Links for July 24th

  • Talking Points Memo: White House—We Thought We Were Down To The Details
    Turns out the real reason that Boehner walked out on Obama on Friday is because Boehner demanded a repeal of the individual healthcare mandate. Which, ironically, would actually have worsened things, since the individual mandate will significantly reduce federal spending.
  • New York Times: Some Parents of Gay Children Push for Marriage
    I really enjoyed this article about the normalization of gay marriage having led to parents saying "OK, fine, you're gay, and now gay marriage is legal, so what's the holdup?" Gay or straight, kids are going to get nagged about marriage by their parents.
  • UC Berkeley: Agonized pose tells of dinosaur death throes
    So many fossilized dinosaurs were preserved in the same position: head and neck pulled backwards, bent halfway down the back. There has long been a standard explanation for this—drying tendons and ligaments pulled them into this shape—but attempts to simulate this in animal corpses have all failed. A new theory is that this is consistent with damage to the central nervous system, specifically damage to the cerebellum, perhaps through infection from algal blooms.
  • AP: October 2010 Newsletter
    It was only last fall that the Associated Press stopped distributing their news via satellite and moved to an internet-based distribution system. Wow.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

10 replies on “Links for July 24th”

  1. The President, who has yet to sign a budget during his administration (during most of which he enjoyed Democrat majorities in both houses), could end this debt ceiling fiasco any time he wants. All he has to do is agree to cut federal spending.

    Apparently he’d rather send bond markets into a tailspin.

  2. All he has to do is agree to cut federal spending.

    Would that this were true. As every last scrap of coverage has made clear, though, everybody agrees on the need to cut spending. The hangup is over whether any taxes should be increased at all, to any degree. The far-right wing of the congress refuses to do so, and the president insists on it.

    The disagreement has nothing to do with cutting spending, and everything to do with raising revenue.

  3. Unfortunately, President Obama can’t “cut ” what Mr. Bush (with Republican approval) has already spent. After running two wars, a medicare drug benefit, and an income tax giveaway off-budget Republicans need to pay their (our) bills.

  4. I. Publius , who has yet to agree with a single commenter on this blog, could end his ornery partisan battle any time he wants. All he has to do is agree with anything that could be conceivably categorized as liberal.

    Apparently he’d rather send conversations into nitpicking wars.

  5. Tim, you should read more, and assume less. I have agreed with Mr. Jaquith on many occasions. But you already knew that.

  6. This current debate is actually connected to Obamacare a lot more than you think. If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid hadn’t given the Republicans a big “F U” on the entire Obamacare deal, and rammed it through like they did, Boehner & co. would probably be a lot more willing to compromise now.

    Instead, what Obama’s wanting to do is have Republicans increase the debt ceiling due to a lot of spending for which they weren’t given the same compromise and input during Obama’s first 2 years. Now it’s coming around and biting Obama in the ass. And sometimes, payback is a bitch. You reap what you sow, Barry-O.

  7. I kind of doubt Boehner & Co. would be a lot more willing to compromise. Well, Boehner, maybe, but certainly not a lot of the new GOP House members.

  8. I. Publius,

    Certainly the same argument could be made that the Affordable Care Act was payback for the GOP’s 2000-2006, during which basically no liberal input was taken.

    But honestly, if this were just the usual partisan bickering about what laws get passed, that’d be one thing, but they’re essentially holding the nation hostage by threatening to destroy the economy should they not get their way, and I believe that’s a terrible way to govern

    AFAIK, what they’re doing is legal and constitutional, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shameful.

  9. “but they’re essentially holding the nation hostage by threatening to destroy the economy should they not get their way,”

    Reid and Obama? Yeah, I agree. ;-)

  10. I. Publius,

    I’ll take your ignoring of my main point to mean that you concede you were being disingenuous about how this is all justified pay-back for the ACA.

Comments are closed.