scandal

So cool to  see this thread right after I randomly dropped into VJ too after so many years!!
Well, not quite so randomly.
I did my Visa journey stint around 2008-2010 when we went through K-1/AOS etc (I honestly don't even remember all the acronyms) for my wife from Thailand. So here we are, 12 years later, happily married with a 7 year old daughter. Just another VJ success story.
 
So what, you ask, am I doing back on VJ now? No, I'm not here to engage in the raging political fights I recall on off-topic. 
Rather, wen(the wife and I) have started looking seriously at the possibility of sponsoring a refugee Ukrainian family under the new Uniting for Ukraine program https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/uniting-for-ukraine
I thought maybe there might be some useful information on VJ from others who are exploring this option. I haven't seen anything here though I'll keep looking.

So cool to  see this thread right after I randomly dropped into VJ too after so many years!!
Well, not quite so randomly.
I did my Visa journey stint around 2008-2010 when we went through K-1/AOS etc (I honestly don't even remember all the acronyms) for my wife from Thailand. So here we are, 12 years later, happily married with a 7 year old daughter. Just another VJ success story.
 
So what, you ask, am I doing back on VJ now? No, I'm not here to engage in the raging political fights I recall on off-topic. 
Rather, wen(the wife and I) have started looking seriously at the possibility of sponsoring a refugee Ukrainian family under the new Uniting for Ukraine program https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/uniting-for-ukraine
I thought maybe there might be some useful information on VJ from others who are exploring this option. I haven't seen anything here though I'll keep looking.

So cool to  see this thread right after I randomly dropped into VJ too after so many years!!
Well, not quite so randomly.
I did my Visa journey stint around 2008-2010 when we went through K-1/AOS etc (I honestly don't even remember all the acronyms) for my wife from Thailand. So here we are, 12 years later, happily married with a 7 year old daughter. Just another VJ success story.
 
So what, you ask, am I doing back on VJ now? No, I'm not here to engage in the raging political fights I recall on off-topic. 
Rather, wen(the wife and I) have started looking seriously at the possibility of sponsoring a refugee Ukrainian family under the new Uniting for Ukraine program https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/uniting-for-ukraine
I thought maybe there might be some useful information on VJ from others who are exploring this option. I haven't seen anything here though I'll keep looking.

ok, I did find some discussion here . What I'm really looking for though are other people in same situation as we are: concerned Americans who want to help by sponsoring a Ukrainian family but who don't know anyone there. I have found a couple of Facebook groups devoted to this. I kind of expected VJ to be out in front of it however it's so new (the program was only launched on Monday) that perhaps no one here has brought it up.
 

I think this is a false comparison.
The trend has been to offer consenting adults increasing freedom - to treat them as citizens in a free society, able to exercise the liberty to live as they choose.
But when it comes to members of our society who cannot offer free consent, society has stepped in to protect them from predation.
Hence, we increasingly have come to understand that adults capable of consent should be allowed to choose who to love and marry, which substances to ingest or inhale, which "obscene" content they should be allowed to view in the privacy of their own home, etc.
However when it comes to children, the mentally disabled or those with degenerative diseases affecting cognition and ability to consent, we've stepped in to regulate and restrict, in the name of protection of those who cannot necessarily protect themselves. Hence we have child labor laws, mandatory education laws, and of course we don't allow children to be victimized sexually or physically by predatory adults.
Nothing inconsistent here at all.

In my experience, the key concept that proves difficult for people to understand how evolution (i.e. random mutations + natural selection) could possibly lead to complex organisms and the diversity of life we see around us, is the notion of time. The sheer, vast amount of time which is required to lead to this diversity and complexity. And the fact that our world offers precisely this amount of time. Evolution works slowly and incrementally, over thousands of generations and ultimately over 10s of millions of years. Occasional random mutations occur in individuals a population. Beneficial ones that offer improved reproductive success tend to accumulate in offspring and are passed down to the next generation. Neutral or harmful mutations tend not to accumulate. Regardless, it takes many, many successive generations for cumulative mutations to lead to observable phenotype changes, and ultimately to speciation (branching off of new species).
Consider that a human generation is ~20 years, and the thousands of cumulative mutations it necessarily took to develop opposable thumbs, our large braincase and enlarged cerebral cortex, and bipedal locomotion, it is easy to see why our branch point from our nearest living relatives occurred some 300,000 generations or 7 million years ago.
The trouble for many laypeople trying to internalize how evolution works in practice is that such timescales are very difficult for people to grasp. We intuitively understand time on the order of our own lifespan. We are fine with the notion of a year, a decade, perhaps a century. But the Flintstones charicatures of cavemen frolicking with dinosaurs are symptomatic of the problem: we tend to blur the "ancientness" of paleolithic man (~10^5 - 10^6 years) with the "ancientness" of the Jurassic (10^8 years). We're talking 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That's simply an inconceivable amount of time for people to comprehend on a human scale. Yet it's precisely the time needed to slowly evolve species which adapt to their environmental niches.
Is evolution a true and satisfying account of the origins and development of the diversity of life? Of course. Unquestionably and undoubtedly.
Is it difficult for people to wrap their minds around? At first. But not once you get used to thinking of these time scales. And not once you see the evidence of beautifully adapted creatures which exploit their environmental niches so superbly. Blind bats using sonar to "see" in pitch black caves. Emperor penguins who have evolved incredible mating procedures with precise timing to lay their eggs, incubate them, and afford males and females opportunities to feed themselves and their hatchlings in the unforgiving climate of Antarctica. The examples are everywhere around and provide unassailable evidence.

I think this is a false comparison.
The trend has been to offer consenting adults increasing freedom - to treat them as citizens in a free society, able to exercise the liberty to live as they choose.
But when it comes to members of our society who cannot offer free consent, society has stepped in to protect them from predation.
Hence, we increasingly have come to understand that adults capable of consent should be allowed to choose who to love and marry, which substances to ingest or inhale, which "obscene" content they should be allowed to view in the privacy of their own home, etc.
However when it comes to children, the mentally disabled or those with degenerative diseases affecting cognition and ability to consent, we've stepped in to regulate and restrict, in the name of protection of those who cannot necessarily protect themselves. Hence we have child labor laws, mandatory education laws, and of course we don't allow children to be victimized sexually or physically by predatory adults.
Nothing inconsistent here at all.

In my experience, the key concept that proves difficult for people to understand how evolution (i.e. random mutations + natural selection) could possibly lead to complex organisms and the diversity of life we see around us, is the notion of time. The sheer, vast amount of time which is required to lead to this diversity and complexity. And the fact that our world offers precisely this amount of time. Evolution works slowly and incrementally, over thousands of generations and ultimately over 10s of millions of years. Occasional random mutations occur in individuals a population. Beneficial ones that offer improved reproductive success tend to accumulate in offspring and are passed down to the next generation. Neutral or harmful mutations tend not to accumulate. Regardless, it takes many, many successive generations for cumulative mutations to lead to observable phenotype changes, and ultimately to speciation (branching off of new species).
Consider that a human generation is ~20 years, and the thousands of cumulative mutations it necessarily took to develop opposable thumbs, our large braincase and enlarged cerebral cortex, and bipedal locomotion, it is easy to see why our branch point from our nearest living relatives occurred some 300,000 generations or 7 million years ago.
The trouble for many laypeople trying to internalize how evolution works in practice is that such timescales are very difficult for people to grasp. We intuitively understand time on the order of our own lifespan. We are fine with the notion of a year, a decade, perhaps a century. But the Flintstones charicatures of cavemen frolicking with dinosaurs are symptomatic of the problem: we tend to blur the "ancientness" of paleolithic man (~10^5 - 10^6 years) with the "ancientness" of the Jurassic (10^8 years). We're talking 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That's simply an inconceivable amount of time for people to comprehend on a human scale. Yet it's precisely the time needed to slowly evolve species which adapt to their environmental niches.
Is evolution a true and satisfying account of the origins and development of the diversity of life? Of course. Unquestionably and undoubtedly.
Is it difficult for people to wrap their minds around? At first. But not once you get used to thinking of these time scales. And not once you see the evidence of beautifully adapted creatures which exploit their environmental niches so superbly. Blind bats using sonar to "see" in pitch black caves. Emperor penguins who have evolved incredible mating procedures with precise timing to lay their eggs, incubate them, and afford males and females opportunities to feed themselves and their hatchlings in the unforgiving climate of Antarctica. The examples are everywhere around and provide unassailable evidence.

In my experience, the key concept that proves difficult for people to understand how evolution (i.e. random mutations + natural selection) could possibly lead to complex organisms and the diversity of life we see around us, is the notion of time. The sheer, vast amount of time which is required to lead to this diversity and complexity. And the fact that our world offers precisely this amount of time. Evolution works slowly and incrementally, over thousands of generations and ultimately over 10s of millions of years. Occasional random mutations occur in individuals a population. Beneficial ones that offer improved reproductive success tend to accumulate in offspring and are passed down to the next generation. Neutral or harmful mutations tend not to accumulate. Regardless, it takes many, many successive generations for cumulative mutations to lead to observable phenotype changes, and ultimately to speciation (branching off of new species).
Consider that a human generation is ~20 years, and the thousands of cumulative mutations it necessarily took to develop opposable thumbs, our large braincase and enlarged cerebral cortex, and bipedal locomotion, it is easy to see why our branch point from our nearest living relatives occurred some 300,000 generations or 7 million years ago.
The trouble for many laypeople trying to internalize how evolution works in practice is that such timescales are very difficult for people to grasp. We intuitively understand time on the order of our own lifespan. We are fine with the notion of a year, a decade, perhaps a century. But the Flintstones charicatures of cavemen frolicking with dinosaurs are symptomatic of the problem: we tend to blur the "ancientness" of paleolithic man (~10^5 - 10^6 years) with the "ancientness" of the Jurassic (10^8 years). We're talking 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That's simply an inconceivable amount of time for people to comprehend on a human scale. Yet it's precisely the time needed to slowly evolve species which adapt to their environmental niches.
Is evolution a true and satisfying account of the origins and development of the diversity of life? Of course. Unquestionably and undoubtedly.
Is it difficult for people to wrap their minds around? At first. But not once you get used to thinking of these time scales. And not once you see the evidence of beautifully adapted creatures which exploit their environmental niches so superbly. Blind bats using sonar to "see" in pitch black caves. Emperor penguins who have evolved incredible mating procedures with precise timing to lay their eggs, incubate them, and afford males and females opportunities to feed themselves and their hatchlings in the unforgiving climate of Antarctica. The examples are everywhere around and provide unassailable evidence.

I think this is a false comparison.
The trend has been to offer consenting adults increasing freedom - to treat them as citizens in a free society, able to exercise the liberty to live as they choose.
But when it comes to members of our society who cannot offer free consent, society has stepped in to protect them from predation.
Hence, we increasingly have come to understand that adults capable of consent should be allowed to choose who to love and marry, which substances to ingest or inhale, which "obscene" content they should be allowed to view in the privacy of their own home, etc.
However when it comes to children, the mentally disabled or those with degenerative diseases affecting cognition and ability to consent, we've stepped in to regulate and restrict, in the name of protection of those who cannot necessarily protect themselves. Hence we have child labor laws, mandatory education laws, and of course we don't allow children to be victimized sexually or physically by predatory adults.
Nothing inconsistent here at all.

In my experience, the key concept that proves difficult for people to understand how evolution (i.e. random mutations + natural selection) could possibly lead to complex organisms and the diversity of life we see around us, is the notion of time. The sheer, vast amount of time which is required to lead to this diversity and complexity. And the fact that our world offers precisely this amount of time. Evolution works slowly and incrementally, over thousands of generations and ultimately over 10s of millions of years. Occasional random mutations occur in individuals a population. Beneficial ones that offer improved reproductive success tend to accumulate in offspring and are passed down to the next generation. Neutral or harmful mutations tend not to accumulate. Regardless, it takes many, many successive generations for cumulative mutations to lead to observable phenotype changes, and ultimately to speciation (branching off of new species).
Consider that a human generation is ~20 years, and the thousands of cumulative mutations it necessarily took to develop opposable thumbs, our large braincase and enlarged cerebral cortex, and bipedal locomotion, it is easy to see why our branch point from our nearest living relatives occurred some 300,000 generations or 7 million years ago.
The trouble for many laypeople trying to internalize how evolution works in practice is that such timescales are very difficult for people to grasp. We intuitively understand time on the order of our own lifespan. We are fine with the notion of a year, a decade, perhaps a century. But the Flintstones charicatures of cavemen frolicking with dinosaurs are symptomatic of the problem: we tend to blur the "ancientness" of paleolithic man (~10^5 - 10^6 years) with the "ancientness" of the Jurassic (10^8 years). We're talking 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. That's simply an inconceivable amount of time for people to comprehend on a human scale. Yet it's precisely the time needed to slowly evolve species which adapt to their environmental niches.
Is evolution a true and satisfying account of the origins and development of the diversity of life? Of course. Unquestionably and undoubtedly.
Is it difficult for people to wrap their minds around? At first. But not once you get used to thinking of these time scales. And not once you see the evidence of beautifully adapted creatures which exploit their environmental niches so superbly. Blind bats using sonar to "see" in pitch black caves. Emperor penguins who have evolved incredible mating procedures with precise timing to lay their eggs, incubate them, and afford males and females opportunities to feed themselves and their hatchlings in the unforgiving climate of Antarctica. The examples are everywhere around and provide unassailable evidence.

One person has died to date in the US from Ebola.
One person has died to date in the US after being shot by an Uzi by an 11 year old kid.
I think we should have the same 5-alarm media reactionary response to the incredible danger we're all facing of imminently dying from 11 year olds armed with Uzis, as there is to Ebola.
I personally am terrified of my next door neighbors. They have 11 year old twins. I'm pretty sure I overheard their dad talking about visiting the shooting range with them for some gun practice. Consequently I think my odds of dying from Uzi fire are double the general population. I demand my neighbors be quarantined. They should also be banned from travel on school buses, skateboards or bikes. That's a perfectly reasonable, proportional response to the threat. Do it now, America, do it now!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101628594
Ari Rubenstein, co-founder and CEO of Global Trading Systems
Mary Jo White confirmed what everyone on Wall Street has been saying for weeks: Michael Lewis is dead wrong. Responding to a question about Mr. Lewis' controversial book, "Flash Boys," the SEC Chair told Congress: "The markets are not rigged … [they] are the strongest and most reliable in the world."
....
Suddenly, however, important market participants have begun to speak up and voice their opinions on high-frequency trading, and many have come to its defense. For instance, Clifford Asness and Michael Mendelson, both principals at AQR — the kind of institutional investor Mr. Lewis claims high frequency traders are cheating — wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "How do we feel about high-frequency trading? We think it helps us." Dozens of diverse industry voices, from commodities trader Dennis Gartman to prominent market researcher and strategist Larry Tabb, have agreed.
Wall Street is a data-driven industry, which is a problem for Mr. Lewis, because he provides almost no data in "Flash Boys" to back up his incendiary claims. The result has been a groundswell of opinion rarely seen on the Street, which brings me to the second reason I'm grateful for the publication of "Flash Boys." Now that many of us have banded together, the industry can talk about something that really matters to the financial markets: stability.
The modern market is far from rigged, but it's also far from perfect. Today, virtually all trading is electronic — a fact that not many everyday investors fully appreciate. In this all-digital marketplace, human error and technical meltdowns are a real concern. Incidents like the "flash crash" of 2010 (which the SEC determined was caused by human rather than machine error), the botched Facebook IPO, and Knight Capital's implosion, while rare, demonstrate the need for regulations that strengthen the marketplace and prevent these sorts of shocks and stresses.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101628594
Ari Rubenstein, co-founder and CEO of Global Trading Systems
Mary Jo White confirmed what everyone on Wall Street has been saying for weeks: Michael Lewis is dead wrong. Responding to a question about Mr. Lewis' controversial book, "Flash Boys," the SEC Chair told Congress: "The markets are not rigged … [they] are the strongest and most reliable in the world."
....
Suddenly, however, important market participants have begun to speak up and voice their opinions on high-frequency trading, and many have come to its defense. For instance, Clifford Asness and Michael Mendelson, both principals at AQR — the kind of institutional investor Mr. Lewis claims high frequency traders are cheating — wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "How do we feel about high-frequency trading? We think it helps us." Dozens of diverse industry voices, from commodities trader Dennis Gartman to prominent market researcher and strategist Larry Tabb, have agreed.
Wall Street is a data-driven industry, which is a problem for Mr. Lewis, because he provides almost no data in "Flash Boys" to back up his incendiary claims. The result has been a groundswell of opinion rarely seen on the Street, which brings me to the second reason I'm grateful for the publication of "Flash Boys." Now that many of us have banded together, the industry can talk about something that really matters to the financial markets: stability.
The modern market is far from rigged, but it's also far from perfect. Today, virtually all trading is electronic — a fact that not many everyday investors fully appreciate. In this all-digital marketplace, human error and technical meltdowns are a real concern. Incidents like the "flash crash" of 2010 (which the SEC determined was caused by human rather than machine error), the botched Facebook IPO, and Knight Capital's implosion, while rare, demonstrate the need for regulations that strengthen the marketplace and prevent these sorts of shocks and stresses.

I'd like to see the Redskiins change their name.
I don't see Daniel Snyder doing it however, not unless his business interests are jeopardized.
If sponsors start boycotting due to public pressure that might do the trick.
There are other teams which should also consider a name change: KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks come to mind.
But none are nearly as blatantly offensive as Washington.

Because one group of people clings to one set of beliefs, does not make them wrong, it just makes them different.
That's simply not true.
If someone believes in a flat earth, or that there's a Man in the Moon, or that your DNA does not encode your phenotype, then they are not just different. They are flat, outright wrong. No if's and's or's about it.
I am almost certain that much of what we consider the culmination of all science and truth today, will be eventually dismissed as ancient superstition someday.
And I am quite certain that much of what we consider the culmination of current scientific knowledge today will absolutely stand the test of time and not be dismissed. Will it be refined, extended, added to? Of course. But can we be quite certain that the universe began from a singularity, expanded rapidly to form the known cosmos with matter dominating antimatter, with 4 basic forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity? You're darn tootin'. No turning back on these, and many other, discovered truths.
As to the show:
"m 'meh'.
The whole "Ship of the Imagination" breathlessness doesn't do it for me at all. He's trite, superficial in his coverage.
I'm enjoying far more "Your Inner Fish" with Neil Shubin on PBS. Pity it was only 3 episodes.

I recall the campaign of 1980 well. It was the first US political campaign I actively followed. I was 14 at the time. I remember George HW Bush and John Anderson trailing behind front runner Reagan in the GOP primaries, and Anderson's decision to run as an Independent when it was clear he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination but had widespread popularity as a mainstream alternative to Carter or Reagan. I was cheering for Anderson in the General, but ultimately felt pretty happy when Reagan defeated Carter in November. Carter was just THAT unpopular at the time. The US hostages still being held in Iran seemed to perfectly sum up the mood of the country about the Carter years at the time: we were impotent, we were weak, we were unable to exercise our will at home or abroad. Reagan absolutely seemed like a breath of fresh air in contrast to Carter. Morning in America, indeed (well, that was from the 1984 campaign but it fit the mood in 1980 to a T).
Anyway, I was young. I wasn't particularly partisan, didn't really lean left or right. Reagan was the new guy, and change felt good. I cheered him on, at first. As the 80s went on the bloom came off the rose. Reagan's embrace of the NRA, of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, and in due course the sleaze of Iran Contra, opened my eyes to the chasm between Reagan's encouraging folksy words about American middle class values and his unyielding ideology on the other. As the decade went on with Maggie Thatcher in the UK, Brian Mulroney in Canada, and Reagan in America, my views of conservatism in general dimmed. I began the 80s at 14, ended them at 24 so it was the decade of my maturation. I emerged from the decade soured and disbelieving in Reagan dogma about trickle down supply side economics and tax cuts. I honestly cannot understand how those ideas can retain their popularity after the past 3 decades since we first heard about the Laffer Curve during the Reagan years. Since the first days of trickle-down, America has obliterated all the progress made in the post war era. We've taken a middle class affluence that was the envy of the world and replaced it with a society that has greater wealth and income stratification than any other major economy in the world. We've taken a public education system with K-12 and post secondary institutions that allowed anyone from any side of the tracks to have a shot, and replaced it with a system that crushes our next generation with student debt they'll never pay off. We've gutted our highway and public infrastructure, produced a public health system that costs more per-capita with worse health outcomes than virtually any other G20 economy.
Reagan is not responsible for all of these policy outcomes of course. But I firmly believe that he inspired and began the slide that began during the 1980s. Where Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, and arguably even Nixon built up and upon the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway System, and a progressive tax policy - Reagan began the long slow slide downhill from the mid-century pinnacle of American greatness.

I recall the campaign of 1980 well. It was the first US political campaign I actively followed. I was 14 at the time. I remember George HW Bush and John Anderson trailing behind front runner Reagan in the GOP primaries, and Anderson's decision to run as an Independent when it was clear he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination but had widespread popularity as a mainstream alternative to Carter or Reagan. I was cheering for Anderson in the General, but ultimately felt pretty happy when Reagan defeated Carter in November. Carter was just THAT unpopular at the time. The US hostages still being held in Iran seemed to perfectly sum up the mood of the country about the Carter years at the time: we were impotent, we were weak, we were unable to exercise our will at home or abroad. Reagan absolutely seemed like a breath of fresh air in contrast to Carter. Morning in America, indeed (well, that was from the 1984 campaign but it fit the mood in 1980 to a T).
Anyway, I was young. I wasn't particularly partisan, didn't really lean left or right. Reagan was the new guy, and change felt good. I cheered him on, at first. As the 80s went on the bloom came off the rose. Reagan's embrace of the NRA, of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, and in due course the sleaze of Iran Contra, opened my eyes to the chasm between Reagan's encouraging folksy words about American middle class values and his unyielding ideology on the other. As the decade went on with Maggie Thatcher in the UK, Brian Mulroney in Canada, and Reagan in America, my views of conservatism in general dimmed. I began the 80s at 14, ended them at 24 so it was the decade of my maturation. I emerged from the decade soured and disbelieving in Reagan dogma about trickle down supply side economics and tax cuts. I honestly cannot understand how those ideas can retain their popularity after the past 3 decades since we first heard about the Laffer Curve during the Reagan years. Since the first days of trickle-down, America has obliterated all the progress made in the post war era. We've taken a middle class affluence that was the envy of the world and replaced it with a society that has greater wealth and income stratification than any other major economy in the world. We've taken a public education system with K-12 and post secondary institutions that allowed anyone from any side of the tracks to have a shot, and replaced it with a system that crushes our next generation with student debt they'll never pay off. We've gutted our highway and public infrastructure, produced a public health system that costs more per-capita with worse health outcomes than virtually any other G20 economy.
Reagan is not responsible for all of these policy outcomes of course. But I firmly believe that he inspired and began the slide that began during the 1980s. Where Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, and arguably even Nixon built up and upon the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway System, and a progressive tax policy - Reagan began the long slow slide downhill from the mid-century pinnacle of American greatness.

Norie, you are a new member on VJ. Welcome aboard , hope you find it useful.
This is now the second time you've posted something outrageous and controversial. The first was a few days ago in the thread started by 'cool', in which you made incorrect statements about prenup agreements.
Please consider what you write before you post. If you write hurtful and offensive things, people will be offended, and will respond back accordingly.
If you don't have something constructive to say, consider not saying it at all.

Here's one part of your story that I don't understand. You say that you have pictures, emails, phone calls, millions of pages of online chat...
Well, for many of us on VJ we also have those things because we are maintaining long distance relationships with our loved ones in different countries. So those artifacts ARE our relationships until we can be reunited.
But it actually seems a bit odd that you would be relying upon that kind of evidence as your proof of bona fide relationship when you and your husband are not separated (from your story I gather you live in the same city in the US). I can certainly understand photos and phone calls, that's common enough for couples that live together. But "millions of pages of online chat"? Why ?

Here's something I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on in the wake of Romney's 47% tape.
On Monday night, Romney gave a hasty news conference to attempt damage control right after the first segment of the tape was released.
At the news conference, Romney spun thusly:
"As I point out, I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I'm not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That's not as attractive to those who don't pay income taxes as it is to those who do."
To me, this statement is far more damaging to Romney, the Republican brand, and conservative ideology than the secret tape itself.
What's stunning to me about what he said Monday night is that it entirely contradicts decades of Republican orthodoxy on trickle-down, supply-side economic theory. From Ronald Reagan/David Stockman days in the 80s, the concept was: lower taxes at the highest income distributions, which would stimulate economic activity and investment, and thus create jobs, and thus promote income growth and social mobility at the lower income distributions. I.e. - the rich get richer, which lets everyone get richer. A rising tide floats all boats. You know, trickle down from top to bottom.
There has been a true electoral genius to this economic theory. It convinced voters to give Reagan two terms. It gave GB 41 & 43 the White House. It brought us Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, and the Tea Party to office in 2010, and propelled Grover Norquist to signing up all the nutters to his tax pledge. Pretty potent idea. The genius lies in the way it's allowed rich people to sell a policy which directly benefits them (tax cuts for the wealthy) to those who don't directly benefit (everyone else). How do you get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich? Convince them that they too will benefit from the tax cuts at the top.
The bombshell in what Romney said on Monday night is that he directly contradicts this theory. He said he doesn't expect "the 47%" to see any benefit in his tax cut policies, since they're not paying any income tax anyway. What does this mean? Romney is telling us flat out that supply side theory is bullsh1t. That even he doesn't see any reason why someone not getting a tax cut should support tax cuts for those who do pay high tax rates. That there's nothing in it for them, and that there's really no reason for those not getting the tax cuts to support them. Really what he said is that supply side is a prank played by the rich on the rest of us. Well, I've always known that. But it's nice to hear the GOP candidate for President say that to the nation on live television.

Here's something I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on in the wake of Romney's 47% tape.
On Monday night, Romney gave a hasty news conference to attempt damage control right after the first segment of the tape was released.
At the news conference, Romney spun thusly:
"As I point out, I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I'm not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That's not as attractive to those who don't pay income taxes as it is to those who do."
To me, this statement is far more damaging to Romney, the Republican brand, and conservative ideology than the secret tape itself.
What's stunning to me about what he said Monday night is that it entirely contradicts decades of Republican orthodoxy on trickle-down, supply-side economic theory. From Ronald Reagan/David Stockman days in the 80s, the concept was: lower taxes at the highest income distributions, which would stimulate economic activity and investment, and thus create jobs, and thus promote income growth and social mobility at the lower income distributions. I.e. - the rich get richer, which lets everyone get richer. A rising tide floats all boats. You know, trickle down from top to bottom.
There has been a true electoral genius to this economic theory. It convinced voters to give Reagan two terms. It gave GB 41 & 43 the White House. It brought us Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, and the Tea Party to office in 2010, and propelled Grover Norquist to signing up all the nutters to his tax pledge. Pretty potent idea. The genius lies in the way it's allowed rich people to sell a policy which directly benefits them (tax cuts for the wealthy) to those who don't directly benefit (everyone else). How do you get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich? Convince them that they too will benefit from the tax cuts at the top.
The bombshell in what Romney said on Monday night is that he directly contradicts this theory. He said he doesn't expect "the 47%" to see any benefit in his tax cut policies, since they're not paying any income tax anyway. What does this mean? Romney is telling us flat out that supply side theory is bullsh1t. That even he doesn't see any reason why someone not getting a tax cut should support tax cuts for those who do pay high tax rates. That there's nothing in it for them, and that there's really no reason for those not getting the tax cuts to support them. Really what he said is that supply side is a prank played by the rich on the rest of us. Well, I've always known that. But it's nice to hear the GOP candidate for President say that to the nation on live television.

Here's something I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on in the wake of Romney's 47% tape.
On Monday night, Romney gave a hasty news conference to attempt damage control right after the first segment of the tape was released.
At the news conference, Romney spun thusly:
"As I point out, I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I'm not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That's not as attractive to those who don't pay income taxes as it is to those who do."
To me, this statement is far more damaging to Romney, the Republican brand, and conservative ideology than the secret tape itself.
What's stunning to me about what he said Monday night is that it entirely contradicts decades of Republican orthodoxy on trickle-down, supply-side economic theory. From Ronald Reagan/David Stockman days in the 80s, the concept was: lower taxes at the highest income distributions, which would stimulate economic activity and investment, and thus create jobs, and thus promote income growth and social mobility at the lower income distributions. I.e. - the rich get richer, which lets everyone get richer. A rising tide floats all boats. You know, trickle down from top to bottom.
There has been a true electoral genius to this economic theory. It convinced voters to give Reagan two terms. It gave GB 41 & 43 the White House. It brought us Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, and the Tea Party to office in 2010, and propelled Grover Norquist to signing up all the nutters to his tax pledge. Pretty potent idea. The genius lies in the way it's allowed rich people to sell a policy which directly benefits them (tax cuts for the wealthy) to those who don't directly benefit (everyone else). How do you get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich? Convince them that they too will benefit from the tax cuts at the top.
The bombshell in what Romney said on Monday night is that he directly contradicts this theory. He said he doesn't expect "the 47%" to see any benefit in his tax cut policies, since they're not paying any income tax anyway. What does this mean? Romney is telling us flat out that supply side theory is bullsh1t. That even he doesn't see any reason why someone not getting a tax cut should support tax cuts for those who do pay high tax rates. That there's nothing in it for them, and that there's really no reason for those not getting the tax cuts to support them. Really what he said is that supply side is a prank played by the rich on the rest of us. Well, I've always known that. But it's nice to hear the GOP candidate for President say that to the nation on live television.

Here's something I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on in the wake of Romney's 47% tape.
On Monday night, Romney gave a hasty news conference to attempt damage control right after the first segment of the tape was released.
At the news conference, Romney spun thusly:
"As I point out, I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I'm not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That's not as attractive to those who don't pay income taxes as it is to those who do."
To me, this statement is far more damaging to Romney, the Republican brand, and conservative ideology than the secret tape itself.
What's stunning to me about what he said Monday night is that it entirely contradicts decades of Republican orthodoxy on trickle-down, supply-side economic theory. From Ronald Reagan/David Stockman days in the 80s, the concept was: lower taxes at the highest income distributions, which would stimulate economic activity and investment, and thus create jobs, and thus promote income growth and social mobility at the lower income distributions. I.e. - the rich get richer, which lets everyone get richer. A rising tide floats all boats. You know, trickle down from top to bottom.
There has been a true electoral genius to this economic theory. It convinced voters to give Reagan two terms. It gave GB 41 & 43 the White House. It brought us Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, and the Tea Party to office in 2010, and propelled Grover Norquist to signing up all the nutters to his tax pledge. Pretty potent idea. The genius lies in the way it's allowed rich people to sell a policy which directly benefits them (tax cuts for the wealthy) to those who don't directly benefit (everyone else). How do you get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich? Convince them that they too will benefit from the tax cuts at the top.
The bombshell in what Romney said on Monday night is that he directly contradicts this theory. He said he doesn't expect "the 47%" to see any benefit in his tax cut policies, since they're not paying any income tax anyway. What does this mean? Romney is telling us flat out that supply side theory is bullsh1t. That even he doesn't see any reason why someone not getting a tax cut should support tax cuts for those who do pay high tax rates. That there's nothing in it for them, and that there's really no reason for those not getting the tax cuts to support them. Really what he said is that supply side is a prank played by the rich on the rest of us. Well, I've always known that. But it's nice to hear the GOP candidate for President say that to the nation on live television.

Here's something I haven't heard anyone in the media pick up on in the wake of Romney's 47% tape.
On Monday night, Romney gave a hasty news conference to attempt damage control right after the first segment of the tape was released.
At the news conference, Romney spun thusly:
"As I point out, I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I'm not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That's not as attractive to those who don't pay income taxes as it is to those who do."
To me, this statement is far more damaging to Romney, the Republican brand, and conservative ideology than the secret tape itself.
What's stunning to me about what he said Monday night is that it entirely contradicts decades of Republican orthodoxy on trickle-down, supply-side economic theory. From Ronald Reagan/David Stockman days in the 80s, the concept was: lower taxes at the highest income distributions, which would stimulate economic activity and investment, and thus create jobs, and thus promote income growth and social mobility at the lower income distributions. I.e. - the rich get richer, which lets everyone get richer. A rising tide floats all boats. You know, trickle down from top to bottom.
There has been a true electoral genius to this economic theory. It convinced voters to give Reagan two terms. It gave GB 41 & 43 the White House. It brought us Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, and the Tea Party to office in 2010, and propelled Grover Norquist to signing up all the nutters to his tax pledge. Pretty potent idea. The genius lies in the way it's allowed rich people to sell a policy which directly benefits them (tax cuts for the wealthy) to those who don't directly benefit (everyone else). How do you get poor people to vote for tax cuts for the rich? Convince them that they too will benefit from the tax cuts at the top.
The bombshell in what Romney said on Monday night is that he directly contradicts this theory. He said he doesn't expect "the 47%" to see any benefit in his tax cut policies, since they're not paying any income tax anyway. What does this mean? Romney is telling us flat out that supply side theory is bullsh1t. That even he doesn't see any reason why someone not getting a tax cut should support tax cuts for those who do pay high tax rates. That there's nothing in it for them, and that there's really no reason for those not getting the tax cuts to support them. Really what he said is that supply side is a prank played by the rich on the rest of us. Well, I've always known that. But it's nice to hear the GOP candidate for President say that to the nation on live television.