Yep. What more can you say, really?

Until tomorrow or the next day when Mittens will again open his mouth and say something even more unbelievably stupid/crass/hypocritical.

The good thing is, you'll never run out of material until the election is over and the votes (hopefully) counted. That's the bad thing, too.

Don't get carpal tunnel from all the typing.

Every new news story is like Christmas and free rimjob day all rolled into for me.

why is he called mittens

Basically it's just a juvenile play on his name; digging at him the same way conservatives say 'NObama', or 'Billary' when Clinton was in office. We on the left really ought to be better than that, and take the high road of attacking him on his awful, awful ideas.

Oh, come on.

There is nothing wrong (on either side) with a little mockery.

Mitt has my vote!

Mock if you want to, but it cheapens your argument. If your goal is to change someone's opinion, you lessen your chances. I know if I'm reading a politics-related post, or having a discussion with someone, and they use a phrase like 'NObama', or 'Billary', or 'Mittens' I automatically reach the conclusion that the person has nothing of importance to say, so I usually stop reading, or listening.

Because it's funny.

Also, it makes me think of tiny adorable kittens, which surely can't be a bad thing for Romney. Right? Everyone loves kittens.

Does context matter? Would you have the same reaction seeing Team Mittens in my column as you would if I were commenting on the CE boards? Or vice-versa?

This isn't meant to be argumentative, I'm curious.

To some extent, but in the context of me be somewhat familiar with your posts and view-points.

Whether it's in a column or comment, your posts are mostly well-written and well-informed, so I ignore the occasional 'Mittens' thrown in every now and again, because I know from past experience that it's worth taking the time to read your posts.

However, if I were a brand-new member, unfamiliar with your writing, and either on the fence or conservative-leaning but open to counter arguments, I might not read too far. Especially if you open up with a 'Mittens' before getting into substantive points about why Romney would be an awful president.

What amazes me is that the more liberal among us utterly refuse to learn from history and seem to have no way to process the concept of increased revenue via more transactions.

In the '80s we reduced taxes and there was a huge surge of revenue to the federal treasury. Period. It's fact. I know you Obamaites don't want to hear that but it's true. I suspect even Obama knows it (remember he said you don't raise taxes in a recession but Obamacare is going to do just that anyway).

How this happens is that when you lower taxes people engage in more economic activity, they buy more, do more, because the hurdle is lower and they mind less giving over a chunk of change to the government.

When taxes are high, it discourages and depresses economic activity. This is obvious to anybody who has ever bought two or three items of something on sale. It's common sense.

The great JFK knew this too if you check your history books kiddies - he also lowered taxes to grow the economy. It's only the modern democrat it seems that wants to encourage class warfare with the mantra that the rich need to pay more. You're being deceived and lied to by a party that wants to divide the nation among class lines and convince you that the rich aren't paying enough when they already pay 90% of the taxes. They want to convince you that the very businesses that hire people and give you a job aren't paying enough in taxes. So, what happens, is they increase taxes, business can't expand or hire you, you go on welfare and complain about your lot in life, your self esteem is destroyed, and a nice RICH democrat the Obama convinces you that the rich aren't paying enough yet. You folks that want this cycle are nothing but tools to the democrats that are using you for their own power.

A powerful central government is only for the elites which is why the U.S. constitution was framed to decentralize power. You folks that vote for Obama are only undermining your own liberty and making yourself more dependent on the scraps the democrats toss at you. It's so so sad. You're being used folks. Try this... look up JFK... see what he did.... he's a hero. By the democratic standards of today they wouldn't even let him in the front door.

I often have the same thought about conservatives. They seem to be completely ignorant of a little thing called The Great Depression. They also seem to have no knowledge of 'Hoovernomics', even though it's exactly the same thing as 'Reaganomics' and what the Republicans are still trying to sell to this day; trickle-down economics. It has never and will never work.

I realize you don't want to hear this, but, ummm....Reagan raised taxes in the 1980s. Oh, he lowered them first, to the point that, had he not done something to offset the lost revenue, we were headed right back into the Great Depression.

So, umm...yeah.

Link

Let me help you out here, someone actually did "learn from history" those liberal slackers at the Congressional Research Service (cough, actually a nonpartisan gov't agency, in case the sarcasm didn't land) recently studied six decades worth of data between tax policy and economic activity. How fortuitous for us! What'd they find, you ask?

Also?

There's a big correlation/causality issue when stating that Reagen's tax cuts from--off the top of my head-- ~70% to ~40% helped economic growth, but even if we grant the premise, it wouldn't be shocking that halving the highest tax rate would stimulate economic activity.

But taxes are at incredibly historic lows, there are virtually no taxes to cut and still have the sort of government most Americans want.

So what else you got besides snide, condescending bullshit that's easily disproven?

True, kittens are so cute, wobbly, unable to care for themselves sucking on a teet. Exactly who we want for a Prez.