those mechanisms. The 17th Amendment took a part out of the machine and replaced it with a different part, causing the machine to run differently (such that increasingly more power was concentrated in the central Federal government, at the expense of the States).

                    The Framers were neither stupid nor oblivious. They were quite familiar with corruption in the several layers and types of governments that ruled over them prior to the Constitution of 1787. The jockeying for personal advantage and gain that we call “corruption” today, they understood as politics-as-usual, and they sought to harness that force through the checks-and-balances design of the Federal system and its central government. Given that corruption is unavoidable, we have to ask: which mechanism yields, or is generally capable of yielding better results in the presence of corruption? From having paid attention these past few decades, and having read pre-17th Amendment history, I think we were better off when the Senate was the creature of the States and their legislatures. For me, advocating for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, however quixotic, is simply a call to remove the ill-fitting replacement part in our governmental machine, and reinstate the original manufacturer’s equipment, acknowledging with the gift of hindsight that perhaps the Framers were pretty good engineers, after all.

        3. I would recommend not only the repeal of the 17th, but greater representation in the House of Representatives.

          Originally, Representatives were capped at 60,000 constituents, and in practice represented about half that. That cap was removed and the number of constituents per Rep has grown to average around 660,000 – over 11 times the original cap. Whereas Reps used to know their constituents personally and could reach the even smaller number of actual voters in person, that is now impossible. Big amounts of money are required – same as with Senators – to get elected. This has put both the House and the Senate in the pockets of those who fund their expensive campaigns.

          So, besides repealing the 17th, I would favor a new system of representation, modeled on shareholders’ meetings. Each constituent should be able to select their own representative, in a system I call personal representation. That representative would then vote a number of votes equal to the number of their constituents. In order to avoid the crackpot problem, reps would need a minimum number of votes to have a seat in the House, all other votes being given remotely – and a similar minimum number of votes would be required to introduce a bill.

          1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      2. No, the state legislators choose the Senator for themselves. The House was supposed to represent the people directly.

        I’d recommend shoring up your poli sci knowledge by reading the Wikipedia article on the Connecticut Compromise.

        1. I’m pretty sure MNG knows the facts here. He isn’t ignorant, he’s genuinely stupid.

          1. More like genuinely producing strawmen to support his tiny little worldview.

            1. Can you kids go play somehwere else?

      3. “Calls to repeal the 17th are silly.”

        Surely as a person who argues in defense of unions, you can understand how people can have more power when represented by someone speaking on behalf of a well-organized group, rather than simply acting as individuals; even when the well-organized group sometimes has its own self-interest apart from those it represents.

        1. Who are the “someone”‘s and “individuals” in your metaphor?

  16. If there were any justice in the world, Obama would have been impeached, convicted, and imprisoned by federal authorities for every life he’s ruined — that’s millions of life sentences, isn’t it?

    1. Oh, and how about we add treason and insurrection against the Republic? That would be another suitable component of his repository of charges.

      1. Why doesn’t anyone take you seriously?

        1. When am I going to get some original material?

          1. How do they work?

    2. Somehow i think every president fits that mold in one way or another.

      Which president has shown that human lives mean something to him?

      1. William Henry Harrison comes closest, but he was president for only thirty days.

        1. So what you’re saying is he didn’t have the time to prove how much of a scumbag he was?

  17. Why doesn’t Rand Paul introduce legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve, declare that it had always been unconstitutional and illegitimate, and prosecute its board? I wonder!

    1. Don’t go there!

  18. Is Dick Fuld still available?

    I heard somebody suggest Jack Welch, this morning. A(nother) bookjuggling rent-seeker is EXACTLY what we need right now, you betcha.

  19. Has anyone gotten Matt Damon’s take on this yet?

    p.s.
    For those who don’t know, Matt Damon frequently posts here under the handle “Episiarch”

    1. Damn you, Jim, I told you that in confidence!

      MATT DAMON

        1. Tim Geithner gets a really shitty salary and works super-long, 80-minute hours. I think he does it because he loves America…

    2. I’m fucking Matt Damon

      1. I thought it was Goofey.

      2. No, you’re fucking annoying.

      3. And your show sucked.

  20. The best replacement for Timmeh is nobody. I hope his replacement’s confirmation is held up in the Senate through the election season. Maybe then Americans would see that nobody is better than somebody when it comes to government appointees.

    1. Bets on the chances the Fed gets closed down permanently?

  21. This is silly. Congress passes (or doesn’t) budgets, Presidents propose them, the Fed makes a fair amount of economic policy; Treasury Secretary’s these days don’t have much power to make them responsible for being where we are (not to mention we are not in our current debt because of things decided in Obama’s term alone anyway, our debt actually started exploding under Reagan, you might as well call for going back in time and asking for the resignation of Don Reagan and Jim Baker).

    This kind of thing reminds me of how in history they would periodically call for the dismissal of the King’s ministers because calling for his dismissal was treason.

    1. Dismiss them all. And then put them in shackles, and ship them off to a fucking rock in the middle of the ocean, like in “Cast Away”, that sort of place.

      1. Hmmm…movie idea. A flick ala “Lord of the Flies” where all the castaways are politicians. Fuckin’ A!

        1. The movie would be over in 15mins, when everyone starved to death (or died of thirst) in a day or two.

        2. Can we do The Most Dangerous Game instead?

          1. When all the other children were reading about Dick and Jane aloud, syllable by halting, painful syllable, I was reading this most excellent Richard Connell story, and ever since, I have rarely encountered a comparable, much less superior tale. (Sniffs. Wipes misty monocle.)

    2. Congress passes (or doesn’t) budgets, Presidents propose them,

      That all kinda stopped when Obama got elected.

    3. “Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,”

      ^^^^^ This is kind of the key problem right here. And you’re an idiot if you don’t see such a blatant faceplant of a prediction from the treasury secretary as a problem. Both on its own and for how it contributed to the shit congress subsequently produced. But thanks for the civics lesson.

    4. our debt actually started exploding under Reagan

      Yeah, if only he hadn’t started Social Security and Medicare! Oh, wait….

      OK, well then, if only federal revenue had doubled in 10 years following 1981! Oh wait, it did!

      1. I think the real debt explosion started in 1971.

      2. Yeah, if only he hadn’t started Social Security and Medicare! Oh, wait….

        To be fair, a big reason for this is because the Baby Boomers are finally hitting retirement age, and that’s inevitably going to put strain that these systems probably won’t be able to handle.

        In 1960, for example, SS took up 10.8% of federal spending. Now it takes up over 20%.

        Medicare and Medicaid combined take up nearly 40% of federal spending; in 1960, healthcare spending by the government took up a little over 1% (like college tuition, government interference in the healthcare market has grossly inflated the costs, although admittedly it’s not the only factor).

        What will likely happen is the Baby Boomers are going to get caught in a cultural determination that they aren’t going to be able to get $100K worth of medical treatments to stay alive another 5 years or so, and will finally have to come to grips with the realization that they aren’t going to live forever. That’s going to be one hell of a shock to a generation of Peter Pans that prided themselves on never growing up.

    5. “our debt actually started exploding under Reagan”

      Define “exploding”, and please inform us of the issues causing that ‘explosion’.

      1. Don’t be a stupid pedant, you know what I mean by exploding.

        Take a look at my link above. We had yearly deficets through most of the 60’s and all of the 70’s, but these deficets, measured here as % of GDP, significantly increase in 82 running through 93, then they get smaller and then, yes, explode again under Obama.

        1. Don’t be a stupid pedant, you know what I mean by [whatever].

          Oh ho ho ho, that’s rich.

      2. No, he’s absolutely right that debt went parabolic under Reagan. The whole process really started under Carter when his own party cut his knees out from under him when he tried to cut spending (the national debt rose by about 68% under Carter), but it’s indisputable that the debt skyrocketed on Reagan’s watch.

        http://www.treasurydirect.gov/…..histo4.htm

        1. Most of the Reagan years were also characterized by high interest rates. Interest on the debt was a significant part of the budget and a big part of the deficits those years.

          While it’s true that the debt increased massively in those years, the stage was set in all the previous years when automatic entitlements were passed.

          The increases in spending on those entitlements were the biggest parts of the budget growth in the eighties.

    6. This kind of thing reminds me of how in history they would periodically call for the dismissal of the King’s ministers because calling for his dismissal was treason.

      A lot of this happened in the Middle East this spring–a bunch of high-visibility public officials resign, say, instead of the head asshole that everyone’s actually pissed off at.

  22. Can we get Obuma and the whole congress to resign too, while we’re at it?

    1. I’ll go if they do.

  23. The last Treasury Secretary who I think was worth-a-shit was Paul O’Neil.

    He got along with wide variety of characters, was a very successful businessman (he ran Alcoa, you know, they actually make things!).

    And I remember when he lit up Robert Byrd in testimony.

    And nobody in the Bush White House liked him because he called a duck a duck, said we were going broke before we went broke, and was not a Team Player when it came to book-cooking in prep for Iraq war.

    That’s probably why he was last Treasury Secretary to get fired, not being a ‘Team Player’ and all. Only crooks and incompetents need apply, thank you.

  24. Auric Goldstandard: Expect you resign, Mr. Geithner? No, I expect you to die.
    (metaphorically, of course)

  25. …and replace him with whom?

    I suggest The Honourable Tendai Biti.

    1. Thank you very much for the vote of confidence, Binky. However, I will not take such a downgrade.

    1. Pretty damning.

      He’ll be gone in a week.

      1. If he’s not gone, then this video would make a hell of a campaign piece, with a tag line like, “Confidently and catastrophically wrong, and yet Obama refused to fire him.”

      2. Can’t fire him yet or accept his resignation. To do so would make it look like the executive branch is at fault and they have an election to win.

        1. I have a question, hmmmmm.

        2. Didn’t Tim already raise the specter of spending more time with his family?

          1. His kids vetoed that, IIRC.

          2. Which is probably one of the reasons he fought so hard to not get downgraded. He isn’t going anywhere yet now. The administration can’t afford to look anymore guilty.

    2. I have to admit, I didn’t think they would have the balls.

  26. “Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,” Sen. Paul said. “He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences”

    Gimme a break.

    Anyone in the legislative branch that tries to deflect the blame for this is a disingenuous piece of shit.

    That is all.

    1. So you’re OK with presidents not firing people who give terrible advice based on not being in touch with reality?

      Would you still say this if it was a Bush appointee?

      And how is it “deflecting blame” when somebody who voted against raising the debt ceiling criticizes that action and calls for the resignation of someone who cheerleaded for it?

      Do you believe in holding people responsible for other people’s actions?

      Debt ceiling vote in the Senate

      1. So you’re OK with presidents not firing people who give terrible advice based on not being in touch with reality?

        Of course. I, for one, serve at the pleasure of the President.

        1. What pleasure? I knew Monica, and you’re no Monica.

          1. Did you know her in the Biblical sense?

        2. Bitch, I’m the one be servin’ the pleasure of the President!

      2. Based on history, I would say your answers are Yes, No, Huh?, and Maybe.

    2. “Gimme a break.
      Anyone in the legislative branch that tries to deflect the blame for this is a disingenuous piece of shit.
      That is all.”

      Yep, the executive branch was, oh, out on the golf course and all this just sort of passed them by!

      1. The executive deserves heaps of grief as well. Everyone should pile on. But anyone in congress who tries to point the finger at the executive is a disingenuous piece of shit.

        1. hey while you’re at it don’t forget to blame the voters themselves for what their representatives did. After all their collective voting action resulted in this government. So now a question for you, will you:
          A. accept blame for the current fiscal mess, regardless of how you personally voted?(way to go, asshole).
          B. try to deflect blame like a disingenuous piece of shit.

          1. I think I’ll blame all the libertarians and others who don’t participate in the process and decide not to vote. The “I didn’t vote for them” gambit is the most disingenuous of them all.

    3. Anyone in the legislative branch that tries to deflect the blame for this is a disingenuous piece of shit.

      Rand Paul took office 7 months ago. this was after Obama and Bush ran up the debt by about 8 trillion dollars, and after 2 years in which the democrat controlled congress could not pass a budget.

      I am pretty sure Rand Paul gets a pass on the piece of shit.

      Of course you know that….so what is your excuse for deflecting blame on to a person who has absolutely no ownership of it?

      1. Of course you know that….so what is your excuse for deflecting blame on to a person who has absolutely no ownership of it?

        I am not deflecting blame…I am calling him on his bullshit. No defense of Geithner should be inferred. But S&P downgraded because they saw intractable positions being taken by both sides of the aisle, and rhetorical brinksmanship rather than honest debate. Rand Paul was and continues to be very much a part of that brinksmanship.

        1. But S&P downgraded because they saw intractable positions being taken by both sides of the aisle, and rhetorical brinksmanship rather than honest debate. Rand Paul was and continues to be very much a part of that brinksmanship.

          That’s a pretty disingenuous statement to make considering he actually put forth a framework for reducing the deficit, and it didn’t even rely on Paul Ryan’s Land Of Make Believe U3 levels to achieve it.

          What exactly would you consider “honest debate” in this case? Developing a plan that would be acceptable to the majority of Congressional members? Isn’t that exactly what’s contributed to this mess, is Congress and several Presidents of both parties kicking the damn can down the road and calling it “compromise”?

          1. At least Paul Ryan had the balls to talk about reforming Medicare.

            S&P specifically cited the failure to seriously address entitlement reform as a reason for the downgrade.

            For that reason, you can exempt Paul Ryan from the blame. He’s at least talking about the things S&P says need to be addressed to restore America’s credit rating.

            And whatever Rand Paul’s ideology appears to be, he seems to be more than willing to side with the AARP on doctor reimburtsements.

            1. Hazel Meade|8.7.11 @ 3:01AM|#

              At least Paul Ryan had the balls to talk about reforming Medicare.

              S&P specifically cited the failure to seriously address entitlement reform as a reason for the downgrade.

              For that reason, you can exempt Paul Ryan from the blame. He’s at least talking about the things S&P says need to be addressed to restore America’s credit rating.

              Obama also talked about entitlement reform, as did a host of others from both sides of the aisle, but they don’t get an exemption from blame when they fail to achieve anything they talked about. Same for Paul.

              1. Obama also talked about entitlement reform, as did a host of others from both sides of the aisle, but they don’t get an exemption from blame when they fail to achieve anything they talked about.

                This is nothing but a guilt by association argument. You’re bitching because Paul happens to be a member of a body that didn’t do what you think was supposed to be done, even though he put out a deficit reduction plan MONTHS ago.

                It sounds like you don’t actually have a substantive point to make regarding his call for Geithner to resign, you’re just looking for an excuse to bitch.

            2. At least Paul Ryan had the balls to talk about reforming Medicare.

              That’s fine, but any deficit reduction plan that relies on achieving a sub-3% level of unemployment, just to get things to par over several decades, just isn’t realistic.

              Things are coming to a head right now, and they’re going to involve hard choices that affect people right now, now 30 years from now. That’s why collapse is a lot more likely than reform, because too many people have too much of a vested interest in the status quo to make reform a realistic proposition.

          2. What exactly would you consider “honest debate” in this case? Developing a plan that would be acceptable to the majority of Congressional members?

            Working with those who disagree with you to come up with a plan that solves the problem and is acceptable to a majority of congressional members would indeed be honest debate. I didn’t see RP being willing to budge on a single part of his fantasy proposal (which was padded with more fluff than substance…despite some good ideas).

            Isn’t that exactly what’s contributed to this mess, is Congress and several Presidents of both parties kicking the damn can down the road and calling it “compromise”?

            Sure. And Rand Paul contributed to that failure this time around.

            1. “Working with those who disagree with you to come up with a plan that solves the problem and is acceptable to a majority of congressional members would indeed be honest debate.”

              Raising taxes will not solve the problem of overspending. The solution to the problem of our government spending money like drunken sailors is not to give them more of our money to spend.

              The only solution to the problem–slashing spending dramatically–is unacceptable to the Democratic Party.

            2. Working with those who disagree with you to come up with a plan that solves the problem and is acceptable to a majority of congressional members would indeed be honest debate.

              Do you seriously think a plan that would actually solve the problem would be acceptable to a majority of Congressional members? Or are you simply hoping that they’d agree to a plan that wouldn’t inconvenience you in any way? Because that’s what usually drives these supposed pleas to “just work together and get something done!”

              Sure. And Rand Paul contributed to that failure this time around.

              How so, exactly? In what ways? Because all I see is you bitching about him in very vague guilt by association arguments. You haven’t actually presented any specific reasons why he’s part of the problem.

              1. Of gimme a break. He was one of those most vocal and inflexible in the kind of brinksmanship that S&P cited in their rationale. He continues to be. And this specific call for TG to resign is more empty political rhetoric.

                1. Of gimme a break.

                  No. Fuck you and your ridiculous guilt by association bullshit. Start citing some specific instances where he was part of the problem, in contravention to the deficit-reduction plan he proposed, and you might have a point.

                  S&P said that roughly $4 trillion in cuts would be needed to avoid a downgrade. Are you saying Paul was wrong for rejecting a plan that wouldn’t address that fundamental point?

                  And this specific call for TG to resign is more empty political rhetoric.

                  So you’re of the opinion that Geithner should keep his job? What are you bitching about Paul for, because he spoke the truth?

                  1. Red Rocks Rockin|8.7.11 @ 2:11PM|#

                    No. Fuck you and your ridiculous guilt by association bullshit.

                    Touchy.

                    Start citing some specific instances where he was part of the problem,

                    He was part of the problem due to his “my way or the hi-way” stance on all things related to how to reduce the deficit and handle the long term budget problem.

                    S&P said that roughly $4 trillion in cuts would be needed to avoid a downgrade. Are you saying Paul was wrong for rejecting a plan that wouldn’t address that fundamental point?

                    The Obama plan that included tax code changes got closer to that figure than the final deal. A simple -“OK, we’ll accept your tax proposal IF you do X on medicare” would have moved the process forward. Paul was among the most hardcore in keeping the rhetoric about ideology rather than results. By taking a hard line on the tax reforms issue, he helped to assure that the final deal fell short of the goal.

                    So you’re of the opinion that Geithner should keep his job? What are you bitching about Paul for, because he spoke the truth?

                    Speak the truth, bah. A truth speaker would say “My colleagues an I have failed the country and need to get to work to find a workable solution.” Instead he took a shot at the other team.

                    1. He was part of the problem due to his “my way or the hi-way” stance on all things related to how to reduce the deficit and handle the long term budget problem.

                      Translation: “RAND PAUL SINGLEHANDEDLY HELD UP THE ENTIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALL BY HIMSELF!” At least have the balls to show where he held a gun to Congress’ head and forced them to pass the recent piece of shit legislation.

                      The Obama plan that included tax code changes got closer to that figure than the final deal.

                      Your point here is completely irrelevant because your original complaint was that Paul didn’t come up with any solution on his own during this process the solved the problem (conveniently ignoring the plan he introduced months ago)–and now you’re backing Obama’s supposed plan (which the CBO couldn’t calculate because “we can’t score a speech”), which didn’t do anything to solve it either? Do you even read what you post?

                      Speak the truth, bah. A truth speaker would say “My colleagues an I have failed the country and need to get to work to find a workable solution.” Instead he took a shot at the other team.

                      Which doesn’t refute one iota that Geithner’s been a failure as Treasury Secretary.

                      You’re like a yenta housfrau with nothing better to do than find meaningless shit to complain about.

                    2. Red Rocks Rockin|8.7.11 @ 5:39PM|#

                      Translation: “RAND PAUL SINGLEHANDEDLY HELD UP THE ENTIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALL BY HIMSELF!” At least have the balls to show where he held a gun to Congress’ head and forced them to pass the recent piece of shit legislation.

                      Notice that I said ANY member of congress. I never said RP took total blame for the fiasco. Are you an idiot?

                      Your point here is completely irrelevant because your original complaint was that Paul didn’t come up with any solution on his own during this process the solved the problem (conveniently ignoring the plan he introduced months ago)

                      That was never my complaint and I did not ignore his plan. I even commented on it. But making a proposal is only half the battle.

                      –and now you’re backing Obama’s supposed plan (which the CBO couldn’t calculate because “we can’t score a speech”), which didn’t do anything to solve it either? Do you even read what you post?

                      I didn’t BACK Obama’s plan, I pointed out that Paul was unwilling to look at alternate proposals. Do you even read?

                      Which doesn’t refute one iota that Geithner’s been a failure as Treasury Secretary.

                      I never attempted to defend Geithner. I even explicitly stated that I didn’t.

                      You’re like a yenta housfrau with nothing better to do than find meaningless shit to complain about.

                      I am glad you, on the other hand have taken on the important task of disagree with a commenter on a political website that dared to besmirch the name of a politician making a meaningless grandstand in order to deflect blame away from congress.

                      Don’t be such a passive-aggressive little cuntrag.

                      Oh my. The language. Get me to my fainting couch.

                    3. Notice that I said ANY member of congress. I never said RP took total blame for the fiasco. Are you an idiot?

                      Whose the idiot? You’ve never actually specified how RP was responsible for this. You threw out a bullshit guilt by association argument and then passive-aggressively refused to budged when called on said bullshit argument. From someone who typically cites specifics in their posts, that’s pretty fucking incredible and shows how weak your actual point was.

                      That was never my complaint and I did not ignore his plan. I even commented on it. But making a proposal is only half the battle.

                      Bullshit–your whole argument was couched on the idea that RP is part of the problem. When asked to specify how, you threw out vague generalities about RP employing partisan brinksmanship rather than “honest debate.”

                      Tell you what, if you’re so fucking smart, how about you outline, in detail, what you believe an “honest debate” and a “plan that solves the problem” would be? RP did so, several months ago. You haven’t come up with shit.

                      I never attempted to defend Geithner. I even explicitly stated that I didn’t.

                      So what was the point of bitching about RP’s entirely justified criticism? Were you just looking for something to scrape the sand into your vagina?

                      I am glad you, on the other hand have taken on the important task of disagree with a commenter on a political website that dared to besmirch the name of a politician making a meaningless grandstand in order to deflect blame away from congress.

                      You haven’t exactly spelled out why it’s meaningless. Your biggest complaint against RP’s remarks on Geithner boiled down to the fact that Congress passed a debt bill that RP in fact voted against (and let’s not ignore the fact that it’s been pointed out countless times that this plan doesn’t lower spending one iota)

                      The only argument you’ve made is a bullshit guilt by association tack–you said that RP’s deficit reduction plan doesn’t matter, the fact that he voted against the bullshit Boehner bill doesn’t matter, simply because he didn’t come up with a “plan” that you thought would “solve the problem.”

                      Like a lot of so-called “independents,” you’re great at bitching that both sides “should just work together to get things done,” but you seem to have no fucking clue what that would be.

                      Well, what exactly would “solve the problem,” dipshit? Be specific, and show your work.

                    4. RRR.

                      You keep asking for specifics, but you know them already. S&P cited the tone of the debate in Washington as the primary reason they were downgrading. That tone was set early on by many in Congress that S&P felt made it unlikely that congress would be able to get any serious work done to solve the debt/deficit problem. As you are aware an early adopter of this brinksmanship in this debate was one Rand Paul who tied raising the debt ceiling (something he admitted needed to be done) to his own pet agenda items while explicitly refusing to discuss tax reform. He did this very early in the debate. The term brinksmanship used in the S&P rationale refers explicitly to the tactics he used in the debate.

                      Then he said, in essence, Geithneer should resign because Congress used his failed prediction as an excuse not to do things HIS (Rand Paul’s) way. But that is deflection at its core. HE was an integral part of the problem that S&P cited as the reason for the downgrade. Indeed he was a major player in the brinksmanship cited. He was not alone in setting the tone, but you act as if he sat on the sideline with rational proposals and made good faith efforts to come to a workable compromise. He didn’t. His tactics failed and ended up as a primary cause of the downgrade. Now he wants someone else to take the blame, so he deflects by calling out someone on the other team. That make him a disingenuous piece of shit. Sad that you feel the need to defend him.

                    5. Well, what exactly would “solve the problem,” dipshit? Be specific, and show your work.

                      I think you start with Alan Greenspan’s suggestion from April 18th’s Meet the Press, then you look to entitlements and the military and find cuts. Greenspan’s proposal gives you 3.5 trillion or so (by itself probably enough to have avoided S&P’s downgrade), do a matching amount of cuts and you are 7 trillion or so on your way. Start serious there negotiations there.

                    6. Touchy.

                      Don’t be such a passive-aggressive little cuntrag.

                    7. Is Rand Paul a “Right Person in Charge”?

    4. Sorry guys.
      I stand by my statement.
      Both houses of congress own this.
      Rand Paul may have voted against the final deal, but he was an active and vocal part of the failed process.

      prolefeed.
      Answers: 1) off topic 2) yes 3) see above 4) no

      1. I stand by my statement.

        Hollow stance is hollow.

        The bill was nothing more then theater. The problem started over 10 years ago.

        Anyway whoever you want to put the blame on is irrelevant.

        Come election day the shitty economy and the exploding debt will be blamed on Obama the democrats and the spend thrift wing if the republican party.

        ie everyone who voted yes on the bill.

        Rand Paul and other who voted against it will only gain from this.

        1. Joshua corning|8.7.11 @ 1:05AM|#

          I stand by my statement.

          Hollow stance is hollow.

          The bill was nothing more then theater. The problem started over 10 years ago.

          Anyway whoever you want to put the blame on is irrelevant.

          Come election day the shitty economy and the exploding debt will be blamed on Obama the democrats and the spend thrift wing if the republican party.

          ie everyone who voted yes on the bill.

          Rand Paul and other who voted against it will only gain from this.

          Yeah Rand Paul made the politically smart move. Pretty hollow praise.

      2. Rand Paul may have voted against the final deal, but he was an active and vocal part of the failed process.

        Translation: “RAND PAUL DIDN’T COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO PRETEND THAT EVERYTHING IS A-OKAY!!!”

        1. Or:
          ‘Rand Paul actually required changes in the status quo, and that’s not ‘realistic”
          It’s a real shame that anything that might actually fix things is ‘unrealistic’.

          1. IOW – take the concept of the perfect being the enemy of the good and watch it play out in the real world.

    5. Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again! What a bunch of clowns.

      1. Don’t. praise. the machine.

  27. Dr. Paul is correct. Geithner has been a MAJOR cause of this crisis along with the Federal Reserve. Obama loves debt, loves borrowing, loves war, and loves keeping Guantanamo running. Vote Ron Paul 2012 for true change and hope.

  28. Well, here is the link to the Reason Hit n Run J sub D Memorial Fantasy Football League

    password is: reason

    The draft is set up for next Saturday at 2pm Pacific (5pm Eastern).

    Come one. Come all. Except rectal.

    1. Except rectal.

      Things are looking up. Keep your fingers crossed.

    2. Will their be drunk MNG-style trash talkin’?

      1. When I show up there will be!

      2. There better be a lot of trash talkin. And the weekly update that will follow in the Twosday Mourning Lynx will only insure the trash talking carries over IRL.

      3. Ah, my spoofer returns.

        It’s going to be great when Reason outs you child-man.

        1. MNG, you gotta join. For some reason, I bet you’d be fun to have in a fantasy league.

        2. There was no “spoofer”.

          1. Whatever.

            Is there some reason H&R has become so juvenile as of late? There was a time when this was an actual discussion board, not some place for adolscents to pop in with their one-sentence, substance-less comments and spoofs of Matt Damon. WTF? Maybe reason can make a different site for them, a Reason Jr. or something, and let everyone else have actual discussions?

            1. I have been around longer than you and I don’t remember a time when H&R was free from one-sentence, substance-free hit-and-run comments.

              1. Indeed – if anything, this place has gotten better since I got here in 2003.

              2. It’s almost as if this comment board was called, “Reason: Hit and Run”.

              3. It depends on the article. Every once in a while you have a good discussion, the rest of the time it’s just name-calling.

    3. what is that crap? yahoo plus american football. fuck that 2 ways.

      1. What third-world armpit are you from? We like our sports to destroy our our athlete’s brains in this country, you fucking commie.

        1. If he really is a sailor, it’s likely he’s into wrestling.

          And by wrestling, I mean buttsecks.

          NTTAWWT

          1. I’m not a sailor; I just really like Wild at Heart.

        2. I’m from the US and I think sailor is on to something, you poor excuse for a human being, you!

      2. While yahoo does suck, the ESPN and CBSSports leagues restrict the league size to 10 and 12 people respectively. With yahoo, I can change it up to draft day.

        Oh, and it’s just called “football.”. I think the one you call by that name is what we call soccer.

        1. Yeah, you call it soccer as do most Americans. I call it football. Toss the ball around (wow is it easy to control a pass with your hands rather than your feet) I call american football.

          1. It’s not called football because you hit the ball with your feet, you vomitous cretin, it’s called football because you’re not riding a horse when you play it. Note all the codes of football that require carrying the ball – rugby, Aussie, Celtic, etc.

            With that said, soccer is a lot of fun, but it could use more violence.

            1. Why am I a cretin? And can you tell me more about the etymology of football? I admit that foot v hand attack was lame on my part.

            2. Why am I a cretin? And can you tell me more about the etymology of football? I admit that foot v hand attack was lame on my part.

              1. If you’re going to think I meant it, then I will taunt you a second time, you laughable pantsshitter.

                1. I want my 2nd dose.

              2. “Soccer” is a word deriving from the country that invented the game – England. As the various schools developed rules for football, the “Football Association” emerged as the unifying force to bring football rules under one standard. “Soccer” derives from “Association,” as in “Association [rules] football.”

                The game Americans call football appears (as far as I can tell) to have developed in in American colleges and prep schools in parallel with soccer and rugby. At some point one of the games took on a “carrying” character (as opposed to a “kicking” one) and became much more similar to the rugby rules. Key rule changes like the forward pass (shortly after the turn of the twentieth century) resulted in a significant divergence from rugby football.

                Thus “American” or “gridiron” football keeps the name in America because of the football family of games it was overwhelmingly the dominant one here. Brits and others call soccer football for similar reasons, though soccer remains a British-origin term and is also used in English-speaking countries where another game dominates. (NB: In Australia and New Zealand the national soccer governing bodies have recently attempted to take back the word football. I have no idea how well this attempt has taken root culturally.)

                1. The first recognizable game of “American” football was played by students of the University of Toronto.
                  “1861
                  First documented football game was played at the University of Toronto on the present site of University College (400 yards west of Queen’s Park) on November 9. One of the participants in the game involving University of Toronto students was (Sir) William Mulock, later it’s Chancellor.” http://www.cfl.ca/page/his_timeline_1860

                  1. Anything in North or South America is “American” to me. There would be some confusion, had Brazil or Mexico invented what we call soccer. But since they didn’t, what care I that “American football” may in fact be a fine product of our neighbors in the Great White North? So are a great many of our hit TV series. (I get much amusement out of seeing the SyFy “Alphas” series try to make Canada look like New York and Jersey. Tip to producers: The “Esso” service station in a recently aired chase scene was a dead giveaway.)

                2. It doesn’t help that some MLS teams muddy the waters by adding “FC” to their names.

                  1. A lot of Euro-posing in MLS. Sporting Kansas City and Real Salt Lake being the most egregious.

                    1. A lot of Euro-posing in MLS. Sporting Kansas City and Real Salt Lake being the most egregious.

                      Nothing like a professional sports team in a metro area full of lily-white Mormons affecting hipster cosmopolitan airs.

          2. When I’m in a place where they call it “football,” I’ll call it football. While in ‘Merica, I’m gonna go with soccer.

            I bet you drink PBR for the irony, don’t you?

            1. Good lord people are asses. When I drink PBR it is for the price-taste ratio. When I’m not concerned about the price I drink a terrapin or other craft beer with an actual taste. But yes I think a PBR is a better beer than a Bud or Coors or Miller.

              I actually don’t care what you call it(plenty of other states call it soccer as well) I just wanted to piss on american football.

              1. Trolling hipster is trolling.

                I wish it was Thursday.

                1. I wish it was Thursday.

                  Me, too.

                  1. [golf clap]

              2. If you’re British or French, congratulations. You’re probably the second or third Eurodude I have ever met that said “I/we call it/where I’m from, we call it” instead of “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PMG IT’S FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER WAAAAHAHHAHH”. At least some people respect dialectal differences.

          3. wow is it easy to control a pass with your hands rather than your feet

            Yeah dude, it’s really easy! You just catch it and that’s it!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwiMtGsFHwA

            1. After Reggie gets laid out he looks like a soccer player after a near miss.

              1. COACH I CAN’T BREAFE

            2. Anybody ever watch the World Cup? My god, what a bunch of pussies most of these players are. The American players may not be elite, but at least they don’t act like they just got hit by a car every time they fall on their ass or get a little boo-boo.

    4. Just because you can’t join directly from that page, folks may want to go to the Join League page.

      League ID: 404017

      1. Thanks, dude.

        That doesn’t count as a SF, does it?

        1. No, because Yahoo! makes it hard to find the right page to go to. I like them for fantasy sports once you’ve got it set up, but in general their site is like the anti-SugarFree: links that do work but do not lead anywhere you want to go.

          Also their Japanese home page has be the ugliest corporate site in the developed world. It’s also the most common home page in Japan.

          1. The worse part of Japan is that the culture is sold to America as simple and elegant…but the truth of it is that it is really crazy shit everywhere.

            1. But they did give us Engrish

      2. it’s on

        1. I look forward to it. Just try not to come so close to last place like you did in the March Madness pool.

          /throws down gauntlet

          1. It’s okay. No one really won last April, because that was the worst championship game I’ve ever seen for any sport (in the US).

            1. Thats funny, the scores said I won. 🙂
              But yes we all lost for that poor excuse for a championship game.

              1. ‘Twas the most beautifulest game ever played.

                And I finished tied for first, my man.

    5. Hey sloopyinca

      I can’t sign up, I need to have a league ID number. Can you post that (if you’re still interested in having more folks)?

      Also, are we playing for money?

      1. See above. The league ID is 404017.

        1. No money involved. And yeah, get signed up man.

          If it’s as much fun as the March Madness Reason Tourney, it’ll be a blast.

          There’s only a few people on it. I just opened it up a couple of hours ago. It will be full in a couple of days, though.

    6. Is there even going to be a football season this year?

      1. Yes. They have a new 10-year CBA.

    7. 2 points for blocked kicks? That’s not acceptable.

      1. WTF? I thought I had all the stupid scoring fixed.

        It will be in a few minutes.

  29. If only he had called for the entire federal government to resign. I could get behind that.

  30. Odd; but I’m not gonna check. The only time I’ve gotten multiple responses from my dumb posts is now. Go Soccer/football. Just be sure to raise hell when your city council wants to ‘help’ by using tax payer funds to build a stadium.

  31. Uck it. This damn hipster site:). My freedom is better than yours.

  32. Breaking: anti-police riot in London
    Petrol bombs have been thrown at police and three patrol cars, a bus and buildings have been set on fire in a disturbance in Tottenham, north London.

    The incident began after a protest over the fatal shooting by police of 29-year-old Mark Duggan on Thursday.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e…..n-14434318

    1. More like an excuse to loot and steal riot in north London. Pity that shopkeepers aren’t permitted to be armed there.

      1. Wrong!
        The correct response is, “Anarchy, yeah! Fuck the pigs!”

    2. I had no idea that the riot scene in Harry Brown was so realistic.

  33. Remember, remember the 5th of November

  34. Geithner resigning won’t do much to change the political dynamic in Washington.

    I don’t really see him as the person behind current fiscal policy. This is a political problem caused by the inability of both parties to seriously address entitlement reform.

    1. Honestly, it seems like he’s suffering through things right now because Obama really wants him too, and I’m perfectly okay with that after the AIG fiasco. His life will probably be much easier on 85 Broad.

      We should be cheering for him to stay.

  35. Rand Paul is a fucking idiot who thinks Swedish doctors are enslaved. Who gives a flying fuck what he says?

    1. Oh, just fucking wonderful… Max comes out of his mom’s basement closet just long enough to put a spoonful of sewage in the wine barrel.

    2. Looks like Max struck out on Grindr tonight. No wonder he’s so cranky.

      1. Back to Mom’s basement for him, then.

  36. Five New Orleans police officers found guilty in post-Katrina shootings

    A federal jury Friday found New Orleans police officers guilty of nearly all charges related to shootings that left two dead in one of the darkest stories to emerge from the chaotic days following Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported.

    The shootings took place September 4, 2005, on the east side of the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans. Two people were killed and four were seriously injured.

    Anarcho-libertarian media ignore story. Nothing else happens.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/n…..WdsDSc0pSO

    1. Wow. Congratulations. That’s great news, and I only hope it would happen to all the corrupt cops around the country. What else do you want us to say?

      Unlike shitheads of your ilk, I’m pretty sure everybody here acknowledges that sometimes justice is done, and we won’t ignore it.

    2. Also, I’m fairly certain anarchists are a minority here.

  37. lol, I think ALL of the corrupt politicians need to go.

    http://www.anon-web.it.tc

  38. As I look upon the coming financial apocalypse from the comfort of my well-guarded compound, I can only smile. I will soon be ruling the wasteland with my nitrous-powered Chevy, destroying all before me.

    My only question – small block 383 or big block 454?

    1. btw, at my Northern Base, the waves are lovely and the sand is like powdered sugar.

    2. Since it is nitrous powered, I assume you plan to use it for drag racing. IN that case, go for the big block. The draw back to big blocks are they screw up your handling by putting so much weight up front. But if you are only going in a straight line, that is not an issue. Let the big dog eat!!!

      1. Planning on a big car – perhaps an Impala/Caprice since these days I prefer the protection of the extra weight.

        My old ’86 Monte Carlo SS was lighter and moved quite well with a roller-cammed 355. But that deep bottom end torque wasn’t there – hence my want of a 383 or a big-block.

        1. The other problem with big blocks is that their low end isn’t quite as quick as the small blocks. But the nitrous will take care of that problem.

  39. Larry Summers just said, “Nobody in the administration saw this coming.”

    I missed the part where he offered to return all the money he was paid.

    What’s-‘er-name (CNN) just asked Larry Summers for investment advice; way to do your homework, Jabba.

    1. How can you watch the Sunday talk shows Brooks? i would have to buy a new TV every weekend if I subjected myself to that stupidity.

      1. i would have to buy a new TV every weekend

        Brooks is just doing his part for the economic recovery.

    2. Larry Summers just said, “Nobody in the administration saw this coming.”

      Jesus Christ–if that isn’t enough reason to kick the fuckers out in 2012, then nothing is. Maybe if Obama had spent more time doing real, actual work when he was in the Senate instead of grandstanding for his media fluffers, maybe he would have, you know, SEEN IT COMING. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious to anyone that bothered to do a little digging in the government’s own reports.

  40. The relentless quest for justice by the New Orleans PD.

    The fifth officer convicted Friday, retired Sgt. Arthur “Archie” Kaufman, who was not involved in the shootings but headed the police investigation into them, remains free on bail. Along with the shooters, the jury found Kaufman guilty of every allegation in the indictment about the cover-up, from framing innocent civilians for shooting at police to inventing phony witnesses who said police acted properly to planting a gun and claiming it was used by a civilian on the bridge.

    later

    The Danziger shootings were originally portrayed as a home run for the department, a needed victory in restoring order to a city that had begun to come apart after the storm. But a state grand jury that investigated the shootings didn’t buy the testimony of the involved officers, seven of whom were charged with murder or attempted murder.

    When the “Danziger Seven” turned themselves in at Central Lockup in January 2007, fellow officers joined them in a show of solidarity, patting them on the back and calling them heroes.

    1. This should be a bigger story than it is. But sadly, the media only covers fact that fit the narrative. And the narrative for Katrina has always been “The Darkies Went Berserk Because George Bush Didn’t Care About Them” or some variation thereof. And the only cop on citizen violence that fits any media narrative is white cop shooting black citizen. Black cops pretty much get a free pass to prey on black citizens. This case of innocent peacefully acting people being shot during Katrina fits neither narrative and is thus ignored.

    2. Explain to me why Rodney King, a case where the cops only beat a guy up who was at least breaking the law, was a bigger national story than this case where the cops actually murdered people who were not even breaking the law.

      The answer is, the media only covers those stories that fit their narrative.

      1. Well, that and the fact that the Rodney King beating was the first story of it’s kind that was caught on video, and that video went to the media before it went in an evidence locker.

        1. True. But, that just explains why the King case was a big story. It doesn’t explain why the NOLA case is such a back page story.

          1. I think you nailed it above. Kanye West saying GWB hates black people sells better than the FBI saying black cops hate black “civilians.”

          2. I think you nailed it above. Kanye West saying GWB hates black people sells better than the FBI saying black cops hate black “civilians.”

          3. I don’t think it’s a racial thing, it’s more to do with the fact that the media is much more authoritarian now than it used to be before 9/11. There are shitloads of stories where black people get shot or beaten by white police that are back page news too.

            Remember, the Rodney King fiasco was 20 years ago. Things have changed.

            Remember how much in bed with the Bush administration’s civil rights stomping and invasion lust the media was from 9/12/01 until things really started going to shit in Iraq in 2004. This ain’t your father’s liberal media.

  41. As much as we like to denigrate the Limeys, no Americans rioted or burned down the Sheriff’s HQ in Tucson after Jose Guerena was murdered.

    1. It would be fun to watch the media pants wetting that would occur if a bunch of non minorities rioted and burned down a police station over a death like this. It would be priceless.

      1. “Non-minorities”? That’s an odd way of saying “whites”.

        1. I am not sure white people are even the majority anymore. So I believe the proper term would be “non-minority minorities”. Our current newspeak is an admittedly odd language.

          1. Nationally they are and will be until 2050 at the earliest. You probably feel that it’s already happened because perhaps in the county you live in they already are.

            1. You can bet that people will still consider “minorities” equivalent to “non-whites” when/if whites become a minority (which I have doubts whether it will happen — these types of things have never followed the straight lines that projections do).

          2. And I have a feeling in any event hispancis, like Jews and Italians and Irish will end up being considered white by then anyway. It’s a pretty flexible construct.

            1. I agree. I had a secretary that worked for me a while back. Her father was from El Salvador and her mother was from Mexico. She was born in Milwaukee. Spoke with a total Wisconsin accent. She was married to a German man and had a very German last name. It was funny to see the looks on people’s face who had only spoken to her on the phone when they first say this dark skinned central American woman on the other end of the name and voice. I think she is the future rather than La Raza.

              1. Anyone hiding under their bed about the increasing hispanic population should be forced to visit San Antonio so they calm the fuck down.

                1. I think they’ve switched from worrying about Hispanics to worrying about Sharia law, which is even stupider. We’ll have Spanish as an offical language long before Sharia gets even the camel’s nose under the tent of our legal system.

              2. ” I think she is the future rather than La Raza.”

                I sure hope so. You wouldn’t happen to have any pics of her you could post so we can make up our own mind, do you?

  42. Someone is trolling SWAT teams… ROFL@SWAT WTF@victim

    http://www.thestar.com/news/ca…..ily-s-home

    1. Putting aside for a moment the obvious fact that it shouldn’t be that easy to get a SWAT team sent out, the 19 year old who was arrested for calling out a SWAT team on the couple, ought not see the light of day until he is ready for Social Security. Little rat bastard.

  43. Holy shit. The Reason Hit & Run J sub D Memorial Fantasy Football League went to 10 people really fast. I just bumped it up to 20 players and went to four well-named divisions, so hurry the fuck up if you’ve not yet joined. John is in an early favorite, by the way, for most inappropriate team name. Well played, sir.

    League ID:  404017
    Password:  reason

    Draft is Saturday, August 13 at 2 pm Pacific (5 pm Eastern).

    1. I may be in the early running for biggest pain in the ass, but I just posted a complaint about the Can’t Cut List, as it violates freedom of association.

      1. Yeah, I thought I caught that when I set the league up yesterday. As you can see, it’s been fixed, as well as a few stupid scoring thingies like 2 pts for a blocked kick.

        Also, I added an extra RB/WR/TE to each team’s starting lineup as a bit of a wild card for scoring.

        I wonder if we could get any of the Reason staff to get in on it. I suspect they all have their alter-egos on here anyway, so the chances are good at least one of them will be playing.

  44. Canada’s 1990s downgrade has lessons for U.S

    Back on April 28, 1993, the government of Canada had its credit rating cut by the Canadian Bond Rating Service to AA+ from AAA. The Conservative federal government, running the usual huge deficit at the time, was naturally dismissive of the move, saying that CBRS was only a small ratings agency and that the big New York-based raters would likely not follow suit (yet).

    By 1995, the Liberals had swept back into power, the national debt was peaking at 72 per cent of GDP, and the major international ratings agencies had cut Canada’s sovereign credit rating to AA+ from AAA.

    Canada got back their AAA rating and now has the lowest debt burden in the developed world, and here’s how they did it:

    They cut federal expenditures by 20 per cent, cut 23 per cent of public servants, slashed agricultural subsidies and business subsidies by 40 per cent to 60 per cent, chopped defence spending by 15 per cent, abolished some ministries altogether, and cut transport and science budgets in half.

    Of course, they also hiked Canadian Pension Plan and Employment Insurance taxes – er, “contributions” – and downloaded a ton of federal spending onto the provinces. True, the cause was helped by a rebounding economy (which the U.S. does not quite have at the moment), and as the government cut spending by $14 billion, tax revenues rose by $32 billion, and employment was rising (with the unemployment rate dropping to nine per cent in 1998, from 12 per cent in 1993), which helped by shrinking the welfare rolls and boosting tax revenues.

    Read the whole thing here: http://tinyurl.com/3f5d7hp

    There are some interesting ideas there if anyone in Washington is listening.

    1. The American people are just too stupid to understand the complexities and nuances of economic policy. If they were not so stupid, they would understand that the government can never spend, borrow or tax too much and that no matter how much the country owes, it always pays to borrow more.

      Stop boring me with your simple, bourgeois maths.

      1. I’ve met some pretty dumb Canadians in my time.

      2. I know this is a joke, but the first sentence is true. The American people of 2011 would revolt if you tried to institute a truly free market system in the US.

  45. Debt crisis? What debt crisis?

    Among the costs, of course, is the $388 million, as calculated by the American Association of Airport Executives, in lost revenue from ticket and fuel taxes that the federal government could not collect during the shutdown.

    And there could be the salaries of about 3,960 F.A.A. workers who were forced out of work for two weeks and have not been guaranteed that they will receive back pay.

    The transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, said Friday that “as a matter of fairness, we will also do everything we can to get Congress to provide our furloughed employees with the back pay they deserve.”

    “Fairness”?

    If those people did no work, they deserve no “back pay”, you fucking imbecilic clown. Ray LaHood is reason enough to impeach this President.

    And, if the FAA has ceased providing some array of “vital services” why should the airlines remit the tax?

    1. They should get back pay if it was in their contract.

      1. I think that’s his gripe, Imp. According to LaHood, they are not guaranteed back pay. I’d have to read that as their contract does not stipulate it.

        Fuck those guys. If they did no work and it’s not in their contract, then they should not be paid…out of fairness to the taxpayers.

    2. There are countless reasons to impeach the usurper, but not even the most serious have attracted calls to such action, so Ray LaHood sure as shit won’t be it, either.

    3. Does the government get the back taxes that weren’t collected? Some airlines continued to collect the taxes while others, like Spirit, immediately passed the saving on to the consumer.

  46. Senator Paul is being too soft. He should be calling for the resignations of Obama, Biden, the ENTIRE CABINET, all 99 of his Senate colleagues, and every member of the House except his father.

  47. But that deep bottom end torque wasn’t there – hence my want of a 383 or a big-block.

    Quit fucking around, then; put a 500 Cadillac in it.

    And yes- LaHood seems to be operating under the misapprehension that “if anybody gets ice cream, everybody should get ice cream.”

    There were, in fact, a small number of employees who were asked to continue working; they should unquestionably be paid. The ones on vacation, too bad.

    1. Quit fucking around, then; put a 500 Cadillac in it.

      Blasphemy!!!!! 429SCJ all the way.*

      *Unless you somehow come across a 429 Boss, in which case I will gladly kiss your ass. No Homo.

  48. Debt crisis? What debt crisis?

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday of dire consequences if the Pentagon is forced to make cuts to its budget beyond the $400 billion in savings planned for the next decade.

    “We’re already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough,” Panetta told reporters in his first news conference as defense secretary. “I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense.”

  49. Senior Pentagon officials have launched an offensive over the past two days to convince lawmakers that further reductions in Pentagon spending would imperil the country’s security. Instead of slashing defense, Panetta said, the bipartisan panel should rely on tax increases and cuts to nondiscretionary spending, such as Medicare and Social Security, to provide the necessary savings.

    “We have put our budget under the microscope, and there is simply nothing left to cut. We have cut this budget to the bone; TO THE BONE, I tell you!”

    The Pentagon can barely keep its doors open.

    1. Shorter the Pentagon: But we NEEEEEEED those expensive super-weapons! Because uh…SHUT UP, why do you hate America?

    2. Senior Pentagon officials have launched an offensive over the past two days…

      I thought they were calling it a “kinetic budget action.” I guess Leon didn’t get the memo.

      1. I dunno. I find that to be truth in advertising: their actions are pretty offensive to ME.

    3. Hey, if they can convince Congress to finally tackle entitlements, I’m fine with that.

      It mgiht actually be a very good strategy to get EVERYONE except the AARP lined up against entitlements. Get the DOD, the environmentalists, teachers, farmers, artists, scientists, foreign aid advocates. Anyone who has any stake in discretionary spending. Get them ALL on board on an entitlement reform campaign. because we know that without entitlement reform there isn’t going to be any money for anyone else.

  50. Last one (probably):

    Debt crisis? What debt crisis?

    Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under government conservatorship, reported a $2.9 billion second-quarter loss on Friday and said it would seek $5.1 billion in Treasury Department aid to balance its books. Fannie Mae requested the money to eliminate a net worth deficit of $5.1 billion for the three-month period that ended June 30, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by the company

  51. “Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, I lost my allowance at the roulette table. Can I have another 5 billion dollars?”

  52. Geithner may be wrong about a great many things. He may even be, as Paul implies, incompetent. What he is not is culpable for the downgrade. The blame for that rests on Congress.

    1. Strictly on Congress? Obama didn’t have a stake in this? And who advises Obama?

      1. Obama called for a level of deficit reduction ($4T, in April) that would have mollified the S&P, had Congress not given such a grand display of dysfunction.

        1. “Obama called for a level of deficit reduction ($4T, in April) that would have mollified the S&P,…”

          So you think Obama’s PR campaign might have fooled S&P?

          1. I think that if Congress had passed something similar to what Obama suggested without all the public in-fighting then the downgrade would not have happened.

            1. Shorter buddyglass:
              ‘We might have fooled some folks if everyone put on a smiley-face’
              Fail.

              1. Well, for one, Obama’s suggestion involved a larger deficit reduction than what eventually passed. $4T vs. $2.5T.

                Also, the S&P basically announced what congress had to do in order to keep them happy: $4T in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. Congress didn’t do that. It also behaved in such a way that deteriorated S&P’s confidence in its legislative ability as a whole.

                I can only suppose that if congress had passed $4T worth of deficit reduction and done so in a matter-of-fact way that the S&P would have been pacified. This would not have meant “fooling” them.

  53. I agree!!!!!
    How about Obama resigning also while they’re at it?

  54. When are you conservatives gonna take responsibility for the mess you’ve caused. You’ve controlled at least 1 branch of the FedGov for all BUT 4 years since your god Ronnie was elected. You’ve controlled 2 branches for 18 of those years and all 3 for 6, in which you doubled the national debt. And Bush’s last budget had a $1.4 trillion deficit.

    This whole debt ceiling crisis was political gamesmanship by the Republicans and yes, Oboma caved once again. Obama’s biggest problem is he keeps giving into the republicans and getting nothing in return.

      1. Seems so.

        Poor grasp of the difference between conservative and libertarian.

        Probably thinks the US is a democracy.

    1. Re: Neil Rotten… Sorry, Rotter,

      You’ve controlled at least 1 branch of the FedGov for all BUT 4 years since your god Ronnie was elected. You’ve controlled 2 branches for 18 of those years and all 3 for 6, in which you doubled the national debt. And Bush’s last budget had a $1.4 trillion deficit.

      Please send your rant to an actual conservative blog.

      This whole debt ceiling crisis was political gamesmanship by the Republicans[…]

      And only because it was the Repubs. If it had been the Dems, then you would have labeled them all as patriots, I’d fancy.

  55. Mike Huckabee recently called for Obama to make The Donald Secretary of the Treasury. This is the same Donald that declared bankruptcy 3 times.

  56. The downgrade is nothing more than a show put up by S&P to justify tax increases so we – the suckers – pay for the profligacy. The people that populate S&P, Moody’s and others have a stake on the banksters’ game just like their Wall Street buddies.

    1. ^^^^ this ^^^^

    2. While the ratings agencies lost credibility in 2008 and I’m not sure what exactly they’ve done to regain it, a sensible approach to debt reduction (which means including ending handouts to the rich) is not part of a nefarious conspiracy.

      You guys are entitled to your silly little dogma, but don’t pretend that being against raising taxes ever, under any circumstances, is the reasonable position.

      1. YES!

  57. Considerably, the story is in reality the greatest on this noteworthy topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly watch forward to your next updates. Saying nice one will not just be sufficient, for the wonderful clarity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates!
    This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article.

  58. economic fluctuations are irregular and unpredictable always! so yes in one way it could have been preventable by applying this “Cut Cap and Balance Plan” but you never really know what your exactly dealing with besides rising and falling prices from this unknown number. and that whole “welcome to recovery” speech was a bunch of bull! horrible ethics if you ask me…

  59. Sounds like a plan to me dude. WOw.

    http://www.anon-web.it.tc

  60. It really should be called the S&P’s Marxist-Progressive-Leftist-Liberal-Democrat-Obama Downgrade Of America.

    Collapsing the economy, creating anarchy and starting a civil war has always been the goal of the marxists plotting to destroy the American Dream and marxist Barry Obama is no exception. Obama’s marxist college professors, Cloward and Piven, were quite forthright in their efforts to formulate a method to collapse the economy to destroy America and usher in a marxist tyranny of slavery and death.

    “The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

    Our Manchurian President is simply a treasonous usurper partying, vacationing and golfing as his marxist plan of destruction unfolds. Obama and his pals are TERRORISTS destroying YOUR Nation and future.

    It’s time to wake up America and do something about it!

    http://smashabanana.blogspot.com

  61. Every one of those lying, fake, puppet rhinos and liberals need to be ran out on a damn rail!! and Ben Benbernake should be the first one in line to go too! Fire them ALL!

  62. Testing somthing, please ignore

    The first link (with name) is Bleak House: 1936. Greene County, Georgia, circa 1936. “Ruined house, Penfield vicinity.” 8×10 inch acetate negative by Frances Benjamin Johnston.

    Another test.
    The second Dark Shadows: 1936. Greene County, Georgia, circa 1936. “Ruined house, Penfield vicinity.” A close-up of the decaying manse seen earlier here. Tendril by creeping tendril, the vines stake their claim. 8×10 negative by Frances Benjamin Johnston.

    finally the last. A random one for a third link. Hattie and the Cat: 1925. Washington, D.C., circa 1925. “Mrs. Thaddeus Caraway and cat.” The cat’s accomplishments are lost to history, but Hattie Caraway went on to become a two-term U.S. Senator, the first woman ever elected to that office.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.