This clip made me laugh really, really hard, kudos to Ana Marie Cox:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
For those of you who "don't get it", you'll have to check out the, um, "adult" practice that teabagging is slang for. Do not click this if you are easily offended. :)
[Via Andrew Sullivan's Blog]
In his answer to the first question last night, John McCain proposed that the United States bail out all the homeowners who are upside-down on their mortgages. I turned to Holly and said "Why the hell should the government bail out people who paid too much for their houses?!?!". While many of my Republican friends would like to dismiss me as some kind of raving Leftist lunatic (though I actually claim many positions, especially on economic issues, that are more libertarian) there's no way I'd ever support that. These people thought the house was worth that price when they agreed to buy it, the fact that the market disagreed with them at some point in the future is irrelevant. Should they have to pay more for their houses if they're in a market where the price exceeds the amount they owe on their mortgage? Of course not. You made a bad decision, and overpaid for your house. Tough. You thought it was a reasonable price at the time you signed the contract. The fact that you could have bought it for less later doesn't mean anyone owes you a damned thing, and I certainly don't owe you a cent of my tax dollars because you thought $500,000 was a reasonable price to pay for a 3 bedroom house. I paid $399 for my Xbox 360 3 years ago, now they sell for $299, where's my bailout? Or am I only entitled to it if I'm still paying interest on it? Only if the interest is tax-deductible maybe?
Matt Cooper (of Plamegate fame) has an article up today, entitled "McCain's Insane Mortgage Proposal". I couldn't agree more...
Last night's episode of the Daily Show featured a great segment of video-taped hypocrisy. Don't these guys realize that when they're talking on TV, they might want to consider the possibility that their words don't instantly evaporate? That they might be used later to point out, shall we say, glaring inconsistencies in their arguments? Welcome to the age of DVRs, voice recognition, Google, and YouTube:
