Anonymous wrote:Nope. I don't want the Southern states on this side of the Mississippi. And I'll take part of CA too. Keep Alaska.

all the good states are North. Yay!

Only two problems with this: 1. Cajun food. We must have a good source, and it is hard to find one this far north. Maybe we could keep New Orleans, at least. 2. Disney World. I'd give up most of Florida, but if my wife doesn't get her Disney World vacations, it wouldn't be pretty.

Anonymous wrote:I think the toughest part would not be the constitutional process. The balance sheet for the South is the problem. The southern states would go almost immediately into default because they can't cover their expenditures with revenue, even if the new southern nation kept the current Federal tax schedule. They are net dependents on northern revenue.

That's actually why I said the outcome would be the same as before, or at least one of the reasons. In the Civil War, the North also had an overwhelming advantage in manufacturing capability. That may not be present today, but that could easily be offset by the ability to purchase any needed assets. Regardless, it is really only an exercise in intellectual curiosity, since only the extreme anti-American fringe would actually support it.

First, you would need to amend the Constitution and specify some means of leaving the country for a state or whatever. Of course, that would require ratification of 3/4s of the states first, which I don't ever see happening. Without that, any attempt to leave the union would be basically unconstitutional with no legal justification and would likely result in another civil war. I think the outcome would likely be the same as well, based on past history.

I recall an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where he states "If you can't win by reason, go for volume." I guess if it works for six-year old kids, why shouldn't it work in politics as well?

Anonymous wrote:love how they bury the illegal part and say "undocumented"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcs-alleged-bike-groper-not-who-youd-expect/2012/09/20/6233ce1e-0346-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.html

So spending several paragraphs talking about how he is not in the country legally and mentioning how he didn't have a valid work status in another is how you think a reporter buries something? I would think burying that part of the story would probably mean it wasn't mentioned at all, or at least only alluded to in one tiny part. It looks like they used the language of the statement they received from the court in describing his status, and I doubt the actual legal terms include the word "illegal". The only way someone could miss that part of the story is by not reading it, and I don't think you can hold Wapo accountable if someone doesn't read all of an article. For future reference, how big do you want the neon, flashing letters to be before you don't claim something is buried in a story?

I'm curious if this would even qualify as a revenue bill. From what I have read, it doesn't actually create any new revenue, only allows for improved methods of collecting revenue that is already due.(Back taxes in the examples that I saw) I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not sure if there's precedent on that or not. I know some people to ask later, but I thought I'd throw it out here and see what others thought.

I can't say for certain about DC and MD, but I know you can in VA. I think you can in DC and MD as well. Actually, I think that you can in just about every state, although some localities may not allow it.

Anonymous wrote:Jimmy Carter's grandson. Not clear how/why he was there...

No, it wasn't him. He contacted the person that shot the video over Twitter and persuaded them to release it after he saw a clip posted online.

Anonymous wrote:Hate to pile on, Jeff, but although I am usually with you on substance, I could live without the Mittens bit.

Personally, I could care less about whether or not someone calls Romney "Mittens", but the rabid reactions it often gets here are amusing enough to justify it at times

Anonymous wrote:I heard it was Carter's grandson. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/2012/09/18/carter-grandson-arranged-romney-video-release/X2rOAcriBabUkQJ2SF7LfM/story.html

He persuaded the source to release the video, but he wasn't the original source.

In many large parking lots, the employees are often encouraged to park in the back of the lot so as to keep the closer spaces available for paying customers, and they often are clustered into the same areas of the parking lot. Regardless, if you don't want someone parking next to your car, don't put it in a public parking lot.

Anonymous wrote:This is an edited tape put out by Mother Jones (as far left as anyone is going to get).

The Obama people were whining about the ACORN tape being edited, so let's see them take responsibility for jumping down the Romney campaign's collective throat by going on and on about THIS edited tape.

Waiting.
Waiting.
Crickets.

Are you implying that it was edited to misrepresent what he actually said? If so, then Romney disagrees with you: "At an impromptu news conference Monday, Romney offered no apologies, conceding the comments were not "elegantly stated" and were spoken "off the cuff." He has not denied making the statement, or even that it was out of context, as has been the charge in the situations you are attempting to compare it to. If he actually made the statements, in context, in the released video, what exactly is your issue with the editing?

Anonymous wrote:When SS was first created, I believe there was about 155 people working and paying in to SS for every person eligible. Today the number is what? maybe 4? When I retire, the number will be maybe 3.5. It is unsustainable. Just like Medicare. Today and every day for the next 18 years, 10,000 baby boomers will become Medicare eligible. Ten thousdand every day. Unsustainable.

They've been "unsustainable" before. That's why the programs have been modified over the years. As it stands, SS would not have a shortfall for decades(I've seen years ranging from 2037 to 2042 usually), and at that point, it would still be receiving something like 87% of the revenue needed to sustain the benefits. And that assumes that nothing changes between then and now, an assumption that no one believes likely. We simply can't predict what will happen to the economy/government/markets/etc. over the next five years, let alone 20-30 years. Parts of Medicare will face the same issue sooner, where benefits outstrip revenue, but again, we aren't talking about going from fully funded to zero between one year and the next, only a difference of whether revenue will fully fund benefits.

For both programs, relatively minor changes(Such as Reagan's minor SS payroll tax increase back in the 80s, which extended SS by over 20 years) will extend the current estimates by 30-40 years, again, using the current numbers. I expect retirement age to keep creeping up as well, since people are living longer and staying healthier longer. To sum up, these "dire" warnings aren't really dire at all. No one believes the programs are perfect or can be sustained as they currently stand, but that doesn't mean an "all or nothing" mentality about the programs reflect the reality of the situation. They won't simply vanish in an instant.

jsteele wrote:Are you aware of the social problems that are rampant in heavily-Republican rural areas? There are deep historical reasons for the problems in both areas. Attempting to link them to political parties is pretty lame.

Yep, I grew up in the rural south, and it has most of the exact same problems you find in inner cities. While there are some differences, they are generally where one problem is swapped for another.(Fewer drug sales, a lot more drug production, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:What it means is that supposed adults keep using a childish name to refer to him, thinking they are just hilarious.
Meanwhile, whenever anyone refers to the president as "Barack Hussein Obama" -- which IS his name -- they are clearly racists and Islamaphobes.

Oddly enough, I never considered anyone calling the president "Barack Hussein Obama" racist or an Islamaphobe.(Is that even a word?) The only objections I've seen are when the name is used to imply that he is a Muslim, or to associate him with Islam in some way. I suppose you also criticized all the conservatives that kept calling Obama the "Messiah" during the 2008 race as well? Or is it only bad when a nickname is being used on your candidate?