jjamie12

I don't know... Isn't this just pretty damn good at showing us that pop radio station jocks are just nitwits? Honestly. You get to ask questions of the POTUS and you want to know what color he prefers, red or green?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html First link I came up with, no sourcing but it references some of the many different studies that have been done on "black-sounding" names vs. "white-sounding" names and the likelihood of a callback from their resume. Some studies took EXACTLY the same resumes, gave half of them "white" names and half of them "black" names. "Black" names were 50% less likely to get a callback. I think you guys sometimes get caught up and assume certain things away. The very real prejudice (prejudice -- not racism, necessarily) that black people face has a bigger effect than you guys think, I would imagine, especially on the margins. Relevant passages: "The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes." "The University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?" The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to "sound white" or "sound black" and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year. "Previous studies have examined how employers responded to similarly qualified applicants they meet in person, but this experiment attempted to isolate the response to the name itself. White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names."

That doesn't seem to be true.

And this would be a complete and total non-story that no one even mentions if VP Biden had simply stopped when he said "unchain Wall Street". The fact that he took it the next step and implied and/or even used metaphorical imagery that a Romney/Ryan POTUS/VPOTUS would enslave the members of the audience is just wrong. It's wrong on any and every level, and it's shameful. It would also be a non-story if they would simply apologize for it and move on. The fact that they are SUPPORTING the shameful part of the comment is just beyond belief. Again. First sentence is fine. That second sentence is just disgraceful. The fact that the administration continues to support the second part of the statement is... I don't even know what words describe it... disgraceful and/or shameful is the best I have.

Why do you believe that? There are extremely complicated ownership agreements with the type of investments Bain made in those companies (and that its employees made alongside Bain). Well, you've made up your mind then. Please stop asking for people to give you reasons to vote for Romney. You're just going to argue with them, because people aren't going to say to you "Mitt Romney should be President because he hasn't changed his mind in 50 years!" People are voting for Mitt Romney for pretty much one of three reasons. 1- He's a Republican. 2- He's not President Obama. and / or 3- He has demonstrated competence at many different levels of private and public entities as an executive. Almost everything he's ever done he's been good at. If you've got a problem with him for being a 'politician', then none of those things are going to sway you. And that's OK. Just stop pretending your mind can be changed. Edit: Maybe this part was unfair. You weren't asking to have your mind changed, you were replying to my assertion that it was illogical to want to vote for Obama. Fair enough. Sorry about that. (I still think that what you've offered as a reason to NOT vote for Romney is extremely thin, but, I must admit is a reason) Here you go again with comparing Bain Capital, the Olympics and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a company that employes 30 people. This is no knock on your buddy, but comparing the two of them is as inane as (your earlier comparison) comparing a Peanut Farmer to Mitt Romney and saying (basically) "See businessmen are bad Presidents!" Even so. How sad is it that your buddy Jerome has more executive experience than the guy who got elected President four years ago did? Edit: Not to mention the fact that your buddy has never run a giant entity like the Olympics, nor has he been the governor of a state in this country... but, yeah: Mitt Romney's only qualification is that he ran one company that has 30 employees. So... Nice comparison, it's TOTALLY apt. Not an argument in his favor. His entire world view was completely formed as a 16-17 year old, and nothing he's seen or done since then has changed his mind? Jesus. You think that's a good thing?

I'll re-post this again, then: Mitt Romney has DEMONSTRATED great Executive (read: Leadership) qualities in: *Fixing* bankrupt or near-bankrupt entities in the Private Sector. *Fixing* the near-bankrupt and rudderless entity of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Executive of a large, complex Public Sector entity as Gov. of Massachusetts. Proven ability to work across party lines to get things done (see above, as Gov. of Mass.) It seems to me that what this country needs is someone who understands, intimately, how governmental regulation, tax policy, and budgeting decisions affect the small, medium, and large business in this country. It seems to me that, right now, we need someone who has demonstrated an ability to work WITH the other side of the aisle to achieve things. Mitt Romney has spent decades fixing messes, be they political, public or private. We're in a mess. Mitt Romney may not be the only guy who can fix this, but he's the only guy in THIS race who can.

It's sad that you actually believe this.

This is stupid. ZOMG!!!11 The President is running an election campaign!!!111

No, he didn't. But you can keep telling yourself that he did if it makes you feel better.

Edit: Jauronimo beat me to it.

Step 1: Invest alongside Bain in an IRA Step 2: Become President Step 3: Profit! That is a damn brilliant plan.

Would someone please remind Joe Biden that the Federal Government Police and the Federal Government Firefighters didn't show up and save anyone? It was local law enforcement, which is, you know, a local matter for local politicians to decide whether or not they should be funded at whatever level.

I'm pretty sure that this came up before. There was something about Bain employees being able to invest alongside Bain within their company sponsored IRA. They were able to somehow create different classes of shares for the employees that made the investment legal. I thought it was pretty clever, and now wish that I was working at Bain for the last 10 years...

Totally right. By the same token, there really isn't *anything* that pre-qualifies anyone as a good President, is there? While the above is true, we have a person running in this race who has demonstrated: Extremely strong academic credentials (Harvard Law and Harvard MBA). Strong executive ability in the Private sphere as a 'guy who fixes problems' (Bain). Strong executive ability in the Public sphere as as 'guy who fixes problems' (Olympics). Strong executive ability in the Public sphere as a Governor (Mass). Demonstrated ability to work across the Political aisle to accomplish goals. That is just about as complete a resume for President that one can have, especially considering the particular problems that the US faces at the moment.

How is it remotely possible that you think his tax returns have anything to do with his ability to be President? Am I to presume that you think that, in order to be President, you should pay MORE in taxes than you're legally required to? Because that is certainly what it seems like you're saying. Is that your argument about the "while no one is looking"? Let's ask it a second way, too -- What does filling out a tax form have to do with running the country? And from the political perspective: No one who will use tax returns as their defining reason to vote for or against someone is going to vote for Romney anyway. The reason for this is simple: If you *care* about him releasing his tax returns, what you're really asking for is for embarrassment for the Republican. There's obviously nothing illegal there, just more fodder for the "The rich don't pay their fair share!" crowd.

I'll re-post this here: From your link: "[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time." Is it really so hard to believe what Bain and several other people are saying? It's really just *outlandish* that while negotiating the separation agreement, he had to remain a signatory to certain disclosures? That's just NOT possibly true? I respect your right to have this irrational opinion, however you should realize that it is what it is: Completely irrational. History of fixing struggling entities? Check. Executive of a successful private venture? Check. Executive of a successful public-private venture? Check. Executive of a large public entity? Check. History of working across the aisle to find solutions? Check. Let's put it this way: If this were a job interview and not politics, there is no sane person who would offer the job to Obama over Romney. But since he's got an ® next to his name we have to invent reasons to not vote for him.

You sure about that, Bob, I mean, Maestro?

I guess I'm not totally sure, but if "he avoided paying taxes in the last _____ years", you'd alreadyknow about it, right? He'd either be under investigation, or indicted or in jail or something, right? If the IRS is good with him, what's the problem? Am I wrong about this?

I can only hope so.

If there was anything *illegal* in his returns, wouldn't we already know it because he'd either be arrested or indicted or under some order to pay back taxes and penalties? I'm not totally sure how this works, but the idea that there is possible fraud in these returns strikes me as not logical. Am I wrong about this?

I like having NewBills around. He does seem like a good guy and it's good to have a little more balance around here -- My only real issue with him on this one is the implication of his last post... Like his opinion is the only possible one to have and anyone who doesn't see it is only being partisan. I just disagree with that.

You know, the "righty" version of you is sitting out there saying exactly the same thing about Voter ID cards. Just because you don't "understand" it, doesn't mean that everyone else is hopelessly wrong and you're the one beacon of reason shining out into the ignorant morass of PPP. Edit: And for the record -- I'm arguing against this because, in general, I would like to see the Federal Government limit it's own powers and only expand them when necessary. To date, I haven't seen any real reason to believe that there is a 'problem', and since I don't see a real problem (nor do I think the referenced bill will actually *do* anything to solve the 'problem' as you see it) then I would like them to just stay the hell out of it and do something, you know, useful with their time. And if you DON'T think this is political theater, then I don't know what to tell you. One of us will be right and one of us will be wrong, I suppose. I guess we'll have to wait a year and find out.

A couple of points: 1) There is real reason for some people to fear political retribution. I don't find that hugely important, but it's certainly worth considering. 2) There's no real consensus that says that ABSOLUTELY money really affects the outcome of political races. There is some evidence that in some circumstances there might be some benefit. That hardly seems like a big enough reason to waste even more money on something that 99.99% of Americans won't even think of attempting to use. What problem are you trying to fix? I know, I know. It's David Brooks. Whatever -- He's a reasonable person. 3) What would you do with the information? Why do you care so much that "The Koch Brothers" give eleventy million dollars to Karl Rove to create attack ads. Let's say you knew this to be absolutely true, rather than just 'suspecting' it. What would change for you? What do you think the American electorate would do with this information (Other than, you know, completely ignore it like they do all of the campaign financing lists/donors/yadda yadda yadda)? Given that there are (1 from above) potential real consequences to what you're proposing, along with the (2 from above) lack of a clear problem, and since (3 from above) it isn't real clear to me that the information would actually be beneficial anyway, it doesn't seem like a super-great idea for anybody to be spending a single second thinking about this, voting on this, or worse yet, spending money to create oversight for this. I'd also like to add that this is all political theater. If you don't believe me, come back in a year and see how much chatter there is about Voter ID's and Campaign Finance (My guess is zero). These are perfect issues to 'get people fired up' during campaign season.

We already have laws that deal with this. Do you *really* think that making new laws will stop the so-called 'stalling problem'? If you want to know who is donating to campaigns, I'm sure you can find out who is. Edit:In fact, I just looked on fec.gov and check it out! I just found out that Parker Barnum, an analyst at Barclay's Bank gave President Obama two contributions of $500. Once on 3/26 and again on 4/16. This information is super-illuminating. It TOTALLY changes my mind. Edit 2: I KNEW IT! Robert Scull of New York City (zipcode 10011) has donated (get this...) 11 TIMES to President Obama between 9/8/11 and 5/21/12. Mr. Scull works for Nickelodeon as a 'TV Producer'. This new information clearly and obviously changes my mind about all of those SpongeBob re-runs. That subversive little sponge and his liberal hypocrisy! In addition, 2010 will be the last time I take advice on who to vote for from iCarly. Edit 3: This is actually kind of fun to look through this list. Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order SVU), Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City) and Bete Midler all gave the Obama campaign the max of $5,000.

Why do we have to have a Congressional response to everything? What 'problem' does this bill fix?