Means testing is a terrible idea. It not only undermines support for the particular program, it’s a huge factor in making people resent everything to do with government. Liberals have been corroding their own positions for decades by accepting it. In the name of stretching today’s pittance a little bit farther, they guarantee that tomorrow’s will be even smaller.

and to whoever picks up the News slot – no pressure :)

So where should people make petitions instead?

And the problem is that checkbook fallacy is nearly universally accepted as “truth”. I think because people just literally have never heard of any other way of looking at it.

But I think that also means it might be possible to do something about that. I’d be all into supporting a sustained mind blitz of DC, targeting all the staffers and interns and people who like to think of themselves as aware and enlightened. Ads, posters, Occupiers, videos, anything and everything – make it as uncool and out-of-touch to think that the US is “going broke” in any way as it is to be against gay marriage or to deny climate change. Using those examples specifically because, as with those issues, there will be people who are unreachable – so mock them! The US is not a family. Social Security needs to be increased not cut. The deficit is far from being any kind of problem. The national “debit” is not like your credit card. etc etc etc.

No wonder voters aren’t interested in such a raw deal.

Fortunately for the Persons of Extraordinary Seriousness, what voters are or aren’t interested in is irrelevant.

And Trumka, yeah, well, he says many good things. That and 3 bucks will buy me coffee. I love this quote from an article in The Hill (via Atkins @ Digby):

While Obama is relying on labor unions and other organizations on the left to turn out Democratic voters in battleground states, some of his allies have lingering concerns about whether he will stand by them if elected.

Gosh, no, really?

was Geithner personally offended?

If the terrible costs are only born by the wrong families, they didn’t happen. Democratic politicians learned plenty from that experience – they learned that they can screw over their nominal constituencies without consequence.

I look forward to Blue America’s explanation of how this means that we should all be giving money to Grijalva, etc because [hand wave]

Because the only common idea that the Democratic Party has as a whole is “We’re not Republicans.”

er, slso, your “Good on Pelosi!” link goes to a story about the police handing out drugs. i think maybe you meant this one?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/

“the system’s leading campuses could better utilize their market potential to generate new student revenues and offset continuing reductions in state support”

that’s like a Matryoshka doll of wrong.

I’m with you on this, though I don’t know if it has to be – or even should be – “Occupy” as such who does this. but someone ought to. i get that there is value in starting the conversation, that questions alone are worth while. but answers are good too.

i have to say, though, i’d like to hear myself “how campaign finance reform would make elections more democratic” because i’ve never really seen it. but that’s another article…

You could just call it UNIT, but only if they promote Schneiderman to Brigadier.

Moreover, banning corporate personhood has benefits well outside the campaign finance arena.

Like? And what would “banning corporate personhood” mean, exactly?

I thought I was just unable to figure out the Amend2012 website but apparently it’s true – they want you to support an amendment that hasn’t been written. “Please vote for my Amendment to Do All Good Things and No Bad Things!” “Wow, that sounds great! How does that work?” “Well, I’ll figure that part out later – it’s not important now!”

The positive right to vote, though, I think would be much more valuable, in itself and in the side effects of the campaign.

I still haven’t seen good answers to some basic questions when it comes to worrying about campaign spending:

* Why does it cost so much – where does the money go? I assume TV but maybe not.
* Aren’t the people who bear ultimate responsibility the voters? “He spend so much money I has no choice!”
* Why is public financing a better way to go than some kind of revived Fairness Doctrine equal access?

So, speaking of the nomination, are there really no primary challengers in any state for Obama? Are they even holding primaries? Or are there UnSerious people we just don’t hear about from national press?

What really galls me is that one of the Senate co-sponsors is Mr. Net Neutrality, Al Franken. I’m sure he has a rationale of some kind, but from the outside it just doesn’t scan.

Basically, Stallman was right, the very term “intellectual property” is a lie; once you’ve accepted it, the rest is just filling in the details.

“… the IMF will force a rollback of their anti-democratic laws …”

yeah, well, not so much:

Lagarde said that an important precondition would be a willingness to maintain the independence of Hungary’s central bank, which many critics – including its governor – say could be compromised by the introduction of a new central bank law that allows the government to appoint a deputy governor.

democracy, shmemocracy, but hands off our banks!

WALLACE: “But the President is the CEO of the country.”

The fundamental flaw in their thinking in a nutshell.