For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

A "pricelss" clip I was emailed...

I was e-mailed the following clip.

It was sent with the message:

"Isn't it interesting that the question out of Donahue's mouth some thirty
one years ago, is one of the primary issues Obama ran on and pushes
almost daily?"

(The clip blow is from youtube, but he email actually linked here. Same clip)
 


The blog, includes the following commentary:

Pretty interesting clip…even though it is 30 years old, the content is “timeless” If you don't think we have been going aroud on the same argument for years this will put it into perspective. Leave it to an economist to clear things up. Wow! Talk about a clear cut look at the way the world operates. This is Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago. The audience is notably silent.

Now I'm going to say a couple of things that will probably shock my Conservative readers, and possibly some of my liberal ones. I like to burninsh my centrist cred from time to time, and this post is going to be one of those times.

First of All: Milton Friedman was right.

And no, I'm certainly no fan of Friedman, nor am I a supply-sider. I'm a Keynsian, and unlike 99% of people of commenter who start out admitting they know nothing about economics, I have a graduate degree in Business, and three Graduate Level classes from the University of Michigan, which I solidly aced on my to graduating with honors. So i DO know a little bit about economics.  And it's very simple: Keynes was right, Krugman is right, and their detractors range between liars, thieves and morons.

But... Every thing Friedman said in this clip? It's 100% correct.

And Phil Donahue is an idiot.

No, not in general. Generally I have no problem with Donahue.  But here's the thing: ANYONE who is talking about "socialism" in this day and age is a FUCKING MORON.  Hear me out...

If you are a Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, etc... talking about it? I'll clue you in: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!  OK?  As a designed system it looks great, on paper anyway. But you're trusting humans to run things, and humans are, at best, short-sighted and fallible. At worst they're greedy, money-grubbing, evil and corrupt.  And even if you could get past THAT part of human nature, the laws of supply and demand were not invented by Partisan Republicans. They're based on observations of COLLECTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR and you simply cannot fight them for very long. They're like gravity: You can go against them for a while (climb a ladder, fly a plane) but eventually you are going to pulled back to market equilibrium (the ground.) It's inevitable.

Now... To be honest, I'll be somewhat disappointed if I really have to argue that point with that many Liberals. I really said all that so that there's some chance that Conservative readers will drop their idiotic assumption that anyone not actively  pining for the glory days of George W. Bush (with a McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan sticker on their bumper) must be some kind of wild-eyed Socialist. I'm guessing there really aren't that many people out there who REALLY believe Socialism is the way to go, especially if they actually understand history and/or economics.

Which brings me to the reason that anyone who is Conservative, Libertarian, Republicans, Tea-Bagger, etc... and is talking about Socialism is also a fucking moron:

NOBODY ON THE LEFT (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) IN THIS COUNTRY IS PROPOSING ANYTHING SOCIALIST OR TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM!!!

Show me the Socialism! Show where Obama, or Pelosi, or ANY Democrat has proposed that the State take control of, and run, private companies! SHOW ME! It's not fucking happening!  And far from the e-mails claims that Obama "ran on" this [socialism? redistribution?] and "pushes [it] almost daily;" back in the real world, the only legislation Obama has ever signed regarding taxes LOWERED THEM (for everyone) and that remains unchanged going forward. (More on that in a moment.) And his big health care system? "Obamacare"? Hardly a Socialized, government takeover: It owes it origin to the Right-Wing Heritage Foundation, it was pushed by Republicans during the Clinton years, and implemented by Governor Romney, the Republican candidate for President last year! And as much as I've heard the Rigth talk about Obama's plans for "redistribution," you know who I NEVER heard speak of it? Even ONCE?

Barack Obama.
See... What the idiot Right in this country doesn't understand (and/or doesn't want the voting public to understand) is the argument is not one of Capitalism vs. Socialism. It isn't. And if you think it is, you're an idiot. The Republican are no more the great defenders of Capitalism, anymore than the Democrats are it's Detractors.  The argument is simply on of laissez-faire Capitalism versus regulated Capitalism.

Obama has done NOTHING to stop or curtail "free enterprise,"  "capitalism," "entrepreneurialism" or anything else. Nothing. Zip. Nada.  And as for Keynes? How could Keynes possibly be a socialist? Aside from the fact that he was himself an avowed critic of Socialism, his economic models are based ENTIRELY on a Capitalist Free-Market economy!  Being a "Keynesian" MEANS you're a Capitalist!  Only, you one that wants the Government to do what it can to help out, and you're one that realizes that both the supply side AND the demand side are needed for a society to grow economically!  See, while you're two choices here (being Democrat or Republican) are in fact "Keynesianism" or "Supply-Side," Keynesianism is NOT the opposite of Supply-side.  Supply-side simply looks at only ONE-HALF of the Keynes model.

Kind of like building a baseball team on Pitching alone, only to have to face another team that ha equally good pitching, AND phenomenal hitting as well. And reasonably intelligent person knows you need BOTH.  Consider the 1940's-1960's, those "good old days" of the "greatest generation" and the "baby boom."  You had FDR-D, Truman-D, Eisenhower-Rino, JFK-D, LBJ-D and 1 Year of Nixon-r. You had strong labor unions, a top tier tax rate ranging from 70%-90%, and each President had, among his greatest accomplishments, things that are considered Liberal by today's standards!
Now ironically, that video was shot in 1979, one year before the Election of Ronald W. Regan. And what has happened in the 34 years since then?  Unions have been broken, tariffs have been lifted, Top-tier tax rates has fallen, deficits has skyrocketed, and middle class wages have stagnated, at best, and for the majority of Americans, haven't even kept up with the cost of living! And while the country, in total, has done "better" almost all of that benefit has accumulated at the top!

And that's exactly what you'd expect from supply-side economics.

(Historically, it's also what generally becomes of Socialist States as well - our old "Corporate Masters" merely move into their new Government Roles, now having official, codified, legal power, insteadof just the power that comes unofficially with great wealth.)

Again: It's not about Capitalism versus Socialism. It's about common-sense regulations, based on sound science, and taxation and spending based on sound economical principles, matched the needs of the country, or letting the old, fat, rich, white, men (think Roger Ailes) take and keep all the money!

And if you think that's an exaggeration, I defy you to show me that it's anywhere close to the ones calling Obama, Krugman or Keynes, "Socialists."

------------------

*** Obama has lowered taxes. I said I'd get to that.  Remember that in 2001, President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Part of this Bill became known as the "Bush Tax Cuts."  They lowered taxes, for everyone, from where they were under Clinton, but were heavily favored towards the rich, exploded the deficit and did little to stimulate the economy, relative to their cost.  (All facts - you can look 'em up.)  One key part of this legislation however, was that they were only suppose to go for TEN YEARS. Then, according to that very law, voted for by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, taxes would revert back to their previous levels - for EVERYONE - in 2011.

Then, one wrecked economy later, President Obama comes along. And he needs to get the economy going again, so as part of the Stimulus he does two things: (1) He extends the Bush Tax Cuts through 2012.  (NOTE: If he does nothing,PREEXISTING LAW has them at a higher rate. His actions therefore LOWERED them.) And (2) he temporarily lowers the payroll tax. Not that's not REALLY a "tax cut," since you'll still owe the same amount in the end, but it does put more money in your pocket in the meantime. In any case, President Obama only took action to LOWER taxes, relative to existing law.

And what about now?  What about the law he just signed RAISING taxes on the top 1%?!

Really?!

>Once again, let's go back to existing law: In 2013, without any action required from the President, tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton.  So what action did he take? He signed a law that LOWERED taxes.

For the bottom 99%? What about those at the top? Those poor, suffering 1%'ers?

Nope. For EVERYONE.

>EVERYONE is paying a lower tax rate than they would have been absent any action from the President, even those top 1%'ers who saw that top tier tax rate go up.

How's that, you ask?

It's called our progressive taxation system. (And it was first advocated by every Right Wingers second favorite economist, Adam Smith, I might add.)See... you know how all those "flat tax" advocates keep saying that we should all pay the same rate? Well, what they're hoping you don't know is that we ALREADY DO!

My first $8700 is taxed at 10%. So is Yankee Third Baseman Alex Rodriguez's.
My earned income between $8,700 and $35,350 is taxed at 15%. So is Donal Trump's.
My earned income between $35,350 to $85,650 is taxed at 25%. So is Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's
(and so on...)
And so is all of yours.  EVERYONE'S is, in fact.

So, see... when you cut the bottom tier tax rate, EVERYONE benefits from it. When you cut the TOP rate, only the rich benefit.

Likewise, when you raise the bottom tier rate, you raise EVERYONE'S taxes. (Unless you do what Reagan did in 1987, having a top tier rate that was LOWER than the middle-tier, the great fellatiator!)  So even though that poor, suffering Billionaires will be paying a little more that they would have if Obama had extended ALL of the tax cuts, they are STILL paying less than they would have had no action been taken, on account of them keeping the same benefit we all got from those lower tier rates.

What do you know: Obama STILL hasn't raised income taxes!

Now, yes, we can talk about the taxes that are associated with "Obamacare" (again: a nae that Republicans gave to their own plan, once they realized how many even of their own people hated it) but that's a much more complicated discussion, as it involves an objective discussion of how broken our health care system was BEFORE.  And it remains to be seen, going forward, if the various taxes, benefits, regulations, restrictions and markets/exchanges will bring a net benefit or net harm.  And on a personal level, that depends largely on whether you currently have health insurance or not, if you can afford it, and if you can afford it down the road. A worthy discussion, to be fair, but not what we're talking about HERE.

One final note: I came out pretty big for Capitalism in this post, albeit the regulated Capitalism of 40's, 50's and 60's, not the laissez-faire Capitalism of the 20's (which didn't end well, you may recall) or the Reaganomics that continues pretty much to this day. (Until I see a top-tier rate over 50%, we haven't substantively left Reaganomics yet!) I'd still proudly describe myself as a "Free-Market Liberal" or "Progressive Capitalist" and see no contradiction in doing so, at all.

To SOME EXTENT, Gordon Gecko was right: Greed is (or can be) good. Greed WORKS. (or CAN.)

And I do believe that for many things, the free market and the profit motive, assuming there's good, fair, open competition and well-informed choice, will generally distribute goods, services and income in a fair and equitable way. (Or at least the best possible way over time.) And while there may be others, I really see only four areas in our society that should be kept completely isolated from the pursuit of profit. And while, sadly, so many seem to disagree with me on these, I really can't see how these are anything but universal:

1) Education. Education is neither a right, not a privilege: It's a OBLIGATION. Of both a society to educate, and the people within it to become educated. And it an obligation that should be fulfilled by passing on OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, not just the clap-trap that Corporations want to teach you in order to make you better voters and consumers (for them.) And make no mistake: The Right, and their 1% Corporate Masters, FEAR an educated populace. (And so does any Government in general.) Let's keep it that way!

2)  Medicine. This one's easy. Just ask yourself, Do you want your Doctor making medical decision based on what's best for the Hospital's shareholders, or YOU, the patient. I think all sane people will say, "To hell with the Hospital's shareholders!" if the alternative is that they receive sub-standard or mediocre medical treatment.  WELL... if you want that for yourself, you have to willing to grant it to everyone else. Otherwise, you're just a selfish little ass-wipe!

3) Justice. This one SHOULD be easy, but we actually HAVE a for-profit prison system. Oh, it "works," meaning it saves us money, provided that the jails remain FULL. Well, one "three strike and you're out" law signed by that great "Liberal" Bill Clinton, and we're now incarcerating a greater percentage of our population than CHINA does!  (What, did you think that bill had something to do with CRIME?! OH, HELLS' NO!: It was entirely created by ALEC to make the for-profit prison system "work!" Look it up!)  In any case, I don't think even the idiotic Conservatives who thought that "3-strikes" had something to do with being "tough on crime" would want to have a Judge making a decision that affected them based on economics rather that the evidence presented before the court.

and...

4) The Military. Duh. Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, wasteful and (in some eyes) guilty of War Crimes. They cost more than our troops and do a worse job. Not to mention... All the top Republican brass all now admit that Iraq was all about OIL and MONEY in the first place!  What do you know? EISENHOWER WAS RIGHT. And the profit-motive makes for REALLY FUCKING TERRIBLE foreign policy decisions.

Aside from those four areas?

I'm 100% a Capitalist. Just like President Obama & company are.

-----------------------------

(One more thing... Something funny... every time I read about President Obama being described as a "Kenyan" I always read it, "Keynesian."  Which becomes REALLY wierd when he'd called a "SECRET Kenyan." Because I read it "Secret Keynesian" and think, "Shit, that's not a particularly well-kept secret, is it?!")

The Case for Obama, Part 1: These "hard" economic times

There are two things I'm sick and tired of hearing about.  The first is that Obama and the Democrats are strong with voters on social issues, whilst Romney and the Republicans have the edge on economic and fiscal matters. In a word? BALONEY SAUSAGE. I've written plenty of posts in the past showing just how mush better things are under Democrats on purely economic terms, and [and this is the other thing I'm sick of hearing] "these hard economic times" are no different.  And don't expect the mainstream media to tell you any of this, but the fact is? Times ain't so bad. In fact, well... I'll let the data do the talking.

Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average.  Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country.  Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like.  This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):

Bottom line? DOWN 5.13%.  DOWN. Over FOUR YEARS! And that asshole got re-elected despite that!  Of course we all know how his second term fared.  Here's Election day, 2004 to Election day 2008:

Down 13.9%! And Conservatives wonder why Obama got elected? Conservatives are still trying to  argue that OBAMA destroyed the economy?! The DOW was down 13.9% in the four years since we reelected the guy under whom it had all ready fallen 5.13%!  Here's Bush's eight year term, Inauguration Day, 2001 to Inauguration Day, 2009:

Wow. DOWN 24.23%. Way to go, Georgie! Here's what's happened since Obama took office:

BOOM! UP! UP! UP! 66.4%! Wow! Now... I don't want anyone to get the idea that I think the President is directly, 100% responsible for the stock market, but... Let's not forget that the guys who are whining about "these hard economic times" are the guys who (1) got re-election after a 5% decline, and (2) were down over 24% by the time they were done.  And we're up 66% right now and I'm supposed to believe that it's THE OTHER GUYS who have the economic wherewithal?  Bullshit. According to the DJIA, Obama's done roughly three times the good in under four years than the amount of harm down by George W. Bush in EIGHT. 

Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:

Whoa. Down 13.16%. How the hell did that redneck get re-elected?! Is anyone goimng to seriously tell me that there's Liberal Bias in the media?!  Where was it in 2004?  Oh, and uh... How's things go the second time around?

Oh my God! DOWN 21.38%!  Almost as bad as the DOW. And people say Obama's presiding over a bad economy?!  Here was Shrub's eight year performance on the S & P:

Down 38.6%. Holy. Fucking. Shit. And since Obama took office?

And BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! UP SEVENTY FOUR POINT TWO-EIGHT PERCENT! Oh, yeah: Let's get rid of this guy!

The NASDAQ tells the same story:

Down 28.03%. That in just his first term folks! Can someone PLEASE tell me how John Kerry didn't beat this ass-clown in a LANDSLIDE?  Liberal Media, my hairy, unwashed ass!

Second time around:

Down another 19.2%. And they wonder why the lost. Must have been that Liberally biased STOCK MARKET. 

Overall, our roughly fifth worst President of all time managed to take a whopping 46.88% out of the NASDAQ during his tenure. Remember: This was the guy who mocked Al Gore's legislation that created the Internet.  OK, so how's the NASDAQ doing under Obama?

Up... One-Hundred... and... Thirteen... Percent.  Holy... Fucking... Shit... (I should have bought more!)  And really, to show how skull-fuckingly stupid (or just plain screwed) the Republicans are here, they keep trying to disappear George W. Bush's UTTER ECONOMIC FAILURES, every time Obama reminds people how bad things were under Bush. Thing is? The main reason that Obama's stock market has been as good as it was, is because it started in such a deep, dark hole! Saying that he came in essentially just at the right time, would be the easiest way for the Republicans to poo-poo his success. But, of course, they can't say THAT, because (1) they'd have to actually ACKNOWLEDGE his success, and admit that he also did the right things, and (2) they'd have to acknowledge Bush's FAILURE.

And... it's just easier for them to lie about it.  None of the Conservatively biased Mainstream Media is going to break from the narrative that the Right's strength is economics, (note: it isn't. they have no strengths) nor call out Fox News for going above and beyond in the field of outright deceit and propaganda.

OK, so admittedly the Stock Market MIGHT not be the best measure. (That sure was FUN for me to go through though, let me tell you!)  How about the GDP? Well, here's a chart:

It's from this article. My favorite part of which is the following line:

The average growth rate in private real quarterly GDP since 2000 has been 1.76%, so the private sector of the U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter of 2012 at twice the average rate over the last 12 years

I keep hearing about how slow, and sluggish and disappointing that 2.2% rate is, but "double the rate of the last twelve years?!" Seems like we're doing just fine in that regard as well.  BTW, you see those RED LINES?  Well, the Conservative Toadies in the Mainstream media won't tell you this, but... those are REDUCTIONS in Government Spending. And contrary to what the Macroeconomic Failures who drew up the Paul Ryan Budget will tell you: That's a drag on the economy.  So, if you think Obama should be doing more (meaning SPENDING more?) I'd agree with you 100%.  But that criticism sure as hell isn't a reason to vote Republican! And if you think he should cut more? Then you're either a Billionaire or an idiot who doesn't understand how economics works and will be out a job sooner than he thinks.

Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers!  Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy!  Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias!  There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.

Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:

Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.

Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama.  That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.

If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:

As of 4/29/2012:

DJIA:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%

S&P 500:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%

NASDAQ:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%

I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns?  Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.

One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work.  In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery.  The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much.  That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!

TARP

TARP was never a popularly supported piece of legislation. And I've defended against attacks from both Liberals and Conservatives alike.  That's not to say that I ever LIKED the idea of what it stood for (from either a Liberal or a Conservative standpoint), but any understanding of what made the mortgage meltdown and subsequent Bush recession SO BAD, reveals the complete NECESSITY of something like TARP at the time.

And I no longer have any interest i discussing the details of this part of it or that part of it anymore.  There is no doubt that there was a lot of bullshit going on, and there always will be.  But to oppose it on any kind of PRINCIPLE? Like hating big corporate banks (Liberals), hating gov't spending (Conservatives) or hating the fact that we're Socializing (Conservatives) corporate losses (Liberals)... Well, all that's just foolishness. Because at the end of the day, this (or something like it) was necessary and, in a big picture sense, it WORKED, warts and all.

So while I have been defending from all sides as a necessary evil (and even "good" legislation in the sense of what it saved us from), I was only a little bit surprised just now too read that it may actually turn a profit, paying for itself and then some for taxpayers.  Now I couldn't care less if it ACTUALLY manages to one or not. Remember: That won't detract from my view that it was NECESSARY, for better or worse. But... (1) Who doesn't like a little gravy with their biscuits? and (2) It certainly goes to show how irrational the critics (regardless of ideology) are who are crying about how much it cost, and what a big waste it was.  Because not only did it save us from a far worse, longer lasting catastrophe (and thus remains as one of the few things George W. Bush did that DIDN'T turn into one!) but even if it fails to turn a profit as currenlty predicted? The loss will likely be minuscule in comparison to the amount of money originally outlaid, and the [largely phony] cost that people are assuming it ended up having.

Which might just end up being less than none.

Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

Some interesting Solyndra stuf...

OK, so a few posts back, I put in my two cents about Solyndra in a post which some readers may have felt was a bit to conciliatory to the Right.  Also, a bit farther back I joked about how a little research can go a long way. Well... shame on me for not taking my own advice!  I will say that I stand by the overall points made in my previous Solyndra post.  Nothing I've found has really changed my overall opinion, but the were some interesting findings.  There's rather a bit more to the story. Just don't expect the mainstream media to tell you about it. (Or Fox News to tell you the truth!)

First off, Media Matters pointed out how so many media outlets were giving disproportionate coverage to the failure of Solyndra.  And it wasn't just Fox! In print, the LA Times, the New York Times, USA Today, the Fox Street (sorry) Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post all gave Solyndra anywhere from two to five time the amount of coverage that they gave to the 2008 exposure of Government Corruption in the Minerals Management Service or about the waste and fraud on the part of military contractors.  The mainstream television media was not much better: 50% more at NBC, ~twice as much at CBS and ~five times as much at ABC.  And on Cable, but MSNBC and CNN also gave 2-5 times as much coverage to the Solyndra story as the other two.

BEHOLD: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!

Fox's coverage ratio was closer to 100 to 1, but this is hardly even about Fox this time!

It's probably worth mentioning that BOTH of those stories represented a much larger loss of taxpayer money.  Of course they also occurred on Bush's watch, and one in association with Bush's War, but hey... I'm sure all those Liberal media outlets were all over tha... oh, yeah. Um... not so much, as it turns out.

So, aside from playing their standard game of "Bash the Negro," what's really going on here?  Turns out it's a bit more than just the typical Corporate Media bashing all things green and Liberal.  Yeah, they're covering for the rigth in more ways than one. (In this case, TWO, by my brief, and probably incomplete, count.)

First of all, Down With Tyranny did an excellent write up of the Republican Hyposcrisy at play here.  Normally exposing Republican hypocrisy is about as difficult as putting on a hat, but this time it didn't involve any underaged boys. (This actually kicked off several additional posts about it.)  And he wasn't the only one - more from Daily Kos.  And all that's just from one blog. There's a lot more.  What's with all the Republican entanglement with this? 

Here's the key point, as noted by Extreme Liberal: THIS ALL STARTED IN 2007 UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH! 

In my own post, I mentioned that Government shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which companies will succeed.  And I stand by that. And I think most people would agree with that, at least in principle.  Where I kind of stepped on my dick there is that I had had assumed (hearing the story first from Fox) that it was the Obama administration who made the loan guarantee.  Ummm... NOPE! That, like most of the Shit Obama's wiping off the White House furniture, once again came from BUSH!

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

I swear he was like King Midas' retarded cousin: Everything he touches turns to shit!

But hey, at least we've got that LIBERAL MEDIA to tell us the whole story, so we won't have to rely on bloggers to give us the...

...oh, yeah. 


(BTW, did you know that October was "National Hit Someone In The Head With a Brick Who Complains About How The LIBERAL Media Is Distorting the Facts And Not Telling The Whole Truth Month?" Tell your friends!)

Check it out...

So... I hear that despite the voice of the people in Iowa, the Ayatollah Bin Bachmann is apparently not a factor in the Race for the GOP Nomination. It looks like it's Perry vs. Romney.  Actually, it's not surprising that the GOP would't blatantloy discout the will of the people, nor that they would marginalize one of there, given that she is of the fairer sex.

Anyway there was an interesting picture of Rick and Mitt there next to link on homepage that went to the article and it got me thinking...  I don't think The Separatist from Texas is any more electable than Loony Bin Bachman.  He might seem that way to the Right, given that Bachmann's an idiot and all. (Where do the Right find these bimbos, anyway? Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann... I swear if my entire sample size of women came for those on the Right, I probably think all women were pretty fucking stupid as well!) But anyway... HERE's why I don't think General Robert E. Perry can win:

(And you're welcome to copy the picture but it's MINE, so make sure to let 'em know where you found it!)

OK, so the last one isn't really relevant. (Well, it is to OBAMA, but not to Perry.)  Anyway, strang how easy it was to connect one ignorant Texes shitheel to another. Thought I'd share.

Cheers!

-------------------------------

NOTE (added later, ~11:PM): So I'm checking back in and the ad-bot is showing ads for Rick Perry. *head-slap*

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

I work for a Japanese company.  In America (Detroit area) but it's a Japanese firm.  And one of the things I've learned about the Japanese from working there is that is you ask them ANYTHING or ask them FOR ANYTHING, the will ALWAYS ask you, "Why?"

Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question.  Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)

Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL)  They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!

Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems.  And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted  in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S.  It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.

Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008.  (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)

WHY did the economy tank?

   (1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.

WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)

   (2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.

WHY were the banks writing these loans?

   (3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.

WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)

   (4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.

WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?

   (5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.

Now...

Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis.  But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause.  The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)

So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:

Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility

And it hit me like a thunderbolt!  Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE!  They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)

And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!

CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating

(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)

After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade

Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!

Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America

Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels.  First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!

Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories

Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn!  The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office!  The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed!  (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!)  Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?!  And what REALLY caused it Glenn?  What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")

Yeesh. 

Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me.  On my lunch break, of course. ;)

I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well.  That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them...  It just drives me fucking crazy.  And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns.  Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.

Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)

But F-U-N!

Yet another Bush era failure...

THIS, folks, is why you don't tie school funding to student performance.

Yet one more example of something that George W. Bush and the Republicans got their greedy little hands on that turned to absolute shit. Nice going, jack holes.

Given Rush Limbaugh's enlightened commentary on the matter, I would like to propose walking into his studio and beating him to death with his microphone stand. But then... I still need to post my bit about capital punnishment, so maybe that will have to wait.

(Hey Rush: Last time I checked those schools were in a pretty red state, kind of how you be if I'd had my 'druthers and society allowed it, you lying, hypocritical fuckwad.)

Gold Star Awards, June, 2011

Here we go, once a gain a day late: The Gold and Silver Star awards for June! The year is 1964, and there was one BWAA Inductee and a whopping five from the Veterans committee. So, here we go:



The Luke Appling Gold Star #37: AWOLBush / Who Served?

Are you tired of how the Right is always belly-aching about who supports the troops and who doesn’t? How Liberals, and by extension the Democrats, hate their country? And hate the military? And how they love to point out that Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or some other Democrat or Liberal never served in the Military? (Neither did Ronald W. Reagan, but they always seem to leave that one out!) Well, HERE’S a site that turns the tables on those Right-Wing jack-holes by showing that, in fact, there are rather a large number of prominent Democrats who did serve and quite a few Prominent Republincs (read: ALL OF THE LOUDEST AMONG THEM!) who did not. So keep the pressure up on these hypocritical, and at times downright un-American, neo-con chicken-hawks and, check this out!  (And as a side note, let's be honest here: When 50,000 men are dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia while you're fighting Communism in the skies over Texas? YOU'RE A DRAFT-DODGER!)


The Red Faber Silver Star #31: Five Second Films

The extended version of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy is over three hours long. It’s truly a masterpiece of modern American Cinema (and made in New Zealand, by a New Zealander no less!) but WHO HAS THAT KIND OF TIME! (If you do? Get a JOB you lazy bum!)  But THESE films? Are NOT Lord of the Rings. Most of them? Are merely funny. Some are hilarious. And some of them really suck. But at five seconds apiece? You can watch 12 of them in ONE MINUTE and have as many laughs as Peter Jackson gives you in 12 HOURS! Beat that!


The Burleigh Grimes Silver Star #32: Off Planet Films

This YouTube channel is just fucking twisted. And fucking hilarious. I can’t even BEGIN to describe them, other than to say that they produce animated shorts (~three-five minutes or less) with a bizarre, dark, and at times downright psychotic sense of humor about them.


The Tim Keefe Silver Star #33: On the Spectrum

The first of three web-comics I’d like to mention this month centers on an issue that's near and dear to me: Autsim. This comic is a series of strips about one family’s experiences raising autistic children. Although some of the humor is aimed at people who are familiar with Autism, and thus can understand the mind of an Autistic child, a lot of it is pretty general family-humor stuff that anyone (with kids) can be relate to. The artwork is not as professional like most of the web-comics I read (and share here) but it’s cute. You should check it out. Unfortunately, also like a few other comics that I’ve mentioned here, this one hasn’t been updated in a while, and I'm afraid it may be on hiatus permanently at this point. I hope not, because it’s definitely helped me see things in a different light with my own children.



The Heinie Manush Silver Star #34: Selkie

The next web-comic also deals with a personal issue for me: Adoption. And while I never spent time in an orphanage, I am adopted, and so relate to many of the things that the characters talk about and deal with. Similar to "On teh Specturm," it’s not the most polished comic art-wise, but he still manages to capture the charecters' facial expressions and emotions very well, and there are panels such as this, which gives a glimpse at both the soul and the potential of the series:

Its charecters have dpeth, and it's heroine is one of the most sympathetic you will find - just impossible not to absolutely fall in love with. It deals with issues of acceptance (Selkie is a sea-creature living amongst humans), discrimination and diversity, as well as what it means to be a good parent, good son or daughter and good friend. It worth checking out, and should be read from the beginning.

The Monte Ward Silver Star #35: Alone in a Crowd

Most people might initially find this comic to be silly. But keep an open mind. Like Selkie, it is about acceptance, both of yourself and others, and being true to yourself. These themes permeate all of the characters, for the hopelessly idealist Hope, to Grace, the Girls with Cat-Ears, to the Girl who’s taken advantage of at work, to the Aunt who manages a pornographic film studio to the geeky guy who collects action figures. It’s very cutely drawn, and reminds us that, at some point, we’ve all Alone in a Crowd at some point. So check it out! (From the Beginning!)

Funny picture

This came from a cracked.com photoplasty contest. There were a slew of good ones, but I'm a huge Star Wars fan, plus this one rather approproiate to the blog:

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?