U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 13, 2012 02:46 PM UTC

Open Line Friday!

  • 179 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“You’re a stinking liar, and I’m gonna call you on it. Nobody else had the guts to call you a liar, you little protected president, but that’s what you are.”

–Rush Limbaugh, yesterday

Tweet
Share

Comments

179 thoughts on “Open Line Friday!”

                2. it’s accolades — not acolades.

                  See:

                  Romney basks in Republican Accolades

                  http://blogs.channel4.com/matt…

                  Apparently you don’t fry or broil em’ . . . you bask in ’em.  

                  Maybe if you’re rich enough, like Romney, you can have servants cook ’em for you . . . then you can bask in ’em as you savor them.  I mean, like ellbee says — it’s your money, you can do what you want with it in this country.  

                    1. As my father’s old high school chant went, ” kick ’em high, kick ’em low, kick ’em in the nuts, LETS GO ! ”

                      freaking GOLD !

                    2. went like this:

                      Rah, Rah, Ree…Kick ’em in the knee!

                      Rah, Rah, Ras…Kick’ em in the other knee.!

                      Silly… but I still find it amusing.

                    4. I’m afraid I may have inherited some of that corniness. Even though I have tried to be better…   🙂

  2. This is as much, or even more, of an issue because Romney won’t answer the questions raised.

    Republicans warned that none of that would make Bain go away as a political issue.

    “Mitt Romney had an opportunity to answer these questions during the primary,” said Rick Tyler, who ran the pro-Gingrich super PAC that spent millions attacking Romney on the Bain issue. ” He did not answer these questions and now they’re coming up again.”

    Tyler warned that the newest Bain twist has the potential to inflict real harm if Romney doesn’t start providing answers.

    “I saw Andrea Saul’s robotic response, which was the same as it’s always been,” Tyler said, referring to Romney’s press secretary. “That doesn’t comport with documents that have his name on it after 1999 that list him as CEO who was making money off of transactions. If he wasn’t making money from Bain, then his tax returns from the period in question would reveal that.”

    Exactly right. Romney may well be telling the whole truth and in the clear, but he’s been so cagey about the whole thing that the damage is as much self-inflicted as it is caused by the news reports.

    1. makes this worse and worse for the Rmoney campaign. Either way this breaks, he is a liar. I would venture that this might become big enough that Rmoney will not emerge from the convention as the candidate.

      Do you think that it possible?

      1. Because there’s no one else to nominate. Besides, I think it would take a revelation that he murdered someone in the 80s and used his wealth to cover it up to cause something like that.

        That said, it’s a huge distraction for him and as you say, it gets worse as it goes. This issue has a great stick to bash Romney with, and it’s because Romney isn’t willing to come clean.

          1. Fidel has managed to score the exclusive with Mitt Romney’s nutsack – lets go now:

            Seems to be a palpable sense of ( oof !) calm here, and I really don’t (sweet Jesus !) and (oh, SHIT, thank god I already have 5 kids) see all the need ( just take a knee).  Anyway, ( lie down, LIE DOWN ! ) back to you polsters.

          2. the SEC, at President Obama’s direction, will not address it at all. It is that politeness thing that exists unfortunatley. President Obama is bound by tradition to NOT do anything that would be able to be seen as “just politics” in this regard. If anything, this rising now is almost immunity from prosecution, FOREVER, for Rmoney.

      2. Howard Fineman pegs Mitt’s campaign team @Romney’s Bain Mess

        Mitt’s ego is his own worst enemy:  “… Mittsters formed a delegation and flew to Washington to personally demand a retraction by the paper (Washington Post) …”

        There exist small remnants of pride and core beliefs in factual reporting for some news folks these days.  Mitt’s folks got cocky and demanded retractions/apologies from two venerated news media maintstays.  Post & Globe aren’t sheep and pushed back so Team Mitt’s umbrage is just chum in the water.

        How many other reporters & newsfolks are nosing around this story now?  This snowball is rolling downhill and it’s picking up momentum.  It’s not gonna change the GOPers tent revival but it sure taints outreach to independents & moderates.

        1. meet operandi . . . .

          Recalling now Willard’s confrontation of that reporter during the (was it New Hampshire?) primary Q&A session, who dared ask a question Willard didn’t want to hear . . .  

    2. Erickson pretty much nailed it today, IMO.  I mean, really, do you think all of this wasn’t internally vetted before Romney spent so much money in 2008 and in this cycle?

      Emphasis mine.

      Really? A felon? Hey! Let’s accuse Barack Obama of being a foreign born Muslim! There’s about the same validity to both. Meet the Bainers – they are the members of Team Obama demanding proof from Mitt Romney that he is a liar or a felon. Next they’ll ask when he stopped beating his wife.

      The Bainers will not take any answer that does not show Romney to be a liar or felon in the same way Birthers will take no answer other than one that shows Barack Obama is not an American citizen. In fact, pointing this out on twitter today I was barraged from both sides that Obama has still never shown his real birth certificate and Mitt Romney has still not shown his tax returns.

      That, in fact, is what this is all about. It’s just another attempt to get Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. Guy Benson has a pretty exhaustive look at this nonsense.

      The Bainers will become as insufferable as the Birthers. The only difference is that the Bainers’ insufferable stupidity is at the heart of the Obama campaign while the Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers.

      1. And the sections you highlight demonstrate that. He’s a professional talking head and you should know better than to quote him here.

        There was no smoke with the birth certificate. There’s as much smoke as we had on the 4th of July with Bain.

        1. You’re quoting a bunch of talking heads about this.  Factcheck and WaPo have both said there’s nothing new to this, and you’d actually say that another person has “absolutely no valid opinions”?

          What if he’s a Bronco fan?

          1. Erickson is another Coulter, Limbaugh, or Hannity, but a bit more polite. Politico is respected on both sides of the aisle.

            Also, your quote doesn’t answer the analysis I quote. It’s deflection, and it’s what the paid hacks do.

            You don’t believe there’s anything wrong with Romney, Bain, or what was going on in 1999-2002, but I think you don’t understand why that’s even an issue to anyone else. Here’s why:

            Romney shouts about how he created jobs and that’s why we should elect him. So his job creation record is an issue, and during those years Bain was definitely not doing that. And now there’s documentation strongly suggesting that he was part of that. And he’s not now, nor has he ever, really answered it.

            So here comes Erickson telling us that wondering about that is as senseless as wondering whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States. And here you are saying he “nailed it.” What am I to make of that?

          2. Keep in mind that Politico is quoting REPUBLICAN strategists here. The one here was obviously from an opposing camp (albeit one rumored to have gotten in the race to draw support away from other not-Romneys, Santorum in particular), but there are others in the article saying basically the same thing. It’s not Obama or DNC staffers saying these things.

            1. So, it’s a guy whose job was to try to take Romney down on the Bain thing, and he was humiliated.

              Also, he’s the only “REPUBLICAN strategist” who’s quoted in the article.  Left-leaning Politico spends the rest of the piece saying what a giant dry-hump this thing is.

              I love the smell of desperation in the morning.  

              🙂

                1. And you’re right.  I just read the first page, and I missed that they quoted former Huckabee and Huntsman staffers and a ‘strategist’.  Though none of them have anything nearly as accusatory to say as Tyler did.

                  Should I start quoting Pat Caddell as a “Democratic strategist” of note?

                  BTW, WaPo just gave this nonsense three Pinocchios. Here’s a good one from Kessler:

                  Let’s also not forget that Massachusetts Democrats tried to keep Romney off the ballot in the 2002 governor’s race on the grounds that he had been living and working in Utah, even paying taxes there, and thus had failed to meet the requirement to have lived seven consecutive years in Massachusetts. The effort failed, but not after Democrats waged an expensive, months’ long battle to prove he worked so much on the Olympics that he was in effect a citizen of Utah.

                  And another…

                  Still, if the Obama campaign wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should immediately lodge a complaint about Romney’s financial disclosure form, filed just last year, rather than try to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant SEC documents.

                  Why do I get the feeling that complaint is not imminent?

                  1. Do friends call other friends “hypocrites?” Esp. without merit?

                    Or keep harping on things after the fact? (Per your response to my comment to Nock below.)

                    Do friends consistently look for counter-examples in debate instead of addressing what’s being said, in an endless game of “YOUR GUY DOES IT TOO”?

                    That’s not my idea of “friendship.”

                    Per that complaint, the feeling you get is probably because the Dems don’t like prosecuting people when it can be spun to have political motivation.

                    Interesting that what factcheck themselves first called a “felony” is now suddenly being called by this guy “relatively unimportant.” Which is it? (Let’s not forget who first uttered “felony.” It wasn’t Stephanie Cutter.)

                  2. Sorry it’s only you “Republicans” that file claims without having facts.  The problem here is that Rmoney continues to act as if he is all above us and that we shouldn’t care.  Well, guess what, he’s made a mess of the whole situation by refusing to open up his tax returns.  If Obama is lying, then prove it.  If Romney continues to hide he will continue to look more and more disassociated from main stream America and more and more like what people are speculating.

      2. If it was vetted, than Romney would have aced handling it.

        Do you believe he’s his handling can be described with any positive adjectives at all?

      3. In the 2012 presidential election: the ‘birthers’ or the ‘bainers.’  

        Friendly wager ellbee?  Put some pitchers where your mouth is?  

        1. IMHO there is no equivalence between a nutcase that believes some sort of unsupported wild conspiracy theory when all facts and documents point to the opposite, and someone who is a disturbed by the unearthing of SEC documents signed by Mitt Romney himself.  It was a nice try though by Erickson.

          That being said, if Erickson wants to call me a Bainer then I’m glad to be so.

          1. More like apples and cinder blocks.  But tactically they are not equivalent either.  That’s how I look at things mid-summer 2012…  

      4. … Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers.



        Mitt campaign sure firing off some duds.

        And btw, let’s let courts decide the legal issues with the SEC filings.  There’s been plenty of judicial findings & dismissals regarding the Birthers and even a couple of court martials.  And if enough GOP’rs clammer   conspiracy & cover-up then we could get DoJ a good reason to investigate any & all SEC shenanigans.  Hell we might even get to shine a light on the banksters and Wall St grifters.    

  3. WH answer to when Obamas college records will be released. Nice job Jay Carney …. It’s all about transparency and “Donald Trump”.

    1. … I’ve never known college transcripts to be a legitimate thing to request other than when there was a reason to believe that the person didn’t legitimately earn a place in the halls of our nation’s finest institutions of higher learning. Like being the son of a wealthy graduate of the same place, who was then a rising political star. Or being someone who had generally accomplished nothing noteworthy during most of his career. Descriptions which don’t fit our current president.

      I’d say the one instance where a POTUS candidate’s college record came under question was unique enough that it did not, and should not, be standard to question the college record of POTUS candidates. No one is asking Romney to release his transcripts; basically his professional and political careers are accomplished enough to demonstrate that he’s a smart, knowledgeable man.

      The question as it applies to Obama is why? And the answer is that the GOP has a deep seated need to get revenge for every major slight, even though it’s generally deserved when it befalls the GOP. For example, Clinton’s impeachment was revenge for Watergate, nothing more. Attacking Kerry’s brave service to our country was revenge for questioning Bush’s diametrically opposed service. Just to name two major examples.

      This is the same thing. Bush’s school record was questioned, so they try to do the same with Obama. Never mind that outside of attending Harvard, the two have nothing in common. Fortunately, this never got the traction that the birth certificate question did because Obama, whatever his flaws, is clearly a smart man.

        1. son of a single mother, highly educated, Law Review, community organizer (now that is a tough, tough job. It really is). Overcame poverty. Loved his mom and grandma. Good husband and father. Writes well. Speaks well. Has passion.

          Oh yeah. Ended war in Iraq. Killed bin Laden. Killed that dude dead, dead dead!

          I’d take him over Rmoney even if he was a Kenyan Muslim

              1. issues that could involve criminal or civil law violations. As a defender of this politician many have been worried about sunlight exposing Obama’s records.

                I’ve only suggested that records from his collegiate days should be shared publicly. Did he enroll as Barry Soetero or Sutero or Sutoro or Suetoro; PELL grants, grades …. you know a little more details so we can understand the great history of this man.

                So if you’re worried about felonious actions, don’t, the statute of limitations have probably run their course.

                College records anyone?

                2. ROFLMFAO HaHaHa, you slay me…

                  led many in the media to question  

                  May I guess who?

                  many have been worried about sunlight exposing Obama’s records

                  No…they haven’t.

  4. …and sometimes I am, this is really interesting.  Whether you’re a Krugman fan, or, like me, if you can’t stand him, there is something here for you.  

    This is from a conference, a date in Spain last weekend on what has caused the economic trouble in Europe.

    Pedro Schwartz, from the ‘Austrian school’ of econ, takes Krugman on, and it’s pretty fantastic.  It starts around 35:00, and talks specifically about demand-side around 39:00.

    For me, the money quote is right at the beginning of Schwartz’ statement at 35:00:

    “Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess”.

    Enjoy, all.

          1. . . . nothing funny here.

            Bet if you shake that etch-a-sketch enough you can probably get it to spell a name . . . something like “normey”.

    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…

      Hayek made some significant contributions to economic thinking, granted.  But his overall premise about the markets has been the historical, failed one.  Boom and bust, and The Big One being Hoover’s failed “Don’t give the citizens anything, they will become lazy.  Give money to companies instead.”

      How’d that work out?

      The First Republican Great Depression is only the last in a long line of busts in American economic history.

      Krugman predicted that the stimulus packages were too small.  That things would get better for awhile, and then sputter.  

      How’d that prediction go?

      In the event you’ve never noticed, take a look at my sig quote.  

        1. Paris,

          You should watch the testimony.

          Krugaman does not know what he is talking about. He may have been lucky, once, but that is it. Krugman wants institutionalized policy of 4% + annul inflation. Bad idea.

          You want a real prediction that is never wrong? Heck, forget prediction, proven science. Study ABCT.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…

          1. I’ve been a fan for about a decade.  I’ve read a book or two, probably most of his columns.  I’ve only seen him wrong on events once. IIRC, it was that the $4/gallon gas we were seeing several years ago wasn’t the result of market manipulations.  But subsequent investigations or showed that the prices clearly were so.  Again, strongly IIRC.  

            Anyway, once in a very professional respected career.

            That wet dream of “free markets” is the one that leads to huge, destructive economic swings, brings out the best of the predator class, and leads to monopolies, not more competition.

            Well regulated capitalism, historically, has been shown to give the greatest good to the great numbers.  

        1. Are you asking me? Krugman video or FRB testimony?  I watched 3 minutes of Krugman.  I know all about him, I cannot take much of him. He purposely uses hypnotizing speech patterns. I avoid brainwashing at all cost, besides he waste my time.

          Yes I watched the entire testimony. I hate fractional reserve banking and believe it is the monetary manifestation of socialism.

          3. He purposely uses hypnotizing speech patterns.

            I guess it comes through in his writing, too, eh?  Or perhaps he brainwashed me with his hypnotizing speech patterns when I saw him at the LoDo Tattered Cover many, many years ago.

            Or, maybe Truth is annoyingly seductive, hey?

            Let’s not forget which Democratic president did away with the gold standard.  Oh….wait….

              2. The Noble prize is given for a specific subject and even purpose.  It is NOT an indication as to the quality of the larger body of work.  Bet you do not even know why Krugam was given Nobel? You guys probably do not even know who Nobel was.

                BTW, Freidman and Hayek were given Noble. There have been many free marketers given Nobel. Krugman was an anomaly.

                1. Sort of lends a bit of credence to your post,

                  Even if the alleged facts don’t.

                  It is NOT an indication as to the quality of the larger body of work.

                   WTF??

                  Not only do I know who Nobel was w/o looking it up (the inventor of dynamite), I know how to spell his name.

                  1. First of all, Nobel was used 3 times in my post and it was correct 1 time which indicates spellcheck and I could care less so long as you understood the point. This is talking, not a teacher’s pet contest.  Secondly, nearly all Colorado Pols diaries contain spelling/grammar errors however most of us are not as anal as to mention them every time. When you call out Democrats here at Pols on their spelling/and grammar errors, I will give a shit about my errors. This is not a test, you are not paying me and I do not care. I have a life and type in passing between my real responsibilities and hobbies. You got the point, stop being so pedantic.

                    Nobel Prize is given for 1 SPECIFIC piece of work. This does not insinuate everything from the same person is correct.  Like I said Hayek and Friedman have both received the award.  How can people with opposing views all be correct at the same time if there is an ultimate correctness to the awarding of the prize? IT is just a frigging contest. Somebody has to win it. Obama,lol.

                    1. …and you are actually, heatedly defending your laziness, you kinda of prove the point that righties aren’t intellectual prize winners themselves.  You are part of the don’t give a damn about grammar and punctuation generation, I’m guessing, and similarly fail at critical thinking.  There are reasons the rules have been developed and accepted over time, and that’s to increase the accuracy and fluidity of the language.

                      I’m sure you expect your bank to get that pesky decimal point in the right place. I expect your brain to override the spell checker.  Or, is “Homonym” too difficult a concept? (No, you aren’t the only one.  I’m a voracious book reader and I see quite a few homonym errors for what are professional edited volumes.)

                      The reason “everyone” understood what you were talking about is only because of context and notoriety.  If it was the Nook Prize, not so much.

                      And you didn’t even give me a prize for knowing who NOBEL was.

                      Signed, The Grammar Gestapo and Proud Critical Thinker and Democrat.

                2. Just to be clear, Friedman won the Nobel for work in quantifying the effects of monetary injection vs other stimulus (including government spending), stating that generally, monetary stimulus was better.

                  Krugman’s Nobel was given as a result of his work correcting Friedman’s conclusion: that monetary supply changes could not overcome a stagnant economy.

                  Krugman’s findings, most directly applicable to the Japanese “lost decade” but also relevant to the recent recession, are relevant to the whole government stimulus debate.  The Fed has pumped in trillions of dollars in monetary supply, but the effect of that influx of cash seems to be mostly that the banks didn’t keel over from their own weight during the recession.  (Yes, essentially the banks lent themselves a boatload of newly printed money to prevent themselves from going bankrupt…)  Yet with far less than that, the government was able to save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs and added a couple of percent to the country’s GDP; imagine what it could have done had the original Democratic stimulus plan been enacted instead of the watered down version.

                  Both Nobel prizes were for worthy studies, but Krugman’s presents the more relevant understanding in dysfunctional economies like the current world economy.  Friedman’s work only applies to generally healthy economies.

              1. when you needed to find out how it was possible to believe that Trayvon Martin could kill you with a single blow? Only hypnotism could account for that. (With a rational person, that is. It’s more likely you’re just a fucking nutter, and more likely still that you’re just stupid.)

                2. You know I provided 5 links in which people have been killed with a single blow yet you choose to ignore them because they do not fit your imaginary narrative. I also said the facts of the Trayvon case must come out before anybody rushes to decision. The facts are still coming out. Hold your panties. http://healthyliving.ocregiste…

                  I know you do not want to admit the power of a hand blow because this would mean you nearly killed your spouse and children when you take out your insecurities on them.  Grow up, NOT Aristotle.

                  1. I ignored them because not all sources are equal. Just as I won’t ask a priest about the existence of God, I won’t ask Fox News about anything at all.

                    And yes, Nock, I’m well aware that it’s possible to be killed by a single punch – when it’s thrown by a well-trained heavyweight boxer, one who is in absolute prime shape. NOT a skinny kid.

                    Anyway, here’s a hint. Instead of providing JUST a bunch of links (even credible ones), how about you summarize what they say? Being able to do that would show that you possess a modicum of critical thought and understanding. As it is, you’re just a parrot. (And not a classy one either – what do you think Pols would do if I reported to them that you allege I physically abuse my family?)

    3. You asked for an econ nerd — well, you got one.

      Austrian views are considered heterodox. Austrian economists reject the notion of economic propositions being empirically verifiable and vice-versa mainstream economists are generally critical of its methodology. Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology. Furthermore, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible. They argue that modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful information about individual preferences.

      So, what good is an economic theory which is empirically factless?

      1. Are you the econ nerd or is the person from whom you copied from Wikipedia?

        I’m not an economist. I read Hayek and Friedman and it makes sense to me.  Friedman doesn’t buy totally into the Austrian school, and I certainly didn’t say I did, either.

        Did you know that both Friedman and Hayek won the Nobel Prize, too?

        Some of the problems I find with Krugman were pretty eloquently communicated in the video I posted, which I’m guessing you didn’t watch.

        I mean this seriously – for Parsing, too – It’s also a debate – Krugman speaks first, and has a rebuttal to the economist that took on his suppositions.

        It was not said with snark that if you like econ, it would be a really interesting thing to watch.

        1. to mean that you’ve refuted past statements move made challenging the validity of those prizes (the ones won by economists you disagree with) based on some of the jokers who won the (unrelated) Nobel Peace Prize. Is that accurate?

        2. As an alum of the University of Chicago, I knew “Uncle Milty” personally and spent many an hour debating his flawed “neoliberal economic  theories” at our infamous sherry hours Friday evening 40 some years ago.  Economic theory was as much a religion to him as it is to the Austrians.

          Religion makes sense to some people regardless of the facts –  eg creationism vs. evolution.  If you are going to approach economics like a religion – liking what confirms your preexisting belief structure or makes you feel good, more power to you.  But, don’t call yourself a “nerd.” You are merely an evangelical caught up in the rapture of you own mind.

          1. …but I didn’t pull a quote from Wikipedia without attribution.  You did.

            I’m a layman, really interested in it.  The video was really interesting to me because it was in a debate format.  Krugman was there to explain his point, as was the Spanish professor.

            I’d actually be really interested in your POV on this, if you can back off the insults a little bit.  And that’s assuming you’re telling the truth – it’s a little odd that someone who went to Chicago would bother to clip a whole paragraph from Wikipedia instead of just expelling a topic you understand so well.

            Again, since nobody bothers to check links, I’ll demonstrate:

            You said

            Austrian views are considered heterodox. Austrian economists reject the notion of economic propositions being empirically verifiable and vice-versa mainstream economists are generally critical of its methodology. Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology. Furthermore, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible. They argue that modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful information about individual preferences.

            Wikipedia says:

            Austrian views are considered heterodox. Austrian economists reject the notion of economic propositions being empirically verifiable and vice-versa mainstream economists are generally critical of its methodology.[2][3][4][5] Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology. Furthermore, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible. They argue that modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful information about individual preferences.[6][7]

            Those are pretty similar.  There’s a possibility, though, that you’re the one who wrote that passage for Wiki, which would be really cool.  I’d love to hear more of what you believe.  Maybe I’d change my mind on some things.

          2. You are a total fraud.

            You quote Bastiat in your sig line and lambast Friedman and Austrians?

            You also failed to differentiate Freidman form Mises. A true scholar could easily point out the simple difference regarding monetary policy that sets Mises far above Freidman.  I will give you a chance. Go ahead. In 1 sentence articulate their monetary difference. It is gigantic and crucial.

          1. Ok.  That makes sense, although I wish you’d at least have linked to it.  Hopefully you understand why I feel that way.  I don’t have any interest in knowing who you are, just that you’re not grabbing things without attribution.  As an author, you probably appreciate that.

      2. Keep believing what your socialist professor taught you.

        You are nowhere close to an econ nerd, if you were, you would realize much of what Austrians believe, overlaps all other economist. The differences are small yet crucial.

        You also make no reference to the distinction between economics and monetary policy. Or even macro and micro. Keep reading, keep learning and try to have an open mind.

    4. Let’s look at your “money quote” to demonstrate the flaws (if not outright lies) that Mr. Schwartz presentation.

      “Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess.”

      Keynesians did not get us into this mess. Neoliberals – i.e. Greenspan and Friedman – with their libertarian concept that the markets would self correct got us into this mess.  Banksters with their greed and sociopathic mind sets got us into this mess.

      “now we have to sacrifice our principles so that we can get out of this mess”  Principles?  What principles?  Sounds like religion to me.  I can’t accept evolution because I would have to sacrifice my religious principles – i.e. that the Bible is the revealed word of God – to do so.  After all, the earth is only some 5,000 years old and man was created from the mud by God.

      The fact is government has an integral part to play in the economy.  First, it is the source of all money. (BTW – it’s in the Constitution.)  The question is when are we going to stop sacrificing the middle and working class to the “principles” of the elite.  We need government to ensure the at economy serves the interest and welfare of all people not just the elite.

      1. I just noticed that in elbee’s “money quote” he used the word “principals” rather than “principles.”  If this was intentional, it explains a lot.

        Yes, elbee, getting out of this mess will require that we sacrifice a lot of your “principals.”  Banksters will have to go to jail.  The financial elite will have to take a hair cut.  

      2. DO you place any blame in the government for the CRA, which over time basically guaranteed banks safety in making loans to folks who had a high probability of not being able to pay them back?

        1. about making loans to people with little probability of repayment; it was about making sound investments and opening banking facilities in traditionally under served communities.

          Then the Banksters figured out they could use our weak and diminished campaign finance laws to buy off legislators (wanna guess which brand primarily?) who then leaned on regulators to redefine CRA to include any loan made to any party, at any usurious interest rate or unscrupulous terms, in certain areas.

          Blame?  No.  Abettors?  Perhaps.

          You need to look elsewhere for the prime suspects in the banking debacle.

          1. Is there a point you’d like me to answer to?  Because it looked to me like you were just making a statement.

            Your writing style really is very different from the Wiki entry.  I’ll take your word for it that you wrote or partially wrote the entry, but it’s just fishy that you didn’t just link to it in the first place.

            1. First, I try to match my writing style with the venue and the audience. The legal briefs I write are stylistically a universe apart from my letters to my friends.

              Second, the Wiki entry was a collaborative effort.  As I said, I was one of the authors. I have problems with it’s overly stilted style, but I lost that battle.

              Third, I am writing on my iPad while I am waiting for some lawyer with verbal diarrhea to finish his case so that mine can be called by the judge. Between the mechanics of typing and the interruptions, it’s a miracle that I can write of coherent sentence.  

            1. premise:: lax lending standards are what caused the banks to fail.

              Assumption: CRA caused banks to relax lending standards.

              This is a mixed bag. It didn’t have to lead to lax underwriting, but sometimes it did. CRA never required it.

              Implication : lax lending standards were caused by gov’t interference in the form of the CRA and caused the housing bubble which caused thebanks to fail.

              Voila! Gov’t interference  is the problem

              But – the banks did not fail because they made some poorly underwritten housing loans.

              Rather – the banks overextended themselves, mostly in the secondary mortgage market and in related derivatives.  WHen the liquidity beta shrank – they had the classic liquidity problem: long term assets, short term liabilities.  

              They also had  the other big problem- the assets were not adequate to cover the liabilities since they assets were declining in value too.

              Mostly the banks had the oldest and worse problem in the history of banks and business: excessive greed.

              They figured they had gamed the system to increase potential return and not only kept risk constant, they decreased it by socializing it.  Socialized losses, private gains. (it’s why I hate most hedge funds and Bain.)

              CRA was mishandled- not as mishandled as the waiver on the required increase on FHA MI, but it was not a big problem. Likewise HMDA, FNMA, FHLMC, etc.

              The real problem is since the Depression, the gov’t has been deregulating baking, sometimes a little at a time, sometimes in big leaps.   (see FIRREA)

              Wanna see the short version:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

              Or the long:

              http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analy…

              2. I don’t know for sure when most bank deregulation started, but I’m guesstimating the 1980’s.  You know, all those S&L’s that failed because they were over-regulated?  (snark)

                But I’ve completely missed the baking deregulation efforts.  So now I can make bread with sawdust and call it whole wheat? Ooooo……how about “cellulose enriched?”

              3. or, it’s American English Republican Primer corollary — everything that’s wrong with this country happened on, or after, January 21st, 2009.  

            1. Comments

              Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

              A bit long for a sig line, unfortunately 😉

      1. How many of those are initial false positives?  I would like to see the details of the ‘match.’  The number sounds quite preliminary but I only scanned the article.  

      1. In my pocket, I have a list of over 100 officials of the Hickenlooper administration who are fraudulently registered to vote.  Why does Hick continue this fraud?  Of course I will give my list to the proper officials at the proper time.

        And why hasn’t Gessler already identified these people?  What is he hiding for Hick?

      2. In my pocket, I have a list of over 100 officials of the Hickenlooper administration who are fraudulently registered to vote.  Why does Hick continue this fraud?  Of course I will give my list to the proper officials at the proper time.

        And why hasn’t Gessler already identified these people?  What is he hiding for Hick?

      1. So painfully transparent its a wonder any adult (other than the likes of Tom Tancredo who is a regular ‘contributor’) puts their name to the fiction found on its ‘pages’.  I’d be embarrassed to sign that crap, even with my nom d’ tubz: Twitty.  

          1. Poltical will > market calculation = Socialism

            It must be nice to have daddys money and other peoples money to waste.

            That is somehow related to the article you linked to?  Let me adjust the coat-hanger antennae on my tinfoil beanie and read that again.  

            1. Hopefully you are playing dumb.

              The article is about political wants trumping economic reality.

              Wasting daddys and other peoples money is Pats favorite hobby.

          2. I’ll address legitimate reporting, but if you post party propaganda, all I’m going to do – all I NEED to do – is point out that it’s propaganda.

            See, it’s not “ad hominem” to point out that a source isn’t trustworthy. I think we can all agree that not everyone is, and therefore not everyone is deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

              1. Pols gives these things called “opinions” with the intent to “stimulate debate.” You can argue over the fairness of their opinions, but they are not giving “news,” nor are they trying to fool anyone into thinking they are.

                COO gives “propaganda” in the guise of “reporting.” The purpose is trick people into believing that they aren’t biased when they are absolutely biased, much worse than any MSM outlet (including CBS or MSNBC) that you could care to name.

                Numbers may not lie, but the Colorado Observer most definitely does. You may be fool enough to believe them (given your opinions about Trayvon Martin, I’d say you’re definitely a fool), but I do not.

              2. I read your silly little article  and there were no numbers. Just quotes from a bunch of conservative political hacks and politicians.

                I did find one thing interesting.  Near the end of the article, one Republican Congressman said he didn’t like the proposed legislation because it might cut off federal subsidies and support for the nuclear industry.  Hey, if we could get rid of all subsidies for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, I might consider that a fair trade.

                Before you jump at this offer, Nock, keep in mind that the federal government is the liability insurer for the nuclear industry, because the private sector refuses to insure nuclear power plants.  Without government insurance, all the nuclear power plants would close.

              3. jadodd’s comment confirms my suspicion that your linked article was a bunch of bullshit. I knew that without reading it because… wait for it… it was from a hack partisan site that is under either the direct control of the Republican Party, or that of a PAC or superPAC that is allied so closely with the GOP that the distinction is meaningless.

                If you ever post something from such a source again, I’ll do the same – call bullshit on it and not even bother to read it.

  8. Mitt Romney To Give Network Interviews On Friday, July 13

    yeah, so he will do this news dump at the end-of-the-week newscycle (that’s how cowards do it) but it would seem somebody’s got some esplaining to do about Bain/SEC files.  

    Team Mitt’s SOP is to get him onto Faux for some slow & low softballs but here we see them pushing Mitt into the klieg lights to try and stem the blood flow.  Nothing revelatory will come outta these sit-downs but it does show the story has got some knees knockin’.    

      1. Unfortunately, while the MSM will not necessarily be cheerleaders for Willard like Fox News, their understanding of the facts and issues will allow Willard to continue ot obfuscate and outright lie.

          1. There will be a lot of lies and evasion in these interviews – hey, this is Mitt Romney we are talking about, and he’s a liar who is terrible in interviews.  Most of the lies will be overlooked, but there will be one or two whoppers, which will just set forth another frenzy.

            My own theory.

          2. with truth or anything resembling a probing question. Here is an easy one, “While you were CEO of Bain from ’99-’02 you took a salary. What was your responsibility?”

              2. if they ask the questions Business Insider does (already posted below), but they bear repeating:

                Was Mitt Romney “chairman, CEO, and President” of Bain from 1999-2002 (even if he had physically “left” and was spending 100% of his time running the Olympics)? If the answer is “yes,” then Romney is responsible for what Bain did during that period–full stop.

                OR

                  Were the filings submitted to the SEC inaccurate?

                The answer to those two questions cannot be “both.”  It’s one or the other.

                But… they probably won’t ask these questions, or anything close to them.

  9. http://www.businessinsider.com…

    This is why this story has legs, why the dismissals fall flat, and why this will be a problem for Romney until he comes clean about it.

    Some choice quotes…

    Beyond determining whether these statements [made by Bain and Romney about Romney’s role at Bain 1999-2002] are accurate–or whether Bain misled the SEC or Romney has been misleading the public–the reason this issue is important is that Romney wants to disavow responsibility for anything Bain or Bain companies did after early 1999. [Ari’s emphasis]

    …

    Romney did leave Bain in 1999, at least for a leave of absence (he went to run the Olympics).

    And it is possible that, once he left, he no longer had direct input into investment or management decisions.

    However …

    As “Chairman, CEO, and President” of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had “left” and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.

    The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted), but this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.

    Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions. [Ari’s emphasis]

    …

    Here are the questions that the Romney campaign needs to answer:

       Was Mitt Romney “chairman, CEO, and President” of Bain from 1999-2002 (even if he had physically “left” and was spending 100% of his time running the Olympics)? If the answer is “yes,” then Romney is responsible for what Bain did during that period–full stop.

    OR

       Were the filings submitted to the SEC inaccurate?

    The answer to those two questions cannot be “both.”  It’s one or the other. [Questions in bold @ original article, Ari’s emphasis on last paragraph only.]

  10. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) effectively defunded his state’s Planned Parenthood earlier this year by barring it and any other “abortion affiliates” from receiving funds under the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP). The government eventually cut off the program for not complying with the law, but Perry insisted he’d continue it – but on his own terms.

    It turns out those terms mean blocking funding for anyone who even talks about abortion.

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/11/514891/texas-seeks-to-stop-doctors-from-talking-about-abortion/

    or:

    In Rick Perry’s Texas, the first rule of women’s health is that we don’t talk about women’s health. The second rule of women’s health is UGH FINE, we can talk about women’s health, but only if we don’t mention that abortion exists. At least, that’s according to government documents that outline how the state will dole out money for its women’s health program. Doctors and health care facilities will be completely ineligible for funds if they so much as imply that it’s possible for a woman who is pregnant to end her pregnancy by obtaining a legal abortion.

    http://jezebel.com/abortion/

    1. Who was president in 2007? Hint: not Obama.

      How about in April in 2008

      “We know that we’re not posting um, an honest LIBOR,” a Barclays employee tells a New York Fed analyst in an April 11, 2008, call, “and yet we are doing it, because, um, if we didn’t do it, It draws, um, unwanted attention on ourselves.”

      Or in late October ’08

      In late October 2008, several months after Geithner’s memo to King, a Barclays employee told a New York Fed representative that Libor rates were still “absolute rubbish.”

      Yeah, still not Obama.

    2. Not the President.

      1) The Federal reserve is the central bank of the USA. The fed is not a part of the government.  

      2) LIBOR

      London Inerbank Offered Rate

      London is not a part of the USA and neither the US gov’t nor the US Federal Reserve runs Brit monetary policy.

      3) so what?

      2. And it works closely with the treasury. As to LIBOR, it’s set in London but is used throughout our financial system. And if it was bogus at a minimum that could have been announced and interest rates could have been pegged to something more reliable.

        You’re making excuses.

        1. http://www.federalreserve.gov/…

          Who owns the Federal Reserve?

          The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government.  It is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

          As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

            1. If that’s hat you’re saying, than I agree we agree.

              Seriously- the FAA, the FBI,  DOD, EPA, HUD and on and on and on are “part” of the federal gov’t.

              The Federal Reserve is not part of the gov’t – and I know this because it specifically says so in the Federal Reserve ACt of 1913.

              There are, of course, better sources than the Wikipedia (including me) but it’s a good start.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…

              Who ons the Federal Reserve:  the member banks.

              Who are the member banks: any federally chartered bank and any state chartered  bank that chooses to be.

              And theses member banks “own” the Fed?

              By law they  are required to.

              By law, the Fed was intended to be independent of the gov’t. And it mostly is.

              I have an idea – I won’t tell you how to program or compile

              software, you won’t tell me about money and banking in the USA.

              1. To quote from the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you listed:

                The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

                Sorry but it’s part of the U.S. Government. It’s authority derives solely from an act of Congress. The government is not composed solely of executive agencies. The FDIC is another independent agency.

                I’ll leave the final comment to you on this (responding to this one) as this argument is going in circles.

                1. You think I’ll have the last word – I think I’ll leave it to the US Congress, US federal court (9th Circuit) and the Fed itself. There is no “argument” but you are going in circles.  I guess you say potato, I say STFU.

                  “Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions.  They are not government institutions.”

                  Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, June 10, 1932

                  bolding is mine

                  “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations.”  US Ninth Circuit Court [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]

                  bolding is mine

  12. If Romney and his handlers don’t figure out how to respond to these accusations with something beyond “they’re just jealous” or “they’re out they’re out to get me,” the damage will already have been done.  

    1. if the “Bain and Switch” is still discussed in editorials, news articles and network TV by then I’ll be surprised and Rmoney will be doomed

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

78 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!