patrick.net

^ yeah but its' tough to go from the full-on stupidity that was 2001-2006 to smart policy.

We can extemporize and apply ameliorative patches, but to actually fix things is not something we can really do, for as you say we were not in FDR '36 or LBJ '64 territory in 2009 WRT Congressional majorities.

We only had a filibuster-proof Senate for less than 2 months in 2009, between Franken finally being seated in July and kennedy's death in August.

I don't think the administration expected so much pushback from the Republicans over one of their own conservative initiatives (PPACA).

But I don't think it was "incompetence" for the admin to get that through over the Republican dead bodies in 2009-2010.

The bullshitters here say PPACA distracted government from fixing the economy, but of course this completely cuts across their parallel bullshit narrative that the government can't do anything positive.

The actual solution needs to be cutting the DOD 50%, capping Medicare cost inflation (which is many times more than the natural demographic increase) via a stricter single-payer system, and raising taxes on everyone to start actually paying for government again.

Problem with raising taxes of course is that millions of households have dialed in their housing expense based on their nice Bush tax cuts. Remove the tax cuts and you really stress everyone's budgets. Medicare is the third-rail still as the previous election demonstrated. Can't cut hundreds of billions out of the DOD with unemployment so high, either. BRAC in the 1990s was like a $15B cut IIRC.

So, there really is no solution. Hence my sig.

Nomograph says

Is it too late for RayAMerica and shrekgrinch to get a refund on their pre-paid copies? Will this tome of knowledge even see the light of day?

No one has been able to offer an explanation as to why Obama spent over $2 million in legal fees in order to fight the "release" of his long form birth certificate. If he had it all along, why on earth did he fight it?

shrekgrinch says

And then, as Ray pointed out, there was the matter of Obama spending $2 million in legals fees to fight this. What gives? And who paid that $2 million…the taxpayer?

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M. McCain also had lots of legal fees associated with the campaign at $1.3M.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/12/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-obama-has-spent-2-million-lega/

Why do you continue to repeat bullshit over an over even after it's been show to be false. Have you no integrity at all?

ding ding ding

MarkInSF says

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M.

What exactly did Obama's NOT releasing the long form birth certificate have to do with the campaign?

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M.

What exactly did Obama’s NOT releasing the long form birth certificate have to do with the campaign?

It doesn't. Defending against frivolous lawsuits claiming ineligibly does. They didn't even require much defense. The plaintiffs were laughed right out of court.

In any event the $2M figure was for all legal fees. The amount spent defending against the birthers was almost certainly negligible.

Of course I expect Shreck will not admit he's wrong, and will likely repeat this lie again. It's just the kind of person he is.

"Racist enforcement of civil and voter rights laws at the Justice Dept (letting those Black Panthers off the hook), list goes on."

I agree. Bush was a complete racist for not prosecuting the New Black Panthers. We should demand answers from Bush!

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bush-doj-decided-new-black-panthers-no-major-case/

Death panels! I can see death panels from my house!

HousingWatcher says

Death panels! I can see death panels from my house!

I love the smell of death panels in the morning.

Tenouncetrout says

TOT Grabs popcorn and lawn chair.

Buttered? shrekgrinch says

Which is it, folks? Was $2M spent or not? Even when you gang up on the Truth, you all can’t get your shit straight.

Ya caught 'em, ya little troll! They don't all think alike! They think for themselves - a concept you might not be able to comprehend. I doubt that you care about the subject as much as you like being contrary. In fact, the subjects of your posts are pretty much interchangeable - you can copy & paste your threads at this point.

Have you ever had an original thought? I mean, one that's not politically motivated that you're repeating to anonymous people on the interwebs?

yawn.

shrekgrinch says

See, I and others now get to have fun with this for like…FOREVER while also knowing that Osama is most likely dead long before Obambi was even in the Senate. This is like a perpetual Missing Birth Certificate, really. It is the best of both worlds.

Please continue. I LOVE when the wingnuts continue their conspiracy theories. It all but ensures that no Republican will win in November...

Shrek, what's your evidence that Obama spent $2M fighting birthers? You're the one making the outrageous claim. Back it up for once.

"Cynthia Tucker is worse than the entire Washington Post. She’s a total shill for Obama and a de-facto member of the race-baiting industry."

Why? Because she is black? Come on, we know you would not have made that statement if she was white.

"Fact is, civil servant lawyers in the DOJ peg this one all on Holder, not Bush. And most civil servants are life long liberal-leaning Dems, too."

Actually, most, if not all, of the complaining came from one civil service DOJ lawyer by the name of J. Christian Adams. Some facts about Mr. Adams:

Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";
Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";

Before coming to the Justice Department, Adams volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association, an offshoot of the Republican National Committee that trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights.

"In 2004, Adams served as a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, where he was critical of a black couple for not accepting a provisional ballot in early voting after officials said they had no record of the couple's change of address forms, according to Bloomberg News. Democratic poll watchers had advised voters not to accept provisional ballots because of the risk they could be discounted under Florida law, Bloomberg reported."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020

I think tatupu assumed everyone EXCEPT you was bright enough to figure out which November the elections would actually be held in, therefore adding the word NEXT was not needed. He was right.

Since I'm new to this birther argument is there someone out there who can explain what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

Okay, I unignored Shrek to read this, whcih isn't as easy as it used to be (thanks Patrick !!)

shrekgrinch says

No, as things stand all I’ve done is proven that I know what a luddite is and what ludditism stands for more than you do….and you’ve proven that you rather would stick to your fantasies of what you want it to mean so you can brainwash the little kiddies in school.

shrekgrinch says

Luddites don’t protest the existance of technology…only certifiable ignoramuses who otherwise should know that in order to really be qualified to teach our children believe that.

shrekgrinch says

marcus says

or even that it will displace publishing

Uh…YES…he makes that point. He mentions publishing obviously in the context of traditional PRINT publishing, not e-publishing…but I gather your poor comprehension skills didn’t pick that up, eh?

Unlike Shrek, if I were wrong, I would admit it. I would encourage everyone who hasn't seen the video to check it out, and let us know what you think.

I see Jackson pointing out that jobs in the printing world will be displaced by digital media. Something that everyone agrees is true (including Shrek). I do not see him lamenting this, or protesting it, he only points out the fact, in the context of requesting that the government invest more in the support of new technologies and policies that support the creation of jobs. (arguing whether this is an appropriate role for govt, is independent of whether Jackson is a luddite or not).

If someone says in essence, this technology is displacing jobs, we need to emphasize creating jobs, this is not the message of a luddite. Jackson is a little intense about it, but that's just sort of punctuation or emphasis of his opinion of the degree to which jobs will be displaced from publishing.

A truly intelligent person will admit when they are wrong. This is something I have never seen Shrek do.

Douglas says

what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

must be a "natural-born citizen", i.e. holding US citizenship at birth. Becoming a US citizen later (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger) technically makes you ineligible to be president.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

for one discussion of the can of worms this is. If Obama was not born on "American soil" then he would not be a US citizen at birth because his mother was too young to pass on citizenship under the law at that time.

So if the birthers can prove Obama was born in Kenya, they'll make Sarah Palin president. Or something.

Nomograph says

He might want to check out for a while and ignore politics completely

A ha aha aha ha a aha ha! You told a funny.

I'll repeat what I said before:

marcus says

Jackson is not protesting the existence of the technology, or even that it will displace publishing. You really are even far more of a fool than I ever realized.

If he were a Luddite, Jackson would probably be suggesting that congress should somehow act to block or prevent the negative impact that digital technologies are having and will have on publishing. This is not his message.

Is Jackson observing that digital technology will drastically impact publishing?
or
Is he observing it and protesting it?

I say it's very clear that he is making the observation only, but also talking about China's manufacturing edge, and ultimately it is in the context of saying that he thinks congress needs to address policies that affect job creation.

(edited)

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline

typically stunning un-understanding of economic history by our conservative friend here.

"The era of price controls is most remembered for long lines at gas stations. The controls were put in place by the Nixon and Ford administrations in reaction to a jump in fuel prices caused by cuts in production by the newly formed international oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries."

. . .

"By the Iranian oil crisis in 1979, the controls had grown unsustainable as oil prices escalated in global markets. With lines forming once again and fistfights breaking out at the pump, President Carter quickly waived most of the controls on oil and gas prices to make more fuel available."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/15/20060515-122820-6110r

How does it feel to be continually 100% wrong on everything, Shrek? Seriously, your brain must be made out of antimatter or something.

John McCain was not born in the U.S. Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

HousingWatcher says

Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

because we are supposed to get citizenship through our parents, and both his parents were certainly bona-fide Americans.

But the statutes in force when he was born left a gap for people born overseas. This was corrected the year after he was born, making him a citizen, but the (admittedly "academic") question remains whether McCain is a "natural born citizen".

Arguably, Congress would be abusing its powers to make Schwarzenegger a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to run for President. Or perhaps not.

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely. The only reason these law suits are being thrown out of court is because you must file in state court to have standing, not federal court. That is why 15 states are now voting on legislation to require candidates to prove their eligibilty prior to accessing the ballot. Our lame congress has the requirement of enforcing federal law. Good Luck with that

One has to wonder how an un-named author was able to delete the reference wikipedia had to natural born citizen but it happened.

you must now go to an archive as of last week to find the definition. wayback.com has it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen.

please advise?

Without FHA loans(3.5 % down) that house drops 30%more.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born.

Is that what you meant to say? That is, in order to be a natural born citizen, both your parents need to be natural born citizens ? I think that would mean that technically only native American can be natural born citizens. Think about it. (even native Americans, have ancestors that immigrated here, but for the sake of argument we can say they were always here.)

shrekgrinch says

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline to ‘deal with’ the inflation that is already upon us

Holy crap. I just called you on this lie a week or so ago. And here you are posting it again!

http://patrick.net/?p=688789#comment-733608

Douglas says

we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens.

Whoops! There goes Trump! You should really go away, re-think your argument here, and come back under another name.

ie. Cut your losses, 'cuz what you're writing now just doesn't make any sense.

The law in 1961 was clear -- anyone born in the US was a "natural born citizen".

If you can prove Obama was not born in Hawaii, he will have bigger problems than this Constitutional BS.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely.

Um, Douglas, your interpretation of the Constitution is really super cute. Might I point out that nowhere in the 61 words dedicated to presidential criteria does it say that the parents must be natural born citizens. It merely says that the dude, or dudette, who becomes President must be a natural born citizen of the USA - unless he or she is 224 or older... In that case, they'd still meet the age requirement, because there's a minimum age requirement but not a maximum. FYI.

Wikipedia say

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Nomograph says

Here come the AfterBirthers. Is it a full moon?

They're still crawling out of the woodwork to post this crap. What did we do wrong in a previous life to deserve this?

shrekgrinch says

Therefore, Jesse Jr’s tirade against the iPad is 100% luddite BS — especially given the details and ‘arguments’ he provided that match entirely with what luddites actually believe, as per the actual definition of what a luddite is.

shrekgrinch says

Wow! Shrekgrinch exposes the gross ignorance of all the chumps who really don’t know what luddites are and suddenly they all go silent. What a surprise.

shrekgrinch says

your poor comprehension skills didn’t pick that up, eh?

The video is right there for all to see and hear.

As mentioned in other threads, Shrek is what's called a bullshitter. I used to think the issue was that he lacked the comprehension skills he derides others for lacking. This is somewhat true, but what it really is, is that he has no use for the truth. I find this to be totally disrespectful of this form, and it's probably why he is one of the most ignored people on here.

Troy shared this the other day in another thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

why all the vulgarity? Because it becomes you!

Lets look at the facts,

what is the controlling law? These quotes are from the deleted wiki pages. they were removed from the web and it is becoming more and more difficult to access them even through the archive. They are quotes from the legislature and the courts. Say what you will about them.

the law suits and legislation concerning Obama are due to the fact that his father was not a citizen of this country, at least the legitimate suits.

His father being a subject of the UK, has particular requirements as dictated by his government.
In fact: the British Nationality Act of 1948

This act is what will ultimately be the basis of the legitimate lawsuits filed in state courts, Which states Obama's father has controlling jurisdiction and that makes him subject to the aforemention Act of 1948, this will lead to even more problems concerning his eligibilty. The case law will be the next factor.

I saw no comment about the states that are now voting on legislation concerning ballot access, why not?

Does this not concern you? It should

I certainly hope that you would carefully read what follows,

your vulgarity will not win the day! But I'm sure you will expose yourself!

Legislation and executive branch policy

The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons

"born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of

parents both of whom are citizens of the United States

and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]."

Case law

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case,

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'

Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen",

the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries,

beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day,

aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign;

and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject,

unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

On the meaning of “natural born citizen,”

the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations”:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

The dissenters also noted, arguing that birth on the soil was not sufficient to grant citizenship at birth, that:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.

The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President

The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii.

In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii

but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948

Douglas--

I encourage you to continue fighting this battle. Please don't vote for any Republican nominees that accept Obama's citizenship as a fact. And organize other like minded folks to demonstrate and protest.

Douglas says

These quotes are from the deleted wiki pages. they were removed from the web and it is becoming more and more difficult to access them even through the archive.

your copy-pasta just makes no sense. Argue in your own befuddled words, please.

Douglas says

The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii.

yes, if Obama was not actually born in Hawaii then he would not be a "natural born citizen", or at least would be in the same legal limbo as McCain, who was also not a citizen of the United States at birth.

But this is all just bullshit from the right to delegitimize Obama as an American.

Shame on you, shame on all of you. You guys have no positive message, it's just destroy, burn, and smear.

LOL, and the American people put the Republicans right back in power not 2 years after the crash.

I think everyone's stupid.

But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.

I think their housing bubbles were papering over a lot of fiscal imbalances.

Like us, too, 2003-2007:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qO

The blue line is Y-O-Y growth in household debt.
The red line is growth of Federal debt.
The green line is growth in business debt.

The Federal deficit declined slightly 2004-2007, but only because we were pumping $1T to $2T/yr in new debt into the system.

Shrek--

More BS from the crapmaster. I could have predicted what this article would say before even opening it.

Here's a clue if you want to really understand what is happening. What would the GDP have been with no stimulus? (hint: it wouldn't have been zero). The whole logic of the article falls apart once you realize that...

shrekgrinch says

Yes we do. It DIDN’T WORK. Keynesian theory says it WILL WORK. There is not ‘only will help’…it either works or doesn’t. As for baselines, yes we do there too… what part of ‘Given the Keynesian belief in “multipliers”, the result should have been to increase 1Q2011 real GDP growth significantly over that of 4Q2010′ do you deliberately refuse to acknowledge? That is what Keynesianism says will happen. It doesn’t. It NEVER does.

Wrong again. You need to do a little more study in Economics before you post Shrek.

You can't lump short sales and foreclosures together. What a bank accepts for a price may not be similar because it is probably different departments.

Short sale = Seller is the "owner" (defaulting borrower). This "owner" decides which offer he wants to negotiate or accept. Then his agent sends the offer to the lender requesting that the lender allow the offered amount to satisfy the loan balance. Negotiations end up going back and forth between multiple parties because the bank is going to try to squeeze more money out of somebody. The seller may have to bring some cash, or the buyer can up his offer, or maybe the buyer makes a contribution to 2nd lienholder.

Foreclosure = Seller is the bank. If it has been foreclosed then it is a REO or bank owned property. The prior "owner" is gone. Offers and negotiations are with a lender's representative.

I suppose this might be referred to as a pre-Foreclosure = Seller is the "owner". Property has not yet been foreclosed, "owner" is in default, but is not asking for a short sale. He may have cash to pay off the deficiency (unlikely or he would make his payments) or he still has equity. Sometimes people lose income but have equity tied up in a home through downpayment and years of payments. Offers and negotiations are with the "owner".

I've also noticed that the discount for buying a forecluisre is very small. However, sicne foreclosures gnerally require substantial work, they are actually MORE expensive than regular houses whn you factor in the cost to renovate.

shrekgrinch says

Prove I am wrong instead of just saying I am wrong as if that is it.

That has been proven many, many times on pat.net. In this particular case, your lack of understanding pertains to how the GDP would have reacted without the stimulus.

shrekgrinch says

The first one: You don’t know jack shit what you are talking about with regards to Nobel Prizes, let alone economics in general.

hahaha. So, your point is that because it was not one of the original prizes devised by Albert Nobel in his will, it isn't a Nobel prize? By all means, let's get it right then--Krugman is the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Does that make you feel better?

Has it, at long last, really come down to this?

Paul Krugman Is Awarded Nobel in Economics

Patrick recently asked how to increase readership. Asking the several people spamming his site with bullshit 24/7 to leave might be a good start.