Just some shit I have to get off my chest...
Jobs? We talkin' jobs?
The Senate Democrats recently put forth a 600 million dollar program to stimulate job growth. Now, this makes perfect sense because revised job figures show that the last few months that were looking good, were actually not so good. And, last month was abysmal. Our unemployment figures hover around 9%, and have no prospect of changing any time soon - certainly not without government intervention. So what did the Obama White House say about this meagre stimulus attempt?
Too expensive. They want it cut by at least 200 million dollars. Man...nine percent! Nine fucking percent unemployment, and this president is planning to win reelection in a year. And 600 million? That's million, with an "m." What government program costs in the millions any more? But no...too much for the poor head of household who lost his job when the bankers crashed the economy. By the way, how many millions (nay, billions and trillions) did we give those bankers?
No, no, no...get ready for a new Republican administration. According to TYT, no president has won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7%. Not since Roosevelt. Cenk on TYT has been calling it for weeks now - he sees Obama as an underdog for winning reelection. And if Romney can make it past a bloodbath of a Republican primary, he can win handily. I've got to give myself credit - I've been saying this for months.
I've said that if Obama continues to validate the opposition's viewpoints, he will not be able to differentiate himself as anything but a lesser version of whatever lunatic Republican he runs against. Cenk makes it even clearer - if his policies don't create jobs, don't improve the economic outlook for the average American family, why would they waste a vote on him?
I called it six months ago, when Obama embraced supply-side economics. Now, it is obvious, as he embraces deficit reduction - the main Republican talking point - that Obama is in huge trouble. Am I saying there is no chance Obama can win in 2012? Of course not, the Republicans are lunatics. His best friend is his opposition - although he's polling worse than them right now on the economy.
And this all begs the question once again: is Obama actively part of the conservative agenda, or is he just a terrible politician? We assumed that he was a genius politician when he took down the Clinton machine. But perhaps in hindsight, that was all David Plouf and the netroots. Because he's in huge trouble right now, when he should be mopping the floor with an opposition that is rife with insurgency and whose policies are viewed as despicable by a majority of Americans.
I would love a progressive president, but we don't have one. Not even close. But I'm not saying that Obama would have to be even semi-liberal to win. He just needs to convince, through policy, the majority of working Americans (the 94% of households that earn less than 100 K per year) that he's working to help them. He doesn't have to stop unnecessary wars, torture or even all of the rampant corruption - just enact policy that creates jobs. Without jobs, he's an underdog in 2012.
Not pedophiles?
So, this is old news, but it has been sticking in my craw for a while. The Catholic Church paid for a study of the rampant sexual abuse of children, and systematic cover-up by church hierarchy. Child rape and molestation charges rocked the church in the 2000s, and they have finally got to the bottom of it.
It was the 60's fault.
Yes, the 1960s, and its abandonment of traditional mores, and its sexual revolution - its vibe if you will - induced all of those priests to rape and molest the children of their parishioners. Not celibacy, not repressed homosexuality, not any cause that might tie to the actual institution. Nope - it was the sixties. Damn hippies!
C'mon, really? That's the best they could do? "Nope, not our fault at all - it was the rest of the world and the goddam 60's." Fuck you, Catholic church. Fuck your arrogance and your insensitivity to the legion of pain and humiliation you have inflicted throughout your history.
The crusades, pogroms, witch trials and inquisitions? Ancient history you might say. The wars fought over matters of doctrine (and, or course, the land involved), also part of the past. Well what about more recent history. Rowandan Catholic bishops were gas on the fire of the genocide in Rowanda in the 1990s, having a direct hand in the killing of many, many thousands. So again, fuck you and your blood-soaked institution.
And now, they deny their role in the rape and molestation of tens of thousands of children. They don't deny that priests did it, they just deny that the church bears any responsibility. The study also happened to omit any mention of the covering up of these crimes. In at least hundreds of cases, priests were moved from one parish to another when the church found them out, so they could escape prosecution. This means that bishops throughout the system, including our current pope, took part in abetting the rape of children. Not in this study.
Oh, and the study said that most of the priests were not pedophiles. Since the majority of victims were age 10 or over, it doesn't count as pedophelia. Really? There was a technical term in the study, one for raping adolescents that is different from pedophile, but they're fucking pedophiles.
And the study? It cost 1.2 million dollars. Shit, for 1.2 million dollars most people would create a study that says the Catholic Church is the best thing that ever happened to kids. Does anyone really take this study seriously? A study created by folks that got rich for conducting it, that flatters the institution that paid for it? And the nineteen fucking sixties?!?
The 1960s as a cause presumes that there was no sex abuse issues in the church before then. Please...are we really thought to be that stupid? The major rape and abuse charges in Ireland go back to at least the 1950s. The native schools in Canada, run by the church, cost the government huge settlement payments to families when their children were abused by priests, because the Canadian government sanctioned the church to run the schools around the turn of the 20th Century. No, no, no...this shit has been going on for centuries. It's just being reported now.
This study has more to do about this current pope than it does any soul-searching by the Church. Ratzinger (now Benedict) is a rabid conservative. He hates the Vatican II provisions to Church practice; you know, things like turning a blind eye to birth control. He is also a bit of a fucking loon, and probably does really blame the 1960s for a lot of things. He is trying to revert back to the pre-1960 version of Catholic doctrine and practice. Also, he's guilty of abetting some of this rape and abuse. Fucker.
Unless this study is two-ply, I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. It is a massive dodge by the Church. And by accepting it (and paying for it), the pope is not the vicar of Christ in Rome, but Pontious Pilot of Rome, washing his hands of the suffering of the children of his flock.
Okay, those were the long ones...
Obama, (and the Dem leadership) AGAIN!
Latest news on the debt celing? One trillion in cuts by the Administration proposed, nothing given by the Republicans. Nothing, nada, zip. The Republicans are demanding at least FOUR TRILLION in cuts from programs that help us. This means the Dems will give in to at least two trillion, and as a party, fight effectively for nothing. Fucking Democrats...
Newt's campaign for President...not!
Newt Gingrich just lost his main campaign staffers. They bailed. He took a Greek cruise with his wife during campaign season, and they all said "what the fuck?" and bailed. He was hugely unpopular with Americans, snide and arrogant, and generally a horrible person. A perfect Republican. But apparently even those he pays to put up with him can't stand him for another second. Stick a fork in another Republican 2012 hopeful. An aside - Newt seems like their Obama - he's supposed to be the smart one. He comes off as very intellectual, he was a college professor, he makes articulate speeches, and has a pretty solid grasp of policy. Yet he sucks at the politics. Loser.
Alabama longs for 1950
The state of Alabama is now a state of suspended time - a time when non-white folks were kept in check by state law. The southern redneck oasis has outdone Arizona with its new immigration law. This paper-check law includes the provision that makes it a crime to give a ride to anyone who may not be a citizen. That's right, you can go to jail for giving a ride to a fellow human being who doesn't have the means to prove citizenship on their person. Now, who do you suppose will be targeted by this law - illegal immigrants from Norway? Fuck no, this will target non-white citizens and non-citizens alike. It is a profiling law, and a segregation law. White folks, especially young white folks, the population in American most likely to mix racially, will be legally deterred from riding in cars with non-white friends. Fuck you Alabama, with a dry corn cob.
Finally...Fucking Democrats
With the last comment in mind, why aren't the Democrats beating the shit out of the Republicans? We know by now the roughly 30% of Americans who will ALWAYS vote Republican because of religious beliefs, deep-rooted racism or sick, homoerotic fetishes. We also know the 35% who will always vote Democratic because they have an education (and believe in it for others), are women who want control over their own bodies, or are working folks who expect government to work reasonably well to help them along a little bit. This leaves 35% of the nation up for grabs. And of this group, most are low hanging fruit for the Dems, just a little push and you've got them.
Like seniors - they vote, and they watch a lot of TV. They went Republican last time because they were scared of health care changes and, keep it real, a black guy in the Oval Office. But now the Republicans have come right out and threatened Medicare. They are largely in the bag for Dems UNLESS Democrats agree to cuts in Medicare. So of course, Joe Biden and other Dem leaders say "everything's on the table" in negotiations with Republicans over the debt limit. "Everything" includes Medicare. Man, this is a giant, hob-nailed club that you can beat the Republicans senseless with. So why aren't they?
Like the young - they don't vote, but they did in 2008. They were inspired by the message of "change" (TM Obamacorp), and by the first non-white president. But when they saw more of the same, more wars that mainly killed their demographic, more corruption and backroom deals with corporate CEOs. Higher education costs and less opportunity, they quickly checked out. In 2010 they stayed home. They saw nothing in it for them. And Dems can bitch about how they're not civic minded, and don't they care, and don't they see?... Blah, blah, blah. When you are young, the lesser of two evils is not appealing. Xbox, loud music and sex is appealing. And YOU need THEIR votes, not the other way around. And Democratic policies aren't helping them much, just not hurting them as bad as Republican ones would. Besides, you KNOW how to inspire them, you did it in 2008, but you'll have to piss of a few CEOs to do it (I know, God forbid) - you have to bring the "change." And not the chump change that we all see through.
Like Latino voters - the fastest growing demographic, went 70% for Obama in 2008. But they largely sat out 2010. They did not see any "change" on their key issue of immigration reform. When Obama and the Dems could not push the DREAM act through, and let it die quietly, the Latino vote died quietly too. This is a demographic that Dems could grab for a generation if they push the policy. This could get them Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida and maybe Georgia for the next 10 elections. Howard Dean would jump on this like David Vitter in Diapers on a hooker. This alone could doom Republicans to permanent minority status for at least a couple of decades. What the fuck are they waiting for?
Are they waiting for soccer moms - the prized swing demographic from the Clinton era? I've got news for Obama and the Dems, and apparently it's a shocker: it is not the fucking nineteen nineties any more! And this is truly the hardest demographic to get. This group is largely white, and feels all the entitlement of the dominant culture. When the economy hits this group hard, you are fucked if you are in power. And for Obama and the Dems, keep it real, there is some latent racism in this group to be overcome - fear of "the other" and that kind of shit. But this is also a group deeply concerned with education and employment, key Dem issues. This group has signaled that it is willing to shoulder more taxes if the future is better for their children. This group, though split on social issues expects the economy to work in its favor, and the party that brings back jobs will win this group over. Again, Mr. President, you will have to piss off some CEOs to do it. You will lose cash, but gain votes.
And this seems to be the issue with the Dems. They will sell out all of their principles to get that corporate cash. But corporate America is going to give Republicans more cash anyway. They have already said so, and Citizens United puts no restrictions on it. So, Democratic party leadership...are you the weakest, most inept politicians in American political history? Because with little effort on policy, just publicly fighting for it, not necessarily even winning the fight, you should be winning 70% of the country EVERY ELECTION. So are you that bad at politics? Or, are you part of a dog and pony show put on by corporate overlords who have already purchased our democracy, put it in the shredder and replaced it with a corporate oligarchy?
I honestly don't know, but I'm leaning towards the latter.
I guess that was a long one too. Primary the fuck out of everyone!
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
They Don't Work For Us
Just when you thought that the Democratic leadership could sink no lower, up steps Harry Reid.
Picture a government agency that nobody on Wall Street wants, and was created under pressure from pundits, economists, the Liberal Caucus and the majority of the American public. An agency that protects us all from the most egregious and rapacious practices of mortgage and credit card companies (read: big banks). Or, would protect us if it could get up and running with a strong director.
This would be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to get it up and running strong, it needs to be headed by Elizabeth Warren - its creator. Republicans will not confirm her nomination. In fact, they say, as a block, that they will not approve ANY nomination unless the Bureau is significantly weakened; in fact stripped of all regulatory powers.
The way around this, the constitutionally legitimate way, is to have President Obama appoint Warren during the Senate's pre-summer week off. A recess appointment - something presidents do when they are getting their nominees snubbed by the Senate. Gee, it's a good thing the President has a majority in the Senate...
...Oh wait...that majority is headed by Harry Reid - that spineless fucker who never fights for anything except his own seat. Here's what CBS News' website says:
"Republican senators, led by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Jim Demint (R-SC), wrote to House Speaker John Boehner asking him not to pass the Senate's adjournment resolution in the House in order to block any recess appointments by the administration.
Picture a government agency that nobody on Wall Street wants, and was created under pressure from pundits, economists, the Liberal Caucus and the majority of the American public. An agency that protects us all from the most egregious and rapacious practices of mortgage and credit card companies (read: big banks). Or, would protect us if it could get up and running with a strong director.
This would be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to get it up and running strong, it needs to be headed by Elizabeth Warren - its creator. Republicans will not confirm her nomination. In fact, they say, as a block, that they will not approve ANY nomination unless the Bureau is significantly weakened; in fact stripped of all regulatory powers.
The way around this, the constitutionally legitimate way, is to have President Obama appoint Warren during the Senate's pre-summer week off. A recess appointment - something presidents do when they are getting their nominees snubbed by the Senate. Gee, it's a good thing the President has a majority in the Senate...
...Oh wait...that majority is headed by Harry Reid - that spineless fucker who never fights for anything except his own seat. Here's what CBS News' website says:
"Republican senators, led by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Jim Demint (R-SC), wrote to House Speaker John Boehner asking him not to pass the Senate's adjournment resolution in the House in order to block any recess appointments by the administration.
In response, Reid agreed to schedule three "pro forma" sessions while the senators are gone, on May 27, May 31 and June 3. (The Senate must be out for four consecutive days for a recess appointment to be made.) Senators who live nearby will come in to open and close the session, but no business will be done."
So, Reid just killed the President's ability to nominate Warren, the person he supposedly wants to put at the head of this important protection for the American consumer. Why did he do this? Why did he fuck us all in favor of the most hated institutions in America these last few years, the big banks? Because they OWN him - or they don't yet but he wants them to.
An article in Alternet tells how Princeton professor Larry Bartels studied the voting habits of US Senators from the 1990s. This study wins the prestigious "No Shit" award for finding that Republicans' votes in the Senate favor the rich, and do not help middle-income Americans. But it also finds that Democratic Senate votes don't favor us either - "at all" (emphasis from the article!).
So, Elizabeth Warren, who would fight for some regulation, who would make sure we just got fucked over by big banks, and not gang raped, beaten and then forced to make them sandwiches (fiscally, not literally...c'mon now) will NOT get a recess appointment because that would be too much for our Wall Street masters. And Harry Reid will say "it was those damned, dirty Republicans," and Obama will say "tsk, tsk...this is partisan politics, gosh-golly..." and then go on to say "Elizabeth, thanks for your service" as he appoints a Wall Street stooge to the post that Republicans block for a while and then approve. The Democrats will once again hide behind the veil of Republican obstructionism, and the corporate machine continues to grind us to make their bread.
Don't believe the hype.
Reid, Obama and the Democratic leadership are laughing at us. They don't give one and a half, much less two shits about us. It doesn't matter that House Republicans refuse to accept the Senate's adjournment (which they did). The President can recess-appoint with only four consecutive days of no business in the Senate. Reid made sure to have business days spread out so that there would be no ability to put Warren where she could do the most good.
Oh, and a good, strong head of the National Labor Relations Board? No, we won't get that either, because god forbid that a Democratic president should elect a pro-labor chairman to head the main labor advocacy group within the government. Dems have made it clear these past few years that they also don't give one and a half about unions.
They don't work for us, not any more. They may have, in the past...but not now. The leadership of the Democratic Party actively works against the interests of the bottom 98% of Americans. They don't just fail to fight, they work to screw us. They know who their masters are, and they serve them well.
Primary every one of these fuckers.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Obama Swings, and Misses - Twice!
With campaign season here, Obama is taking up a more progressive posture. And I like the sound of it. But if you consider the political reality, and the investment (or lack of) in political capital, you see the bald-faced sloganeering that is happening. And you become even more disenchanted with the lack of a pro-family, pro-worker (forget pro-gressive) agenda, and see how the White House is pro-CEO.
First Example: Immigration
This, for the Dems is a flat out winner. Latino voters went 70+ percent for Obama in 2008. And although they potentially share some social issues with Republicans, the immigration issue has them running from the GOP. The Tea Party-fueled GOP agenda continues to say to Latino voters: "we hate you, get the fuck out of our country." This is a golden opportunity to grab the fastest growing national demographic for at least a generation. All they (the Dems) had to do was fight for the DREAM Act.
The DREAM Act lets the kids of illegal immigrants, who have been here most of their lives, who have been in school, and acculturated to become good Americans; go to college or to the military and become citizens. The Republicans said "hell no!" The Dems brought it up, but did not fight for it. They let the dream die.
Man, even if you couldn't ultimately pass it, you should fight like hell for it. President Obama should have made it a point to bring it up a month before November of 2010 and speak about it daily. They should have run ads in Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico especially, but all through the south and the midwest. And here's why: a HUGE chunk of eligible Latino voters sat out the election in 2010. They knew they couldn't vote GOP, but they were also completely uninspired to vote for the Dems. They are the fastest growing demographic in the nation, they would have made a difference.
But nope...Obama and the Dems were afraid of pissing off white voters in the swing states in the midwest. Especially economically hard-hit states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana - so they didn't fight hard for the Dream Act. They even made sure that NO immigrants, even if their guts were hanging out, would get any health care. And what did that brilliant strategy get them? Loathsome Republican governors and a Republican House, who are now attacking organized labor and all social services. Nice going. Hopefully, a smart guy like Obama can learn from his mistakes.
Second Example: Big Oil
Oops...I guess we didn't learn. Today's Huffpo headline was (and I'm paraphrasing) "Obama Strokes Big Oil." The President is speeding up environmental reviews that will open up more oil leases for oil companies to drill. He says this is his reaction to the high oil prices, to reassure Americans who are stressed by high prices at the pump. Sigh...
Goddammit! In the same goddam article he admits that this won't help lower gas prices. It does nothing to put American on a sustainable energy path, or to help the average American in any way. There's no evidence that it will even create oil drilling jobs in the short run. It only increases the profits of the oil companies, and the salaries of their executives.
Now, Obama, and some Democrats, are making noise about the four BILLION dollar annual subsidies that we give the big oil companies. They have even threatened to take away half of it (how very, very bold to take away half of a subsidy for an industry that has made over 30 billion in PROFIT - this quarter!). Yes, they have made noise - but they haven't done shit.
They can, and to a small degree have, beaten the Republicans with this issue. But not substantively. They aren't swinging with a club like they did on the Medicare issue. They should be making it seem as if individual swing-district Republicans are standing next to the pump, with a black mask and a pistol, emptying your wallet every time you fill up.
Worse, two Dem senators, Landrieu and the dude from Alaska, are defending the oil companies. This, in the DC media parlance makes it a bipartisan defense of big oil. They will be called "moderate" Democrats, and it will be insinuated that representatives who don't want their constituents to give four billion dollars of their hard earned tax money EVERY YEAR to the most profitable corporations in the world, are radical leftists. Now, if you say "well, what can Obama do...the Democratic Party is a big tent..." then I say remember the health care debate. When big pharma CEOs wanted drug reimportation stopped, Obama rounded up Democratic senators and kicked their asses into line to make sure those CEOs got paid. He can do it if he wants, so I guess he doesn't. He just wants to make sound bites to excite the "base," while he makes CEOs a little richer. Which means he thinks we are stupid.
Even worse, Obama is once again validating the Republican position - this time on energy. By speeding up domestic drilling, he is in essence agreeing with Sarah Palin, and her rallying cry of "drill baby drill!" He is not laying out a clear alternative of renewable energy, even as EU nations are buying up swaths of the Mojave desert to build solar power plants. They will develop the technology, and sell the power to us, taking the innovation and profits back home to Europe - while we soil our beaches and continue to pay high prices to destroy our planet. This is bad for America, and we either realize this now, or will soon. And instead of laying all this damage at the feet of the Republicans, they can say "hey, it was the President's idea, so don't blame us." And they will be right.
Most Americans are NOT in favor of giving billions of tax dollars to big oil companies. Almost EVERY Latino voter in America is in favor of the DREAM Act. These two issues could have put the Republicans in terrible positions. Forcing them to defend big oil when gas is over four bucks per gallon, and forcing them to continue to make speeches that rile up the rising juggernaut of a Latino voting block all but guarantees Democratic victory. Unless - the Dems are so inept that they can't hit these easy pitches.
Or, perhaps they are throwing the game. Look, 2010 was a debacle for the Democratic Party, and fair or not, President Obama must take the lion's share of the blame. He failed to fight for low and middle-income Americans. On economic issues, like tax cuts for the rich, he failed to make that an issue before the election, and failed to fight when he could have damaged the opposition greatly. On social issues, like abortion (which is in reality, women's rights and women's health care) he gave too much ground. He was pandering to Fox so-called News and to midwest soccer moms, and many of the folks who were excited in 2008 sat the election out.
The only energy was coming from the Tea Party, and they were energizing the folks who don't even think Obama is an American. And those knuckle-draggers won! We thought we elected the smart guy in 2008, and I think we did (although we also thought we elected the more progressive of the democratic candidates, and it turns out we didn't). Why does the President and the Democratic leadership seem to watch the pitch float by without a swing so often?
Because they love corporate cash just as much as Republicans do. Look what got accomplished right after 2010 - DADT. Was DADT done away with because it was the most burning issue affecting the most Americans? Was it because it was the biggest way to score political points and excite the Democratic base? No, it was because giving gay Americans the right to serve their country in the military did not affect the bonus package of even one corporate CEO.
Now, if you're paying attention, you might say that Obama and the Democrats have fought hard on the Medicare issue, and beat the shit out of Republicans on it, so I should shut the fuck up. And you would be half right! Only half right because this is the ruse, the smoke-screen to distract us from the even bigger robbery - Social Security. Yes, corporate overlords would love to get their hands on Medicare cash, as Paul Ryan's plan called for. But they want Social Security even more. They want the government to default on trillions in government bonds that are held for the American people, so they can continue to enjoy historically low taxes and withholdings. This will cost the average working American about 50,000 dollars! They are gonna say "look, we got those sons o' bitches, we saved Medicare. But now we have to be adults and make sacrifices to save Social Security." And the Republicans, who want more than anything to take away your SS, will get to say "don't look at us, the Democrats did it." And they will be right.
And guess what that will do to voter turnout...2010 all over again. A swing and a miss, but three strikes and WE'RE out. Primary everybody, primary now!
First Example: Immigration
This, for the Dems is a flat out winner. Latino voters went 70+ percent for Obama in 2008. And although they potentially share some social issues with Republicans, the immigration issue has them running from the GOP. The Tea Party-fueled GOP agenda continues to say to Latino voters: "we hate you, get the fuck out of our country." This is a golden opportunity to grab the fastest growing national demographic for at least a generation. All they (the Dems) had to do was fight for the DREAM Act.
The DREAM Act lets the kids of illegal immigrants, who have been here most of their lives, who have been in school, and acculturated to become good Americans; go to college or to the military and become citizens. The Republicans said "hell no!" The Dems brought it up, but did not fight for it. They let the dream die.
Man, even if you couldn't ultimately pass it, you should fight like hell for it. President Obama should have made it a point to bring it up a month before November of 2010 and speak about it daily. They should have run ads in Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico especially, but all through the south and the midwest. And here's why: a HUGE chunk of eligible Latino voters sat out the election in 2010. They knew they couldn't vote GOP, but they were also completely uninspired to vote for the Dems. They are the fastest growing demographic in the nation, they would have made a difference.
But nope...Obama and the Dems were afraid of pissing off white voters in the swing states in the midwest. Especially economically hard-hit states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana - so they didn't fight hard for the Dream Act. They even made sure that NO immigrants, even if their guts were hanging out, would get any health care. And what did that brilliant strategy get them? Loathsome Republican governors and a Republican House, who are now attacking organized labor and all social services. Nice going. Hopefully, a smart guy like Obama can learn from his mistakes.
Second Example: Big Oil
Oops...I guess we didn't learn. Today's Huffpo headline was (and I'm paraphrasing) "Obama Strokes Big Oil." The President is speeding up environmental reviews that will open up more oil leases for oil companies to drill. He says this is his reaction to the high oil prices, to reassure Americans who are stressed by high prices at the pump. Sigh...
Goddammit! In the same goddam article he admits that this won't help lower gas prices. It does nothing to put American on a sustainable energy path, or to help the average American in any way. There's no evidence that it will even create oil drilling jobs in the short run. It only increases the profits of the oil companies, and the salaries of their executives.
Now, Obama, and some Democrats, are making noise about the four BILLION dollar annual subsidies that we give the big oil companies. They have even threatened to take away half of it (how very, very bold to take away half of a subsidy for an industry that has made over 30 billion in PROFIT - this quarter!). Yes, they have made noise - but they haven't done shit.
They can, and to a small degree have, beaten the Republicans with this issue. But not substantively. They aren't swinging with a club like they did on the Medicare issue. They should be making it seem as if individual swing-district Republicans are standing next to the pump, with a black mask and a pistol, emptying your wallet every time you fill up.
Worse, two Dem senators, Landrieu and the dude from Alaska, are defending the oil companies. This, in the DC media parlance makes it a bipartisan defense of big oil. They will be called "moderate" Democrats, and it will be insinuated that representatives who don't want their constituents to give four billion dollars of their hard earned tax money EVERY YEAR to the most profitable corporations in the world, are radical leftists. Now, if you say "well, what can Obama do...the Democratic Party is a big tent..." then I say remember the health care debate. When big pharma CEOs wanted drug reimportation stopped, Obama rounded up Democratic senators and kicked their asses into line to make sure those CEOs got paid. He can do it if he wants, so I guess he doesn't. He just wants to make sound bites to excite the "base," while he makes CEOs a little richer. Which means he thinks we are stupid.
Even worse, Obama is once again validating the Republican position - this time on energy. By speeding up domestic drilling, he is in essence agreeing with Sarah Palin, and her rallying cry of "drill baby drill!" He is not laying out a clear alternative of renewable energy, even as EU nations are buying up swaths of the Mojave desert to build solar power plants. They will develop the technology, and sell the power to us, taking the innovation and profits back home to Europe - while we soil our beaches and continue to pay high prices to destroy our planet. This is bad for America, and we either realize this now, or will soon. And instead of laying all this damage at the feet of the Republicans, they can say "hey, it was the President's idea, so don't blame us." And they will be right.
Most Americans are NOT in favor of giving billions of tax dollars to big oil companies. Almost EVERY Latino voter in America is in favor of the DREAM Act. These two issues could have put the Republicans in terrible positions. Forcing them to defend big oil when gas is over four bucks per gallon, and forcing them to continue to make speeches that rile up the rising juggernaut of a Latino voting block all but guarantees Democratic victory. Unless - the Dems are so inept that they can't hit these easy pitches.
Or, perhaps they are throwing the game. Look, 2010 was a debacle for the Democratic Party, and fair or not, President Obama must take the lion's share of the blame. He failed to fight for low and middle-income Americans. On economic issues, like tax cuts for the rich, he failed to make that an issue before the election, and failed to fight when he could have damaged the opposition greatly. On social issues, like abortion (which is in reality, women's rights and women's health care) he gave too much ground. He was pandering to Fox so-called News and to midwest soccer moms, and many of the folks who were excited in 2008 sat the election out.
The only energy was coming from the Tea Party, and they were energizing the folks who don't even think Obama is an American. And those knuckle-draggers won! We thought we elected the smart guy in 2008, and I think we did (although we also thought we elected the more progressive of the democratic candidates, and it turns out we didn't). Why does the President and the Democratic leadership seem to watch the pitch float by without a swing so often?
Because they love corporate cash just as much as Republicans do. Look what got accomplished right after 2010 - DADT. Was DADT done away with because it was the most burning issue affecting the most Americans? Was it because it was the biggest way to score political points and excite the Democratic base? No, it was because giving gay Americans the right to serve their country in the military did not affect the bonus package of even one corporate CEO.
Now, if you're paying attention, you might say that Obama and the Democrats have fought hard on the Medicare issue, and beat the shit out of Republicans on it, so I should shut the fuck up. And you would be half right! Only half right because this is the ruse, the smoke-screen to distract us from the even bigger robbery - Social Security. Yes, corporate overlords would love to get their hands on Medicare cash, as Paul Ryan's plan called for. But they want Social Security even more. They want the government to default on trillions in government bonds that are held for the American people, so they can continue to enjoy historically low taxes and withholdings. This will cost the average working American about 50,000 dollars! They are gonna say "look, we got those sons o' bitches, we saved Medicare. But now we have to be adults and make sacrifices to save Social Security." And the Republicans, who want more than anything to take away your SS, will get to say "don't look at us, the Democrats did it." And they will be right.
And guess what that will do to voter turnout...2010 all over again. A swing and a miss, but three strikes and WE'RE out. Primary everybody, primary now!
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Ding Dong Osama's Dead...
I picture the scene from the Wizard of Oz. The one near the beginning when Dorothy comes out of her house that has just landed on the Wicked Witch of the East. Then, all the munchkins start singing "ding dong the witch is dead..." Only this time it is a giant, awkwardly slapped-together house in a compound, and under the corner, near the foundation, is a spinach-chinned douche-bag with a bullet in his left eye.
"Ding dong that bitch is dead, took a bullet in his head
ding, dong Osama bin Laden is deaaaaad"
By the way, how badass is that...shot through the left eye. I wonder from what distance? Was it the ultimate sniper shot? Or did a SEAL walk up and BAM! Just like mother fuckin' Moe Green?
If you read my blog, you are wondering "when is he going to criticize Obama?" Don't worry, it's coming. But there is a lot of praise to distribute first.
First, Obama is the President who got bin Laden. That's just badass...period. He made a gutsy call, sending elite troops into an allied country without permission, and carrying out a kill mission. There's going to be blowback from that, and he did it anyway.
Second, it showed competence. It showed that America can handle its shit...at least where taking revenge is concerned. Bush the Younger had eight fucking years to do the same and came up empty. Smart guys 1, idiots 0. Finally, someone has taken the fight to the guy who hit us, and did it in a way that didn't include massive collateral damage.
Third, "no drama" Obama has stayed cool throughout the process. He's not fist-pumping (but he's letting it be clearly known that HE is the guy who did it), he's moving forward. No banners being hung, no flight suits being donned; just a "yeah, it was me" swagger.
One would think that he will be harder to criticize now, on national security matters. Although 2012 is still a long way away, he will only have to suggest that "I got him" and voters will remember. But I am surprised some poll numbers.
A Pew Research poll showed him with a nine point bump in approval rating. Not bad, although I thought it would be higher. It showed a rise in approval in how he's handling the wars, and showed a rise to the 60s in favoring how he's doing in the war on terror. Really? In the 60s? The man just took down Osama bin Laden! How is he not in the 90s on that issue?
He's not in the 90s because the 20 - 30% racist fringe of America will never give this president credit for anything. Also, because it has been a long time coming. I think some Americans do differentiate between Bush and Obama, but think that a president, whomever it is, should have wrapped this up a long time ago. And many, many Americans realize that we sent a few dudes into Pakistan and avenged 911 AFTER spending over a TRILLION dollars on two wars supposedly to do the same thing.
And Americans realize just how stupid that is.
Awww...man! We invaded Iraq, hammered its people and still occupy that country - for no good reason. There was NEVER a tie to 911 or al Qaida. Just a Bushian wet dream of daddy vengance and oil lust. One thing that Americans should reflect upon with the death of bin Laden is how We the People, through unworthy leadership visited 911 times 100 upon the innocent people of Iraq. Sure, they had an evil murderous asshole for a leader. But as it turns out, so did we. And unfortunately, President Obama continues the occupation.
It sucks to have airplanes used as bombs by terrorists to kill thousands of our people. But it also sucks to have airplanes carry bombs to kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, again, for no good reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to bin Laden, we just fucked them up for their oil. We terrorized them, killed them and displaced millions of them, started a civil war between Islamic factions, and allowed Iran tremendous influence in the country. What a genius foreign policy.
And speaking of genius foreign policy, how about the President's police to escalate the war in Afghanistan? Dude, Osama was assassinated in PAKISTAN! He had been living there for more than five years! Al Qaida is long gone from Afghanistan. And the Taliban? They are the rebellion of convenience in Afghanistan, rising from the valleys whenever foreigners invade. The Taliban is a problem because we are their problem. Get the fuck out of that country!
Another thing we have to remember is that we TORTURED PEOPLE FOR NO GOOD REASON! Awww...shit! How far from the Bill of Rights have we fallen? Shit, how far from the Magna Carta? King John himself would have been embarrassed. The CIA has said, as have army intelligence officers (and no, I won't link to it...just google "torture doesn't work" for credible testimony), that torture doesn't yield credible information. It doesn't work. We did it because we wanted to, and to show the world we could. Now the world looks at us as despotic, not as the badass Jack Bauer types that the Bush Administration thought they were. Jesus Christ man, we have burned the Constitution - we tortured folks. We have become the villains from every bad action movie, and even a few good ones.
A final thing to reflect upon is the extra-legal notion of assassination. As the news cycles have filtered the information, it turns out that this was strictly wet-work. Resistance was minimal - apparently one dude shooting back against 20 highly-trained Navy SEALs. Osama was unarmed when he took the bullet in his left eye. If we were a nation that even pretended to care about the democratic ideal of justice, we would have renditioned his ass to a courtroom in America, put his ass on trial, and sentenced him to death. Or, put his spinach-chin on trial in the international court in the Hauge. Let the world know, we practice what we preach.
But I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Our president, a Democratic president, currently has death warrants for at least one American citizen (last known to be in Yemen). This is pre-Magna Carta stuff. This is sovereign power of life or death over those you can reach. Human history arced towards ending this type of inhumane governance, and for a while, that arc was drawn by the United States; until recently in fact. Now, we torture, murder and invade countries on a whim. This is what we, as Americans who still retain some semblance of our better nature, should reflect on as bin Laden lies at the bottom of the Arabian Sea as a crab buffet. This is what happens when the smart president looks forward, not back.
The visceral part of me wants to shout "U-S-A!" and high-five my neighbors at the death of Osama bin Laden. He was an asshole of the first order, and harmed our country. He killed our fellow citizens in an action that rivals Pearl Harbor in its "infamy." But because I think, I am forced to reflect on how his actions caused a decade in which our leaders debased the values of the United States in ways that seem almost irreparable. That is not bin Laden's fault, but the fault of the leaders we had, and continue to have. Leaders who do not live up to the founding ideals of this nation.
All in all, I am saddened by the event. I am glad that a shit-stain like Osama bin Laden has died cowering before a black-clad representative of America - soiling his pants as he realized his life was to end like so many that he killed - in terror of the violence about to happen. But I am saddened by how one guy who resembles a goat could cause the country I love to debase itself to such a low level, the level of despotism. Getting bin Laden is a win, but only after so, so much self-inflicted loss.
"Ding dong that bitch is dead, took a bullet in his head
ding, dong Osama bin Laden is deaaaaad"
By the way, how badass is that...shot through the left eye. I wonder from what distance? Was it the ultimate sniper shot? Or did a SEAL walk up and BAM! Just like mother fuckin' Moe Green?
If you read my blog, you are wondering "when is he going to criticize Obama?" Don't worry, it's coming. But there is a lot of praise to distribute first.
First, Obama is the President who got bin Laden. That's just badass...period. He made a gutsy call, sending elite troops into an allied country without permission, and carrying out a kill mission. There's going to be blowback from that, and he did it anyway.
Second, it showed competence. It showed that America can handle its shit...at least where taking revenge is concerned. Bush the Younger had eight fucking years to do the same and came up empty. Smart guys 1, idiots 0. Finally, someone has taken the fight to the guy who hit us, and did it in a way that didn't include massive collateral damage.
Third, "no drama" Obama has stayed cool throughout the process. He's not fist-pumping (but he's letting it be clearly known that HE is the guy who did it), he's moving forward. No banners being hung, no flight suits being donned; just a "yeah, it was me" swagger.
One would think that he will be harder to criticize now, on national security matters. Although 2012 is still a long way away, he will only have to suggest that "I got him" and voters will remember. But I am surprised some poll numbers.
A Pew Research poll showed him with a nine point bump in approval rating. Not bad, although I thought it would be higher. It showed a rise in approval in how he's handling the wars, and showed a rise to the 60s in favoring how he's doing in the war on terror. Really? In the 60s? The man just took down Osama bin Laden! How is he not in the 90s on that issue?
He's not in the 90s because the 20 - 30% racist fringe of America will never give this president credit for anything. Also, because it has been a long time coming. I think some Americans do differentiate between Bush and Obama, but think that a president, whomever it is, should have wrapped this up a long time ago. And many, many Americans realize that we sent a few dudes into Pakistan and avenged 911 AFTER spending over a TRILLION dollars on two wars supposedly to do the same thing.
And Americans realize just how stupid that is.
Awww...man! We invaded Iraq, hammered its people and still occupy that country - for no good reason. There was NEVER a tie to 911 or al Qaida. Just a Bushian wet dream of daddy vengance and oil lust. One thing that Americans should reflect upon with the death of bin Laden is how We the People, through unworthy leadership visited 911 times 100 upon the innocent people of Iraq. Sure, they had an evil murderous asshole for a leader. But as it turns out, so did we. And unfortunately, President Obama continues the occupation.
It sucks to have airplanes used as bombs by terrorists to kill thousands of our people. But it also sucks to have airplanes carry bombs to kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, again, for no good reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to bin Laden, we just fucked them up for their oil. We terrorized them, killed them and displaced millions of them, started a civil war between Islamic factions, and allowed Iran tremendous influence in the country. What a genius foreign policy.
And speaking of genius foreign policy, how about the President's police to escalate the war in Afghanistan? Dude, Osama was assassinated in PAKISTAN! He had been living there for more than five years! Al Qaida is long gone from Afghanistan. And the Taliban? They are the rebellion of convenience in Afghanistan, rising from the valleys whenever foreigners invade. The Taliban is a problem because we are their problem. Get the fuck out of that country!
Another thing we have to remember is that we TORTURED PEOPLE FOR NO GOOD REASON! Awww...shit! How far from the Bill of Rights have we fallen? Shit, how far from the Magna Carta? King John himself would have been embarrassed. The CIA has said, as have army intelligence officers (and no, I won't link to it...just google "torture doesn't work" for credible testimony), that torture doesn't yield credible information. It doesn't work. We did it because we wanted to, and to show the world we could. Now the world looks at us as despotic, not as the badass Jack Bauer types that the Bush Administration thought they were. Jesus Christ man, we have burned the Constitution - we tortured folks. We have become the villains from every bad action movie, and even a few good ones.
A final thing to reflect upon is the extra-legal notion of assassination. As the news cycles have filtered the information, it turns out that this was strictly wet-work. Resistance was minimal - apparently one dude shooting back against 20 highly-trained Navy SEALs. Osama was unarmed when he took the bullet in his left eye. If we were a nation that even pretended to care about the democratic ideal of justice, we would have renditioned his ass to a courtroom in America, put his ass on trial, and sentenced him to death. Or, put his spinach-chin on trial in the international court in the Hauge. Let the world know, we practice what we preach.
But I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Our president, a Democratic president, currently has death warrants for at least one American citizen (last known to be in Yemen). This is pre-Magna Carta stuff. This is sovereign power of life or death over those you can reach. Human history arced towards ending this type of inhumane governance, and for a while, that arc was drawn by the United States; until recently in fact. Now, we torture, murder and invade countries on a whim. This is what we, as Americans who still retain some semblance of our better nature, should reflect on as bin Laden lies at the bottom of the Arabian Sea as a crab buffet. This is what happens when the smart president looks forward, not back.
The visceral part of me wants to shout "U-S-A!" and high-five my neighbors at the death of Osama bin Laden. He was an asshole of the first order, and harmed our country. He killed our fellow citizens in an action that rivals Pearl Harbor in its "infamy." But because I think, I am forced to reflect on how his actions caused a decade in which our leaders debased the values of the United States in ways that seem almost irreparable. That is not bin Laden's fault, but the fault of the leaders we had, and continue to have. Leaders who do not live up to the founding ideals of this nation.
All in all, I am saddened by the event. I am glad that a shit-stain like Osama bin Laden has died cowering before a black-clad representative of America - soiling his pants as he realized his life was to end like so many that he killed - in terror of the violence about to happen. But I am saddened by how one guy who resembles a goat could cause the country I love to debase itself to such a low level, the level of despotism. Getting bin Laden is a win, but only after so, so much self-inflicted loss.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Socialized America? Give Me a FED-IT Card!
I like to listen to the Young Turks. I think they do the best job of political analysis in the media. Admittedly, I don't have the time I'd like to to read more articles, blogs and newspapers, so I don't have the foundation to critique their work at the margins. But the substance is usually spot on.
I heard Cenk mention a week or so ago that the US Government is backing nine out of ten mortgages in the United States. That figure floored me, so I Googled it. What I found was that since Fannie and Freddie crashed, nine of ten are backed by the US. Now, I'm not sure if this means that it is "only" 90% since the crash of 2008, or that we assumed all of F & F's disastrous paper and WE, the taxpayer, now guarantee 90% of the mortgages. And for the point I want to make, I don't care.
This is a socialized mortgage market. Don't be fooled because the mortgages are still going through banks. If we the taxpayer guarantee the loan (meaning WE pay the BANK if the borrower defaults), then this is a government-run home ownership program.
Here's my question: why have the banks in the loop at all?
These fucking banks, these fuck-stained fuck-heads that fucked us all out of billions, and then trillions. Why are they in the loop? Why are we guaranteeing their PROFITS when their incompetence and fraud caused the problem in the first place?
Hey, I'm liberal...you can easily talk me into a dose of government intervention. I'm all for a decent level of socialism, IF it BENEFITS THE AVERAGE WORKING PEOPLE. I would be totally in favor of this level of government intervention in the housing market if the government actually gave the loans. Shit, if we're going to back bad loans and underwater properties anyway, why not just refinance on terms friendly to the treasury, and give Americans a break in the process.
Let underwater and behind-payment Americans refinance directly with the Fed if the bank is not bending over backwards to help them out. Snatch those fucking papers right out of Wall Street's portfolio. If they're bad, we're stuck with them anyway. But if we can reach terms that help Americans stay in their homes, we might save a lot of neighborhoods, maintain some property values and preserve the wealth of the American homeowner.
And, while we're at it, craft some legislation that lets the Treasury take the paper at a discount from the banks, especially if they have been bailed out, or gorging themselves on practically free money from the Fed's window. If the homes have been under water, and the banks haven't negotiated with the owners, take it at real value, and then negotiate at lowered principle. If the banks don't like the Treasury moving in, then give them a chance to do what they should have been doing all along - since their behavior caused this mess in the first place. Regulate on those mother fuckers - they can fix the mess, or We the People can take over and reap the benefits.
Again, I don't know all the details - but I know enough to know we are being screwed, with no vaseline. If we are backing 90% of home mortgages anyway, why not just officially socialize the home loan market and run it strictly for the common good. Why let banks take 100% of the profit if they are only taking 10% of the risk. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! It doesn't make sense economically, morally or politically, if our political system wasn't already sold to the highest bidder.
For that matter, why stop there? There are old usury laws that could be dusted off, and enforced. Since the Fed window has been open to the banks, have they been lending to consumers? NO! They have continued gambling on derivatives. They are currently wagering in a currency derivative market that is valued at over 60 TRILLION DOLLARS! Yeah, like THAT'S not going to blow up! Meanwhile, Americans still lack credit. Slam the window on those banks, and open it to the American consumer.
I want a "FED-IT" card. Let me roll over my usurious 20+ percent VISA or Mastercard to a Fed issued credit card that charges 4% over the current near-zero bank rate. I can chop away at that principle, while we let most of that 4% go towards paying down the national debt. America gets debt reduction, increased consumer spending, increased sales and investment in small, medium and large sized businesses, more hiring and we don't get fucked hard by the Wall Street financial rapists.
I mean, shit...we have bailed them out, back-door bailed them out, given them free money, and guaranteed 90% of their mortgages. I give my kids, who I love dearly, less support. Then, just to rub it in our faces, they paid themselves RECORD BONUSES, because they were so profitable. No shit! If I had the Fed giving me free money, my frozen dog shit shoppe would be among the most profitable businesses too! (By the way, shareholders of bank stocks, are you sharing in those record profits? You know the answer is "hell no!")
The notion of a "free market" in Wall Street finance is long gone, it's out the window. Those banks are basically leeches, sucking the life blood out of the American consumer. Let's go with a financial public option now, and let them fall in line, or fuck off. If they don't like some regulation, let them set up shop in Somalia, and good luck them.
And reader, this is NOT communism. It is the socialization of the supply and distribution of money. Consumers will still be spending this Fedit in a private marketplace. Do you want to argue that it is socialism? Sure, I'd much prefer it to a few elite bankers leveraging our borrowing power to gamble in the international derivatives casino, fucking us all when they crash the system by losing bets. And it is not a question of IF they will lose a bet, but when.
No, sign me up for a Fed-it card. Let the Fed take over my mortgage. Then, appoint regulators that will scrutinize the Fed like a proctologist. And the banks? They used to do just fine making 4, 5 or 6% on mortgages and car loans, and 9.5% on credit cards. If they go back to that, there will be plenty of big salaries to go around, but not as many bonuses. If they don't like it, get a job teaching, fighting fires, changing tires, greeting at Walmart...
I heard Cenk mention a week or so ago that the US Government is backing nine out of ten mortgages in the United States. That figure floored me, so I Googled it. What I found was that since Fannie and Freddie crashed, nine of ten are backed by the US. Now, I'm not sure if this means that it is "only" 90% since the crash of 2008, or that we assumed all of F & F's disastrous paper and WE, the taxpayer, now guarantee 90% of the mortgages. And for the point I want to make, I don't care.
This is a socialized mortgage market. Don't be fooled because the mortgages are still going through banks. If we the taxpayer guarantee the loan (meaning WE pay the BANK if the borrower defaults), then this is a government-run home ownership program.
Here's my question: why have the banks in the loop at all?
These fucking banks, these fuck-stained fuck-heads that fucked us all out of billions, and then trillions. Why are they in the loop? Why are we guaranteeing their PROFITS when their incompetence and fraud caused the problem in the first place?
Hey, I'm liberal...you can easily talk me into a dose of government intervention. I'm all for a decent level of socialism, IF it BENEFITS THE AVERAGE WORKING PEOPLE. I would be totally in favor of this level of government intervention in the housing market if the government actually gave the loans. Shit, if we're going to back bad loans and underwater properties anyway, why not just refinance on terms friendly to the treasury, and give Americans a break in the process.
Let underwater and behind-payment Americans refinance directly with the Fed if the bank is not bending over backwards to help them out. Snatch those fucking papers right out of Wall Street's portfolio. If they're bad, we're stuck with them anyway. But if we can reach terms that help Americans stay in their homes, we might save a lot of neighborhoods, maintain some property values and preserve the wealth of the American homeowner.
And, while we're at it, craft some legislation that lets the Treasury take the paper at a discount from the banks, especially if they have been bailed out, or gorging themselves on practically free money from the Fed's window. If the homes have been under water, and the banks haven't negotiated with the owners, take it at real value, and then negotiate at lowered principle. If the banks don't like the Treasury moving in, then give them a chance to do what they should have been doing all along - since their behavior caused this mess in the first place. Regulate on those mother fuckers - they can fix the mess, or We the People can take over and reap the benefits.
Again, I don't know all the details - but I know enough to know we are being screwed, with no vaseline. If we are backing 90% of home mortgages anyway, why not just officially socialize the home loan market and run it strictly for the common good. Why let banks take 100% of the profit if they are only taking 10% of the risk. That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! It doesn't make sense economically, morally or politically, if our political system wasn't already sold to the highest bidder.
For that matter, why stop there? There are old usury laws that could be dusted off, and enforced. Since the Fed window has been open to the banks, have they been lending to consumers? NO! They have continued gambling on derivatives. They are currently wagering in a currency derivative market that is valued at over 60 TRILLION DOLLARS! Yeah, like THAT'S not going to blow up! Meanwhile, Americans still lack credit. Slam the window on those banks, and open it to the American consumer.
I want a "FED-IT" card. Let me roll over my usurious 20+ percent VISA or Mastercard to a Fed issued credit card that charges 4% over the current near-zero bank rate. I can chop away at that principle, while we let most of that 4% go towards paying down the national debt. America gets debt reduction, increased consumer spending, increased sales and investment in small, medium and large sized businesses, more hiring and we don't get fucked hard by the Wall Street financial rapists.
I mean, shit...we have bailed them out, back-door bailed them out, given them free money, and guaranteed 90% of their mortgages. I give my kids, who I love dearly, less support. Then, just to rub it in our faces, they paid themselves RECORD BONUSES, because they were so profitable. No shit! If I had the Fed giving me free money, my frozen dog shit shoppe would be among the most profitable businesses too! (By the way, shareholders of bank stocks, are you sharing in those record profits? You know the answer is "hell no!")
The notion of a "free market" in Wall Street finance is long gone, it's out the window. Those banks are basically leeches, sucking the life blood out of the American consumer. Let's go with a financial public option now, and let them fall in line, or fuck off. If they don't like some regulation, let them set up shop in Somalia, and good luck them.
And reader, this is NOT communism. It is the socialization of the supply and distribution of money. Consumers will still be spending this Fedit in a private marketplace. Do you want to argue that it is socialism? Sure, I'd much prefer it to a few elite bankers leveraging our borrowing power to gamble in the international derivatives casino, fucking us all when they crash the system by losing bets. And it is not a question of IF they will lose a bet, but when.
No, sign me up for a Fed-it card. Let the Fed take over my mortgage. Then, appoint regulators that will scrutinize the Fed like a proctologist. And the banks? They used to do just fine making 4, 5 or 6% on mortgages and car loans, and 9.5% on credit cards. If they go back to that, there will be plenty of big salaries to go around, but not as many bonuses. If they don't like it, get a job teaching, fighting fires, changing tires, greeting at Walmart...
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Reality Check and...Praise?
So, Obama made his big 2012 budget speech last Wednesday. I found it interesting that the speech was at 1:30 in the afternoon, as if to say "don't pay too much attention here"...makes me go: hmmm.
Now, I have been a pretty harsh Obama critic. I am not a right wing T-bagger, I criticize from the left. This president has not been on the progressive side of things. So I watched this speech with a hearty amount of skepticism, expecting a validation of multiple Republican talking points.
Imagine my pleasant surprise when President Obama came out breathing fire.
Now keep in mind that Obama is the master of giving a speech that makes people listening think he agrees with them. His White House will then release statements that move policy solidly right of the impression you got from listening to said speech. (Which, by the way, happened this time too!) I have learned give an Obama speech 24 hours to settle, and then you can decipher what was really said.
So, what's my verdict? All in all...an improvement. I still have huge concerns where this president is concerned, but here's what I liked...
First, the politics:
I loved that he waited. To use a poker analogy, this president usually sits at the table, gets his cards, shows them to everybody and then starts moving chip after chip onto the table. This time he sat at the table, held his cards close, anted with a speech while the House Republicans threw Ryan's entire Tea Party wet dream into the pot.
He waited until Senator Ryan put out his Destroy America plan to fix the deficit. That fucking turd of a bill that will destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and impoverish the working people for a generation, while giving many billions more to the top 2%. Now, (to change analogies) this is a giant softball, just floating over the plate, waiting to be crushed. Frankly, the kind this president has just watched float by in the past. But he crushed it instead.
He had heard rumors of the plan, and in the past, he has rushed out with pre-emptive "compromises." This time, he waited, waited...and swung. It was a hit. He was able to attack the plan without having already validated key parts of it (although he will do a little of that throughout the speech). This is what he should have been doing since before the health care debacle.
I also love that he got right down and talked some shit about the Republicans. He said that they were pessimistic, had no faith in America, and hated old people. Sure, I paraphrased, but this is the substance. It's the kind of shit they throw at him all the fucking time. It's about time he gave some back. They cried and whined "the speech was so political..." Yeah, no shit, the President's a politician, and it was high time he had at the opposition.
I also like that he made the case for government. He made it clear that some things, like caring for the elderly and the poor, or building airports and highways, were best done by a well-funded government. He pushed back against the privatization of Medicare that Paul Ryan is planning. (By the way, since the speech, EVERY Democrat voted against the Ryan plan. This is news. Six months ago, shit, six weeks ago at least half a dozen blue dogs would have joined Republicans. I like this too!)
The tone of the speech:
The tone of the speech was strong and progressive. The case that the President made was likewise strong and progressive. It was nice to hear a little of the old 2008 back. The President was definitely combative, but not ham-fisted about it like the Republicans are. He scolded them, sounding wise and reasonable while painting them as selfish children who want, through their greed and ignorance, want to harm their elders. Where has this been for the last two years?
The substance?...this is where I worry.
He said, clearly and unequivocally, that he would veto any privatization of Medicare. Good. He said that there would be no more renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Good. But he did say that Medicare and Medicaid would have to be cut. Oooh...not good. He also said that "nobody gets everything they want." Translation: "I'm open to future caving on these issues." Oooh... He also said that he would follow the recommendation of the Deficit Commission. Ah, fuck!
Obama was quite vague about the details in his speech. He left TONS of room for caving to the right. For instance, will his Medicare "cuts" come in the form of increased efficiency, or will he simply cut not as much as Paul Ryan? And the goddam Deficit Commission, those fuckers are there to steal, on average, $40-60,000 dollars from every working American's future, rather than raise the Social Security cap a little on those earning over $106,000 per year. Hell no!
Yet Obama loves that Deficit Commission, hell, he hand-picked it. That he is triumphing the likes of Alan Simpson, who called ALL of us "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security that we FUCKING PAID INTO OUR ENTIRE WORKING LIVES makes me cringe. And, within 24 hours, the White House released a statement saying that they were planning to follow the Deficit Commission. If Obama's great progressive fight is to champion the Deficit commission's plan to fuck the working and middle class of America, then it's over...we don't have a chance at left-of-Reagan governance anytime in our near future.
I'm not the only one worried. The likes of Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes were effervescent after the speech, full of descriptions of the President's brilliance, and full of scorn for anyone who couldn't see it. Yet Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, was on MSNBC expressing a TON of skepticism over the speech. His general message: I'll believe it when I see it. Now, he was a little bitter, probably, because Obama just threw community health centers under the budget bus in his most recent cave-in to Republicans. Those health centers, you may remember, were his payment to Sanders to get his vote on the health care bill. Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away. But bitter or not, Sanders is undoubtedly progressive, and has dealt with the President, and he says the speech was full of pitfalls and possible compromises. And ultimately, on the substance of the speech, I agree with that assessment.
So, where do I stand? Not much farther from where I was. I'd still love to see a strong primary opponent for the President. The reality check for progressives is that although this speech sounded strong, it was Obama beginning campaign mode, which is his strongest suit. A primary challenge would make him lunge left in response, and that would only help with fights over policy in the next eight months or so. I don't doubt that this president has plenty of "cave" left in him.
Yet I have to say that I do like the new Obama tone with the Republicans. I like him standing his ground, and calling them out on policy. I like him saying they have no faith in America, and will harm our seniors. Those are messages that will resonate with huge chunks of the populace, and serve the progressive argument. I hope he keeps it up. I hope he keeps this new willingness to fight for a policy position.
Even if I don't like the reality of the coming policy, I like the new politics. Eh, I'll take it, until the primary.
Now, I have been a pretty harsh Obama critic. I am not a right wing T-bagger, I criticize from the left. This president has not been on the progressive side of things. So I watched this speech with a hearty amount of skepticism, expecting a validation of multiple Republican talking points.
Imagine my pleasant surprise when President Obama came out breathing fire.
Now keep in mind that Obama is the master of giving a speech that makes people listening think he agrees with them. His White House will then release statements that move policy solidly right of the impression you got from listening to said speech. (Which, by the way, happened this time too!) I have learned give an Obama speech 24 hours to settle, and then you can decipher what was really said.
So, what's my verdict? All in all...an improvement. I still have huge concerns where this president is concerned, but here's what I liked...
First, the politics:
I loved that he waited. To use a poker analogy, this president usually sits at the table, gets his cards, shows them to everybody and then starts moving chip after chip onto the table. This time he sat at the table, held his cards close, anted with a speech while the House Republicans threw Ryan's entire Tea Party wet dream into the pot.
He waited until Senator Ryan put out his Destroy America plan to fix the deficit. That fucking turd of a bill that will destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and impoverish the working people for a generation, while giving many billions more to the top 2%. Now, (to change analogies) this is a giant softball, just floating over the plate, waiting to be crushed. Frankly, the kind this president has just watched float by in the past. But he crushed it instead.
He had heard rumors of the plan, and in the past, he has rushed out with pre-emptive "compromises." This time, he waited, waited...and swung. It was a hit. He was able to attack the plan without having already validated key parts of it (although he will do a little of that throughout the speech). This is what he should have been doing since before the health care debacle.
I also love that he got right down and talked some shit about the Republicans. He said that they were pessimistic, had no faith in America, and hated old people. Sure, I paraphrased, but this is the substance. It's the kind of shit they throw at him all the fucking time. It's about time he gave some back. They cried and whined "the speech was so political..." Yeah, no shit, the President's a politician, and it was high time he had at the opposition.
I also like that he made the case for government. He made it clear that some things, like caring for the elderly and the poor, or building airports and highways, were best done by a well-funded government. He pushed back against the privatization of Medicare that Paul Ryan is planning. (By the way, since the speech, EVERY Democrat voted against the Ryan plan. This is news. Six months ago, shit, six weeks ago at least half a dozen blue dogs would have joined Republicans. I like this too!)
The tone of the speech:
The tone of the speech was strong and progressive. The case that the President made was likewise strong and progressive. It was nice to hear a little of the old 2008 back. The President was definitely combative, but not ham-fisted about it like the Republicans are. He scolded them, sounding wise and reasonable while painting them as selfish children who want, through their greed and ignorance, want to harm their elders. Where has this been for the last two years?
The substance?...this is where I worry.
He said, clearly and unequivocally, that he would veto any privatization of Medicare. Good. He said that there would be no more renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Good. But he did say that Medicare and Medicaid would have to be cut. Oooh...not good. He also said that "nobody gets everything they want." Translation: "I'm open to future caving on these issues." Oooh... He also said that he would follow the recommendation of the Deficit Commission. Ah, fuck!
Obama was quite vague about the details in his speech. He left TONS of room for caving to the right. For instance, will his Medicare "cuts" come in the form of increased efficiency, or will he simply cut not as much as Paul Ryan? And the goddam Deficit Commission, those fuckers are there to steal, on average, $40-60,000 dollars from every working American's future, rather than raise the Social Security cap a little on those earning over $106,000 per year. Hell no!
Yet Obama loves that Deficit Commission, hell, he hand-picked it. That he is triumphing the likes of Alan Simpson, who called ALL of us "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security that we FUCKING PAID INTO OUR ENTIRE WORKING LIVES makes me cringe. And, within 24 hours, the White House released a statement saying that they were planning to follow the Deficit Commission. If Obama's great progressive fight is to champion the Deficit commission's plan to fuck the working and middle class of America, then it's over...we don't have a chance at left-of-Reagan governance anytime in our near future.
I'm not the only one worried. The likes of Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes were effervescent after the speech, full of descriptions of the President's brilliance, and full of scorn for anyone who couldn't see it. Yet Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, was on MSNBC expressing a TON of skepticism over the speech. His general message: I'll believe it when I see it. Now, he was a little bitter, probably, because Obama just threw community health centers under the budget bus in his most recent cave-in to Republicans. Those health centers, you may remember, were his payment to Sanders to get his vote on the health care bill. Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away. But bitter or not, Sanders is undoubtedly progressive, and has dealt with the President, and he says the speech was full of pitfalls and possible compromises. And ultimately, on the substance of the speech, I agree with that assessment.
So, where do I stand? Not much farther from where I was. I'd still love to see a strong primary opponent for the President. The reality check for progressives is that although this speech sounded strong, it was Obama beginning campaign mode, which is his strongest suit. A primary challenge would make him lunge left in response, and that would only help with fights over policy in the next eight months or so. I don't doubt that this president has plenty of "cave" left in him.
Yet I have to say that I do like the new Obama tone with the Republicans. I like him standing his ground, and calling them out on policy. I like him saying they have no faith in America, and will harm our seniors. Those are messages that will resonate with huge chunks of the populace, and serve the progressive argument. I hope he keeps it up. I hope he keeps this new willingness to fight for a policy position.
Even if I don't like the reality of the coming policy, I like the new politics. Eh, I'll take it, until the primary.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
The Budget Debate = Public Financing
Without the influence of big business, would the budget debate have been anything near as disastrous as it was? Of course not.
First, my usual rant about what a weak and terrible negotiator President Obama is. He starts negotiations by preemptively giving away over 30 billion in cuts to social programs, including heating assistance to the poor, and Pell Grants to university students. Then a few more billion here, and a few more billion there, and the Democratic leadership put about 40 billion in cuts on the table.
Republicans scooped that 40 billion off the table, and said "let's negotiate." They demanded another 32 billion, and Obama and Reid, with their masterful negotiating skills, gave them 33. They have hemmed and hawed, and chiseled a few more billion out of the pathetic Democratic leadership. Total cuts from social programs, that create pain for for middle and working class Americans (let alone the poor and elderly), almost 80 billion. Health and human services, more education, some health care, and across the board cuts for many federal agencies. Pain for most Americans.
And it's all bullshit. All a Vaudeville theatre act crossed with reality TV - a fake drama with lots of chest pounding and poop throwing. A real debate about spending would have included Wall Street, Wars, big oil subsidies and the recent tax cut for the top 2%. We, the average folks, get pounded economically, and have our civil liberties eroded. The corporate elite are making out like bandits - because they are robbing us.
We're fucked, they are swimming in gravy. A real debate about deficits would have included that gravy, but it didn't.
Take the subsidies for big oil. Four BILLION dollars per year for American oil companies. Now, the top five American oil companies made 79 BILLION dollars in PROFIT for 2010. The largest, Exxon Mobile, paid NO TAXES in 2009. Now, put that 4 billion back in the government coffers and they still made 74 BILLION! And, we could heat the homes of poor folks, and send some of their kids to college. Cancel that tax credit for a decade, and you find 40 billion in the couch cushions - half of the painful cuts that will effect most Americans.
Oil subsidies were hardly mentioned. Congress is perfectly willing to let poor people freeze, starve (400+ million was proposedly cut from WIC) and go uneducated; but will not entertain a few percent less profit for big oil. Give a little credit to the President here, he at least brought it up. But there was NO FIGHT on this issue from Democrats.
Defense? The Pentagon's annual budget is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Fuck! That is a load of money. Any big cuts there in this debate? Nope. Gates and Mullen have recommended some trimming, but I have not heard that any of it has come through in negotiations.
We have military bases in over 100 countries around the world. We are currently involved in three wars (counting Libya), all unpopular with the American people. We spend more on our military than the next 10 largest industrialized military powers COMBINED - and this includes China, Russia and anyone in Europe. Not part of the discussion.
Take food out of the mouths of poor families...from infants and kids - but not from oil companies or military contractors. Or bankers.
We have opened the loading dock doors of the Treasury to the nation's large banks. They get to (figuratively) back trucks up to the doors and load money in at near 0%, over a TRILLION dollars so far. It is free money to use. We also bailed them out to the tune of billions, and then they paid us back with our own money - the small business fund. We could sure use those billions now - why not go and get it from them. And, how about spreading a "free" trillion dollars around the regular economy? A lot more people would be hired, and a lot more revenue would come in.
Oh...but that would not result in a massive bonus for a CEO.
And therein lies the problem. Our leaders are bought, totally and completely.
This budget battle shows all too starkly how our political leaders are not the least bit serious about governing a country. They are borrowing 40% of the money they spend, and the spending is massive. The only reason that any other nation keeps lending to us is that they see how low our tax rates are, and figure that we will soon raise taxes and pay them back. Woe be us when they catch on to how fucked up our politics really are.
This 80 billion in cuts that hurt working families balances the budget for less than 20 days. They could raise revenue, but they are instead planning to rob us blind by taking that money from Social Security and Medicare. They are doing it now. And in the states, they are taking our pensions and our public school budgets while the top 2% get more tax cuts.
They, the Republicans and the Democrats, are cogs in a money laundering machine - our money. Corporations have squeezed the productivity out of the American people to the point of pain, and now they are telling their paid servants, our elected officials, to clean out all the shelves of the vault before they move on like locusts to the next nation (watch out, China).
Obama will not help us, nor will Democratic leaders, nor the Democratic party because they are helping the Republicans hold the robber's sack. Yes, they are better than Republicans, but that will not help us when we are tied to chairs with gags in our mouths as the robber barons take the last pennies, and set the house on fire as they leave. I now believe that it is time for a constitutional amendment - an amendment that takes the private money out of politics.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court would strike down a campaign finance reform law. And this sucks, because a constitutional amendment is a long, tough fight. But it is THE issue on which all others hinge, especially in the wake of the Citizens United ruling.
I mean, c'mon...we are literally taking food out of the mouths of poor children to give big oil companies four billion dollars per year - ten times the cuts to the WIC program. That adult Americans in Congress stand by and let that happen shows just HOW CORRUPT our political system is.
C'mon, c'mon...we need 2/3 of the states to pass this amendment. The hard part will be Republican governors who won't get funding without corporate donations - they will veto this. But that will make them hard to reelect - it is a long fight, but we have to do it.
This is the "change" we can believe in. It will free representatives to stand on principle, and on the interests of their constituents - which in some cases will include these large corporations as important employers. I will still get pissed, and bitch and moan, because I am to the left of most folks where I live, and reps will actually compromise in the interest of the communities they represent, which will include my more conservative neighbors.
But we won't get robbed, and we won't give huge chunks of our decades-earned wealth to the top 2%. Amend now...change 2.1.0?
First, my usual rant about what a weak and terrible negotiator President Obama is. He starts negotiations by preemptively giving away over 30 billion in cuts to social programs, including heating assistance to the poor, and Pell Grants to university students. Then a few more billion here, and a few more billion there, and the Democratic leadership put about 40 billion in cuts on the table.
Republicans scooped that 40 billion off the table, and said "let's negotiate." They demanded another 32 billion, and Obama and Reid, with their masterful negotiating skills, gave them 33. They have hemmed and hawed, and chiseled a few more billion out of the pathetic Democratic leadership. Total cuts from social programs, that create pain for for middle and working class Americans (let alone the poor and elderly), almost 80 billion. Health and human services, more education, some health care, and across the board cuts for many federal agencies. Pain for most Americans.
And it's all bullshit. All a Vaudeville theatre act crossed with reality TV - a fake drama with lots of chest pounding and poop throwing. A real debate about spending would have included Wall Street, Wars, big oil subsidies and the recent tax cut for the top 2%. We, the average folks, get pounded economically, and have our civil liberties eroded. The corporate elite are making out like bandits - because they are robbing us.
We're fucked, they are swimming in gravy. A real debate about deficits would have included that gravy, but it didn't.
Take the subsidies for big oil. Four BILLION dollars per year for American oil companies. Now, the top five American oil companies made 79 BILLION dollars in PROFIT for 2010. The largest, Exxon Mobile, paid NO TAXES in 2009. Now, put that 4 billion back in the government coffers and they still made 74 BILLION! And, we could heat the homes of poor folks, and send some of their kids to college. Cancel that tax credit for a decade, and you find 40 billion in the couch cushions - half of the painful cuts that will effect most Americans.
Oil subsidies were hardly mentioned. Congress is perfectly willing to let poor people freeze, starve (400+ million was proposedly cut from WIC) and go uneducated; but will not entertain a few percent less profit for big oil. Give a little credit to the President here, he at least brought it up. But there was NO FIGHT on this issue from Democrats.
Defense? The Pentagon's annual budget is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Fuck! That is a load of money. Any big cuts there in this debate? Nope. Gates and Mullen have recommended some trimming, but I have not heard that any of it has come through in negotiations.
We have military bases in over 100 countries around the world. We are currently involved in three wars (counting Libya), all unpopular with the American people. We spend more on our military than the next 10 largest industrialized military powers COMBINED - and this includes China, Russia and anyone in Europe. Not part of the discussion.
Take food out of the mouths of poor families...from infants and kids - but not from oil companies or military contractors. Or bankers.
We have opened the loading dock doors of the Treasury to the nation's large banks. They get to (figuratively) back trucks up to the doors and load money in at near 0%, over a TRILLION dollars so far. It is free money to use. We also bailed them out to the tune of billions, and then they paid us back with our own money - the small business fund. We could sure use those billions now - why not go and get it from them. And, how about spreading a "free" trillion dollars around the regular economy? A lot more people would be hired, and a lot more revenue would come in.
Oh...but that would not result in a massive bonus for a CEO.
And therein lies the problem. Our leaders are bought, totally and completely.
This budget battle shows all too starkly how our political leaders are not the least bit serious about governing a country. They are borrowing 40% of the money they spend, and the spending is massive. The only reason that any other nation keeps lending to us is that they see how low our tax rates are, and figure that we will soon raise taxes and pay them back. Woe be us when they catch on to how fucked up our politics really are.
This 80 billion in cuts that hurt working families balances the budget for less than 20 days. They could raise revenue, but they are instead planning to rob us blind by taking that money from Social Security and Medicare. They are doing it now. And in the states, they are taking our pensions and our public school budgets while the top 2% get more tax cuts.
They, the Republicans and the Democrats, are cogs in a money laundering machine - our money. Corporations have squeezed the productivity out of the American people to the point of pain, and now they are telling their paid servants, our elected officials, to clean out all the shelves of the vault before they move on like locusts to the next nation (watch out, China).
Obama will not help us, nor will Democratic leaders, nor the Democratic party because they are helping the Republicans hold the robber's sack. Yes, they are better than Republicans, but that will not help us when we are tied to chairs with gags in our mouths as the robber barons take the last pennies, and set the house on fire as they leave. I now believe that it is time for a constitutional amendment - an amendment that takes the private money out of politics.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court would strike down a campaign finance reform law. And this sucks, because a constitutional amendment is a long, tough fight. But it is THE issue on which all others hinge, especially in the wake of the Citizens United ruling.
I mean, c'mon...we are literally taking food out of the mouths of poor children to give big oil companies four billion dollars per year - ten times the cuts to the WIC program. That adult Americans in Congress stand by and let that happen shows just HOW CORRUPT our political system is.
C'mon, c'mon...we need 2/3 of the states to pass this amendment. The hard part will be Republican governors who won't get funding without corporate donations - they will veto this. But that will make them hard to reelect - it is a long fight, but we have to do it.
This is the "change" we can believe in. It will free representatives to stand on principle, and on the interests of their constituents - which in some cases will include these large corporations as important employers. I will still get pissed, and bitch and moan, because I am to the left of most folks where I live, and reps will actually compromise in the interest of the communities they represent, which will include my more conservative neighbors.
But we won't get robbed, and we won't give huge chunks of our decades-earned wealth to the top 2%. Amend now...change 2.1.0?
Monday, April 04, 2011
Man, They Are Robbing Us Blind!
So, you've heard recently, from the Obama Administration, that TARP is being paid back. Yeah, and I've got a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you.
Senator Chuck Grassley recently requested clarification on the TARP payback from Tim Geithner, because he's heard, as have others, that many of the bailed out banks are paying back their TARP debts with the Small Business Loan fund. Really...who'd a thunk it?
So get this: the rapacious, fuck-stained banks who fucked you on your mortgage, bugger you with 20-30% credit card fees, committed fraud, and crippled the WORLD's economy...got bailed out by you, the taxpayer. Since they were too big to fail, we propped them up with our tax dollars. Oh, and then sat back and watched them use our money to buy each other up - getting even too BIGGER to fail.
Then, they pay themselves more money through the "back door bailouts," like when AIG paid Goldman millions of our dollars, on a bet that Goldman knew would go bad. We paid 100 cents on the dollar for a bad bet. Goldman, Countrywide, pretty much all the major banks had what they knew were toxic assets, mainly mortgage-based derivatives, yet they misled (defrauded) investors up to the moment that the house of cards came crashing down. They crashed the American real estate market, which was the source of most of the average American's wealth and credit. And we bailed them out. Are you pissed yet?
But wait! Then, the CEOs and executives paid themselves RECORD BONUSES last year, because their fraud was so successful. In this same time period, they have been caught foreclosing on homes they have no right to. But they don't care, and they don't stop, because they are not held accountable. Meanwhile, they are allowed to back trucks up right to the treasury. They are being given money, trillions of dollars, at next to 0% from the Fed. It is essentially free money. The banks are making out phenomenally well on this financial disaster.
And now, when we expect them to at least pay back the TARP part of the bailout they recieved (which pales in comparison to the free Fed money they are getting) they fuck us yet again. They are using the Small Business Fund to pay us back.
The Small Business Fund was put in place so that banks could, without risking their own executive bonuses (because, god forbid we should do banking in a capitalist economy), loan money to businesses for equipment and hiring. The intent was to spur hiring and lower the unemployment rate, which is still at near 9%. But instead, these douche-nozzles that run the banks are taking that money and paying back their TARP "loans." Watch an informative video by The Young Turks here.
They are paying back the American tax payer with the American tax payer's money. We have put two pools of money at the banks' disposal, and they are raiding one to repay the other. Man, fuck these guys. We have been so wronged by their criminal conduct that they should be perp-walked by the hundreds. Instead, they tell the President, who has facilitated their egregious thefts, that he is too hard on business.
Here is what should happen:
Senator Chuck Grassley recently requested clarification on the TARP payback from Tim Geithner, because he's heard, as have others, that many of the bailed out banks are paying back their TARP debts with the Small Business Loan fund. Really...who'd a thunk it?
So get this: the rapacious, fuck-stained banks who fucked you on your mortgage, bugger you with 20-30% credit card fees, committed fraud, and crippled the WORLD's economy...got bailed out by you, the taxpayer. Since they were too big to fail, we propped them up with our tax dollars. Oh, and then sat back and watched them use our money to buy each other up - getting even too BIGGER to fail.
Then, they pay themselves more money through the "back door bailouts," like when AIG paid Goldman millions of our dollars, on a bet that Goldman knew would go bad. We paid 100 cents on the dollar for a bad bet. Goldman, Countrywide, pretty much all the major banks had what they knew were toxic assets, mainly mortgage-based derivatives, yet they misled (defrauded) investors up to the moment that the house of cards came crashing down. They crashed the American real estate market, which was the source of most of the average American's wealth and credit. And we bailed them out. Are you pissed yet?
But wait! Then, the CEOs and executives paid themselves RECORD BONUSES last year, because their fraud was so successful. In this same time period, they have been caught foreclosing on homes they have no right to. But they don't care, and they don't stop, because they are not held accountable. Meanwhile, they are allowed to back trucks up right to the treasury. They are being given money, trillions of dollars, at next to 0% from the Fed. It is essentially free money. The banks are making out phenomenally well on this financial disaster.
And now, when we expect them to at least pay back the TARP part of the bailout they recieved (which pales in comparison to the free Fed money they are getting) they fuck us yet again. They are using the Small Business Fund to pay us back.
The Small Business Fund was put in place so that banks could, without risking their own executive bonuses (because, god forbid we should do banking in a capitalist economy), loan money to businesses for equipment and hiring. The intent was to spur hiring and lower the unemployment rate, which is still at near 9%. But instead, these douche-nozzles that run the banks are taking that money and paying back their TARP "loans." Watch an informative video by The Young Turks here.
They are paying back the American tax payer with the American tax payer's money. We have put two pools of money at the banks' disposal, and they are raiding one to repay the other. Man, fuck these guys. We have been so wronged by their criminal conduct that they should be perp-walked by the hundreds. Instead, they tell the President, who has facilitated their egregious thefts, that he is too hard on business.
Here is what should happen:
- Full and complete audit, by the Fed, of any bank who has taken TARP funds. Arrests to follow when the fraud is uncovered.
- Full and complete audit of the Fed, with arrests to follow.
- Immediate cap on bonuses of any executives working for bailed out banks. These bitches work for us now, let's treat them like it.
- Close the Fed open-door for banks, and open it for American consumers. Create a "fed-it" card for any American who is having trouble paying a double-digit interest rate on a credit card. Let Americans pay 3% above the next-to-nothing that the banks were getting, with the interest payments slated for paying down the national debt. C'mon, this is genius.
- Bail out home owners. Since the Federal Government is basically stuck with backing 9 out of 10 mortgages, we have already socialized home ownership. Since the banks have no risk here, fuck 'em. The Fed should offer to refinance tipsy mortgages, including the readjusting of principal payments. Let Americans keep their homes instead of walking away. This preserves property values in those neighborhoods that would otherwise have vacant homes.
- Fire the fuck out of Timothy Geithner. Then send his ass to Gitmo.
But all of these sensible steps would take an executive that cares more about the American people than what Wall Street and Faux News think of him. And we don't have that President right now. Obama is missing in action, and frankly culpable in this fraud and financial skull-buggery that is happening right now.
We are being robbed, and our President is not the cop who will stop this. We have let criminals game the system, and they are now looting the shelves of the vault. They will leave us with nothing, and then leave us for their Hong Kong, Dubai or Bombay offices. Without strong, Democratic push-back...we're fucked.
We're fucked.
Friday, April 01, 2011
I'm Not On Board with Libya
Sorry, Mr. President...I am not on board with your Libya adventure.
I have not posted for over a month, and I am weary of criticizing this president. He is what he is, and I don't think he is on our side. Or my side, anyway. He is Joe Lieberman - liberal on one or two social issues, and pretty (even massively) conservative on most of domestic and foreign policy.
And give him credit. His handling of Libya is vastly superior to what we could have expected of George W. Bush. He managed a real coalition, for largely humanitarian reasons (and CREDIBLE humanitarian reasons), with a clear plan of action, and explained his policy eloquently to the American People just a few nights ago. He is taking a risk - because by limiting America's involvement, success (from an American viewpoint) is questionable and criticism almost guaranteed. We saw bold leadership, and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster, and nuanced policy. It is times like this that I am glad we elected the smart guy.
But I am still NOT on board with Obama's Libya policy. I know...when will leftist whiners EVER be satisfied with the President? How about when he fights as hard for the average American as he is for the Libyan opposition!
I am not on board because this is a military adventure that extends, not retracts, America's imperial adventurism in the Middle East. I am not on board because this president, like his predecessors, has flouted the role of Congress as the funders and approvers of US military action. I am not on board because this military adventure is expensive, and we keep hearing from politicians and media that we are "broke!" And, I am not on board because this is one more example of President Obama acting more like a Republican that the Democrat I helped elect.
Dropping bombs on a Muslim nation in North Africa is not, no matter how you frame our humanitarian intentions, an act of peace. It is war. W - A - R, no matter how many times Obama refuses to say it. We are killing Muslims in a THIRD country in that part of the world. We are not, currently, sending our army to kill any other people, not since Bosnia. There was no threat to America, or its interests in Libya. If you want to count Beirut, or Locharbie, well...we've had decades to settle those scores. You say that innocent people are being killed by a tyrant? Welcome to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Ivory Coast...the list goes on. No, no...I fear that our President is doing this because he feels it is politically expedient and advantageous. And, in the Islamic world, we will continue to be seen as imperialist and anti-Muslim.
Dennis Kucinich was the most vocal Democrat in opposition to the President. He claimed that the President had so grossly exceeded his war-powers authority that it invited impeachment. Kucinich was derided for that comment in the liberal blogosphere and talk radio media. "Can you imagine, after all the war crimes of Bush, a Democratic president being impeached by his own party?!?" The derision and mocking were fierce. Here's what I have a hard time imagining:
That there weren't at least 100 other Democratic members of Congress (and all the Republicans) with him.
Dennis Kucinich is a pain in the ass, and way more talk than action. But he's right. The President most likely did exceed his authority. Shit, Bush strong-armed Congress into giving him authorization (even though it was based on lies, and treason)...Obama just ignored it. Jesus Christ you guys, you spineless Congress Critters...YOU have the ultimate responsibility for the nation being at war, AND you have to find a way to pay for it. This is Kucinich's point. Presidents are not supposed to be able to go off on random military adventures without getting congressional approval and paying for them. So much for checks and balances.
This President has capitulated on heating assistance for the poor, because spending must be cut. He is going to cave in on WIC, and cut food stamps to women and children by 400 million dollars. In fact, if the 20 billion in spending concessions go through, Dems will have cut over 70 billion from the budget - all effecting middle income families and the poor. Yet he seems to have no qualms at all about launching cruise missiles on Libya at the cost of 1.5 million dollars each? Over 200 of them by the time of this writing.
C'mon man...Obama appointed a deficit commission, headed by Alan Simpson, who called us all "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security we all paid into for decades. He calls on us for "shared sacrifice" while giving tax cuts to the rich. We are going to lose pensions, pay and benefits, yet military contractors who sell cruise missiles will send massive bills to the US taxpayer and pay themselves huge bonuses - 40% of this borrowed from the Chinese, which my kids will work all their lives to pay the interest.
Our president is not fighting to stop this robbery of our, and our kids' futures. If he would send a few figurative cruise missiles to the big banks, to the Republicans, and to the blue dog Dems who sell us out I might get on board for the total fighting package. But as it is, I'm off the bus. This president is fighting harder for the Libyan working class, than for the average American. I mean, I wish the best for our troops, and for the Libyan people. But I do not support the bypassing of Congress for military adventures in the Middle East at great cost to the treasury while my benefits and services are being slashed by those who pillage with impunity while this President fiddles.
I have not posted for over a month, and I am weary of criticizing this president. He is what he is, and I don't think he is on our side. Or my side, anyway. He is Joe Lieberman - liberal on one or two social issues, and pretty (even massively) conservative on most of domestic and foreign policy.
And give him credit. His handling of Libya is vastly superior to what we could have expected of George W. Bush. He managed a real coalition, for largely humanitarian reasons (and CREDIBLE humanitarian reasons), with a clear plan of action, and explained his policy eloquently to the American People just a few nights ago. He is taking a risk - because by limiting America's involvement, success (from an American viewpoint) is questionable and criticism almost guaranteed. We saw bold leadership, and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster, and nuanced policy. It is times like this that I am glad we elected the smart guy.
But I am still NOT on board with Obama's Libya policy. I know...when will leftist whiners EVER be satisfied with the President? How about when he fights as hard for the average American as he is for the Libyan opposition!
I am not on board because this is a military adventure that extends, not retracts, America's imperial adventurism in the Middle East. I am not on board because this president, like his predecessors, has flouted the role of Congress as the funders and approvers of US military action. I am not on board because this military adventure is expensive, and we keep hearing from politicians and media that we are "broke!" And, I am not on board because this is one more example of President Obama acting more like a Republican that the Democrat I helped elect.
Dropping bombs on a Muslim nation in North Africa is not, no matter how you frame our humanitarian intentions, an act of peace. It is war. W - A - R, no matter how many times Obama refuses to say it. We are killing Muslims in a THIRD country in that part of the world. We are not, currently, sending our army to kill any other people, not since Bosnia. There was no threat to America, or its interests in Libya. If you want to count Beirut, or Locharbie, well...we've had decades to settle those scores. You say that innocent people are being killed by a tyrant? Welcome to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Ivory Coast...the list goes on. No, no...I fear that our President is doing this because he feels it is politically expedient and advantageous. And, in the Islamic world, we will continue to be seen as imperialist and anti-Muslim.
Dennis Kucinich was the most vocal Democrat in opposition to the President. He claimed that the President had so grossly exceeded his war-powers authority that it invited impeachment. Kucinich was derided for that comment in the liberal blogosphere and talk radio media. "Can you imagine, after all the war crimes of Bush, a Democratic president being impeached by his own party?!?" The derision and mocking were fierce. Here's what I have a hard time imagining:
That there weren't at least 100 other Democratic members of Congress (and all the Republicans) with him.
Dennis Kucinich is a pain in the ass, and way more talk than action. But he's right. The President most likely did exceed his authority. Shit, Bush strong-armed Congress into giving him authorization (even though it was based on lies, and treason)...Obama just ignored it. Jesus Christ you guys, you spineless Congress Critters...YOU have the ultimate responsibility for the nation being at war, AND you have to find a way to pay for it. This is Kucinich's point. Presidents are not supposed to be able to go off on random military adventures without getting congressional approval and paying for them. So much for checks and balances.
This President has capitulated on heating assistance for the poor, because spending must be cut. He is going to cave in on WIC, and cut food stamps to women and children by 400 million dollars. In fact, if the 20 billion in spending concessions go through, Dems will have cut over 70 billion from the budget - all effecting middle income families and the poor. Yet he seems to have no qualms at all about launching cruise missiles on Libya at the cost of 1.5 million dollars each? Over 200 of them by the time of this writing.
C'mon man...Obama appointed a deficit commission, headed by Alan Simpson, who called us all "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security we all paid into for decades. He calls on us for "shared sacrifice" while giving tax cuts to the rich. We are going to lose pensions, pay and benefits, yet military contractors who sell cruise missiles will send massive bills to the US taxpayer and pay themselves huge bonuses - 40% of this borrowed from the Chinese, which my kids will work all their lives to pay the interest.
Our president is not fighting to stop this robbery of our, and our kids' futures. If he would send a few figurative cruise missiles to the big banks, to the Republicans, and to the blue dog Dems who sell us out I might get on board for the total fighting package. But as it is, I'm off the bus. This president is fighting harder for the Libyan working class, than for the average American. I mean, I wish the best for our troops, and for the Libyan people. But I do not support the bypassing of Congress for military adventures in the Middle East at great cost to the treasury while my benefits and services are being slashed by those who pillage with impunity while this President fiddles.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Obama to America: Eat Cake
Our president has not shown himself to be a political brawler, nor even courageous, nor perhaps even principled. You can argue that the last comment is unfair, that his principles ARE to give everything to Wall Street and the world's richest CEOs, and toss his own base, and 98% of his own country under the proverbial bus. If that's the case, he's been very effective so far.
Still, it galls this Obama supporter and '08 donor to see him so absent recently.
Take Egypt. First, he was on the side of the protesters. Then, when it looked like Mubarak might hold on, he flopped, and threw his support behind a "gradual" reform process - one that didn't scare Israel and kept military contractors happy. Then, when Mubarak made support impossible with his rambling speech (which showed that he's probably in the early stages of dementia), he backed the protesters' call for Mubarak to step down, and for the VP (Suilimann, the torture guy) to take over with the military. Bold, very bold.
Now, I don't have to be objective, because I'm a crank, not a journalist. I can take an opinion on Obama, and stick to it, ignoring any facts I want. I don't have to see the other side of the argument. But in Egypt, there is a case to be made that Obama played it correct. That although he didn't come out strong and demand Mubarak and his government cave in to the protest, and seemed to coddle the dictator when Glenn Beck was yelling about the coming global caliphate, it seems that behind the scenes the Pentagon was working the cell phones with the President's blessing. Our generals, who trained with Egyptian generals, were talking continually. And when Mubarak didn't concede gracefully, Obama had our guys call and put the word to the Egyptian army that he had to go. The implicit threat was that billions in military aid, some of which the Egyptian generals siphon off to themselves, would go away. If that's the case - credit where credit is due - that was a bit of a "chess-master" move.
I just wish he'd chess-master it up where I think it really counts. Two issues where Obama has once again come up limp when we need him strong: Curveball and Wisconsin.
Curveball, if your memory is longer than the last Superbowl, was the Iraqi informant that told the Bush Administration about mobile chemical weapons labs that Saddam Hussein had in Iraq. And actually, your memory only needs to last about a week, 'cause Curveball's been in the news for the last few days. He has given an interview in which he said: "I lied, because I wanted shit." (Not an actual quote - but the gist of it.)
That summuma bitch made up, out of whole cloth, the main reason that the Bush Administration used to go to war. A war that killed over 4000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqi men, women and children, and has currently rendered millions of Iraqis homeless. So, we should hate him. Here's the rub. This story has brought to mind stories from 2005, notably in the LA Times, that explained how German Intelligence Service, as early as 2000 (take note here - BEFORE 911), told our intelligence services that Curveball was crazy. He was a mentally unstable chemical engineer in Iraq who was fired by the Iraqis because he was nuts. He told stories to the Germans because he wanted asylum in Germany.
Here's the key part: the Germans were CRYSTAL CLEAR when communicating with American intelligence operatives who wanted to talk to Curveball after 911. They said "this guy's crazy. He's full of shit, and you should not believe what he says." Now, the asshole himself says: "yeah, I was full of shit, and you shouldn't have believed what I said." And yet, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld selected him to be their reason to go to war. Colin Powell is now trying to do damage control for his reputation by dredging up this story, and claiming that HE was duped by this Curveball fellow, and implies that he was also duped by the Administration to put his credibility on the line.
First off, Powell please...you knew. You were and are a smart fellow, who was the commander of Operation Desert Storm - you know that theatre of operations. You chose to be a good soldier for the Bush Administration, and sold the case for war to the UN and the American People. Fuck you, Colin, and shove your damage control up your ass.
Second off, the war criminals in the Bush Administration KNEW that Curveball was full of shit. They didn't care. They were counting on the American media and the American people being so stupid, and/or so docile, that they could create out of whole cloth a reason to go to war, and that we wouldn't know better, or care. This was war on a whim, and many, many thousands died as a result. And, my grandchildren will still be paying the bill to Saudi Arabia and China. No no no...this was a war crime, and a horrible wrong perpetrated on the American people, Iraq (especially!) and the world.
And this leads to Obama. Can you, for the love of all things sweet and spicy, look back for a change. C'mon Mr. President, hold these fuckers accountable. 4000+ dead American soldiers, sailors and airmen. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. There has to be SOME accountability for the powerful in this country. Government war criminals, Bush Administration lawyers that enabled torture, a Justice Department that was used as a political arm of Carl Rove, and most recently - Wall Street CEOs that committed massive fraud on the American taxpayer...hold someone powerful accountable!
As a nation, we lead the world in incarcerations. We jail more of the folks, per capita, than any other industrialized democracy on earth. Weed, crack, heroin, petty larceny - jails packed to the brim. Steal billions, start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of thousands, kidnap people, then hold them indefinitely without habeus corpus, and then torture them - write books and make millions on the lecture circuit. This is a big reason why we Americans feel that our government doesn't represent us anymore. The Tea Party is a symptom of this, and they are the tip of the spear. As we look at ourselves as Americans, and juxtapose it to the events in Egypt and Tunisia, we realize that we too have a ruling elite, and that they are fucking us, and getting away with torture and murder. How long until we Americans are filling a civic square demanding our President's departure? Well...
...look no further than Wisconsin.
Thousand of Wisconsin citizens are filling the public areas around the capital in Madison, Wisconsin. They are demanding that their newly elected Republican governor stop his assault on the public employee unions. This Republican has proposed a law that strips teachers and other public employee unions of the right to collectively bargain. He is, essentially, killing the unions. No other interpretation. He did, by the way, exempt the police and firefighters' unions. Hmm...why did he do that? Oh yeah, they ENDORSED him in the November election. Teachers, janitors, other many and myriad public servants did not endorse him, so they are to now lose their ability to freely assemble and bargain for fair wages and working conditions. Corrupt much?
Which brings us to President Obama. Mr. President, with respect...where the fuck are you? Why are you not on the capital steps in Wisconsin? Why are you not standing for American labor? Why are you not standing up for the average American working stiff? The only logical answer is that he is not on our side.
To be fair (which I have already stated I feel NO OBLIGATION to be), the President did state that the Governor's proposal was an attack on labor. He said basically that he was against it. Wow, how bold. But your presence in Wisconsin would put actual pressure on the governor to do the right thing. It would do good for the working public servants of Wisconsin and America. But you flew to Oregon instead - to visit an Intel plant.
President Obama, in light of the events in the Middle East, Americans who pay attention are tuned in to the idea of how a ruling elite can crush the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the people of a nation. Now, in the Wisconsin capital, a similar event is happening. If you, as president, are the representative of all the people, you need you to stand up for the working families against the interests of the powerful.
By the way, do you know why Wisconsin is in a budget crisis? Because their asshole Republican governor gave tax breaks to the rich. Unions will be crushed because the rich and powerful want it so. Obama, where art thou? Won't you help working Americans?
Do we hold our breath, and see if you will show up late in Wisconsin, like you showed up late in Egypt (figuratively)? No, anyone paying attention will not hold their breath.
You, Mr. President, have had it in for unions your entire tenure. The GM deal was tough on unions, but at least they were at the table. You followed Rahm in thumbing your nose at unions when they supported the Democratic challenger in Arkansas (by the way, how did that strategy work out for you? How bad did your candidate lose to the Republican? 20 points, or was it closer to 30?). After losing, you bashed organized labor for not just handing money to you. And your education policy basically does what Republicans have tried to to for decades: decertify teacher unions.
You have shown, by your actions, that you favor the top 2%. And that is what Americans paying attention see - our DEMOCRATIC president favors the top 2% over the remaining 98% of Americans. By your actions you make yourself a despot, akin to Mubarak, though not alike. (Notice here how I sound a lot like Glenn Beck. That is fucking disturbing! The question here, dear reader, is: am I insane, or are things that bleak?) I was an Obama supporter in 2008, and it pains me to say this. Not because I was wrong, but because I believe now that Obama is vested fully in a political system that has been fully corrupted by the obscene wealth of the top 2%.
He is part of the establishment, and the establishment no longer works for the American people, it works for, and is directed by the oligarchs. These oligarchs are now at work in the states, and will, state by state, dismantle all public largesse for the people. This largesse, that is, public dollars, will then flow to the top 2%, making them richer and more powerful.
Speaker of the House John "Boner" recently said of his proposed budget cuts, that if they cost American hundreds of thousands of jobs, "so be it." Nice. What an asshole. But it's hard to separate President Obama from him, who says some things sympathetic to the average American, but whose actions align with the elite in the proverbial ivory tower. And from that tower, instead of "so be it," they seem to say in unison to the American people a quote from a member of the French elite from over 200 years ago: "let them eat cake."
Still, it galls this Obama supporter and '08 donor to see him so absent recently.
Take Egypt. First, he was on the side of the protesters. Then, when it looked like Mubarak might hold on, he flopped, and threw his support behind a "gradual" reform process - one that didn't scare Israel and kept military contractors happy. Then, when Mubarak made support impossible with his rambling speech (which showed that he's probably in the early stages of dementia), he backed the protesters' call for Mubarak to step down, and for the VP (Suilimann, the torture guy) to take over with the military. Bold, very bold.
Now, I don't have to be objective, because I'm a crank, not a journalist. I can take an opinion on Obama, and stick to it, ignoring any facts I want. I don't have to see the other side of the argument. But in Egypt, there is a case to be made that Obama played it correct. That although he didn't come out strong and demand Mubarak and his government cave in to the protest, and seemed to coddle the dictator when Glenn Beck was yelling about the coming global caliphate, it seems that behind the scenes the Pentagon was working the cell phones with the President's blessing. Our generals, who trained with Egyptian generals, were talking continually. And when Mubarak didn't concede gracefully, Obama had our guys call and put the word to the Egyptian army that he had to go. The implicit threat was that billions in military aid, some of which the Egyptian generals siphon off to themselves, would go away. If that's the case - credit where credit is due - that was a bit of a "chess-master" move.
I just wish he'd chess-master it up where I think it really counts. Two issues where Obama has once again come up limp when we need him strong: Curveball and Wisconsin.
Curveball, if your memory is longer than the last Superbowl, was the Iraqi informant that told the Bush Administration about mobile chemical weapons labs that Saddam Hussein had in Iraq. And actually, your memory only needs to last about a week, 'cause Curveball's been in the news for the last few days. He has given an interview in which he said: "I lied, because I wanted shit." (Not an actual quote - but the gist of it.)
That summuma bitch made up, out of whole cloth, the main reason that the Bush Administration used to go to war. A war that killed over 4000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqi men, women and children, and has currently rendered millions of Iraqis homeless. So, we should hate him. Here's the rub. This story has brought to mind stories from 2005, notably in the LA Times, that explained how German Intelligence Service, as early as 2000 (take note here - BEFORE 911), told our intelligence services that Curveball was crazy. He was a mentally unstable chemical engineer in Iraq who was fired by the Iraqis because he was nuts. He told stories to the Germans because he wanted asylum in Germany.
Here's the key part: the Germans were CRYSTAL CLEAR when communicating with American intelligence operatives who wanted to talk to Curveball after 911. They said "this guy's crazy. He's full of shit, and you should not believe what he says." Now, the asshole himself says: "yeah, I was full of shit, and you shouldn't have believed what I said." And yet, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld selected him to be their reason to go to war. Colin Powell is now trying to do damage control for his reputation by dredging up this story, and claiming that HE was duped by this Curveball fellow, and implies that he was also duped by the Administration to put his credibility on the line.
First off, Powell please...you knew. You were and are a smart fellow, who was the commander of Operation Desert Storm - you know that theatre of operations. You chose to be a good soldier for the Bush Administration, and sold the case for war to the UN and the American People. Fuck you, Colin, and shove your damage control up your ass.
Second off, the war criminals in the Bush Administration KNEW that Curveball was full of shit. They didn't care. They were counting on the American media and the American people being so stupid, and/or so docile, that they could create out of whole cloth a reason to go to war, and that we wouldn't know better, or care. This was war on a whim, and many, many thousands died as a result. And, my grandchildren will still be paying the bill to Saudi Arabia and China. No no no...this was a war crime, and a horrible wrong perpetrated on the American people, Iraq (especially!) and the world.
And this leads to Obama. Can you, for the love of all things sweet and spicy, look back for a change. C'mon Mr. President, hold these fuckers accountable. 4000+ dead American soldiers, sailors and airmen. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. There has to be SOME accountability for the powerful in this country. Government war criminals, Bush Administration lawyers that enabled torture, a Justice Department that was used as a political arm of Carl Rove, and most recently - Wall Street CEOs that committed massive fraud on the American taxpayer...hold someone powerful accountable!
As a nation, we lead the world in incarcerations. We jail more of the folks, per capita, than any other industrialized democracy on earth. Weed, crack, heroin, petty larceny - jails packed to the brim. Steal billions, start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of thousands, kidnap people, then hold them indefinitely without habeus corpus, and then torture them - write books and make millions on the lecture circuit. This is a big reason why we Americans feel that our government doesn't represent us anymore. The Tea Party is a symptom of this, and they are the tip of the spear. As we look at ourselves as Americans, and juxtapose it to the events in Egypt and Tunisia, we realize that we too have a ruling elite, and that they are fucking us, and getting away with torture and murder. How long until we Americans are filling a civic square demanding our President's departure? Well...
...look no further than Wisconsin.
Thousand of Wisconsin citizens are filling the public areas around the capital in Madison, Wisconsin. They are demanding that their newly elected Republican governor stop his assault on the public employee unions. This Republican has proposed a law that strips teachers and other public employee unions of the right to collectively bargain. He is, essentially, killing the unions. No other interpretation. He did, by the way, exempt the police and firefighters' unions. Hmm...why did he do that? Oh yeah, they ENDORSED him in the November election. Teachers, janitors, other many and myriad public servants did not endorse him, so they are to now lose their ability to freely assemble and bargain for fair wages and working conditions. Corrupt much?
Which brings us to President Obama. Mr. President, with respect...where the fuck are you? Why are you not on the capital steps in Wisconsin? Why are you not standing for American labor? Why are you not standing up for the average American working stiff? The only logical answer is that he is not on our side.
To be fair (which I have already stated I feel NO OBLIGATION to be), the President did state that the Governor's proposal was an attack on labor. He said basically that he was against it. Wow, how bold. But your presence in Wisconsin would put actual pressure on the governor to do the right thing. It would do good for the working public servants of Wisconsin and America. But you flew to Oregon instead - to visit an Intel plant.
President Obama, in light of the events in the Middle East, Americans who pay attention are tuned in to the idea of how a ruling elite can crush the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the people of a nation. Now, in the Wisconsin capital, a similar event is happening. If you, as president, are the representative of all the people, you need you to stand up for the working families against the interests of the powerful.
By the way, do you know why Wisconsin is in a budget crisis? Because their asshole Republican governor gave tax breaks to the rich. Unions will be crushed because the rich and powerful want it so. Obama, where art thou? Won't you help working Americans?
Do we hold our breath, and see if you will show up late in Wisconsin, like you showed up late in Egypt (figuratively)? No, anyone paying attention will not hold their breath.
You, Mr. President, have had it in for unions your entire tenure. The GM deal was tough on unions, but at least they were at the table. You followed Rahm in thumbing your nose at unions when they supported the Democratic challenger in Arkansas (by the way, how did that strategy work out for you? How bad did your candidate lose to the Republican? 20 points, or was it closer to 30?). After losing, you bashed organized labor for not just handing money to you. And your education policy basically does what Republicans have tried to to for decades: decertify teacher unions.
You have shown, by your actions, that you favor the top 2%. And that is what Americans paying attention see - our DEMOCRATIC president favors the top 2% over the remaining 98% of Americans. By your actions you make yourself a despot, akin to Mubarak, though not alike. (Notice here how I sound a lot like Glenn Beck. That is fucking disturbing! The question here, dear reader, is: am I insane, or are things that bleak?) I was an Obama supporter in 2008, and it pains me to say this. Not because I was wrong, but because I believe now that Obama is vested fully in a political system that has been fully corrupted by the obscene wealth of the top 2%.
He is part of the establishment, and the establishment no longer works for the American people, it works for, and is directed by the oligarchs. These oligarchs are now at work in the states, and will, state by state, dismantle all public largesse for the people. This largesse, that is, public dollars, will then flow to the top 2%, making them richer and more powerful.
Speaker of the House John "Boner" recently said of his proposed budget cuts, that if they cost American hundreds of thousands of jobs, "so be it." Nice. What an asshole. But it's hard to separate President Obama from him, who says some things sympathetic to the average American, but whose actions align with the elite in the proverbial ivory tower. And from that tower, instead of "so be it," they seem to say in unison to the American people a quote from a member of the French elite from over 200 years ago: "let them eat cake."
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Sharia Law USA via GOP
Alan Greyson was criticized recently by George Will, for being a cancer on the American body politic. His apparent vitriol in his last campaign, which included calling his opponent "Taliban Dan" for his Republican foe's stance on women's choice. Thank goodness that such a dirty political fighter as Greyson lost his seat to a multi-millionaire Republican suck-bag. Imagine...calling Republicans the Taliban!
What Greyson said, he said in October. Now, a little over three months later, Republicans in the House are asking for, well Sharia law in America - to an extent. In one bill, the abortion restriction for federal money is being extended not just to rape, but to "forcible" rape only. That's it, "forcible" rape as defined by the men of the Republican party.
So...incest? Nope, no abortion for you if you rely on Medicare, Medicaid, any government insurance or even a health savings account. Statutory rape? Forty year old dude impregnates your middle school daughter? Nope. Date rape? Nope. Hows about a woman who is drugged, then raped? Hey, no force was used, so fuck no! No, that rapist has to use force. How much? I'm sure they'll find some Republican men to decide.
In another bill, doctors are being given the right to refuse any abortion procedure under any circumstance, even if the life of the mother is in immediate danger. The current law states that if a doctor has religious objections to abortion, he has to stabilize the woman, and facilitate her transfer to a doctor who is not such a fundamentalist fuck-ball that he can be bothered to save her life. This bill would do away with even that requirement. The doctor would be allowed, in adherence with his religious beliefs, to stand there and watch both woman and baby die.
Suffice it to say, there is no male equivalent to these draconian restrictions. Men do not face these circumstances, in large part due to the prevailing biology of our species. We can't get pregnant, so we do not face this circumstance. But to give a doctor the power of life and death based on his or her on religious prejudice over one gender only is insane in a 21st century democracy.
If Congress redefines rape for the purposes of abortion, won't that also make its way into the criminal courts, and make it much harder to prosecute rapists? And, to let Congress redefine rape because of the far right's religious viewpoint is strictly from the Taliban playbook. Take the sharia law requirement for proving rape. There are cases in Islamic courts all the time that go like this. If a woman claims she has been raped, she must have four male witnesses. If she doesn't, since she in the course of seeking justice for the rape admitted that she had sex, she is punished for adultery. I can hear the Alabama judge now: "He slipped you rohipnol, and then fucked you in the club's men's room while you were passed out over a urinal? That's not rape anymore, according to Congress. Now get out of my courtroom you dirty slut. Bailiff, wipe down that chair!"
By the way - show me where in the Bible it says not to have abortions. Abortions are mentioned in the Old Testament, but are not prohibited. No, as usual, this is a bullshit social issue used effectively by Republicans to divide and conquer. But the real biblical issue underlies this, and should have all women in the streets with torches and pitchforks - the taking of their bodies by men as property. Women as chattel, is at the root of this. That women will have less rights over their bodies, less protection from the law, less privacy with their doctors and a lesser level of care from the medical system than men shows how much less a person the Republicans consider women.
Yes, Alan Greyson was closer to the mark than even his supporters knew. The GOP wants the Christian version of sharia law here in America. They want women to revert to the status of property, and to deny them sexual safety and reproductive liberty. They are the worst.
What Greyson said, he said in October. Now, a little over three months later, Republicans in the House are asking for, well Sharia law in America - to an extent. In one bill, the abortion restriction for federal money is being extended not just to rape, but to "forcible" rape only. That's it, "forcible" rape as defined by the men of the Republican party.
So...incest? Nope, no abortion for you if you rely on Medicare, Medicaid, any government insurance or even a health savings account. Statutory rape? Forty year old dude impregnates your middle school daughter? Nope. Date rape? Nope. Hows about a woman who is drugged, then raped? Hey, no force was used, so fuck no! No, that rapist has to use force. How much? I'm sure they'll find some Republican men to decide.
In another bill, doctors are being given the right to refuse any abortion procedure under any circumstance, even if the life of the mother is in immediate danger. The current law states that if a doctor has religious objections to abortion, he has to stabilize the woman, and facilitate her transfer to a doctor who is not such a fundamentalist fuck-ball that he can be bothered to save her life. This bill would do away with even that requirement. The doctor would be allowed, in adherence with his religious beliefs, to stand there and watch both woman and baby die.
Suffice it to say, there is no male equivalent to these draconian restrictions. Men do not face these circumstances, in large part due to the prevailing biology of our species. We can't get pregnant, so we do not face this circumstance. But to give a doctor the power of life and death based on his or her on religious prejudice over one gender only is insane in a 21st century democracy.
If Congress redefines rape for the purposes of abortion, won't that also make its way into the criminal courts, and make it much harder to prosecute rapists? And, to let Congress redefine rape because of the far right's religious viewpoint is strictly from the Taliban playbook. Take the sharia law requirement for proving rape. There are cases in Islamic courts all the time that go like this. If a woman claims she has been raped, she must have four male witnesses. If she doesn't, since she in the course of seeking justice for the rape admitted that she had sex, she is punished for adultery. I can hear the Alabama judge now: "He slipped you rohipnol, and then fucked you in the club's men's room while you were passed out over a urinal? That's not rape anymore, according to Congress. Now get out of my courtroom you dirty slut. Bailiff, wipe down that chair!"
By the way - show me where in the Bible it says not to have abortions. Abortions are mentioned in the Old Testament, but are not prohibited. No, as usual, this is a bullshit social issue used effectively by Republicans to divide and conquer. But the real biblical issue underlies this, and should have all women in the streets with torches and pitchforks - the taking of their bodies by men as property. Women as chattel, is at the root of this. That women will have less rights over their bodies, less protection from the law, less privacy with their doctors and a lesser level of care from the medical system than men shows how much less a person the Republicans consider women.
Yes, Alan Greyson was closer to the mark than even his supporters knew. The GOP wants the Christian version of sharia law here in America. They want women to revert to the status of property, and to deny them sexual safety and reproductive liberty. They are the worst.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Speech That Kills
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords had a bullet pass through her brain last weekend, and is not dead. I guess she was one of the 14 "lucky" wounded ones, because six others died when Jared Loughner shot them at Giffords' political event. One of the dead, a federal judge. Another, a nine year old girl, born on 911. Yet it appears that Giffords was the main target.
This perhaps should not be surprising, as Giffords was the main implied target of bullets twice before. Once, by Republican operative and all-around nincompoop Sarah Palin, who had gunsight cross-hairs over Giffords' district, with the imperative to "reload." Giffords' Republican opponent this last fall hosted a fundraiser where cash money let you fire an automatic assault rifle into an effigy of Giffords. He said that she needed to be "taken out." These may be metaphors, but the imagery is not ambiguous.
Rush Limburger said "don't kill ALL the liberals, leave a couple on college campuses as fossils to remind us..." Glenn Beck has flat out called for the killing of Nancy Pelosi, and implied violence towards Democrats many, many times. Sharon Angle called for "Second Amendment remedies" and encouraged a start with Harry Reid.
So, when LOGIC sets in, and a few commentators began criticizing conservatives for their violent rhetoric - putting two and two together and coming up with four - and saying that such rhetoric in part led to this shooting, the conservatives lost their shit.
In truth, their shit is probably fully in tact, as they are again besting the liberals at the media spin game.
"There's heated rhetoric on BOTH sides" whine Republicans all over the news. And CNN and network newsies are only too happy to call it even. But facts fly in the face of this. Two and two do NOT equal three, or five, or anything but four.
There IS heated rhetoric on both sides. There is supposed to be...that's politics goddammit! But what is NOT happening is liberals publicly asking for people to kill conservatives. It's just not, and that's the difference.
And if you haven't noticed, it is the targets, or perceived targets, of the right wing that are getting killed. Take Dr. Tiller, for example. Shot to death in church, next to his family, after Bill O'Reilly spent months referring to him as "Tiller the baby killer." The police in Indiana and Florida who got shot by dudes with Beck and Hannity book collections who were convinced that the "government" was coming for their guns. Around that time, right wing radio hosts were saying that if the "government" wants our guns, we should give them to them "one bullet at a time." Think back on all of the "town hall" protesters that were showing up armed to health care protests when their representatives spoke.
Were these militants showing up to politically intimidate with weaponry at Republican town halls? No, of course not. Are conservatives being shot by lunatics at the behest of liberals? No. At least, not since John Hinkly shot Ronald Reagan (that was 40 years ago).
So no, conservatives, it is not the same on both sides. It is LIBERALS being threatened and killed by psychos over the last few years. As change has hit the country, conservatives freaked out and threatened violence. Some lunatics have taken those threats to heart. Now you fuckers need to own up.
See, I called you "fuckers." That's partisan, even "heated" rhetoric. (Actually, it's juvenile rudeness and divisive name-calling!) But I never threatened to kill anyone, nor even implied it. Hundreds of liberal bloggers, authors, pundits and politicians have called Sarah Palin stupid. But nobody has said that there should be a Second Amendment tutorial to address her stupidity. No one has even suggested that the tree of liberty need be watered with the blood of idiots from time to time. Nowhere. None. Nada.
No, we on the left don't need to tone down anything. If we do, we are stupid.
The Republicans are playing the game expertly right now. Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Dem from Florida, was being pitched softballs by Stephanie Miller about Republican culpability in the violence. But she said "there has been inflametory language on both sides." She said BOTH sides need to settle down and become more civil. Because of Republican crying and browbeating, this is now the common wisdom in the main stream media. Even Huffington Post is deleting blogs that don't even go as far as what I am saying here. But this makes NO SENSE!
If the newly created conventional wisdom is allowed to stand, then Republicans get to call for liberals to be killed, and have it happen on multiple occasions. Democrats and liberal mouthpieces complain a little about Republicans having them killed, and have to calm down. If I followed this logic, I never got anyone hurt, but I don't get to say "fuck" or "idiot" anymore (referring to my biting, repartee above), but my life may be threatened at any minute. The way it is shaping up, Republicans get people killed - Democrats get muzzled. Un fucking believable.
Why, oh why would we, on the left, join in disarmament when we did NOT have heavy weapons in the first place? I understand that conservatives don't like our policy, and don't like what Keith Olbermann says. I understand how it sucks to lose elections. Tough shit! You don't get to kill liberals in America because you don't like what we say or vote on. And if you bring the gas, and the lunatic has a lighter, when our house burns down you bear some of the blame. In the case of Tucson, you abetted murder!
The left, the liberals, the progressives - whatever - don't have to tone down shit! We need to speak up and demand accountability from politicians and pundits who have caused harm to so many. They get to criticize us, call us names and counter our arguments. But they don't get to call for our murders. C'mon media, well...that's probably a lost cause. But c'mon Democratic leaders...ah, geez...but for Christ's sake stand up for one of your own! She took a bullet in the head, so fight back on this one. C'mon, say what you know needs sayin'.
Say it: Sarah, Rush, Glenn, Angle and dozens of other pundits and elected representatives, you helped cause the murder of six people in Tucson, Arizona. This makes you bad people unless you renounce the hate-speech you have vomited onto the body politic. Say it, or be victimized yet again by those who have caused this tragedy. Say it, because if left unsaid, their speech will kill again.
This perhaps should not be surprising, as Giffords was the main implied target of bullets twice before. Once, by Republican operative and all-around nincompoop Sarah Palin, who had gunsight cross-hairs over Giffords' district, with the imperative to "reload." Giffords' Republican opponent this last fall hosted a fundraiser where cash money let you fire an automatic assault rifle into an effigy of Giffords. He said that she needed to be "taken out." These may be metaphors, but the imagery is not ambiguous.
Rush Limburger said "don't kill ALL the liberals, leave a couple on college campuses as fossils to remind us..." Glenn Beck has flat out called for the killing of Nancy Pelosi, and implied violence towards Democrats many, many times. Sharon Angle called for "Second Amendment remedies" and encouraged a start with Harry Reid.
So, when LOGIC sets in, and a few commentators began criticizing conservatives for their violent rhetoric - putting two and two together and coming up with four - and saying that such rhetoric in part led to this shooting, the conservatives lost their shit.
In truth, their shit is probably fully in tact, as they are again besting the liberals at the media spin game.
"There's heated rhetoric on BOTH sides" whine Republicans all over the news. And CNN and network newsies are only too happy to call it even. But facts fly in the face of this. Two and two do NOT equal three, or five, or anything but four.
There IS heated rhetoric on both sides. There is supposed to be...that's politics goddammit! But what is NOT happening is liberals publicly asking for people to kill conservatives. It's just not, and that's the difference.
And if you haven't noticed, it is the targets, or perceived targets, of the right wing that are getting killed. Take Dr. Tiller, for example. Shot to death in church, next to his family, after Bill O'Reilly spent months referring to him as "Tiller the baby killer." The police in Indiana and Florida who got shot by dudes with Beck and Hannity book collections who were convinced that the "government" was coming for their guns. Around that time, right wing radio hosts were saying that if the "government" wants our guns, we should give them to them "one bullet at a time." Think back on all of the "town hall" protesters that were showing up armed to health care protests when their representatives spoke.
Were these militants showing up to politically intimidate with weaponry at Republican town halls? No, of course not. Are conservatives being shot by lunatics at the behest of liberals? No. At least, not since John Hinkly shot Ronald Reagan (that was 40 years ago).
So no, conservatives, it is not the same on both sides. It is LIBERALS being threatened and killed by psychos over the last few years. As change has hit the country, conservatives freaked out and threatened violence. Some lunatics have taken those threats to heart. Now you fuckers need to own up.
See, I called you "fuckers." That's partisan, even "heated" rhetoric. (Actually, it's juvenile rudeness and divisive name-calling!) But I never threatened to kill anyone, nor even implied it. Hundreds of liberal bloggers, authors, pundits and politicians have called Sarah Palin stupid. But nobody has said that there should be a Second Amendment tutorial to address her stupidity. No one has even suggested that the tree of liberty need be watered with the blood of idiots from time to time. Nowhere. None. Nada.
No, we on the left don't need to tone down anything. If we do, we are stupid.
The Republicans are playing the game expertly right now. Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Dem from Florida, was being pitched softballs by Stephanie Miller about Republican culpability in the violence. But she said "there has been inflametory language on both sides." She said BOTH sides need to settle down and become more civil. Because of Republican crying and browbeating, this is now the common wisdom in the main stream media. Even Huffington Post is deleting blogs that don't even go as far as what I am saying here. But this makes NO SENSE!
If the newly created conventional wisdom is allowed to stand, then Republicans get to call for liberals to be killed, and have it happen on multiple occasions. Democrats and liberal mouthpieces complain a little about Republicans having them killed, and have to calm down. If I followed this logic, I never got anyone hurt, but I don't get to say "fuck" or "idiot" anymore (referring to my biting, repartee above), but my life may be threatened at any minute. The way it is shaping up, Republicans get people killed - Democrats get muzzled. Un fucking believable.
Why, oh why would we, on the left, join in disarmament when we did NOT have heavy weapons in the first place? I understand that conservatives don't like our policy, and don't like what Keith Olbermann says. I understand how it sucks to lose elections. Tough shit! You don't get to kill liberals in America because you don't like what we say or vote on. And if you bring the gas, and the lunatic has a lighter, when our house burns down you bear some of the blame. In the case of Tucson, you abetted murder!
The left, the liberals, the progressives - whatever - don't have to tone down shit! We need to speak up and demand accountability from politicians and pundits who have caused harm to so many. They get to criticize us, call us names and counter our arguments. But they don't get to call for our murders. C'mon media, well...that's probably a lost cause. But c'mon Democratic leaders...ah, geez...but for Christ's sake stand up for one of your own! She took a bullet in the head, so fight back on this one. C'mon, say what you know needs sayin'.
Say it: Sarah, Rush, Glenn, Angle and dozens of other pundits and elected representatives, you helped cause the murder of six people in Tucson, Arizona. This makes you bad people unless you renounce the hate-speech you have vomited onto the body politic. Say it, or be victimized yet again by those who have caused this tragedy. Say it, because if left unsaid, their speech will kill again.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
C'mon - C'mon...it's Over!
Obama's done it again - lunged to the right. He has chosen William Daly as his new Chief of Staff.
Fuck that!
It is over. He's done. There will be NO LIBERAL AGENDA OF ANY KIND. Not domestically, not in Foreign policy, not in monetary policy...none.
Here was the list: William Daly, ex governor Vilsack, the current dude Roush, and Tom Daschel. None of these guys is even CLOSE to liberal. At best, Daschel, a current lobbiest and Vilsack, a Republican-lite-type Democrat are the ones who are the most progressive, which is not at all.
Obama never even considered anyone left of center. Nobody. Right-of-center Daly, his choice, was against Health Care reform, and thought the Financial Regulation bill was way too tough on Wall Street.
Look, if you wanted to put a gloss on this travesty, you could have put Howard Dean on the list. Or Al Gore - and these guys aren't even seriously left. You then don't choose them, but you pretend you are considering them.
Nope. Message to ANYONE EVEN MODERATELY PROGRESSIVE: fuck you. Obama has zero interest in an agenda that goes against the richest and most powerful. However, he can't move fast enough to piss all over the working people of America. That is, well over 90% of us. That's our DEMOCRATIC president.
Good luck with that strategy, Mr. President.
On issue after issue, the electorate is massively left of current "center." Washington DC's "center" is to the right of Ronald Reagan's White House. Obama's center is right in the middle of the board room table at Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or Citi Group.
Primary NOW!
Fuck that!
It is over. He's done. There will be NO LIBERAL AGENDA OF ANY KIND. Not domestically, not in Foreign policy, not in monetary policy...none.
Here was the list: William Daly, ex governor Vilsack, the current dude Roush, and Tom Daschel. None of these guys is even CLOSE to liberal. At best, Daschel, a current lobbiest and Vilsack, a Republican-lite-type Democrat are the ones who are the most progressive, which is not at all.
Obama never even considered anyone left of center. Nobody. Right-of-center Daly, his choice, was against Health Care reform, and thought the Financial Regulation bill was way too tough on Wall Street.
Look, if you wanted to put a gloss on this travesty, you could have put Howard Dean on the list. Or Al Gore - and these guys aren't even seriously left. You then don't choose them, but you pretend you are considering them.
Nope. Message to ANYONE EVEN MODERATELY PROGRESSIVE: fuck you. Obama has zero interest in an agenda that goes against the richest and most powerful. However, he can't move fast enough to piss all over the working people of America. That is, well over 90% of us. That's our DEMOCRATIC president.
Good luck with that strategy, Mr. President.
On issue after issue, the electorate is massively left of current "center." Washington DC's "center" is to the right of Ronald Reagan's White House. Obama's center is right in the middle of the board room table at Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or Citi Group.
Primary NOW!
Monday, January 03, 2011
Talkin' Points Some More Shit
If the Democrats want to kick some ass, they have to mimic the Repubs in a fundamental way. They have to stake out their own territory, and defend it with easy to digest talking points.
In this way, the Republicans, with the help of the hapless and very conservative main stream media have created an America where Goldman Sachs and Walmart are small businesses, and the wealthiest 2% need tax relief so that working families can survive an economic catastrophe caused by the top 2%. The term was "job creators."
They defined the middle class as $250,000 per year income. $400,000 for a family. These are numbers that the Democrats accepted without a serious alternative.
They are going to steal your Social Security, that you've already paid into, separate from your income taxes AND Medicare. They said "deficit" and "runaway spending." They got our Democratic president to appoint a commission that proposes kicking the shit out of us, holding us by the ankles, and letting the change rain out of our pockets so that millionaires can scoop it up and move it to an off-shore tax haven.
The problem with these one to four word sound bites that the Republicans are so good at creating is that their rebuttal takes many more words. You have to be willing to fight hard and often to refute them. These Dems suck at that in the worst way. That's why I propose not fighting each issue, but staking out an alternative position, and broadcasting it in the simplest terms. Start with numbers.
First number: 100,000. 94% of Americans earn less than $100,000 dollars per year. The median income is under 40,000, and the average is under 50,000, but keep it simple. Do like the stores do, and make it $99,000. Retake the definition of the middle class by using this number. The juxtaposition of a five-digit number to $250,000 is powerful.
Second Number: $2 Billion. This is how much Afghanistan costs us every week. I never hear this repeated regularly, no matter how often I hear about wasteful spending. Hammer this home, two billion mother fucking dollars each week, and shut those fools up - and maybe even end the useless war.
There are other numbers that would be just as powerful, depending on which position you want to stake out. But for christ's sake, slap us with numbers that create a reality that is closer to, well...reality.
Now, here are some short, sound-bite talking points for the liberals to lob like grenades into the debates.
"Stealing our money" This is what politicians or pundits need to say when the inevitable debate over entitlements comes up again. Any cuts in Social Security amount to a theft, and you will be labeled a thief if you advocate for reductions of any kind. "Boner, you're a thief!" "President Obama, you're a thief!" "Alan Simpson, you're an asshole, and a thief!" If they try to take our money, put the thief label on them. If enough do it, the media has to ask the question: "are you a thief?" Remember, it is the question that is important, not so much the answer.
"Hurting American families" Sunday talking head: "Senator McConnell, you recently held 911 heroes money hostage to continue a tax loophole that allows corporations to create jobs overseas. Doesn't that hurt American families?" See, it is the question that matters. It doesn't matter what McConnell says after this. He has to answer in more than three words, and he looks like a fucking ghoul. It's game over if it happens over, and over, and over. It's time for Democrats to take 'family values' away from the Republicans. Let's say clearly that we value families being able to feed themselves, and that Republican policies stand in the way of that.
"Opportunity and accountability" I believe it was Cenk Uygur from TYT that said this, or something very much like it, as the motto for the Democrats; to counter the Republican Party's "less government and lower taxes." If you want to know what Dems stand for, for the love of Poseidon don't send them to the Democratic Party's website to read their platform. Just say those three words. They are simple, malleable, positive and lend themselves to the idea that government is a good thing in the hands of responsible people.
This is just a start. Take the framing away from those who would have you believe that average earners bring home a quarter million per year, and want corporations to pay no taxes, even if that means we get no Social Security. This is the framing we are stuck with currently, and the framing that drives the White House and Congressional leadership. A few simple, but oft-repeated phrases can begin to take the middle back to the left. It will take some discipline, something lacking completely in Democratic politics, but it is an easy way to change the chessboard without direct conflict, which this crop of Democratic leaders seems to avoid so completely.
Primary challengers - this is your opportunity. Keep it simple, keep it real (real numbers, anyway), and say it often.
In this way, the Republicans, with the help of the hapless and very conservative main stream media have created an America where Goldman Sachs and Walmart are small businesses, and the wealthiest 2% need tax relief so that working families can survive an economic catastrophe caused by the top 2%. The term was "job creators."
They defined the middle class as $250,000 per year income. $400,000 for a family. These are numbers that the Democrats accepted without a serious alternative.
They are going to steal your Social Security, that you've already paid into, separate from your income taxes AND Medicare. They said "deficit" and "runaway spending." They got our Democratic president to appoint a commission that proposes kicking the shit out of us, holding us by the ankles, and letting the change rain out of our pockets so that millionaires can scoop it up and move it to an off-shore tax haven.
The problem with these one to four word sound bites that the Republicans are so good at creating is that their rebuttal takes many more words. You have to be willing to fight hard and often to refute them. These Dems suck at that in the worst way. That's why I propose not fighting each issue, but staking out an alternative position, and broadcasting it in the simplest terms. Start with numbers.
First number: 100,000. 94% of Americans earn less than $100,000 dollars per year. The median income is under 40,000, and the average is under 50,000, but keep it simple. Do like the stores do, and make it $99,000. Retake the definition of the middle class by using this number. The juxtaposition of a five-digit number to $250,000 is powerful.
Second Number: $2 Billion. This is how much Afghanistan costs us every week. I never hear this repeated regularly, no matter how often I hear about wasteful spending. Hammer this home, two billion mother fucking dollars each week, and shut those fools up - and maybe even end the useless war.
There are other numbers that would be just as powerful, depending on which position you want to stake out. But for christ's sake, slap us with numbers that create a reality that is closer to, well...reality.
Now, here are some short, sound-bite talking points for the liberals to lob like grenades into the debates.
"Stealing our money" This is what politicians or pundits need to say when the inevitable debate over entitlements comes up again. Any cuts in Social Security amount to a theft, and you will be labeled a thief if you advocate for reductions of any kind. "Boner, you're a thief!" "President Obama, you're a thief!" "Alan Simpson, you're an asshole, and a thief!" If they try to take our money, put the thief label on them. If enough do it, the media has to ask the question: "are you a thief?" Remember, it is the question that is important, not so much the answer.
"Hurting American families" Sunday talking head: "Senator McConnell, you recently held 911 heroes money hostage to continue a tax loophole that allows corporations to create jobs overseas. Doesn't that hurt American families?" See, it is the question that matters. It doesn't matter what McConnell says after this. He has to answer in more than three words, and he looks like a fucking ghoul. It's game over if it happens over, and over, and over. It's time for Democrats to take 'family values' away from the Republicans. Let's say clearly that we value families being able to feed themselves, and that Republican policies stand in the way of that.
"Opportunity and accountability" I believe it was Cenk Uygur from TYT that said this, or something very much like it, as the motto for the Democrats; to counter the Republican Party's "less government and lower taxes." If you want to know what Dems stand for, for the love of Poseidon don't send them to the Democratic Party's website to read their platform. Just say those three words. They are simple, malleable, positive and lend themselves to the idea that government is a good thing in the hands of responsible people.
This is just a start. Take the framing away from those who would have you believe that average earners bring home a quarter million per year, and want corporations to pay no taxes, even if that means we get no Social Security. This is the framing we are stuck with currently, and the framing that drives the White House and Congressional leadership. A few simple, but oft-repeated phrases can begin to take the middle back to the left. It will take some discipline, something lacking completely in Democratic politics, but it is an easy way to change the chessboard without direct conflict, which this crop of Democratic leaders seems to avoid so completely.
Primary challengers - this is your opportunity. Keep it simple, keep it real (real numbers, anyway), and say it often.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
For 2011, Try Representing Us...Or Else!
What do DADT repeal, unemployment extension, and the START Treaty have in common?
They don't threaten even one CEO's bonus this year. These accomplishments were allowed ONLY after extending the ruinous tax cuts imposed by Bush (who could only get them by using the reconciliation process).
Financial reform, you say? Largely a bonanza for the largest banks. They are bigger than ever, gobbling up the smaller, failing banks. They weren't touched. Health care reform? A giant win for big pharma and the medical industrial complex. Their unsustainable system has been propped up by government subsidies for another decade. Another decade of insane profits and bonuses, and still millions will be uninsured, and my rates continue to rise at a pace way above inflation - or my salary.
Entitlement reform is next. There are two ways to fix the looming problem with Social Security and Medicaid: 1. Make the rich pay back the money they took out of it already, or 2. take it from you and me, and kick us in the face while they're at it. Gee, which way do you suppose our DEMOCRATIC president will go?
And that is the key. How will the Dems proceed on the question of SS and Medicaid? If recent history is a guide, we are fucked. Those bastards will sell us out quick. They will tell us to look forward, have adult conversations, and sacrifice. They won't tell the richest 2% that, just the hard-working families of this great republic. And this is why it is so, so, so important to fight the Democrats in 2011.
Wait a minute, you say, fight the Democrats? Aren't they the good guys?
No. Or, maybe...some. But if they continue to favor the interests of the richest 2% to the detriment, and perhaps ruination of the vast majority of us, then we must fight 'em. And fight 'em hard.
But the Republicans are much worse! They obstruct and block all of our legislation, and generally fuck things up in government. Yes, they do. And, from their standpoint, that is what they are supposed to do. They are the opposition party. They are, by and large, opposed to Democratic (or progressive, or liberal) policy. THEIR JOB is to oppose this Democratic majority, and this President. To do otherwise would be a violation of the trust their voters put to them.
We can argue about their tactics, and even their ethics, but "Boner" and McConnell are fighting for those they represent. And, for the last 30 years or so, they represent Christian conservatives, big business and white men and women who fear their loss of status in a demographically changing America. Those folks and others have elected Republicans to carry out an anti-Democratic agenda. Look, these Republicans are horrible, fuck-faced fuckers, but they are doing what they are supposed to do - shilling 100% for multi-national corporations and their CEOs.
But shouldn't we fight the rich? Those evil corporations who have bought our politicians? We can, in terms of choosing where we spend our money, but otherwise...no. And anyway, corporations aren't necessarily evil. Nor are they good. They are amoral entities.
Corporations are charged with making the maximum profits possible for their shareholders. That is not only their fiduciary obligation, it is their legal duty. Corporations, and their ultra-wealthy CEOs do what they can to enrich themselves, because that's what they are supposed to do. It is the GOVERNMENT's job to check their abuses. (Which is, by the way, why it makes so much sense for them to buy our representatives.)
When big banks commit fraud, when big oil pollutes, when coal mines kill, government is supposed to step up on our behalf. Elected representative are supposed to make laws, and regulators and the justice department are supposed to enforce laws and regulations. Don't blame corporations - blame your government. Look, if the fines are less than the profits, the risks much less than the rewards, then it makes perfect sense to plunder and pollute. If there are no consequences, because you own the lawmakers, why not rape and pillage the nation?
So, government is supposed to protect us, and we want pro-middle and working class policies to be enacted by government. We want equality, opportunity and a clean environment. We need representatives who will fight for these policies. If only we had a political party that had a platform that spoke to these issues.
Oh, yeah...we do. The Democratic Party, thank god. That was sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on that.
The Democrats have sold out a good part of the way. The way Max Baucus ran health care from firmly inside the insurance companies' boxers, the way Chris Dodd had his tongue all the way down the back of Wall Street's pants, the way Obama met with Billy Tauzin to let him write an even more egregious pharmaceutical law than he did for Bush; shows that many of the Democratic leaders also represent the top 2%. They are not on our side.
What we need, for our representative democracy to work for us, is some representatives who are on our side. We need representatives who fight for policy that benefits the 98% over the 2%. These representatives are supposed to be in the Democratic party. And that's why we need to fight them. We need to fight the Democrats this year - to go full-blown tea party on them - until they realize that they are done in politics if they don't start fighting for us.
The rich look out for themselves, the Republicans look out for the rich, and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is for the Democrats to look out for the rich too. Democratic representatives who do not fight for an economy and an environment that is friendly to working families needs to be primaried hard. This absolutely includes President Obama.
Primary elections are made for changing the guard within the party. It makes zero sense to accept all of one party, and at least half of the other pulling both oars for 2% of the population. Let's take the Democrats back by primarying the shit out of them.
The Republicans did it a little bit in 2010. Let's do it massively in 2012, and let it be known in 2011, represent US, or else.
Primary NOW!
They don't threaten even one CEO's bonus this year. These accomplishments were allowed ONLY after extending the ruinous tax cuts imposed by Bush (who could only get them by using the reconciliation process).
Financial reform, you say? Largely a bonanza for the largest banks. They are bigger than ever, gobbling up the smaller, failing banks. They weren't touched. Health care reform? A giant win for big pharma and the medical industrial complex. Their unsustainable system has been propped up by government subsidies for another decade. Another decade of insane profits and bonuses, and still millions will be uninsured, and my rates continue to rise at a pace way above inflation - or my salary.
Entitlement reform is next. There are two ways to fix the looming problem with Social Security and Medicaid: 1. Make the rich pay back the money they took out of it already, or 2. take it from you and me, and kick us in the face while they're at it. Gee, which way do you suppose our DEMOCRATIC president will go?
And that is the key. How will the Dems proceed on the question of SS and Medicaid? If recent history is a guide, we are fucked. Those bastards will sell us out quick. They will tell us to look forward, have adult conversations, and sacrifice. They won't tell the richest 2% that, just the hard-working families of this great republic. And this is why it is so, so, so important to fight the Democrats in 2011.
Wait a minute, you say, fight the Democrats? Aren't they the good guys?
No. Or, maybe...some. But if they continue to favor the interests of the richest 2% to the detriment, and perhaps ruination of the vast majority of us, then we must fight 'em. And fight 'em hard.
But the Republicans are much worse! They obstruct and block all of our legislation, and generally fuck things up in government. Yes, they do. And, from their standpoint, that is what they are supposed to do. They are the opposition party. They are, by and large, opposed to Democratic (or progressive, or liberal) policy. THEIR JOB is to oppose this Democratic majority, and this President. To do otherwise would be a violation of the trust their voters put to them.
We can argue about their tactics, and even their ethics, but "Boner" and McConnell are fighting for those they represent. And, for the last 30 years or so, they represent Christian conservatives, big business and white men and women who fear their loss of status in a demographically changing America. Those folks and others have elected Republicans to carry out an anti-Democratic agenda. Look, these Republicans are horrible, fuck-faced fuckers, but they are doing what they are supposed to do - shilling 100% for multi-national corporations and their CEOs.
But shouldn't we fight the rich? Those evil corporations who have bought our politicians? We can, in terms of choosing where we spend our money, but otherwise...no. And anyway, corporations aren't necessarily evil. Nor are they good. They are amoral entities.
Corporations are charged with making the maximum profits possible for their shareholders. That is not only their fiduciary obligation, it is their legal duty. Corporations, and their ultra-wealthy CEOs do what they can to enrich themselves, because that's what they are supposed to do. It is the GOVERNMENT's job to check their abuses. (Which is, by the way, why it makes so much sense for them to buy our representatives.)
When big banks commit fraud, when big oil pollutes, when coal mines kill, government is supposed to step up on our behalf. Elected representative are supposed to make laws, and regulators and the justice department are supposed to enforce laws and regulations. Don't blame corporations - blame your government. Look, if the fines are less than the profits, the risks much less than the rewards, then it makes perfect sense to plunder and pollute. If there are no consequences, because you own the lawmakers, why not rape and pillage the nation?
So, government is supposed to protect us, and we want pro-middle and working class policies to be enacted by government. We want equality, opportunity and a clean environment. We need representatives who will fight for these policies. If only we had a political party that had a platform that spoke to these issues.
Oh, yeah...we do. The Democratic Party, thank god. That was sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on that.
The Democrats have sold out a good part of the way. The way Max Baucus ran health care from firmly inside the insurance companies' boxers, the way Chris Dodd had his tongue all the way down the back of Wall Street's pants, the way Obama met with Billy Tauzin to let him write an even more egregious pharmaceutical law than he did for Bush; shows that many of the Democratic leaders also represent the top 2%. They are not on our side.
What we need, for our representative democracy to work for us, is some representatives who are on our side. We need representatives who fight for policy that benefits the 98% over the 2%. These representatives are supposed to be in the Democratic party. And that's why we need to fight them. We need to fight the Democrats this year - to go full-blown tea party on them - until they realize that they are done in politics if they don't start fighting for us.
The rich look out for themselves, the Republicans look out for the rich, and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is for the Democrats to look out for the rich too. Democratic representatives who do not fight for an economy and an environment that is friendly to working families needs to be primaried hard. This absolutely includes President Obama.
Primary elections are made for changing the guard within the party. It makes zero sense to accept all of one party, and at least half of the other pulling both oars for 2% of the population. Let's take the Democrats back by primarying the shit out of them.
The Republicans did it a little bit in 2010. Let's do it massively in 2012, and let it be known in 2011, represent US, or else.
Primary NOW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)