Did it ever occur to these people that, since homosexuals can not reproduce, it must have been heterosexual couples who bred these lesbians and queers in the first place? So what will keep heterosexual couples from giving birth to more homosexuals even after the current crop has been penned up until they all died?

There is no logic, much less Christian love in these people. They just hate. They’re frightened to death that the world is changing and there is nothing they can do about it but redouble their hatred. More’s the pity; in the meantime they’re dangerous – not just to homosexuals but to all the rest of us as well.

Unless the Republicans get their way, i.e., an extension of the Bush tax cuts and deep cuts in discretionary spending, they will continue with this “hostage taking” until they’re voted out of office or until the entire government is Republican. The Democrats have a choice between giving the Republicans what they want or disavowing the need for a debt limit vote at all.

Raising the debt limit means that congress okays paying the bills that they have already promised to pay, while voting not to raise the debt limit means default (which is why the U.S. credit rating was downgraded after last year’s debacle). Most of the public doesn’t understand this; they think raising the debt limit grants approval for new spending.

One thing we can count on, that’s been proven over and over, is that whatever “deal” the Republicans make they will renege on. Coming to an agreement with people who back out at the first opportunity is an exercise in futility.

Two more suggestions to protect the U.S. Treasury from Wall Street’s risky behavior:

Immediately implement the Volker Rule, which separates investment banking, private equity and proprietary trading (hedge fund) sections of financial institutions from their consumer lending arms, and
Institute a tax on every Wall Street transaction of any type, foreign or domestic, and turn the receipts over to the treasury.

My mistake. I thought maybe Shooter just didn’t understand how supply side economics doesn’t work in the current economic situation. Now that you tell me he simply WON’T understand, I’ll stop trying.

Producing goods and services for a profit presupposes there are customers to buy what is produced. Krugman’s models are recipes for increasing demand, not increasing supply.

Concentrating on production is known as Supply Side Economics – build it and they will come. Well they (customers) aren’t coming, and can’t come, until they have the money to buy the supply. In economic downturns individuals can’t afford to buy, companies who can’t sell their own goods can’t afford to buy, and now whole countries aren’t in a position to buy. So Krugman’s models focus on how to increase demand. It’s pretty simple really.

Nomolos;
I imagine Hollande is described as milquetoast because of his policy prescriptions to address austerity measures taken by Sarkozy. He is proposing spending $20B Euros over five years to pull France out of the recession the country is headed toward. He talks a good game about stimulus spending, but 5B Euros per year in a $3T French economy is going to amount to a mere blip (.001%) on the country’s economy. It would amount to about $25B a year in our $15T economy.

I own a small business. Over the past four years I have laid off twenty employees because of lack of sales. I am not going to hire anyone – regardless of taxes, low interest rates, health care costs, commodity prices, regulatory or political uncertainty or anything else – until demand for my products and services makes it profitable for me to do so. Large corporations, S-corps, internet businesses, mom and pop stores all operate the same way: they sell products and/or services to customers. Without customer demand, there will be no investment and no hiring. The overwhelming majority of product sales and investments, including hiring, by multinational corporations is in foreign markets right now; smaller businesses dependent on domestic sales are suffering from lack of demand. How much plainer do we business owners have to make it?

I would be in favor of more government stimulus directed at job creation, or even direct government hiring to put people to work. I’ll worry about higher taxes and availability of investment money when sales pick up. People don’t buy when they’re unemployed or underemployed or their wages aren’t keeping pace with rising prices.

Margaret -
Automobile insurance is required (mandated) by states, not the federal government. And this mandate is not applied to everyone. If a state citizen does not want to buy car insurance, all he has to do is give up driving a car. States have an unlimited right to impose mandates on their citizens unless their own constitution forbids it – and right now there is not one state constitution that forbids the state from issuing mandates.

Although I do not like the mandate, as long as our congress lacks the backbone to limit the power of private health insurance companies, the only recourse if the country wants to enact universal health care is to require the insurance companies to sell insurance to everyone and mandate everyone to buy it. Much as I would have preferred a public option or a dedicated tax to provide Medicare coverage for All, the congress could not overcome their need for campaign funds from the insurance companies long enough to give us either of those options. The mandate on both the citizens and the insurance companies was the only choice left to them.

That big Obama poll drop? It never happened.
See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/that-big-obama-poll-drop-it-never-happened/2012/03/14/gIQANCR4BS_blog.html#pagebreak

Best description I’ve ever seen of Newt Gingrich was from Paul Krugman:

“Newt Gingrich is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person.”

The link in the story referred to as “the full story of the bill is here” is incorrect. That link takes you to an article on mortgage refinancing.

The correct link is:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/10/BUPU1NIGVF.DTL

You people who are blaming Obama for the runup in gas prices or the failure to keep the runup from happening, consider:

* Obama tried to calm down Netanyahu’s call for strikes on Iran during Bebe’s White House visit earlier this year. It did not go over well with either Netanyahu or the U.S. Israeli lobby. It is Israel that continues to threaten military action against Iran, along with the Republicans in their campaign debates. Imagine the outcry if Obama pulled back on economic sanctions against Iran or publicly told Israel to stop threatening Iran just as Iran was about to hold elections this year – something like “He’s coddling Muslims and threatening Israel!”

* The president has repeatedly made funds available to states to invest in mass transit proposals. Republican governors and statehouses who have not outright returned the money and refused to invest in mass transit projects have taken the money but deferred the projects. He has repeatedly promoted green energy projects and made what money the congress would approve available to states for such projects; he made money available to states to retrofit public buildings to save energy, and he continues to tout electric cars to reduce gasoline usage.

* Forcing the CFTC to investigate energy markets has been tried and failed numerous times since speculation ran up the price of oil, and consequently the price of gasoline, in the summer of 2008. Nancy Pelosi requested that then-president Bush direct the commission to investigate speculation in energy markets (her request was ignored); the House passed the Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008, a bill that failed in the senate, that would have attempted to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets; Obama has argued that current loopholes in CFTC regulations have contributed to skyrocketing prices and lack of transparency in oil markets, the most egregious being the 1991 law (passed under Bush I) that exempted large traders and banks from regulation in commodity markets. But this was a law passed by congress and can not be rolled back by Executive Order. A president, any president, can do very little to regulate markets when hamstrung by congress, even though the regulators are ostensibly under control of the Executive branch.

The bondholders, including the banks, WILL be paid. They have already had to take a haircut, and they’re not happy. Even if Greece defaults, which will cause them even larger problems than they have now, someone will pay. The European Central Bank can not “bail out” Greece, i.e., guarantee their debts; they will make money available to European banks, which will then lend the money to Greece, putting Greece in further debt.

I agree that much of the economic problems Greece is facing are a result of their shooting themselves in their own feet. Greece has refused for years to collect taxes – tax avoidance has become a national sport. But Greece also suffers from a lack of exports. They haven’t tried to grow the industries that would lend themselves to export markets – how much olive oil can the world buy? – and tourism is not an exportable commodity, although it does earn them some Euros. And those are about the only sources of income the country has.

So between not collecting taxes and not having an export market, Greece has been living off the strength of the Euro. I don’t believe austerity ever grows an economy out of an overwhelming debt situation, and worse, Greece now faces a debt owed in a currency the country does not control.

Defaulting on their debt, dropping out of the Eurozone and going back to the drachma may turn out to be their only choice, but whatever happens, the people of Greece are going to suffer terribly.

It’s extremely entertaining to watch the Republicans hang themselves, and it’s heartening to see Harry Reid’s giving them the rope. The floor debate on this amendment, not to mention the reaction of the pundits – especially the Fox pundits – should be quite a sight.

I take it the president’s phrase, “For starters….” doesn’t carry any weight with the author of this post. Twice after the quote, the author states that the president “just” called for the senate to have a vote on his nominees within 90 days. But in fact he called on the senate to live with majority rule, starting with a change in the way his nominations are handled.

The constitution gives each house of congress the right to make its own rules. Of course the president can ask the senate to institute a rule (or abandon one) that would accrue to his benefit, but the senate is not obliged to grant his request.

As far as I’m concerned, the more stupid and obstructionist rules the congress operates under, the more aggravated the public will become. Voters, aggravated to the end of their patience, can overturn senate rules by overturning senators. Hopefully that’s how a change in senate rules will come about.

As Paul Krugman is fond of saying, “Economics is not a morality play.”

The “connected costs” to the use of gasoline are hidden or ignored only in the short term. In the long run, these costs emerge and must be borne. The problem we have is that those who profited from ignoring or hiding the costs are never the ones who pay.

I have no problem with churches’ being involved in political action – as long as they’re willing to give up their tax exemption. I don’t agree with 90% of what churches today are advocating outside their church doors; they certainly enjoy the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. But there is no good reason why they should not be paying taxes – there never has been.

Kudos for utilizing “abjure” in this context! Excellent word rarely used.

Michael Gerson is printed in my local newspaper as a regular editorial columnist. Between him and Charles Krauthammer I can hardly bear to pick up the paper on the days they’re published. It ruins my day.