Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

Shazza — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:18:37 -0000

Did anyone hear Rev. Al's commentary this morning? He was on fire! He talked about people not supporting PBO because of his opinion on gay marriage. It was great!
http://www.blackamericaweb.com...

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Wizznilliam — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:44:24 -0000

" Has ANYONE on this thread said why it's OK to just take the parts of the Bible you agree with and ignore the parts you don't? "

No they have not. It has been asked several times but never answered. The only thing resembling an answer has been something along the lines of, "You would not believe me even if I told you"... Or something like that. It is a waste of time trying to introduce any kind of logic to people who either don't get or don't want to get it.

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:41:21 -0000

Obamacare repeal would cost insurers $1 trillion

Posted by Sarah Kliffat 03:53 PM ET, 05/15/2012

Next month, America’s health insurance plans may lose $1 trillion in revenue.

It won’t have anything to do with a business deal gone awry, or No Obamacare? That would cost health insurers $1 trillion. (Alex Wong - Getty Images) Americans dropping health coverage during the recession. Instead, $1 trillion is the amount of revenue that health insurance plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. The Court is expected to issue its opinion in late June
The figure comes from Bloomberg Government, where number crunchers have taken a look at what happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act and its expected expansion of health care coverage to 32 million Americans. They find that, should the Affordable Care Act be found unconstititional, insurance companies will lose $1 trillion in revenue between 2013 and 2020.

To put that in perspective, $1 trillion accounts for about 9 percent of all revenue that health insurers are expected to earn in the same period. It’s one-half of a percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Add up the annual revenues of America’s five largest banks - Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Wachovia and U.S. Bancorp- and you’re still about $500 billion short of what health plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court decides against Obamacare.
“It’s the sheer size of the number that was startling,” says Bloomberg Government health care analyst Matt Barry. “I don’t know if people fully appreciate the stakes involved here. It’s not just politics - there’s a lot of money, and a lot to lose.”

The majority of that loss - $880 billion - would be from the 16 million Americans expected to purchase coverage on the individual market. Two-thirds of that revenue would be in the form of federal subsidies, for low- and middle-income Americans to purchase coverage. The rest would come from individuals, responsible for whatever part of the premium subsidies do not cover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Clear&PresentDanger — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:31:53 -0000

"Has ANYONE on this thread said why it's OK to just take the parts of the Bible you agree with and ignore the parts you don't?"

A similar question comes to my mind, Prof, when I see posts from ardent supporters of abortion. I always wonder how the explanations by a person who has had an abortion (or several) will fly when queried by St Peter, et al.

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Ivan Ivanovich Renko — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:30:51 -0000

Why not? My own son-in-law is a stay-at-home Dad and my daughter is uniformed servicemember who wrenches aircraft every day. Is this also an unacceptable arrangement?

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:20:11 -0000

Volcker To Dimon: Just Give Up Your Banking License And We’re Cool (VIDEO)

Brian Beutler-May 16, 2012, 1:22 PM2104

How’s this for serendipity?

Just a couple weeks before Jamie Dimon announced publicly that his banking firm JPMorgan had lost a stunning $2 billion betting with depositor funds, he took to Fox News to criticize the Volcker Rule, meant to ban federally backstopped banks from engaging in proprietary trading.
Bill Moyers invited former Fed chairman Paul Volcker — the architect of the rule — to respond:

You’ve got great advantages if you’re a government regulated bank,” Volcker explained. “Take the two big remaining investment banks — used to call them investment banks — Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Both during the crisis got a banking license. Why’d they get a banking license? They wanted the protection of the government in the middle of the crisis. Now the crisis is over, if they want to do proprietary trading, they want to do a lot of other things, it’s very simple: give up their banking license.”

This was back in April, but takes on greater significance now. JPM’s losses appear small enough that they won’t need the government to step in and cover them. But the idea behind the Volcker Rule is that federally insured banks shouldn’t be making these kinds of bets at all — because when the bets go spectacularly bad, it falls to taxpayers to cover them.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:13:56 -0000

File this under:
NOBODY IS PLAYING WITH YOU, WILLARD.

................................

Mitt's Miami vice

Wed May 16, 2012 12:30 PM EDT.

The first hint of trouble came early this morning, when Mitt Romney's campaign team told journalists there would be no questions for the candidate today. (One reporter responded, "Isn't that our decision?")
But the problem intensified when the Republican appeared in Miami, and relied on staff and volunteers to physically prevent reporters from approaching a rope line and asking the candidate questions.
As a rule, media professionals don't respond well to heavy-handed tactics that prevent journalists from doing their jobs.

It's worth noting that some reporters were able to work their way to the candidate anyway -- Romney ignored all questions -- but why in the world would the campaign suddenly get so aggressive about shielding the candidate? Perhaps because of headlines like this one, which ran on the Miami Herald's website this morning.

Welcome to FL, Mitt. Now why did Bain Capital lay off so many people in Miami?

As Mitt Romney returns to Florida on Wednesday for two days of campaigning and money-raising, Democrats are trying to ensure Floridians keep two words in mind: Dade Behring.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com...

Of course, if I had a private-sector background like this, I might not want to take questions from reporters, either.

In advance of Mitt Romney's fundraising swing through Florida [Wednesday], Democrats are highlighting one of the business ventures of Bain Capital while Romney was in charge: Dade Behring, which, saddled with debt, wound up shuttering two medical technologies facilities in Miami. Some 850 jobs were lost, while Bain walked away with $242-million -- an 800 percent return on its investment

The Dade Behring case has been well-documented, but here's a new wrinkle: The company under Bain's leadership sought and received millions of dollars in tax breaks for creating jobs in Puerto Rico - shortly before closing it's facilities, costing nearly 300 jobs.

The company in 1997 received a $3-million federal tax break aimed to promoting job creation in Puerto Rico. It also received a $4.1-million tax exemption from Puerto Rick in 1997 in the name of job creation. Dade ceased its operations in Puerto Rico in the first quarter of 1998.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.co...

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:03:06 -0000

Trying to rationalize bigotry
Steve Benen

Wed May 16, 2012 1:32 PM EDT

As Rachel explained on the show last night, Tracy Thorne-Begland was set to become a Virginia judge before state Republican lawmakers rejected him. Thorne-Begland is a state prosecutor, a father, and a former Top Gun fighter pilot, and his nomination enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship, but the GOP rejected him anyway.

By all appearances, this was as plain an example of bigotry towards a judicial nominee as we've seen in a while: Thorne-Begland is gay, so Republicans blocked him from becoming a state judge.

But Virginia Republicans can explain this. The GOP didn't reject Thorne-Begland because he's gay, they argue; the GOP rejected Thorne-Begland because he believes in gay rights.

"He holds himself out as being married," said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is running for U.S. Senate. Noting that gay marriage is not legal in Virginia, he said that Thorne-Begland's "life is a contradiction to the requirement of submission to the constitution." [...]

Marshall, the Family Foundation of Virginia and others who raised concerns about Thorne-Begland's nomination said they did not object to him because he is gay, but because of his outspokenness on the subject of gay rights.

Ah, I see. Because Thorne-Begland has stated opinions about civil rights issues, he's necessarily unqualified to be a judge.

Or as Adam Serwer put it, "[I]t's not, strictly speaking, correct to say Thorne-Begland was rejected because he was gay. He was rejected because he believes being gay entitles him to the same rights as people who aren't."

If Thorne-Begland had been gay and remained silent on whether other gays should be treated as first-class citizens in the Commonwealth, he'd presumably be fitted for his judicial robes today.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.co...

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:02:44 -0000

Good Afternoon, Everyone :)

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Ivan Ivanovich Renko — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:47:23 -0000

If you believe that, then you believe the rights of the minority are subject to the whims of whatever state.

How is that any different from the State decreeing that black people should live segregated lives?

If they can be denied by the State, they're not rights, they are "privileges" to be granted or rescinded by the state...

You support second class citizenship for some, whilst forgetting that the same thing was done to our fathers and grandfathers.

AS ORDAINED IN THE BIBLE.

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Ivan Ivanovich Renko — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:41:35 -0000

The Bible (I will not ascribe hatefulness to Him, for He is Love) is also very clear on slavery, on shellfish, on the mixing of the wrong type of fibers in a garment, yet I doubt you are ready to become enslaved, give up lobster (mmm, with drawn butter!) and go through your closet checking the materials tags.

Whatever is pushing you this way, lady, don't pin it on God. He ain't got nothin' to do with the hatefulness that you are choosing to embrace.

May He have mercy on your soul.

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

NuBN247 — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:39:25 -0000

And as I said, the law of the land is that all men are created equal and should be treated as such, same sex marrieds included. And again as I said, don't copy the customs of this world just because secular law allows same sex marriage, but rather be transformed and follow God's law that says love ye one another! In other words, if you are against same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but you have no right to decide that question for others! Judge not!

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

7thangel — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:48:57 -0000

muddled over time?
no, you have ignored the history and various origins of marriage

Re: The Debate Over Gay Marriage in the Black Community Reaches JJP

kayman23 — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:47:40 -0000

This is just another symptom of the problems that as black Americans we need to take care of at home in our fold. This is sad and pathetic how some will justify the invisibility and the issues plaguing so many black LGBTs that have to fight a two-front battle on a daily basis. One thing that Anson has that no black LGBT in this nation has is "heterosexual privilege" and having the freedom of displaying his commitment to any woman he wants without fear of legal reprisal or denial. The same can't be said for me or other black LGBTs when it comes to recognition of our significant others/love ones.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:28:19 -0000

Posted at 08:49 AM ET, 05/16/2012

The Morning Plum: Obama’s high risk strategy

By Greg Sargent

If there is one word that sums up the Obama campaign’s strategy in attacking Mitt Romney’s economic credentials, it’s this: “risk.”

Risk is the theme that runs through the two key interwoven themes that the Obama team is trying to establish with its storytelling about Romney, Bain, and the middle class.

It’s often assumed that attacks on Bain are about hitting Romney’s wealth and character. But they are about something larger: about sowing doubts and fears among swing voters about Romney’s vision of our economic future. By invoking a Bain deal in which executives made millions while the bottom fell out from under workers, the Obama team is painting a vision of an economy under President Romney that’s built on a flimsy foundation of unbridled corporate profiteering and risk-taking — the same type of Wall Street recklessness that led to the crisis and untold economic suffering. That’s one way “risk” is a key theme.

The second way “risk” is central to the Obama strategy will be related: changing leadership right now is too risky a gamble with the recovery, which is underway but remains fragile — an argument you’ll be hearing more of soon enough. The basic problem for Obama is that while economic confidence is rising, Americans remain unhappy with his stewardship of the economy, and appear open to Romney’s argument that his success in turning around troubled companies equips him to turn around an entire country faster than Obama has.

Obama needs to persuade Americans that the current recovery, while unacceptably slow, is moving us towards a secure economic future (hence the slogan “an economy built to last”), and that Romney’s aura of economic competence is basically a ruse. It masks the fact that Romney’s actual policies, priorities, and ideas about the economy would represent a backward lurch that would line the pockets of the very rich but imperil and upend progress for the rest of us. That’s also key to attacks on Romney’s secrecy on tax returns, offshoring, big bundlers, and what government program’s he’d cut. Risky.

The message: Obama = long term economic security based on a strong middle class. Romney = a risky gamble for everyone but the very rich, and more middle class insecurity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:24:09 -0000

If it’s Obama’s job to explain Bain, they can’t complain

By Kay May 16th, 2012

I’ll start with what the Obama campaign looks like on the ground in Ohio today, on Bain:

President Obama’s re-election campaign pressed its attack on Mitt Romney as a cold-hearted capitalist Tuesday by saying that he helped drive into bankruptcy a chain of department stores that used to be located in 26 Ohio cities, including Bowling Green.State Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern and national Obama campaign co-chair Ted Strickland said that Bain Capital in the 1980s bought up small clothing stores and organized them into Stage Stores, expanded the company, borrowed heavily against it with junk bonds, and sold its remaining shares at a profit in 1997, three years before the company went bankrupt in 2000.More than 5,000 workers lost jobs.

“Mitt Romney’s business record isn’t one of growing companies and creating jobs. It’s one of broken promises and shattered dreams for thousands of hardworking Americans,” Mr. Strickland said in a telephone conference call with Mr. Redfern.

I assume the plan is to get specific like this in state after state and city after city, because Mitt Romney claims he created 100,000 jobs while at Bain, so the Obama surrogates are talking about (surprise!) jobs.
Here are the attacks on the Obama strategy, and some both sides do it analysis, from this week:

On “Morning Joe” today, former Obama “car czar” Steve Rattner denounced a new campaign ad that attacks Mitt Romney for business decisions he made during his tenure at Bain Capital. Specifically, the ad targets Romney and Bain Capital for the private equity firm’s decision to acquire GST Steel and the jobs that were lost under their control.

Rattner called the ad “unfair” and defended Romney’s decision at Bain Capital. Rattner says Romney’s job was to make profits for the firm’s investors, not save jobs.

“I think the ad is unfair. Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs. Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for his investors, most of whom were pension funds, endowments and foundations.

Really? Romney made a “mistake” claiming Bain was about job creation? That’s a big mistake for the person who was running the joint to make. Mitt Romney doesn’t know what they do at Bain? And, it’s Obama’s job to correct the record and explain what Bain does? Why? Why isn’t that Mitt Romney’s job?

Financial analysts might have been perplexed as to why Romney made that assertion. Private-equity firms aren’t intended to create jobs; their goal is to make money for investors. And Romney’s claim itself was dubious — the companies he pointed to that added thousands of jobs did so after he left the firm. His campaign today stands by taking credit for those jobs, even as it says Romney isn’t responsible for jobs that were lost after 1999, like those at the shuttered steel plant in Missouri that’s the focus of Obama’s new ad.

“During Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital, the firm invested in or helped start up over 100 companies,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email. “If you look at just four of the startups alone, they add up to more than 120,000 jobs – Bain’s help under Gov. Romney led to the existence of those companies and, thus, the jobs.”

Why wasn’t Romney called on the original lie? We all know why Mitt Romney didn’t explain private equity. Because it was better for Mitt Romney to breeze by the facts and claim he “created 100,000 jobs”. The Obama campaign are simply attacking on the grounds of the original Romney claim, which was jobs. Romney had months to tell the truth. He didn’t.

And look what’s happened! Romney is no longer claiming he created 100,000 jobs, and has seemingly dropped jobs and moved on to debt. Debt is something he might actually understand, due to his experience loading up companies with debt while at Bain.

In its effort to sell Mitt Romney as someone who understands the economy and knows how to create jobs, one of his campaign’s early talking points was that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his tenure at Bain Capital.

Romney eventually stopped repeating the talking point, which advisers had difficulty defending under pressure, and now it seems Boston has completely Etch A Sketched the number and severely lowered the number of jobs Romney is supposed to have created at Bain. BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller reports that, in the wake of the Obama campaign’s new ad attacking Romney’s record at Bain, the “new Romney jobs math” is significantly more modest than the old. This time, the campaign is asserting that Romney created a meager and vague “thousands of jobs” at Bain and “tens of thousands” of jobs as governor of Massachusetts.

This is nothing less than an admission from the Romney campaign that their 100,000 jobs claim was entirely bogus, and acceptance that Romney created vastly fewer jobs than he claimed he had just a few months ago.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2...

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

kayman23 — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:22:29 -0000

Anson for you to be a civil rights lawyer, you seem to be suffering from a lack of a true egalitarian worldview. Also you lacking the discerning knowledge to realize the existence of black LGBTs is appalling . You know should that the black LGBTs are an invisible group amongst blacks, but highly oppressed for being black and LGBT. They can and will lose be negatively affected economically from their race and sexuality, either of which they can't change. They can be your brother, sister, cousin, aunt, and/or uncle, but you are running to sanctimonious banter to justify where you think you should stand. What if your children turns out to be homosexual, bisexual, or wind up having gender dismorphia which is the preexisting condition that most transgendered have prior to their sex change?

The fact that you connotated the pillage of LGBTs exclusively to whites is sad and very myopic. If you can't fathom the existence of black LGBTs then you need to reevaluate everything that is going on around you considering you reside in Washington DC, the metropolitan area with 2nd highest concentration of black LGBTs in the nation outside of Atlanta. You can't swing a dead cat and not hit a black gay or bisexual in DC.

I also find it amusing that you want to call it a "lifestyle", where that is a load of croak. Sexuality is something is determined at born, and regardless if one acts on their sexual desires for the same gender, opposite gender, or both is up to them but it doesn't change what their sexuality actually is.

Also there are many LGBTs that live their lives as average as most heterosexuals. Many of them hold down 8-5 jobs just like you do, and goes home at night spending it preparing for the next day or the looking forward to the weekend. Just as as their are sexually promiscuous, drug using, and constant clubbing of all sexualities, but the majority of them are actually heterosexual. You sir, come across as a hypocrite and bigot. You are criticizing others for their prejudices and discrimination, but giving credence to your own prejudices. Bible or not used as a justification, it is a prejudice that you have exhibited.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:18:19 -0000

Romney Courts Hispanic Vote With Animated Sombrero-Wearing Parrot

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

Re: The Debate Over Gay Marriage in the Black Community Reaches JJP

Kay F. Solomon — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:16:46 -0000

This is a great post. Ticorules comment is on point. People forget that there is historical context behind scripture. What once was suitable for a culture thousands of years ago may not fit today. The ancient institution of slavery is a good example of this. The apostle Paul never comes out against slavery because he thought that Jesus would return in his lifetime (Jesus' second coming), so why try to overthrow a well-entrenched institution no matter how unjust (especially if doing so would place his life in jeopardy under Roman rule)? I wonder if Paul's stance would've changed if he'd known that Jesus wasn't going to be coming back for at least 2000 years. My point is that biblical texts are historically, culturally, societally constructed. Our culture is vastly different than that in which the biblical texts were written. And here's the thing that people fail to realize - Jesus knew this! When he taught against the Pharisees on what could and couldn't be done on the Sabbath, he was taking into consideration new ways of living and being. In effect, if the rules took away life, then human life trumps the rule (see Mark 3:1-6).

Using biblical texts to try to resolve this issue is, in my humble opinion, at best thorny, at worst prideful and hateful. Jesus said that evil intentions coming from the heart such as slander, pride, and folly defile a person (Mark 7:21). If Jesus can accept those who weren't like Him (especially see Mark 7:24-30 where He makes a clear distinction between Himself and a Gentile woman, and John 4:1-42, where Samaritans were viewed by the Jews with disdain), why can't everybody else? No one is perfect. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ALL...

I shudder to think people can be so judgmental with this issue.

Again, great post.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:15:49 -0000

Posted at 11:39 AM ET, 05/16/2012

The four reasons the Nebraska Senate race matters — a lot

By Jonathan Bernstein

You wouldn’t know it from watching the cable networks, but what happened yesterday in Nebraska’s Republican Senate primary, where no-name State Senator Deb Fischer defeated state Attorney General Jon Bruning, is a major story, with several nationally important implications. Here are four of the most critical.

1. Start from the beginning: it put a very likely pickup for the GOP in some jeopardy. I would have made Bruning an overwhelming favorite over former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey. Deb Fischer? Who knows? She certainly starts with a solid advantage, given the partisan tilt of the state, but there’s really no way of knowing yet what kind of candidate she’ll be, what kind of vulnerabilities she has, and how she’ll handle her first-ever statewide campaign.

Remember, she mainly won because outside money destroyed the frontrunner, not because of any particular thing she did or said. She may prove to be a solid campaigner, but we won’t know either way for some time. And don’t forget — this is just one of a series of primaries that, overall, are tilting the Senate playing field towards the Democrats.

2. Even if Fischer ends up losing the general election, this already marks another victory for Jim DeMint, the Club for Growth, and other national conservative and Tea Party groups. They backed Don Stenberg, who finished a poor third. Yet what matters to them most, I’d say, isn’t whether they have hand-picked allies in Congress; it’s that Republican Members of Congress are terrified of them. The defeat of Bruning accomplishes that, even if someone else benefitted.

3. Yesterday’s primary significantly contributes to an emerging problem: expect more recruitment problems for Republicans in the next election cycles. Jon Bruning, the Nebraska Attorney General, was exactly the kind of candidate the national party committees drool over. And yet he was unable to close the deal. More to the point, the sorts of people who want strong general election candidates were unable to do much to help him. Professional politicians watch things like that, and make calculations based on it. Candidates matter in Congressional elections, and on balance this could mean weaker GOP general election candidates in the future.

4. This outcome reveals a key fact about the post-Citizens United landscape. We are going to see a lot more outcomes like this one. Outside money matters more in Congressional races than presidential, and more in primaries than general elections. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but for better or worse it’s the world that we live in now. And as we’ve just discovered, a single donor can be responsible for the election of a general election Senate candidate — or even, if Fischer wins, a Senator.

Two, three, or even five years from now, the Senate is likely going to look very different than it does today. Perhaps Democrats will be firmly in control of the Upper Chamber. Or perhaps a far more conservative Republican Party than today’s will dominate it. Everyone will be trying to explain the change. What happened in Nebraska yesterday — along with the defeat of Dick Lugar in Indiana, and other primary elections still to come — are going to be a big part of that explanation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

rikyrah — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:12:31 -0000

Geithner rains on Boehner's parade
By Steve Benen
Wed May 16, 2012 11:39 AM EDT.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday said he would do in 2013 exactly what he did in 2011: use the debt ceiling to hold the nation hostage. As Boehner sees it, Democrats have to give in, or he'll trash the full faith and credit of the United States and crash the economy on purpose.

And why did Boehner declare his intentions in mid-May? Because the Speaker is trying to shape upcoming tax-policy negotiations, applying leverage to get what he wants. The problem, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner noted yesterday, is that Boehner's calendar doesn't quite work.
At the end of this year, an enormous fight is looming over taxes and revenue, when all of the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire, just as major spending cuts from the debt-ceiling agreement are set to begin.

This doesn't directly relate to the debt-ceiling fight, but Boehner wants it to -- yesterday was partly about sending a signal to the White House. The Speaker was effectively saying, "I'm holding a gun to the nation's head; if you don't want me to pull the trigger, don't push for any tax increases."
But Geithner spoke at the same fiscal summit, and said something interesting

"[O]n the current estimates ... we're likely to hit the debt limit sometime before the end of the year, but Congress has given the executive branch a set of tools that buy [administration officials] some time. And those tools will probably take us into the early part of 2013, thus separating somewhat the timing of the expiry of the tax cuts and the sequester with the ultimate need for Congress to act on the debt limit. You know, they should do it as soon as they can, but that's the basic sequence in this context."

That may sound a little clunky, but in everyday terms, the Treasury Secretary was explaining that policymakers will be dealing with expiring tax cuts and triggered spending cuts in December, but won't be dealing with the debt ceiling until January and February.

Boehner wants to tie the debt limit to the December discussion, but the administration has no reason to play along. Indeed, at this point, we don't even know who'll be the President or the House Speaker the next time the ceiling needs to be raised.

To be sure, the variables may change, and as Brian Beutler noted, if federal receipts slow, the deadline for the debt-ceiling vote may come much sooner.

But for now, Boehner has a strategy that he probably won't be able to execute

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.co...

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

ProfGeo — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:50:15 -0000

Has ANYONE on this thread said why it's OK to just take the parts of the Bible you agree with and ignore the parts you don't? It's clear that some folks will be doing that, discriminating against humans as they eat fried shrimp, but has ANYONE said why it's OK? I admit I skimmed the 140+ posts, but I did not see a straight answer to that. (Pun intended, at this point.)

Thanks in advance, if you indeed answered this.

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Anson Asaka — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:15:56 -0000

Several people accused me of hatred and bigotry. Although I disagree with the gay life style, I do not hate the LGBT community. I oppose many forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, for religious reasons, I cannot and will not support same sex marriage.

Many critics have emphasized that America is a secular society, not a theocracy. They stressed that the Constitution is the source of legal authority and rights in the US. Therefore, they argue that religious books are irrelevant.

Of course, this nation is governed by the Constitution. However, religious views and personal convictions do have some influence on policy. The fact that ssm is illegal in most states is proof of that influence. The words enshrined in Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance are proof of that influence.

The First Amendment does prohibit the establishment of a state religion. Nonetheless, it also protects freedom of speech and religion. I am entitled to express my views. I refuse to be intimidated by threats from the self appointed thought police.

In the article, I did not call for the passage of any amendments banning ssm. Current laws should remain in place. I agree with the President in part. This issue should be left to states.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread

RobM — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:56:27 -0000

New category of lying; Can you out lie Mittens?
Strauss-Kahn Sues Housekeeper, Saying She Hurt His Career
"In his court filing, Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that the two had engaged in consensual sex and that she had later tarnished his professional and personal reputation."

Re: Why I Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

Ticorules — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:42:58 -0000

Again, there's no consistency when it comes to the bible. The same people who are taking a stand on marriage because of scripture, aren't having their disobedient children stoned to death (Det 21:18-21).
Nor do we as a society belive that rape victims should be forced to marry their attackers after rapist pays the father 50 sheckles of silver (Det 22:28-29).

So why is it OK to avoid those passages but emphaisize the anti-gay ones?

Let's not forget in terms of morality, the bible is perfectly fine with the institution of slavery. In fact, it perscribes exactly how slaves should treat their masters (Ephesians 6:5-9)