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!

Fuck Netflix

Sorry. I've been away, so this is pretty much old news by now, but 've got to put my two cents in about the recent price hikes at Netflix.

Now... Let me assure you that this is not about the mere fact that they raised priced.  That's cool, and it's hardly the first time. (Thought they've never been this dramatic!) But I'm all for companies doing whatever they need to to make as much money as possible.  That's Capitalism, after all. That's the free market. And as Liberal as I am, excepting those few services that I do not believe should be influenced by a profit motive (medicine and incarceration leap to mind, for example) I have seen no other economic system that will bring us the goods and services that we was as efficiently and effectively as Capitalism. (Call me a Free-Market Liberal, I guess.) And this was a company that at one time impressed me enough that I put them in my Hall of Fame!  So if they need to raise a little more revenue? Hey: Who am I to complain?

Well...

I'm a customer, for starters.

And one who was at one time so impressed with them that I put them in my Hall of Fame!

Now... WHY did I do that?  What made them different from so many other companies that I've had satisfactory dealings with over the years?

Well... for starters, like I said when I originally inducted them, they slew big blue: The Bankrupted Blockbuster.  And I HATE, HATE, HATED Blockbutser with a seething passion!

But it was the WAY that Netflix evolved that was what really impressed me.  It was the changes they brought about that really made me believe they could be different.  For one? No bricks and mortar, at all. And they came about at a time when very few companies managed to pull that off successfully.  eBay and Amazon managed it, as did a couple of search engines, but overall, even today, a large portion of online commerce still happens at the websites of stores that still actually have stores.  They proved that there was yet another business sector that could succeed as an entirely online company. That's an accomplishment worth acknowledging.

Another way in which they were different was in the amount of customer focus they had... at least... up until about six months ago, or thereabouts.

Netflix.com allowed Netflix MEMBERS to write reviews for movies.  Sure Amazon did this as well, but Netflix created what felt like a close community. A group of people who were ranked according to their similarity to your own tastes in an effort to help you discover movies that you might not otherwise had, and to steer you towards those that should hold a particular appeal to you.

What's more, they relied on this community to drive their content. Not just on their website, but in their inventory. It is because they realized just how wide and varied people tastes were that they built the largest selection of titles anywhere in existence - at one time 50% larger than Blockbuster online's, and FORGET about the Blockbuster STORES.  You think you could walk into a Blockbuster and find any Kurosawa Movies? Or European Films? Or obscure classics? Or Anime? (Other than fucking Dragonball?) The only thing I could ever find at Blockbuster was a series of shelves with hundreds of copies of the same handful of new releases, with every single one of them out. Yaaaay!

Netflix realised the potential that can be tapped when you truly consider the desires of your entire customer base, rather than just following what the bean counters in the boardroom would consider a wise investment. ("Why should get this movies that only 100 or so people would even want to see? Who the fuck is this Kobayashi guy, anyway?!)  Blockbuster made us wait for the latest Hollywood garbage. Netflix DELIVERED fims and series that we wanted to see.

And that is what this latest move by them so perplexing.  They say it's about new technology, and the digital future and all that, but... Well, I just don't get that.  It seems to me that their not only ignoring their customers to an almost George Lucasian extent, but it seems they've thrown out ALL boardroom logic as well!  I wish I could just chalk this up to greed, but I can't. This is just... stupidity.

Lemme splain...

Remember that whole thing about bankrupting Blockbuster?  Yeah, you see that's an impressive achievement even putting aside my boiling, acidic, venomous hatred for them.  It impressive because I can think of no other industry that had been so dominated by a single company that the home video industry had been by Big Blue.  Sure there were still the occasional mom-and-pop stores, and Hollywood Video, but nothing and nobody could hold a candle to Blockbuster's market share or profitability.  The were a giant. No: They were GODS.

And along comes some kooky little company that has nothing but a websites and a focus on their customer base of film geeks and they BANKRUPTED THEM.  So, let me ask you something: If you have a business plan that successful enough to knock off one of the most dominant monopolies in the history of American Commerce... WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER CHANGE IT?!

And yeah... predictably their customers are PISSED. And they've lost millions of subscribers. Not me. Not yet.  But show me some who offers the same thing for less? Shit, I'll leave in a heartbeat now. And I've not only been a loyal customer, I've been a CHEERLEADER for them!  I've advertised and advocated for them! They've been my absolute bloody HEROES and I have not been shy about telling people about it!  And I don;t only feel ripped off, I actually feel BETRAYED, as these Red Bastards start acting like the very same Blue Bastards they knocked off!  And WHO am I to go to?

Well, I don't know.  There's nobody that's really there yet. (I'll cut my own leg off before going back to Blockbuster!)  Netflix achieved something close to a monopoly, and they KNOW it.  But here is where some of that Boardroom mentality might have come in handy.  Not only do their higher prices drive away their current customer base, but hey help bring about the very competition that will eventually bring them down, they way they did to Blockbuster! They are becoming the engineers of their own royal screwing!

Consider this...

You want to start an online movie rental business.  But the current going, market rate for this service is $16-$18 for three movies out a time as well as streaming.  And you're thinking, "No way. Without that massive, existing customer base, I could never get my infrastructure off the ground at that rate!"  And no doubt a lot of people were thinking that. Otherwise, it stands to reason that someone other than fucking Blockbuster would have been creeping up behind them by now.  But if that going rate, for that exact same package, is suddenly raised to $28 a month?  Holy shit, did they just do you a HUGE favor!  Because THAT? Is a price you can beat!  And if you can beat and get even close to that $18 (say... $20?) and offer movie rentals AND streaming?  Well now your kicking all ass, because they only offer these services separately now, for anything close to a reaosnable price: 2 movies at a time from "Qwickster" -OR- streaming movies from Netflix. (Or pay $28 dollars a month to keep both!)

And that's what so STUPID (not greedy, stupid) about this: It's not only pisses off their customers but it throws a life-line to any potential competition out there! WHY would you EVER want to do that?!  How can you seriously expect to make MORE MONEY taking that path?!

So... for their blatant stupidity in these matters,and so blind a disregard for the will and voice of their customers, I'll be taking Netflix out of my Hall of Fame.  It's really an embarrassment now to have it there.  I can defend eBay more easily than I can defend Netflix, and that's saying something!  So when I get around to doing the Gold Star's this month, they'll be out.  I'd take them out now, except that I haven't figured out who to put in their place yet.  If they return to sanity sometime in the future?  Meh... maybe they'll go back in.  But I doubt. I don;t think I'll ever be able to see them as anything but just another blind and stupid corporation anymore.

A little research goes a LOOONG way...

This goes for both Progressives and Regressives alike, the difference being that we're actually willing to DO a little research from time to time, rather than just blindly posting and linking to every email that hits our in-box. And, yes, I am aware that I have made some mistakes here as well. Again, the difference is that when someone points them out to me, I'm far more likely to say "Huh, yeah, good point!" or "Thanks for the tip" than I am to go off on on a tirade, asking why people are "defending the enemy" or some such thing.  IOW: It's is important to me to get it RIGHT. First and foremost, I want my arguments to be based in fact more than I care about whether or not they're Liberal.  So, seriously: If someone sees something here that's bullshit, by all means: CALL ME OUT ON IT!  (You don't usually get that offer from most Right Wing Bloggers!)

So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them.  So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!'  And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star.  Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top.  That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me.  So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time. 

Hoo-boy... 

Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large.  And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points!  But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd.  And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are.  This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe."  I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you.  Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it!  If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE.  Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end.  And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!

#1 The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.

(*) This is a prime example of a BARRIER TO ENTRY.  I'll explain what that is at the bottom.  Is it bullshit? Usually, yes. Is it LIBERAL? Oh, hell no! But, more on that farther down.

#2 The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

(*) This also falls under the 'barrier to entry' category, but there's some intellectually dishonesty thrown in for good measure.  See... take a good look at the story he linked to.  First of all, it's $50 per year or $300 for life. Second of all, it's not a tax on BLOGGERS, it's a licensing fee for BUSINESSES.  Is it excessive, when applied to bloggers?  Well... sure USUALLY.  But how much money do Arianna Huffington or Matt Drudge make from their blogs?  If you're GOOD AT IT, then it might not be so excessive.  And? If you don't want to pay? Just don't sell ads. No big deal there - especially if those ads only net you $11 a year! In Google's AdSense's terms, it would take you just over NINE YEARS to get paid AT ALL at that rate! So why even bother? (Disclosure: I should make my first hundred, and finally get paid, after 2 years of blogging, in about a month or so.)  Just take the ads down and your "Free Speech" is completely untouchable. (Remember: It's "free" speech, not "paid" speech!)  And, OK, fine... Do I think it's a dumb law? Or one that needs to be altered or amended? YES. Yes, I do. But if you're going to argue that - and I think it SHOULD be argued - WHY do you have to be dishonest about it?  The law is absurd enough on its own!  If you have to distort the reality even more to make your point, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT!

#3 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

Nanny-state bullshit? Perhaps.  (Although after recently going through crown-extension surgery, and getting three different holes drilled in the same tooth by a guy who I thought was being pretty chincy with the Novocaine?  Man: BRUSH YOUR TEETH, KIDS! Because that SUX!)  Here's the thing... If the STATE provides the toothpaste? And the kids (presumably) own toothbrushes?  HOW, exactly, is this "suffocating" the day-care businesses?  Seems to me that this is actually a GOOD program, that works JUST FINE, and it's the John Stossel Conservatives who are whining over nothing. And considering that Medicaid covers dental, it would seem this is a good cost-savings measure as well. But.. you know... never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

#4 If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

All I can say is, one: (*). And two: The sentence is absurd, but the motivation behind ALL of the (*)'s entries is hardly a LIBERAL one.  (I'll get to that at the end.)

#5 A reader named Gene recently shared his regulatory horror story with us....

I'm not going to dignify "Gene's story" with a response, other than to say that "anecdotal evidence sure is convincing, isn't it?"  I can't verify ANY of these claims, nor do I know ANYTHING about "Gene" or his "Business." If there's any legitimacy to this, maybe they should have found an example from a verifiable source, no? Just sayin'. 

Also? (*)

#6 Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.

Damn! I'm never even UP by 5 O'Clock in the morning! Although... I suppose that's what makes it a such a good time to have a raid!  OK, putting aside that the link provided is to the "World Nut Daily," I was able find this story elsewhere, so we can assume it's legit.  First of all: You can sell Raw Milk, if you slap a warning label on it. DID they? I don't know. It doesn't say. They say they don't sell to the public, but it's unclear if that's true or not.  (And the fed's had to find out SOME HOW, right?)  And while I'm all for letting people make their own choices - bad as those choices may be - I'm going to take on these "natural food" whack-jobs (many of whom are Liberal, yes, I know) right now and recommend that they look up a guy name Louis Pasteur, and learn a little bit more about what the world was like before he came along.  Raw milk, unregulated, is dangerous. Period. And arguing otherwise is the closest thing Liberals have to dogma. (Actually, I'll come right out and say it: Vegan, Organic, Gluten-Free, All-Natural, etc...? Is nothing more than Un-Scientific Liberal dogma. And it's every bit as full-of-shit as Conservative Dogma is.) But whatever. Maybe their milk wasn't germ infested. OK, fine. But what about everyone else's? Folks, these regulations are in place for a GOOD REASON: Public Health.  Do I have a problem with some aspects of the corporate dairy industry? You betcha: The use of Hormones, for example. But PASTEURIZATION is not one of my qualms. (And the "raw eggs" example is just stupid, because pretty much everyone COOKS their eggs before they eat them.) In any case, this is a perfect example of a regulation that a LIBERAL GROUP (crunchy vegan's, whole-food hippies) would be perfectly happy to strike down!  (But which this liberal would disagree with them on.) And that shows two things: (1) "Liberals" are an intellectually and philosophically diverse bunch, unlike the single-minded Conservatives. And (2) You can therefore hardly blame Liberals, in general, for this regulation no matter how you feel about it!  There's COMMON GROUND here between Libertarians and certain (somewhat extreme) Liberal Sub-Groups! (Although this is one time I'm thanking God that they haven't bothered to find it!)

Also? (*)

#7 In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits.

(*). Just... (*). 

(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)

#8 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.

This the one that REALLY pissed me off.  $500 fine, just for being a good guy, huh? No good deed goes unpunished, huh?  Well, buried deep down in this more honest story about what happened is a little detail that the Right-wing blogger left out: Far from freeing the netted whale properly, he found that he was unable to do this and merely cut his lines, letting the whale swim away still tangled in the nets!  Hmmm... It seems to me that if the guy couldn't do the job PROPERLY, maybe, just maybe, he should have, oh... I don't know... called state authorities and waited for them do it!  Also not mentioned? The fact that the fine was reduced from $100,000 (holy crap!) down to $500. So, again, far from this being a case of the State Bureaucracy running amok, it is actually an example of the use of discretion to make sure the laws don't get applied inappropriately. Can we have a debate about the necessity of these laws? Sure we can.  Can we have a debate about the appropriateness of the penalties? Absolutely. But WHY can't we at least have an intellectually honest one?!

#9 In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.

Another classic case of (*).

#10 Deeply hidden in the 2,409-page health reform bill passed by Congress was a new regulation that will require U.S. businesses to file millions more 1099s each year. In fact, it is estimated that the average small business will now have to file 200 additional 1099s every single year. Talk about a nightmare of red tape! But don't try to avoid this rule - it is being reported that the IRS has hired approximately 2,000 new auditors to audit as many of these 1099s as possible.

Part of me would love to say, "See? The stimulus worked! Thousands of new jobs!"  But, I'm afraid that some asshat from another other blog might come by and read what I have to say, and I'd hate for them to use that [throw-away joke] as an example of "how Liberal's think." (But watch someone do it anyway!) And another part of me would be perfectly have to concede this one single point and agree that it's bullshit.  And yet another part of me wants to say "boo-frickin-hoo..." A little bit of paperwork, "oh my farquing guard!" 

But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large.  A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!)  and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers.  As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals."  And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!

#11 The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business. Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off.

Finally a point I might concede.  This one does seem a bit stupid.  Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much else on it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I am left wondering, however, how this can possible be enforced.  My lease is up, I close my doors, I walk away.  If that's really a crime? The yeah, I'll give them this one.  But hitting 1 for 11 (.091) won't keep you a roster spot in any league that I'm aware of! (And tongue-in-cheek I might quip that this might keep some business from going under!) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

#12 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.

First, the joking: LOOK! The Stimulus is working!  All that overtime!  (And in all seriousness? This WOULD have that effect. And that's not necessarily a bad thing!)

Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?!  I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own.  So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine.  Or... maybe I won't...  If I know how many empty calories are in that shit!  This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right. 

Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.

And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that.  The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.)  I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.

He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations."  Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some.  (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we!  The only places with LESS regulations?  Africa and South & Central America.  IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well.  But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India.  And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada.  They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!

OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?

Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry."  (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)

Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States.  Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like.  And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)

But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?

Really? WE DON'T. 

Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.

Seriously.

These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY.  These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market!  $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm.  But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion.  (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)

But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?

Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism.  But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals!  And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal!  These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business!  Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)

And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!

Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?

Answer? IT ISN'T!

And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations!  (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!)  See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected.  And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.

Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.

But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!

We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!

No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do!  And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY!  Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this!  SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess!  As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!

Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out.  But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more.  They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule.  But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!

And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!

Gotta love that free-market health care!

I'm not going to go into the details of why for-profit, free-market health DOES. NOT. WORK.

(And is just ill concieved and improperly motivated, right for the start.)  We all know these already.

But here's another recent example of the failure of market forces to provide adequate health care.

The SECOND biggest problem with this country

This is related to a thread on MMFA this morning.  Was anyone ELSE having trouble with multiple posts today? It seems everthing I posted went up three times!

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

A few years ago, I received one of those RW emails “proving” how stupid, un-American, etc… liberals are. It was chock full of the typical RW distortions and bullshit, to the point that few of them were even remotely memorable. But there was one that struck me, because it was something that I hadn’t ever even considered: Liberals hate McDonald’s because it succeeded where communism failed: Feeding billions of people both cheaply and profitably.


Now… I’m sure I don’t have to point out the first absurdity here: That American Liberals / Progressives are NOT, by and large, “Communists.” Nor Marxists, Socialists, etc... Also, while there are plenty of legitimate reasons to CRITICISE McDonalds, “hate” in this case would seem to be a particularly egregious exaggeration. I’m sure on most liberals’ outrage-o-meter, Micky-D’s scores somewhere between the Barbie Doll and the derogatory nature of the term, “Mexican Standoff.”

And since we’re NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN advocating for any form of actual communism, the fact that McDonald’s (and the fast-food industry) HAS undeniably played a roll in ending hunger in this country and in many others is a reason for Liberals to PRAISE and CREDIT them! The problem here is that, as usual, conservatives have no sense of moderation; no sense of balance. They think that if “cheap food” is GOOD, then MORE food, even CHEAPER, must therefore, always, be better.

Goodbye, widespread hunger. Hello, obesity epidemic.

And so here’s my second entry in the “What’s wrong with this country” category:

You can get a 7-Layer Burrito at Taco Bell for $0.99.

The 7-Layer Burrito has:
510 Calories (over 25% of the daily allowance for a 200 Pound male.)
68 Grams of (mostly refined) Carbohydrates (50% of your day’s supply normally, 340% if you’re on a low-carb, weight loss plan, as I am.)
6 grams of Saturated Fat (30% of the recommended daily allowance)
1420 Milligrams of Sodium (60% of the recommended daily allowance)

…all that yummy goodness for only ONE DOLLAR. Not bad… if you’re otherwise broke and starving to death, but any objective look at the numbers will find that, if anything, we’re well into the opposite problem by now.

Meanwhile, 5 Red Bell Peppers, which contain more Vitamin C per Calorie that an Orange will cost you around $9.00. Think about that: One single pepper, good for you yes, but hardly a meal, will cost you almost TWICE what Taco Bell’s “saturated fat, wrapped in refined carbs” does. Another example: One English cucumber costs about $2.00. And granted, I can buy a regular cucumber instead (bleh) but think about that for a moment… How can one, single vegetable cost more than a PREPARED “meal?” That’s a victory for industrialized snacking perhaps, but it’s no wonder why so many Americans (certainly myself very much included) need to eat more fruits and vegetables!

The free market might not let us starve to death, but when we’re all getting triple bypasses we can’t afford, we might well advised to spend some of our recuperation time rethinking what a wonderful fix-all the free-market REALLY is.

PS: I really don’t have the answer to this problem. There’s no simple solution that I am aware of. I’m merely observing that when slowly killing yourself costs ONE dollars, and eating healthy costs TWO (just for the Peppers and Cucumbers, mind you: we’re nowhere near a MEAL yet!) something has gone seriously awry.

How the mortgage crisis SHOULD have been handled

OK... We all know how the mortgage crisis came about.  Banks knowlingly lent money to high-risk borrowers with little to no equity in their homes.  Properties were over valued by complicit apprasiers, as were the resulting securities sold by the banks to get those loans the hell of their books and into someone else's hands.  But the way we've gone about dealing with the resulting foreclosure crisis leaves much to be desired.

Now... A lttlie background.  I've got a 15 year balloon mortgage at 6.125%.  That was an OK deal at the time (we were coming of a 5-year balloon about a year before all the shit really hit the fan, so we were actually pretty lucky timing-wise!) Right now rates on a 30-year fixed are about 4.1 to 4.5%.  So I could save about $200 a month or so if I could refy.  Now, I've never missed a payment, and can comfortably continue to pay I'm doing now.  I also have excellent credit.  So on a personal level I'm a very low risk borrower.  But like many people I'm underwater.  So while I could pay back the loan, obviously with even less risk that I represent at my current, higher rate, the bank won't even talk to me.

Which is bullshit. 

Now... if I were 90 days BEHIND on my mortgage?  Then the gov't would (try to) force them to deal with me.  How's that for a backwards incentive?  What's more, the banks are so well protected by this loop hole that it's still far more likely that I'd be forced into forclosure than get the loan modification.  So while I'm not one of those guys saying "Where's MY bailout?" - I recognize that I AM benefiting from my neighbor being bailed out - I AM getting frustrated at a system that rewards, indeed encorages, every kind of bad behavior - borrowing too much, high risk lending, NOT PAYING YOUR BILLS - and punnishes me for (1) acting responsibly and (2) for market forces which are completely outside of my control.  And I'm not even looking for a reduction of  PRINCIPAL - that's just BULLSHIT, and I'll get to that in a moment - I just want to take advatgae of the lower market interests rates.  But I can't... BECAUSE OF THE MARKET!

Now, one of the big problems with the old system was the inherent conflict of interest involved in having the mortgage brokers hire (and pay) the appraisers.  It USED to be that they could just make a phone call, and get an apraisal.  That may have been problematic in some markets, but get this: NOW, not only do I pay for appraisal - $300-$500, whether or not I end up getting the loan - but if the rate falls again after I get the appraisal, I can’t get that better rate with the same bank that the appraisal was done for, and I can’t transfer that appraisal to new bank! So I'd have to shell out AGAIN!  Why is that?  Govenrment regulations, I'm told.  Nice going, morans!


Now, I think there was a much simpler way to stem the bleeding here.  And, as usual with MY proposals, and as is so often NOT the case with Gov't, it puts the responsible CUSTOMER first.  There is a wide perception that a lot of these people "just borrowed too much."  To be sure, that's true of some, but by and large, the bigger problem was that so many people were faced with unforseen rate changes or ballons that expired (meaning that the now owe the entire balance) that they would notrmally just have re-finance at the new market rates, but CAN'T because there's no equity, or they're underwater, so the bank won't approve the new loan.  So they lose the house, despite the fact that they could have made payments at the current, 30 year fixed, market interest rate.  And their foreclosure hurts the market and puts that many more people under water and it's a viscious cycle.  So THOSE are the people who I'd help first.  And I'd do it thusly: For a predefined, finite amount of time - say, two years - anyone who had made their last [6?, 12? some number] mortgage payments on time, and can continue to do so, based on thier current income, AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFIES for a re-fi, at their current principle, plus closing costs, at the current market interest rate.  That alone would have made this "crisis" basically manageble.  And no one gets "punnished." Banks continue to do business with their best customers, stabalizing their own income and the value of their assets, while the GOOD customers benefit from the favorable market conditions and get to keep their house.  (And obviously this would not extend to anyone buying a new house or a second home, etc...  Just thier primary residence.)

Now... if someone TRULY borrowed too much?  And there's just no way they can afford the 30-year fixed market rate? (Or even a slightly lower rate?)  I'm inclined to say, "Sucks to be you." If you lose your job and you're unemployed for a few years?  Guess what? It's likely that ANYONE would have to sell / foreclose / go into bankrupcy.  For better or worse, THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK IN THIS COUNTRY.  By reducing the PRINCIPLE of the loan, you're giving free money to the least deserving customers.  OK - I'm alright with punninshing the banks a little (and helping out the borrower) if the bank was truly predatory.  BUT... most of these loans were "predatory" becuase of the future interest-rate hikes!  So what's wrong with simply forcing the conversion to a 30-year fixed (or longer maybe? Why NOT a 40 or 50 year? They have 100 year loans in europe!) at market rates if the person can afford that, and saying "sorry, but we can't help you" to the people who CAN'T?  Seems to me that if they had done JUST THIS, at least at first, the economic fallout would not have snowballed as much as it did, and much of the resulting economic and fiscal fallout would have been mitigated.  And the Banks would be discoraged from pursuing these kind of bullshit loans in the furture! See? Everybody wins, except the people who just went crazy wth their debt.  (And for them, there's bankrupcy.)

And even if you agree with the IDEA of "helping people out" by lowering their principle?  It ain't happening anyway.  The program's a MESS. It really hasn't done what it's set put to do.  Too many loopgoles for the Bank, and it's WAAAY to complicated.  And that's not a Liberal/Conservative issue or a Democratic/Republican issue.  The issue is that BANKS have too much influence, and LAWMAKERS never try the simple solution.  Again - that not Lib/Con or PUb/Dem either: it's because almost EVERYONE OF THESE BASTARDS on BOTH SIDES of the ailse is a friggin' LAWYER.  And making the law simple would but lawyers out of business.

My rant for the day.