This is just...I can't believe the ignorance and stupidity of this man.
Griffith suggested the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate, even if it resulted in a debt default that severely damaged the economy.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” he said.
Griffith, a former majority leader of the Virginia House of Delegates, cited as an example the American Revolution.
“I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies,” Griffith said. “They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
Yes, because destroying the United States' and the world's economy, hurting countless people, and damaging the U.S's reputation and good name is just like the American Revolution!
I think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would spit in your face, sir.
Showing posts with label budget stupidities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget stupidities. Show all posts
October 12, 2013
March 13, 2013
"That's a bunch of malarkey"
Charlie Pierce eviscerates Paul Ryan's Randian excuse for a budget.
Paul Ryan's economics are not economics so much as they are a statement of political philosophy. All political economics are based in political philosophy but, in Ryan's case, political philosophy is not the root of his notion of a political economy. His political philosophy is his notion of political economics. He believes that there are certain things that the government should not do for its citizens, and he would believe that if the balance showed a 20-gozillion surplus. His goal is to stop the government from doing those things. Everything else he does — every "budget" he proposes — is in service to that philosophy. His whole career has been made within the confines of that philosophy. It has blinded him to the very real human effects of what would occur if his "budget" ever was adopted, it also has blinded him to his own staggering hypocrisy — a man seeking to demolish the very safety net that got him through high-school and college, a man talking about the perils of government who's never had a real job outside of it. He is engaged in an extended act of camouflage through which he concocts disguises for policy preferences that the country has told him, over and over again, it does not want, and which the country has told him, over and over again, do not reflect the country's idea of itself.
I don't believe Paul Ryan is a sociopath (at least, not in the way Mitt Romney was) but I cannot understand how he lives with himself, proposing a horrorshow like this. Does he not realize that people will die if they're thrown off Medicaid? Does he not know that all of us will end up paying for the people who no longer have insurance, who go again and again to emergency rooms to get pain relief for those workplace injuries, or antibiotics for those rotten teeth, but who can never solve the underlying problems because they can't afford it? Does he not envision himself getting older, with the slow inevitable creeping malaise of arthritis or diabetes or heart disease coming upon him, with no way to avoid it because the voucher (excuse me, "premium support") he gets from the government does not provide enough to pay for the care and screenings that could prevent it? Does he not consider that poor women who can no longer get family planning services from Planned Parenthood will end up giving birth to children they did not want and cannot afford, and everyone else will support said children? (Texas recently ran into this conundrum, and is now considering restoring funding. Gee, reality wins again!)
Really, how can you look at yourself in the mirror each morning while pushing such immoral bullshit?
Speaking of morality, here's a lengthy commentary from faith leaders condemning the Ryan budget.
This budget, if pursued and passed, will send a message, in both tone and tactic, that our government is more concerned with protecting those who control wealth and privilege than supporting those upon whom that wealth and privilege has been built.
It's getting to the point where, each time I see Paul Ryan on the tube, I'm looking for the rotting corpse of Ayn Rand shambling along behind him, attached at the hip.
Yet this smiling blue-eyed boy still advocates this nonsense, while ignoring, as Charlie Pierce said, the "staggering hypocrisy" of making sure other people won't get their Medicare and Social Security now that he's got his.
Just like Joe Biden said during the vice-presidential debate, "now all of a sudden these guys [pointing to Paul Ryan] are so seized with concern about the debt they created."
Yeah. They're so concerned they want to destroy the New Deal and all the progress we've made over the past century....all for our own good.
Paul Ryan's economics are not economics so much as they are a statement of political philosophy. All political economics are based in political philosophy but, in Ryan's case, political philosophy is not the root of his notion of a political economy. His political philosophy is his notion of political economics. He believes that there are certain things that the government should not do for its citizens, and he would believe that if the balance showed a 20-gozillion surplus. His goal is to stop the government from doing those things. Everything else he does — every "budget" he proposes — is in service to that philosophy. His whole career has been made within the confines of that philosophy. It has blinded him to the very real human effects of what would occur if his "budget" ever was adopted, it also has blinded him to his own staggering hypocrisy — a man seeking to demolish the very safety net that got him through high-school and college, a man talking about the perils of government who's never had a real job outside of it. He is engaged in an extended act of camouflage through which he concocts disguises for policy preferences that the country has told him, over and over again, it does not want, and which the country has told him, over and over again, do not reflect the country's idea of itself.
I don't believe Paul Ryan is a sociopath (at least, not in the way Mitt Romney was) but I cannot understand how he lives with himself, proposing a horrorshow like this. Does he not realize that people will die if they're thrown off Medicaid? Does he not know that all of us will end up paying for the people who no longer have insurance, who go again and again to emergency rooms to get pain relief for those workplace injuries, or antibiotics for those rotten teeth, but who can never solve the underlying problems because they can't afford it? Does he not envision himself getting older, with the slow inevitable creeping malaise of arthritis or diabetes or heart disease coming upon him, with no way to avoid it because the voucher (excuse me, "premium support") he gets from the government does not provide enough to pay for the care and screenings that could prevent it? Does he not consider that poor women who can no longer get family planning services from Planned Parenthood will end up giving birth to children they did not want and cannot afford, and everyone else will support said children? (Texas recently ran into this conundrum, and is now considering restoring funding. Gee, reality wins again!)
Really, how can you look at yourself in the mirror each morning while pushing such immoral bullshit?
Speaking of morality, here's a lengthy commentary from faith leaders condemning the Ryan budget.
This budget, if pursued and passed, will send a message, in both tone and tactic, that our government is more concerned with protecting those who control wealth and privilege than supporting those upon whom that wealth and privilege has been built.
It's getting to the point where, each time I see Paul Ryan on the tube, I'm looking for the rotting corpse of Ayn Rand shambling along behind him, attached at the hip.
Yet this smiling blue-eyed boy still advocates this nonsense, while ignoring, as Charlie Pierce said, the "staggering hypocrisy" of making sure other people won't get their Medicare and Social Security now that he's got his.
Just like Joe Biden said during the vice-presidential debate, "now all of a sudden these guys [pointing to Paul Ryan] are so seized with concern about the debt they created."
Yeah. They're so concerned they want to destroy the New Deal and all the progress we've made over the past century....all for our own good.
December 1, 2011
"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die"
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." ~John F. Kennedy
"What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class." ~Alexis de Tocqueville
This is a must-read op-ed at Bloomberg, written by a man who founded many companies and last year raked in an eight-figure income (on which he only paid 11% in taxes).
I think he knows whereof he speaks.
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
This is why it's so stupid when Republicans blather on about "job-killing tax hikes." It's not taxes or the lack thereof that create jobs--it's demand for your widgets, or whatever you happen to be offering. No demand=no business=no jobs. (I'm certain all these small businesses they're so hot on protecting just decided one day that x amount of people in their depressed little towns needed a job, so they just up and hired all these people, regardless of whether they thought anyone would actually purchase what the employees were selling. Suuuuure.)
I don't know why Mitch McConnell and his merry band of Nazguls in Congress continue to cling to this ridiculous myth. I suppose it's all of a piece with their sticking to their story of trickle-down economics and denying climate change. They're so terrified that their patently false way of life might have to change that they'll hang on to it to the bitter end, irregardless of common sense or facts.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
No matter how much you jump up and down and throw a hissy fit, math is still math. Remember the 1950's? That wondrous decade all these traditional types look back on as the nadir of American society (at least for white Christian males)?
What were the tax rates then, pray tell?
Admittedly these are marginal tax rates. The actual tax rate paid, with loopholes and deductions and such, was probably around 50%.
Nevertheless, the country didn't crash and burn, now did it? With the way the Republican Nazguls are screaming, you'd think President Obama is wielding the One Ring and dragging them back to Mount Doom.
One Tax to rule them all,
One Tax to find them,
One Tax to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Socialists where the Kenyans lie.
(back to article) So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.
And capitalism without proper taxation is the country we have today--a godawful, unequal, top-heavy mess.
"What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class." ~Alexis de Tocqueville
This is a must-read op-ed at Bloomberg, written by a man who founded many companies and last year raked in an eight-figure income (on which he only paid 11% in taxes).
I think he knows whereof he speaks.
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
This is why it's so stupid when Republicans blather on about "job-killing tax hikes." It's not taxes or the lack thereof that create jobs--it's demand for your widgets, or whatever you happen to be offering. No demand=no business=no jobs. (I'm certain all these small businesses they're so hot on protecting just decided one day that x amount of people in their depressed little towns needed a job, so they just up and hired all these people, regardless of whether they thought anyone would actually purchase what the employees were selling. Suuuuure.)
I don't know why Mitch McConnell and his merry band of Nazguls in Congress continue to cling to this ridiculous myth. I suppose it's all of a piece with their sticking to their story of trickle-down economics and denying climate change. They're so terrified that their patently false way of life might have to change that they'll hang on to it to the bitter end, irregardless of common sense or facts.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
No matter how much you jump up and down and throw a hissy fit, math is still math. Remember the 1950's? That wondrous decade all these traditional types look back on as the nadir of American society (at least for white Christian males)?
What were the tax rates then, pray tell?
Admittedly these are marginal tax rates. The actual tax rate paid, with loopholes and deductions and such, was probably around 50%.
Nevertheless, the country didn't crash and burn, now did it? With the way the Republican Nazguls are screaming, you'd think President Obama is wielding the One Ring and dragging them back to Mount Doom.
One Tax to rule them all,
One Tax to find them,
One Tax to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Socialists where the Kenyans lie.
(back to article) So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.
And capitalism without proper taxation is the country we have today--a godawful, unequal, top-heavy mess.
August 19, 2011
"Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes"
Because you can't argue with all the fools in the world. It's easier to let them have their way, then trick them when they're not paying attention. ~Christopher Paolini
I take my common sense wherever I can find it, nowadays.
This unexpected bit of coherence showed up in today's Arizona Republic, from a columnist who is decidedly not a liberal.
Left's lack of gratitude is hard to fathom
You should really read the whole thing, but here are some salient points.
The hostility and contempt from the left toward Barack Obama is difficult to understand. By any objective analysis, he has done more to advance the liberal agenda than any president other than Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
[snip]
While driving spending and deficits to record levels, Obama got enacted the largest expansion of the social welfare state since Medicare and Social Security. Under Obamacare, families earning up to $95,000 a year will be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.
Most of the left would prefer a government-run system, similar to Great Britain. And they are mad that Obama didn’t get a government-run health insurance program, the so-called public option, included.
But Obama couldn’t get enough Democrats in Congress to support the public option. Instead, he turned private insurance companies into basically government regulated utilities. The federal government will determine what insurers can offer and heavily limit their profits and pricing flexibility.
Liberals have been unsuccessfully pushing for a government guarantee of universal coverage for over a half century. Obama got it done. Caviling about the details is small.
[snip]
For all the sound and fury, all Republicans gained from the debt ceiling agreement was a slight shaving from Obama’s 25 percent of GDP spending base. And the Bush tax cuts still expire at the end of next year.
Perhaps liberals think Obama should have allowed the federal government to start bouncing checks in hopes that would convince House Speaker John Boehner to commit political suicide by bringing to the floor a Democratic tax increase plan his caucus would overwhelmingly oppose. If so, they’re nuts.
This is spot on, and even more valuable, I think, because it comes from an outsider's viewpoint. Unfortunately, I'm sure it will be lost in all the firebagger shrieking.
Doubly unfortunate, this column is paired with Charles Krauthammer's latest excrescence. As far as I can tell, he's mad because the Republicans are putting politics above country, and Obama is (albeit in a roundabout way) calling them out on it.
Never mind that Mitch McConnell plainly said the party is doing just that.
Mitch McConnell doubles down against President Obama
But McConnell's comments suggest that Obama will face a far more confrontational Senate, particularly if he doesn't dramatically overhaul his agenda. And the Republican leader suggested that he's prepared to tie up the Senate floor and unite his party against some Democratic bills, which could lead to legislative gridlock and have profound repercussions across the 2012 campaign trail.
The entire Republican agenda since 2010 has been proof of this, with the debt ceiling travesty being only the latest example.
However, the title to Krauthammer's column gives away the entire debate.
"President has a lot of gall for demonizing Republicans for standing up for beliefs."
You mean beliefs (not facts) like these?
Climate change isn't man-made; and
Tax cuts increase revenue; and
Abstinence education works?
That's what ticks me off. That the Tea-pubs consistently push hackneyed canards that are demonstrably, empirically, factually wrong; and continue to push them in spite of all rational debunking to the contrary.
When you want to run a country based on false beliefs, yeah, that does strike me as being a little bit treasonous. Treasonous to reality, and certainly treasonous to the people you want to govern.
So: there's the contrast. Common sense and magical thinking.
Which do you prefer?
I take my common sense wherever I can find it, nowadays.
This unexpected bit of coherence showed up in today's Arizona Republic, from a columnist who is decidedly not a liberal.
Left's lack of gratitude is hard to fathom
You should really read the whole thing, but here are some salient points.
The hostility and contempt from the left toward Barack Obama is difficult to understand. By any objective analysis, he has done more to advance the liberal agenda than any president other than Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
[snip]
While driving spending and deficits to record levels, Obama got enacted the largest expansion of the social welfare state since Medicare and Social Security. Under Obamacare, families earning up to $95,000 a year will be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.
Most of the left would prefer a government-run system, similar to Great Britain. And they are mad that Obama didn’t get a government-run health insurance program, the so-called public option, included.
But Obama couldn’t get enough Democrats in Congress to support the public option. Instead, he turned private insurance companies into basically government regulated utilities. The federal government will determine what insurers can offer and heavily limit their profits and pricing flexibility.
Liberals have been unsuccessfully pushing for a government guarantee of universal coverage for over a half century. Obama got it done. Caviling about the details is small.
[snip]
For all the sound and fury, all Republicans gained from the debt ceiling agreement was a slight shaving from Obama’s 25 percent of GDP spending base. And the Bush tax cuts still expire at the end of next year.
Perhaps liberals think Obama should have allowed the federal government to start bouncing checks in hopes that would convince House Speaker John Boehner to commit political suicide by bringing to the floor a Democratic tax increase plan his caucus would overwhelmingly oppose. If so, they’re nuts.
This is spot on, and even more valuable, I think, because it comes from an outsider's viewpoint. Unfortunately, I'm sure it will be lost in all the firebagger shrieking.
Doubly unfortunate, this column is paired with Charles Krauthammer's latest excrescence. As far as I can tell, he's mad because the Republicans are putting politics above country, and Obama is (albeit in a roundabout way) calling them out on it.
Never mind that Mitch McConnell plainly said the party is doing just that.
Mitch McConnell doubles down against President Obama
But McConnell's comments suggest that Obama will face a far more confrontational Senate, particularly if he doesn't dramatically overhaul his agenda. And the Republican leader suggested that he's prepared to tie up the Senate floor and unite his party against some Democratic bills, which could lead to legislative gridlock and have profound repercussions across the 2012 campaign trail.
The entire Republican agenda since 2010 has been proof of this, with the debt ceiling travesty being only the latest example.
However, the title to Krauthammer's column gives away the entire debate.
"President has a lot of gall for demonizing Republicans for standing up for beliefs."
You mean beliefs (not facts) like these?
Climate change isn't man-made; and
Tax cuts increase revenue; and
Abstinence education works?
That's what ticks me off. That the Tea-pubs consistently push hackneyed canards that are demonstrably, empirically, factually wrong; and continue to push them in spite of all rational debunking to the contrary.
When you want to run a country based on false beliefs, yeah, that does strike me as being a little bit treasonous. Treasonous to reality, and certainly treasonous to the people you want to govern.
So: there's the contrast. Common sense and magical thinking.
Which do you prefer?
August 14, 2011
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
Preach it, Warren!
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
I suppose the Teapublicans will now call him a "Tax Traitor" and call for his head, a la Benedict Arnold.
Preach it, Warren!
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
I suppose the Teapublicans will now call him a "Tax Traitor" and call for his head, a la Benedict Arnold.
"The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs"
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. ~John F. Kennedy
This is a point I hadn't thought about (via Crooks and Liars). Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans won't, you know, actually kill them (although you would think so, from the Tea Partiers' howling). Mitt Romney's personal fortune is estimated at $250 million. If he had to hand over a few million more in taxes, would he even notice it was gone?
Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, will kill people. That the Republicans advocate this and don't blink an eye just proves they're basically sociopaths.
This is a point I hadn't thought about (via Crooks and Liars). Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans won't, you know, actually kill them (although you would think so, from the Tea Partiers' howling). Mitt Romney's personal fortune is estimated at $250 million. If he had to hand over a few million more in taxes, would he even notice it was gone?
Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, will kill people. That the Republicans advocate this and don't blink an eye just proves they're basically sociopaths.
August 2, 2011
"Think you're in the middle of a hurricane now? It's time for a showdown."
These hombres are mean, vicious and quick with guns. Sure we've got a Sheriff; but what we need's a gun slinger. ~Mad Dog McCree (1990 video game)
Finally, some common sense.
What exactly is wrong with this deal? The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in.
The only thing that could have stopped the entire fiasco altogether is Obama's throwing his nuclear bomb of the 14th Amendment in the air and detonating it. Myself, I would have done precisely that. However, then we would no doubt face the prospect of a year and a half of impeachment hearings, with slavering, slobbering Republicans going rabid over the prospect of finally getting rid of this uppity Negro.
Never mind that the Senate would have never voted for it. The process would have made Bill Clinton's impeachment look tame.
Would we want to put the country through that? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.
Right now, I don't have an answer.
Finally, some common sense.
What exactly is wrong with this deal? The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in.
The only thing that could have stopped the entire fiasco altogether is Obama's throwing his nuclear bomb of the 14th Amendment in the air and detonating it. Myself, I would have done precisely that. However, then we would no doubt face the prospect of a year and a half of impeachment hearings, with slavering, slobbering Republicans going rabid over the prospect of finally getting rid of this uppity Negro.
Never mind that the Senate would have never voted for it. The process would have made Bill Clinton's impeachment look tame.
Would we want to put the country through that? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.
Right now, I don't have an answer.
July 24, 2011
"There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter"
The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster. ~Emil Cioran
Andrew Sullivan takes the Republicans to the woodshed. Every word he's saying is true, but I'm afraid it's too late.
It was too late a day after the 2010 elections.
Boehner and McConnell have one goal and it is has nothing to do with the economy. It is destroying this president and this presidency. They are clearly calculating that the economic devastation their vandalism could create will so hurt the economy that it could bring them back to power through the wreckage. And they will use every smear, every lie, every canard possible to advance this goal. The propaganda channel dreamt of by Roger Ailes in the Nixon era will continue to pump poison into the body politic, until they defeat the man whose legitimacy as president they have never truly accepted.
As they say, read the whole thing. And weep.
Andrew Sullivan takes the Republicans to the woodshed. Every word he's saying is true, but I'm afraid it's too late.
It was too late a day after the 2010 elections.
Boehner and McConnell have one goal and it is has nothing to do with the economy. It is destroying this president and this presidency. They are clearly calculating that the economic devastation their vandalism could create will so hurt the economy that it could bring them back to power through the wreckage. And they will use every smear, every lie, every canard possible to advance this goal. The propaganda channel dreamt of by Roger Ailes in the Nixon era will continue to pump poison into the body politic, until they defeat the man whose legitimacy as president they have never truly accepted.
As they say, read the whole thing. And weep.
July 16, 2011
"Reality is always controlled by the people who are most insane"
"In America, the criminally insane rule and the rest of us, or the vast majority of the rest of us, either do not care, do not know, or are distracted and properly brainwashed into acquiescence." ~Kurt Nimmo
So. This week I spent more than an hour on the phone and the Internet, moving my IRA and 401(k) to a place where they will hopefully survive the coming apocalypse. Since I work for the Veterans Administration, moving the 401(k) was a snap--I called the toll-free number, discussed which of the options offered would be the safest, went to the website and performed what's called an Interfund Transfer, right from my computer. I received an e-mail the next day at work informing me the transfer was completed. All my money is now parked in what's called the "G" fund, meaning government bonds. God knows what'll happen with those on August 3, but at least I'll be spared the spectre of the stock market dropping seven hundred points in 2008 when the TARP bailout failed to pass.
So. This week I spent more than an hour on the phone and the Internet, moving my IRA and 401(k) to a place where they will hopefully survive the coming apocalypse. Since I work for the Veterans Administration, moving the 401(k) was a snap--I called the toll-free number, discussed which of the options offered would be the safest, went to the website and performed what's called an Interfund Transfer, right from my computer. I received an e-mail the next day at work informing me the transfer was completed. All my money is now parked in what's called the "G" fund, meaning government bonds. God knows what'll happen with those on August 3, but at least I'll be spared the spectre of the stock market dropping seven hundred points in 2008 when the TARP bailout failed to pass.
Maybe.
The IRA took a little more time. I had to get on the phone to the Wells Fargo investment advisors and figure out which fund to move the money to, grant permission for them to do it, have them reroute my automatic monthly deductions, blah blah blah. (Also, the person I talked to seemingly could not grasp what I wanted--she kept talking about "leaving the money in the C fund for several years." I'm not going to DO that, you twit. I just want to stash it in the safest place possible until the debt ceiling is either raised or the catastrophe from not raising it shakes out. If it ever does. Then I'll move it back.) I finally ended up selecting what's called a World Bond Fund, using bonds from several different countries. Of course, bonds may go belly-up too, I suppose, but I hope the damage won't be as bad as a plunging stock market.
In any case, that's the best I can do, short of withdrawing the money altogether and stuffing it under my mattress. But I'm mad as hell, because I shouldn't have had to do all this in the first place.
In this country, it's very hard for people to comprehend the fact that one political party (and it's sure as hell not the Democrats) is actively working for everyone's destruction.
Unfortunately, that's what we've come to. The thirty-year endgame, started by Saint Ronnie. The Republican party, along with their Teabagger overlords, are nothing more than Norquistian cultists, held in thrall by the Holy Writ of Non-Taxation. (No doubt they all believe in Young-Earth Creationism, the Roswell alien landings, and the Tooth Fairy as well.) They must deny revenue to the government, even if millions of hard-working people like me don't get paid and lose their retirement money. They must slash Social Security and Medicare, even if elderly people like my mother eat catfood and die. They must worship at the feet of the corporations who pay no income taxes, protect them at all costs, and transform this country into an unrecognizable oligarchy. They must resist raising the debt ceiling, even if the United States and the world is destroyed as a result.
Folks, these are not the actions of a sane person. They are certainly not the actions of a political party who loves their country.
I've been reading John Dean's terrific books recounting the Republicans' evisceration of government--Conservatives Without Conscience and nowBroken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. These should be required reading for anyone running for office, as an abject example of how not to act. (In fact, I wish we could pass a constitutional amendment declaring that anyone who believes government is the problem and not the solution, and tax cuts generate revenue, not be allowed to run for office, period.) The descriptions Dean gives of the modern Republican party (and the Tea Party is even worse) should scare the pee-waddling out of every one of us.
Once elected, Republicans are extremely inclined towards opposing Democratic programs, not only because their philosophy is inherently antigovernment but because they are instinctively contrarian to anything and everything liberal or progressive. When campaigning or when opposing Democrats, Republicans are unmatched in modern politics for their willingness to play dirty, to go negative and nasty, and to play hardball, a ruthlessness well matched to their uncompromising competitiveness.
The negativity towards government in contemporary conservative thinking raises the question of why these people even enter public service at the national level, other than to dismantle the federal government by lowering taxes and abolishing programs and agencies. It should come as no surprise that Republicans have twisted and distorted government processes to their breaking point, given this mind-set. Of course, Republicans proudly proclaim that they love their country; they love their flag; they love their automatic weapons; they love their Constitution; and they love their democracy, given the alternatives. But where the federal government is concerned: It is too big, too powerful, too expensive, too lax in demanding morality, and too invasive with all its health and safety requirements to be able to run a really profitable business.
And these are the kind of people we let anywhere near Congress? Ronald Reagan would hang his head in shame. Barry Goldwater, old-style Republican that he was, would disown these sons-of-bitches.
In the meantime, I've done what I can to protect myself. I highly doubt the debt ceiling will get raised in time, unless Obama whips out the 14th Amendment at the last minute, impeachment be damned. I hope he does. The Senate won't vote to impeach him anyway, and it would be extremely satisfying to see the look on Eric Cantor's face if Obama should call a press conference and announce, "Pursuant to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, I have instructed Treasury Secretary Geithner not to let the United States of America go into default, and new borrowing has already commenced. We will pay our bills, as the Founding Fathers intended that we do."
Yeah, if I was President and dealing with these slimeballs, I would do that in a heartbeat.
We'll have to see how it plays out. But I would encourage people to take steps to protect themselves. Remember, we're dealing with a bunch of Looney Tunes who think it's right and proper to bring the country down, and they're going to have fun doing it.
May 22, 2011
"You must be mad," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
I made a snarky comment about this on Twitter, but this article is very much worth reading.
Fantasy Island: Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?
The short (and correct) answer is of course yes. I've never seen a so-called major political party believe so many nonsensical things, most of them before breakfast; these people have the White Queen beat by a mile. While this wouldn't matter if we were actually trapped inside the pages of a book, the fact that we are existing in the (ostensibly) real world makes this a major problem. (And there's no Neo to save us, darn it!)
As the article points out:
The Republicans ha[ve] moved to a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems (climate change, the need to pay the costs of running the government) can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact (Obama might just be Kenyan-born or a Muslim), expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot.
This would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. I've beat this drum before, and I will pound on it until the sun turns into a red giant: if the American people give these dolts free reign, they will not only drag the country down into ruin, they will take half the world with them (re the current stupidity over the debt ceiling).
It's fine to believe impossible things, if you so desire. (Skeptics will point to the title of this blog as my own "impossible thing," and that's okay--I'm not trying to create a national policy based on it.) It is not fine to attempt to run a country based on these fantasies.
So if you want a bankrupt Third World country run by racist, reality-denying clowns, vote Republican.
If you don't--then kick their asses out of office.
Fantasy Island: Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?
The short (and correct) answer is of course yes. I've never seen a so-called major political party believe so many nonsensical things, most of them before breakfast; these people have the White Queen beat by a mile. While this wouldn't matter if we were actually trapped inside the pages of a book, the fact that we are existing in the (ostensibly) real world makes this a major problem. (And there's no Neo to save us, darn it!)
As the article points out:
The Republicans ha[ve] moved to a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems (climate change, the need to pay the costs of running the government) can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact (Obama might just be Kenyan-born or a Muslim), expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot.
This would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. I've beat this drum before, and I will pound on it until the sun turns into a red giant: if the American people give these dolts free reign, they will not only drag the country down into ruin, they will take half the world with them (re the current stupidity over the debt ceiling).
It's fine to believe impossible things, if you so desire. (Skeptics will point to the title of this blog as my own "impossible thing," and that's okay--I'm not trying to create a national policy based on it.) It is not fine to attempt to run a country based on these fantasies.
So if you want a bankrupt Third World country run by racist, reality-denying clowns, vote Republican.
If you don't--then kick their asses out of office.
May 9, 2011
"Despair has its own calms"
This astute commenter at Krugman's place points out something I think could catch on. In politics, it's all about the framing, or so I've heard.
Therefore, from now on the GOP will be dubbed the Bloody Old Party (or BLOP). As in, "We are coming for what's left of yours."
Paul Ryan's proposal will hereafter be referred to as "Vampire Medicare."
Drain you dry and then you die,
Quickly, to the gates of dawn,
Insurance gangsters soldier on!
His budget as a whole shall be known as "Vampire Economics."
Voodoo is so Reagan-esque.
Let's propose a better test,
The blood! The fangs! The people rest!
The CEOs will come out best!
Groups of Bloppers will also be known as "the Sparklies," for easier identification.
John Boehner and Eric Cantor, in their newfound immortality, will write this.
Anthem for a Block-Grant Nation
Oh say can you see,
By sorrow's stolen light,
What so sickly we hailed,
At the New Deal's last reaming,
Whose proud bites and thick scars
With their winning old fight
O'er the care they denied
Were so lavishly gleaming.
And the Koch-ster's white hair,
Shone their corporate flair,
Gave proof through the night,
That our thieves were still there.
Oh say does that blood-spattered money yet wave
O'er the land of the poor,
And the graves of the brave!
Where's Abraham Van Helsing when you need him?
Therefore, from now on the GOP will be dubbed the Bloody Old Party (or BLOP). As in, "We are coming for what's left of yours."
Paul Ryan's proposal will hereafter be referred to as "Vampire Medicare."
Drain you dry and then you die,
Quickly, to the gates of dawn,
Insurance gangsters soldier on!
His budget as a whole shall be known as "Vampire Economics."
Voodoo is so Reagan-esque.
Let's propose a better test,
The blood! The fangs! The people rest!
The CEOs will come out best!
Groups of Bloppers will also be known as "the Sparklies," for easier identification.
John Boehner and Eric Cantor, in their newfound immortality, will write this.
Anthem for a Block-Grant Nation
Oh say can you see,
By sorrow's stolen light,
What so sickly we hailed,
At the New Deal's last reaming,
Whose proud bites and thick scars
With their winning old fight
O'er the care they denied
Were so lavishly gleaming.
And the Koch-ster's white hair,
Shone their corporate flair,
Gave proof through the night,
That our thieves were still there.
Oh say does that blood-spattered money yet wave
O'er the land of the poor,
And the graves of the brave!
Where's Abraham Van Helsing when you need him?
April 25, 2011
Instant Karma
I have to say, this idea sounds marvelous.
Dems seek leverage by forcing GOP split on Ryan budget plan
The basic idea is that Harry Reid would call a vote on Ryan's budget travesty in the Senate, and in the process force Senate Republicans to go on the record. Needless to say, this would give even more ammunition to the constituents who are already raising holy hell about this.
And, if in some alternate universe it happened to pass, the President would get to veto it and tour the US for the next year, saying, "I saved Medicare!"
Truly, this is the best of both worlds.
As an aside, doesn't it seem like Harry Reid's been more effective since his free-for-all with Sharron Angle? She must have put the fear of God into him. He probably figures after tangling with her, John Boehner is an orange pansy.
Dems seek leverage by forcing GOP split on Ryan budget plan
The basic idea is that Harry Reid would call a vote on Ryan's budget travesty in the Senate, and in the process force Senate Republicans to go on the record. Needless to say, this would give even more ammunition to the constituents who are already raising holy hell about this.
And, if in some alternate universe it happened to pass, the President would get to veto it and tour the US for the next year, saying, "I saved Medicare!"
Truly, this is the best of both worlds.
As an aside, doesn't it seem like Harry Reid's been more effective since his free-for-all with Sharron Angle? She must have put the fear of God into him. He probably figures after tangling with her, John Boehner is an orange pansy.
March 5, 2011
Penny Wise, Pound Stupid
Honestly, can any Republican in the House of Representatives actually think?
Cutting Poison Control
Since the total 2010 deficit is $1.1 trillion, this program's $29 million cost is the equivalent of a flyspeck on a Supersaurus. But the Repooks* don't care about that. Instead, they would rather all but eliminate the program and send people to the emergency room rather than spring for the cost of a phone call.
As the article points out:
"While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.
The centers, which collect poison reports, can also act as an early warning system for pandemics or large toxic exposures, allowing a quick response."
So this program does double duty: it prevents wasting the government's money and protects the public.
Naturally, the Republicans want to get rid of it.
Their idea of a "budget process" reminds me of evil, cackling children throwing darts at a dartboard and eliminating whatever they hit. It has about as much common sense and reasoning behind it. Obviously John Boehner has lost control of his squabbling little pack of brats, and just as obviously they're prepared to do severe damage to the country.
__________
*Repooks: Radical Republican Kooks.
Cutting Poison Control
Since the total 2010 deficit is $1.1 trillion, this program's $29 million cost is the equivalent of a flyspeck on a Supersaurus. But the Repooks* don't care about that. Instead, they would rather all but eliminate the program and send people to the emergency room rather than spring for the cost of a phone call.
As the article points out:
"While a single visit to an emergency room can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (often paid for by the government), a call to a poison center costs the government only $30 or $40. A study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology estimated that the poison centers saved the State of Arizona alone $33 million a year. Louisiana eliminated its centers in the 1980s but restored them when it realized how much money they saved.
The centers, which collect poison reports, can also act as an early warning system for pandemics or large toxic exposures, allowing a quick response."
So this program does double duty: it prevents wasting the government's money and protects the public.
Naturally, the Republicans want to get rid of it.
Their idea of a "budget process" reminds me of evil, cackling children throwing darts at a dartboard and eliminating whatever they hit. It has about as much common sense and reasoning behind it. Obviously John Boehner has lost control of his squabbling little pack of brats, and just as obviously they're prepared to do severe damage to the country.
__________
*Repooks: Radical Republican Kooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)