Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below

***

Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude

 

Alumni:
Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1

 

KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

Powered by Squarespace
« Teacher Tells Student He Could Be Arrested For Being Critical Of Obama | Main | Obama Camp Tried To Silence Rev. Wright In 2008 »
Friday
May182012

Weekend Open Thread

The race is on! Mudslinging, lies and finger pointing has begun! Gotta love it.

Hey, did you hear about the West Virginia prison inmate that trounced Obama in the primary?

Anyway, thread's open.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (62)

May 18, 2012 at 17:51 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli
May 18, 2012 at 19:49 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

A massive anti-Rush protest, flooding the streets with... er... seven (7) angry NOW types. Wow.

May 18, 2012 at 20:17 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

You know you cruise the Friday night blogs & news sites and I'm sorry one can't help the conclusion that Obama is fu*ked. There are those months that elections turn and in hindsight you knew it but weren't sure? In 2008 it was September 2008 for McCain. For Obama it was May 2012. He's done.

May 18, 2012 at 21:42 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

TM - Did you see the polls this week with Rassmussin calling it Obama +2 and Foxnews calling it Obama +7.

Yeps. That Obama sure is fucked.

Oh wait, you mean to tell me they didn't report those polls on Drudge?

May 20, 2012 at 23:34 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Kwawk;

I saw the poll. Any poll that merely uses "registered voters" isn't worth the time of day. No matter if has Obama down seven points or up seven points. I'm actually surprised Fox commissioned the poll using registered voters. The accurate polls are those that use "likely voters."

There is a sense that the ‘magic’ is gone from Barry and the incompetent, narcissistic sides of him are coming out in 2012. It was inevitable voter would see it. Look at the economy.

May 21, 2012 at 06:49 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The desperation within the ranks of the Obamatons is striking. See Grayrider's article about the crazed teacher. That nutty teacher is in a panic, thinking that her Lightbringer might lose, to the point that she loses any connection with rationality.

May 21, 2012 at 07:03 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

News Headline of the Day: "Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” (Associated Press)

My follow up question the article author CHARLES BABINGTON: In what currency is the Obama Administration paying you?

May 21, 2012 at 07:19 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

TM - It's way to early in the election cycle to be parsing between registered and likely voters.

Mach - It's a fair question to ask. What has the GOP done in the past year and a half to get the economy moving forward?

May 21, 2012 at 07:47 | Registered Commenterkwawk

It's a fair question to ask.

No, it's a laughable suggestion.

What has the GOP done in the past year and a half to get the economy moving forward?

Here's some of the bills the House has passed that have yet to be taken up of the Dem-controlled Senate.

May 21, 2012 at 08:11 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

kwawk;

So polls taking a snap shot of elections that use "likely voters" are less useful just because the elections are six-months off? The election being six months off has nothing to do with the accuracy of "likely voters" vs. "registered voters", that ship has sailed. Candidates will be up/down but using a poll with "registered voters" will never give you an accurate sense of that pitch n' roll.

May 21, 2012 at 08:24 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Mach - Great it's a listing of bills. I see a lot of deregulation type bills, but which one of these bills would you argue would result in a short term boost for the economy?

TM - Near an election the likely voter model will be better able to predict the actual result of the election. Further out from an election a registered voter model will better show the potential for each candidate in the coming election. Taking the Rasmussen and Foxnews polls together the data would indicate that if the election were held today Obama wins +2, but given excitement and strong turnout for the election the potential is there for an Obama victory +7.

This shows that the momentum of the election is on Obama's side if he can harness it.

May 21, 2012 at 10:21 | Registered Commenterkwawk

kwawk;

Your familiar with the phrase garbage in, garbage out? Your "clinging" to a poll universally regarded as inaccurate reminds me a little of Dan Rather’s axiom the "documents are fake but accurate." Build whatever election funeral pyre you choose off that "registered voter" data. Knock yourself out. LOL

May 21, 2012 at 10:31 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

There is nothing inaccurage about the poll TM, it just shows something different than what you're trying to use it for. To be inaccurate you'd have to show that the poll doesn't represent a true estimation of how registered voters feel about the election.

May 21, 2012 at 10:35 | Registered Commenterkwawk

kwawk;

How they "feel" and who'll they "vote" for are two different things. Registered voters don't vote at near the levels that likely voters do. Therefore building a projection off a data set that isn't likely to be accurate due to its lower numbers is meaningless.

May 21, 2012 at 10:41 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The footsteps you hear behind you, kwAwk, represent the fact you don't want to face, that Obama is a sitting president and Romney isn't even the opposition nominee yet. Wait until fall.

May 21, 2012 at 10:41 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

I see a lot of deregulation type bills, but which one of these bills would you argue would result in a short term boost for the economy?

Any of them if they provide some relief for businesses from the cost of regulatory compliance, particularly the one's focused on energy and the EPA.

May 21, 2012 at 10:42 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Mach - Businesses are sitting on piles of cash right now. Giving them more funds won't spur demand which is what will lead to GDP growth. Here's a thought for you. When Reagan was elected in 1980 his contention was that we'd spent too much time focusing on the demand side of the economy, workers and consumers, which he said was hurting the economy so we needed to focus on the supply side.

Thirty two years later we've been focusing almost exclusively on the supply side. It should be reasonable at this point t to say that we've gone to far and spent too much time focusing on the supply side. Except the right keeps insisting that what we need is more supply side economics.

TM - Trying to determine who is a likely voter 6 months out from an election is a fallacy.

Red - Not really. I'm not particularly worried about this election. The more Republican voters got to know Mitt Romney the less they liked him. In fact they kept trying to take the nomination away from him but he was simply able to out spend everyone else. He won't have the same advantage against Obama.

May 21, 2012 at 10:56 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Businesses are sitting on piles of cash right now.

Large businesses and corporations perhaps...small businesses, not so much.

May 21, 2012 at 11:07 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Golly... I had NO idea I was sitting on a pile of cash. Here I am, thinking my business is barely scraping by, unable to expand the way I'd like it to do, because our customers have been forced to cut back on their buying.

How does that work, with a reduced sales figure causing piles of cash to accumulate? I need to look into that. Apparently, I'm missing something.

May 21, 2012 at 11:08 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

KwAwk, you're missing a key element here. Cash piles or not, businesses don't want to invest in ventures that may be stifled by rogue EPA administrators, oppressive red tape, etc. These things are Obama's stock-in-trade, not that the man has even a faint acquaintance with the world of trade, never having run so much as a lemonade stand or a paper route in his entire useless and unproductive life.

Would you invest in a local gas station, if you had the idea that city regulators might zone it out of existence?

May 21, 2012 at 11:20 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Thirty two years later we've been focusing almost exclusively on the supply side. It should be reasonable at this point t to say that we've gone to far and spent too much time focusing on the supply side. Except the right keeps insisting that what we need is more supply side economics.

Yes, we've done almost nothing to bump up demand, except spending nearly a trillion $'s in 'stimulus'.

/eyeroll

May 21, 2012 at 11:25 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Leftists are completely blind to the economic principles of the free market. Despite all the successes of freedom, and the universal failures of statism, they continue to push on the pull door, as if some day it will magically open.

May 21, 2012 at 11:37 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Golly... I had NO idea I was sitting on a pile of cash. Here I am, thinking my business is barely scraping by, unable to expand the way I'd like it to do, because our customers have been forced to cut back on their buying.

Hmmm... so is what we're saying here is that we've spent the past 12 years giving tax cuts to big business and the wealthy, who in turn are not using it to invest in new businesses, hiring workers and paying higher wages, and instead sitting on piles of cash while small businesses and middle and lower class families are feeling pinched and having to cut back on spending, and government is having to cut back on programs to benefit the middle and lower classes?

Might not the solution then be that we need to tax big business and the wealthy to shift the economic gains back to the middle and lower classes?

May 21, 2012 at 11:41 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Might not the solution then be that we need to tax big business and the wealthy to shift the economic gains back to the middle and lower classes?

Economics is not a zero-sum game. Try again.

May 21, 2012 at 11:52 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

KwAwk, are you REALLY that far out of touch with reality, or are you just pretending?

The Eveeel Rich, the targeted "1%" that your #Occupy buddies hate so much, are paying 39% of the total income tax collected. In 1980, they paid 19%. Now, explain how doubling their tax burden is giving them a tax break.

May 21, 2012 at 11:59 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Economics is not a zero-sum game, yet it is a game of incentives and disincentives. Right now, as we've discussed, the incentives in our economy are for the wealthy and big business to hoard and stockpile, cash and profits, while all other segments of society are seeing flat if not declining income growth and spending.

The theory behind trickle down economics was that if you created a system where taxes were lowered on the wealthy and big business, that the income would trickle down to the lower classes. But we've seen that this hasn't happened, shouldn't we reverse some of the trickle down economics to see what happenes?

May 21, 2012 at 12:10 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Red - They're paying so much more of the tax burden now simply because they have so much more of the income.

May 21, 2012 at 12:11 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Oh and Red, what was the effect of the Bush Tax cuts on the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1%?

May 21, 2012 at 12:13 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Oh and Red, what was the effect of the Bush Tax cuts on the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1%?

Well, considering the Lightbringer and the Wookie are on their way down the electoral toilet, I'd say let's wait and see, given that those are gonna pass again, anyway.

That's what I love about Obama...the colossal prick certainly knows how to vote when it comes to his wallet.

May 21, 2012 at 12:29 | Unregistered CommenterMy Sharia Moor

Economics is not a zero-sum game, yet it is a game of incentives and disincentives.

Incentive/disincentive is the game of the social engineer. It's this principle applied to economics that has brought us to the sorry state of crony capitalism and picking winners and losers.

May 21, 2012 at 13:00 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

KwAwk, one more inconvenient fact for you, in answer to your question. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% paid 37% of total income tax. After the cuts, 39%.

Just in case you now want to retreat into another totally fabricated leftist myth, that the rich pay a smaller percentage of their massive incomes than the rest of us do, forget that as well. The top 1% earn around 25% of the total income, and still pay 39% of the income tax.

I know, I know, those awful facts really interfere with the whole class warfare narrative, but that can't be helped.

May 21, 2012 at 13:14 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

I know, I know, those awful facts really interfere with the whole class warfare narrative, but that can't be helped.

Yeah, Red and Mach, I know you guys totally pwn'd kwawk from a couple of points of view, but I tore a page out of Andrew's book and decided to just remind the lil' guy that no matter what he says he believes, il Douche will be sure to make nice with the very job creators kwawk despises.

In other words, the left is already dead...the great unwashed just can't bring themselves to breathe into a mirror.

May 21, 2012 at 13:29 | Unregistered CommenterMy Sharia Moor

"TM - Trying to determine who is a likely voter 6 months out from an election is a fallacy."

LOL, I guess Gallop for the last 50 years doesn't know what their doing.

May 21, 2012 at 13:44 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Red - Nothing inconvenient about it for me. The Bush Tax Cuts gave significant tax breaks to wealthy in real terms, but as a percentage of income, the share of taxes they paid went up. Now they're back demanding more tax cuts because they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. It's circular reasoning, can't you see it?

That's how Bush sold the tax cuts in the first place, if you remember correctly. Democrats pointed out that the lions share of actual tax cut dollars went to the rich, but the Bushies rebutted that by saying that the percentage of the cut for the wealthy was smaller than for everybody else.

And also Red, the income tax is not the only tax that is paid in this country. People besides the top 1% do pay taxes.

Think of it this way. You have 100 people in a room and 100 Oreos for a snack for everybody in the room. People in the room decide that 25% of Oreos must be given up to pay for use of the room. The Oreos are divided the way income is distributed in the US and the allocation of the Oreo room fee would be based upon our progressive tax code.

In that circumstance what you'd have is 1 person would recieve 25 Oreos while the other 99 split the remaining 75. Of those Oreos the 1 percenter would be asked to contribute 9.75 Oreos while the other 99 would contribute 14.25 leaving the 1 percenter with 16.25 for himself and the other 99 would split 60.75.

So one person has 16.25 Oreos to himself and 99 people get on average of 0.61 Oreos each and the person who whines the loudest about how unfair he is being persecuted is the guy with 16.25 Oreos.

Mach - Economics is nothing if not the study of how people make choices given scarce resources. Guns or Butter as they say.

May 21, 2012 at 13:57 | Registered Commenterkwawk

TM - And nobody at Gallup would argue that a poll being conducted in May can in any way predict what will happen in November. Polls in May can only be used to assess trends and the where things stand in May. Otherwise they wouldn't need to spend all that money polling in June, July, August, September, October and November.

May 21, 2012 at 14:00 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Bad math. The 99 percent would contribute 16.25 Oreos to the room cost leaving them with 58.75 to split among the 99 which would give on average of 0.59 Oreos each.

And the 1 percenter would still have 16.25.

May 21, 2012 at 14:17 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Mach - Economics is nothing if not the study of how people make choices given scarce resources. Guns or Butter as they say.

Sounds like you're getting into Cass Sunstein's soft paternalism territory. Why not just leave people to make their own economic choices based on rational self-interest?

May 21, 2012 at 14:28 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

"9th Circuit to hold a conference in Hawaii this August that they said could run up a tab of $1 million or more, and includes a schedule of sport fishing, yoga, surfing lessons and Zumba dancing lessons."

The left's new mantra is that we've tried 'austerity' and it's just to darn hard. Never mind the huge explosion in spending the last 3.5 years it's laughable that they would take this track. Again, the left's leaden touch with "Zumba" and "surf lessons" while we have10% unemployment and a recessionary economy is legendary for it stupidity.

May 21, 2012 at 14:35 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Mach - Anybody who believes that people always act in their own rational self interest has never met a crack head. And also the fact that rational self interests compete and a person with $1 billion has much more power to force their own self interest on others.

Red - To go back to your gas station example. I'd bet that most gas stations right here and now are experiencing at or near record revenues. I know I'm spending more on gas than I ever have in my life. The problem is that expenses are at an all time also as the people on the top of the industry, such as Exxon-Mobile and OPEC, have rigged the system so that most of the profits are taken by them and by Wall Street speculators.

May 21, 2012 at 14:45 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Mach - Anybody who believes that people always act in their own rational self interest has never met a crack head.

And anyone who's ever met a crackhead and thought he could save him with enough government teat access probably shouldn't be allowed to vote on how much to steal from my paycheck.

May 21, 2012 at 14:50 | Unregistered CommenterMy Sharia Moor

Mach - You need to get over this idea of taxes as stealing. There isn't an industrialized, civilized country in the world that doesn't impose taxes on it's people.

May 21, 2012 at 14:55 | Registered Commenterkwawk

KwAwk, Machiavelli has never argued that taxes are not necessary. Please stop distorting his words to fit your pre-constructed and intellectually vacant strawman narratives.

May 21, 2012 at 15:08 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Okay Red. It appears that Mach is arguing that the taxes which he thinks aren't necessary aren't necessary. The ones which he thinks are necessary apparently are.

May 21, 2012 at 15:14 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Okay Red. It appears that Mach is arguing that the taxes which he thinks aren't necessary aren't necessary. The ones which he thinks are necessary apparently are.

It's not my comment you're responding to.

May 21, 2012 at 15:31 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

The left's new mantra is that we've tried 'austerity' and it's just to darn hard.

False. What we ACTUALLY say is that we (and the Europeans) have tried austerity and it doesn't work. And that's not really debatable. When there's slack or no demand, reducing demand isn't helpful.

Machiavelli has never argued that taxes are not necessary.

Actually, you yourself likened them to thievery.

May 21, 2012 at 15:33 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

Winston, you very well know that you are doing exactly what kwAwk was doing. Not sure who you think you're fooling.

May 21, 2012 at 15:45 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Giving up on austerity is rather like saying that since bailing water out of a boat is taking too long, we should drill a hole in the bottom to let the water run out faster.

May 21, 2012 at 15:56 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Or perhaps just admitting that baling out the boat ain't working so perhaps we should consider patching the hole until we reach shore.

May 21, 2012 at 16:04 | Registered Commenterkwawk

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>