Fuck its silent in here.......

[Bort]

Also, this country is retarded:

When presented with the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," just 45 percent of respondents indicated "true." Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that "the universe began with a big explosion."

Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey's most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness

Please. Scientific American has been biased toward "Science" and "Learning." You hardly ever even see a balanced, dissenting view that the world was made by magic in their pages.

[R-V]

Parking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.

[morpheus]

Parking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.

I agree, the new system is much better in terms of customer convenience.  I was referring to the planned continued increases, as well as the complete incompetence of the aldermen and William Blair in their "analysis" that $1B was enough for the rights to a revenue stream that was worth a lot more than that.

[Gilgamesh]

Parking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.

I agree, the new system is much better in terms of customer convenience.  I was referring to the planned continued increases, as well as the complete incompetence of the aldermen and William Blair in their "analysis" that $1B was enough for the rights to a revenue stream that was worth a lot more than that.

If there was even an institution that needed a FIREBARN more than the Cubs, I think you guys have nailed it.

Also, none of this will be a problem once the rights to the water are sold off.

Whither MWRD?

[Wheezer]

And finally, for all the Sturm und Drang about the World Trade Center mosque (that isn't really a mosque)...THOSE MUSSELMEN ARE TAKING OVER THE PENTAGON.

and also isn't at Ground Zero - it's an old Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place.

That's the Burqington Coat Factory to you, kafir.

[Quality Start Machine]

BOEHNERTIME!!!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

BOEHNERTIME!!!

"They should do it the legal way," House Minority Leader John Boehner told NBC's "Meet the Press."

(On a purely political note, I think this means that the GOP's Hispanic outreach is full steam ahead.)

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Somewhat relatedly...

SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/janet-lovett-suing-after-wet-t-shirt-at-florida-splash-park-leads-to-arrest/19582458

"[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database," Marks said.

Lovett, a Peruvian native who was granted American citizenship in January, speaks English, albeit "not perfectly," Marks said. She said she explained the situation to the officer and requested to speak with her husband. The officer allegedly denied that request and asked Lovett to produce her identification. She had none with her and told the officer it was in her car.

"I started shaking. I [felt] nervous. My son was inside [the] park with [my] husband. I was alone," Lovett said in an interview with ABC-affiliate WFTV. "[I was] very scared. I [had] never been arrested before."

A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

"[The officer] took my client's arms and twisted them behind her back after handcuffing her," Marks said. "That caused some bruises to her arms and her hands. [She was] then escorted into the back of a patrol car and taken to jail."

Lovett sat in jail for about five hours before her husband could arrange to pay her $1,500 bond. The state attorney later dropped the charges without explanation.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Somewhat relatedly...

SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!

Fucking 14th Amendment!

[R-V]

An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

[J. Walter Weatherman]

An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

[Brownie]

An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

[Gilgamesh]

An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

I think my major criticism regarding the Republicans and tax policy is that we are hearing an awful lot of talk about the deficit of late and of the need to make sure bills are fully paid for before enactment (with which I agree wholeheartedly).  However, this stance taken by the Republicans is negated when they don't have an answer as to how they would pay for the extension of said tax cuts.

That's when I begin to smell hypocrisy.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

He didn't say that's "the conservative line." He said:

According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control.

(Bold mine.)

Here's Bartlett...

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt

Over the years I have heard a number of conservatives suggest that defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Today Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee Law School (better known as "Instapundit") suggests the idea once again. Says Reynolds:

"SO HERE'S A QUESTION: Would a default on Treasuries accomplish what the Balanced Budget Amendment was supposed to achieve, by forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in? With more collateral damage, of course. . . ."

...

Mark Thoma thinks I am taking Reynolds too seriously. He's probably right that Reynolds himself was not serious in his suggestion. But I have heard the same idea advanced seriously on numerous occasions among conservatives. I would note that a Fox News poll on October 1, 2009 found two-thirds of Americans saying that the debt limit should not be increased.

The first comment on Bartlett's post points out:

Gingrich threatened debt default during the 1995 budget impasse. That gambit failed because everyone knew that the consequences would be so dire, there's no way the GOP could have stayed united behind it.

[Brownie]

An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

I think my major criticism regarding the Republicans and tax policy is that we are hearing an awful lot of talk about the deficit of late and of the need to make sure bills are fully paid for before enactment (with which I agree wholeheartedly).  However, this stance taken by the Republicans is negated when they don't have an answer as to how they would pay for the extension of said tax cuts.

That's when I begin to smell hypocrisy.

What if despite a tax increase, government receipts fall? How do you pay for the drop in income?