US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

Did you read the commenters' first sentence?

"It's also as if you don't understand the purpose of the government of the United States. " classic line there

yeah the guy (josh barro) is not exactly popular over there right now, which makes me think he's probably more right than wrong

i mean:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/270390/we-dont-need-balance-budget-ever-josh-barro

I still don't think Obama will let it get that far. He'll blink and give Cantor what he wants before there's a debt limit crisis

That is extremely interesting and has things I hadn't thought of in it. I was just trying to get across to my mom how government borrowing/fiscal operations aren't like personal or household ones, and that guy makes some points I wish I'd used.

yeah, a government doesn't die in 70-some years, is the big one!

I was thinking more about markets, money/valuations of things such that the money gets "moved around" without actually existing, and so on, but the whole "not saving for retirement" thing is WAY more basic and grasp-able.

a conservative on one of the other websites i visit

No tax increases were a precondition for the talks. That the talks will fail because the Democrats now insist on raising taxes is no big surprise. Got gold?

How higher taxes are awesome, sez Bruce Bartlett.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llxzboNVHC1qbhetko1_400.gif
eric cantor, today

Better late than never, I guess. If only he had thought this decades ago. I still will never forgive Bartlett for his role in the Reagan administration and for helping to draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which ultimately formed the basis of Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut. Bartlett's book, "Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action" appeared in 1981

that's a x-post.

I pointed that out in my blog a couple of days ago after Bartlett's appearance on the Lawrence O'Donnell show.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/full_indictment_undermines_threat_of_voter_imperso.php

this is very deep in the weeds, but important in 2012: basically one of the right's big voter-suppression "election integrity" experts is totally full of shit -- references ancient grand jury evidence in support of very tight voter ID laws, won't respond to requests to see that evidence, when found independently it does not say what he says it does. ladies and gentlemen, one of my least favorite people in american public life right now, Hans A. Von Spakovsky.

remember that the alberto gonzales scandal was a vote-rigging scheme writ large. US attys who did not play ball in launching specious lawsuits vs vulnerable dems on karl rove's timetable were cashiered and replaced by ideologues.

the "voter fraud" meme is among the most repellent and awful in the whole sphere of right-wing memes, imo

which is saying something!

“We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt-reduction proposal,”

http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/914251be389f0a17257ebc496e5022907b0ade4.jpg

yeah, that's why _i_ didn't bother to show up for the talks, y'know?

anyone talking about the fact that same-sex marriage may be legal in NY as of tonight?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-conservative-party-chairman-predicts-passage-gay-marriage-bill_575521.html

i guess they're finally going to vote on it tonight?

yeah, and ppl think it's going to pass

NYT lede

The State Senate will vote on a same-sex marriage bill, a top senator said, setting the stage for a final decision on the most closely watched issue facing the Legislature.

cuomo has to sign it?

oh actually that's probably referring to the fact that the bill still has to pass - as far as we know we're still a vote short in the senate

cuomo will obv sign it since if it passes it's almost entirely due to him

xp maybe. weirdly described tho. the vote won't set the stage for a final decision. the vote IS the final decision (unless NYT doesn't want to be presumptuous about assuming what cuomo will do?)

yeah i know i was jokin xp

maybe it's just weird syntax - the fact that a vote will occur 'sets the stage' for possible passage

idk lol

i'm heading out but if anyone wants to watch it, gawker has a link to the live feed here http://gawker.com/5815436/new-york-state-senate-to-vote-on-gay-marriage-tonight

looks like they're voting now

yay!

it passed!

I'm not sure I'm following this correctly, but it looks like it passed 36-26. xp

wow!

that was just the amendents package fyi

so dont go gay marry anyone yet

too late.

^^^already regretting this

fuckin diaz tho

we're registered at cinnabon btw

you should tell me shit like that, big boy

fuckin diaz tho

― jag goo (k3vin k.), Friday, June 24, 2011 7:03 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Already playing Madonna's "Who's That Girl" and making kissy faces.

This is going to take all weekend if every one of these guys ignores the 2 minute limit.

okay now let's party

ok, the actual vote-vote passes 33-29

xp yay!

actually proud of my state legislature for once :)

Empire Shame
June 24, 2011 6:20 P.M.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez

The New York State senate appears to be moving the marriage bill to the floor, with agreement on still-weak religious protections. (You may want to give your representatives a Friday-night holler.)

They also happen to be redefining marriage in it.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan calls it a “a real David and Goliath battle.”

david & goliath must be wondering now why they've been forced to fuck each other