The Grey Matter

How Will They Stop Newt?

2012-01-26T20:52:00.001-05:00

I ask, what Democrat / liberal is not enjoying this whole Newt resurgence thing?

Yes, it goes without saying that he's evil incarnate, but that truism aside, what I'm loving is picturing Newt as an experiment gone terribly wrong in a Republican science lab.

Newt is everything that has comprised a Republican over the last several years: he's brash, egomaniacal, an opportunist, a hypocrite, a liar, he infers racism, he's a fear-mongerer, he talks up "family values," etc. It's as if the GOP took cells from Atwater, DeLay, Cheney, Nixon and a bunch of other heinous party figures and combined them in a petrie dish, attempting to create an uber-Republican.

But alas, something went badly wrong and this creature called "Newt" escaped from the lab, and now he wreaks havoc on the party that created him. The conventional GOP establishment is freaking out, trying to kill the Frankenstein they created. However this monster is seemingly unstoppable, much like the super-zombies in the movie "28 Days Later," where the dead could run amazingly fast and chomped everything in sight.

In this last debate, poor Romney tried his best to fight back, but he was laughably feeble in comparison to Newt, who fended off each truthful assault Romney hoisted at him with ease. Of course, Newt used lies, deflection and an indignant tone to dazzle the crowd and come out on top, but that's exactly what an uber-Republican is designed to do.

WHAT WILL THE GOP DO?? HOW WILL THEY STOP THEIR CREATION FROM RUINING THEIR CHANCES IN NOVEMBER??

Strap in and stay tuned, this is going to get good....

Rachel Maddow Fact-checks PolitiFact

2012-01-26T20:31:00.000-05:00

Rachel Maddow administers a well-deserved take-down of the farcical web site, PolitiFact. Recall their nonsensical 2011 Lie Of The Year. Watch Maddow officially make this web site obsolete, click here.

Despicable Newt Wins S.C.

2012-01-22T14:16:00.001-05:00

I received the announcement by email around 7:30pm last night, from the NY Times:

Newt Gingrich Wins the South Carolina Primary, The A.P. Projects

Television networks and The Associated Press projected Newt Gingrich as the
winner of the South Carolina primary Saturday, just 10 days after a fifth-place
finish in New Hampshire left the impression his candidacy was all but dead.

Surprising his rivals and upending the highly unpredictable Republican race for
the presidency in its third, pivotal contest, so strong was Mr. Gingrich’s
performance that the major television networks declared him the winner the
minute the polls closed, basing their projections on exit polls that showed him
winning a plurality of voters among a wide swath of important Republican voting
blocs.

Newt declared the winner "the minute the polls closed," trouncing Romney by almost 13%. Wow, has to be considered a bad loss for Romney, esp. since I believe SC has correctly picked the last eight Republican nominees.

And note above the "his candidacy was all but dead." Sounds eerily similar to John McCain's fate four years ago, his campaign sputtering, key people left him, suddenly things begin to reverse and poof -- he becomes the nominee. Same thing to happen for Newt?

Who can predict when it comes to a party that only continues to become more kooky and nutty with each passing year. Now I'm hearing several powerful GOP figures to the far, far right of the far right in the party are hoping for a brokered convention which would allow them to install a "chosen one" to save the day (Palin? Christie? Mitch Daniels??). Again, who friggin knows.

I just love how the SC folks likely despised and continue to despise Bill Clinton and his foolish dalliance with Lewinsky, and yet with two-time cheater Newt, Mr. Family Values, fully draped in blankets of hypocrisy, that's not a problem. Apparently, the Christian thing to do is to always forgive Republicans, over and over, no matter the frequency or circumstances. But for Democrats, not a chance. Instead Republican SC voters say, "May sinners not on our political side burn in Hell forever!!" You know, as it says in the Bible....

This Republican nominee circus manages to continue to just astound those who can still think rationally.

And serving as ringmaster to this sh*t show is Newt himself, the supposed brainiac of the circus performers. I must say, during a campaign season where we've been treated to the utter repulsiveness of Newt Gingrich in all its squirmy glory, the man manages to continuously top himself.

He has called Palestinians "invented" people, and of course he must be right given Newt is a highly-respected (and well-paid) historian....

Then there was Newt's bracing suggestion that poor kids should replace janitors in our school systems (sweeping for Miss Daisy??). Even more disturbing is the amount of applause this idea receives from debate audiences. But then again, the debate audiences have proven to be more repugnant and ugly than any of the candidates, which is saying quite a bit.

And recently we heard Newt boast, “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” Both a racist and misleading statement, but that's what Newt does, goes for the emotional bell-ringer as opposed to intellect, and does so in an underhanded way. The fact is no president "puts" people on food stamps. People sign up for such assistance on their own, and unfortunately Obama inherited such an anemic, underperforming economy that people in record numbers have been forced to seek such help.

Dick Polman summarized it well:

It's easy to see why Newt was playing the race card. The primary is Saturday and he's scrambling to catch Mitt Romney. What better time to roll in the gutter, South Carolina style? "The best food stamp president" is code for saying "the black president who is signing up record numbers of lazy blacks, so that they can get more handouts on the government dime."

Yes, the best way to pander to the willfully ignorant - and thus gain ground in the GOP race - is to pepper them with lies. Newt did so, via his seral insinuations.

For starters, Obama doesn't "put" anyone on food stamps. The federal Agriculture Department's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides qualifying low-income people with vouchers to buy food, is voluntary. More people tend to sign up for the program when times are tough. Times have been tough since the Great Recession struck us with full force - before Obama even took office. And times have been tough across all racial lines; according to the 2010 Census, 74 percent of SNAP recipients are not black.

Thanks largely to the recession, the number of SNAP recipients has jumped 65 percent since 2008. But that's not the only reason. Signing up has become easier, due to eligibility rules that were loosened in 2002 and in 2008 - during the Bush administration. Indeed, the number of SNAP recipients rose in seven of the eight Bush years. The total number jumped by 63 percent during Bush's tenure. Oddly, I don't ever recall hearing Newt tag Bush as a "food stamp president."

And it's a lie to even imply that SNAP recipients are shiftless slackers; according to the 2010 census, 41 percent of recipients live in a household where somebody works. In other words, the working poor are swelling the food stamp rolls, seeking help because their low-paying jobs (at a time of severe wage stagnation) can't put enough food on the table.

The braying debate crowd naturally knew nothing about these nuances - and nobody on that stage, least of all Newt, dared try to enlighten them.

Yup, large number of hateful, ignorant folk comprise the GOP so the likes of Newt know full well what better way to curry favor with such knuckle-draggers than to hoist race-bating, inaccurate horse sh*t at them. Don't educate, instead fulminate.

And then we have the latest from Newt, and for my money the best yet. CNN interviewed his second wife, who said that Newt had asked her to consider the idea of an "open marriage" when he was caught cheating (second time for Newt). When this interview came up in the GOP debate, Newt became inflamed and said it was "despicable" to mention.

Classic Newt, turning the tables to characterize him as the victim. Just imagine if an opponent of his had this abhorrent legacy as baggage -- Newt would've made it an issue to be attacked, repeatedly. He would've said it speaks volumes about the character and decision-making process of the person, and he would have been right.

Newt commits this despicable act against his second wife, and yet he now proclaims that CNN is despicable for bringing to light what wouldn't be a concern or topic to begin with if Newt had not acted a certain way years ago.

Worse yet, the debate audience loudly applauded Newt's cries of victimhood. And he goes on to win the primary.

Only with the modern-day Republican Party can a man cheat on his wife twice, suggest an "open marriage" option to one of the cheated-on wives, become indignant with rage when his ugly past is brought to fore, calling the messenger "despicable" and to then receive wild applause for doing so.

What is clearly despicable is everything about Newt, much less the modern-day GOP.

2012-01-09T00:29:00.000-05:00

Now that Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Gingrich have all experienced their relatively brief rise and fall in what is the clownish GOP presidential race, may we please learn from the past and not spend too much time on Santorum. He too will be forgotten in short-order as he has almost no shot of becoming the Republican nominee, and even less of a shot of becoming the next president, so can we just not waste time profiling his extreme positions and outrageous statements only to see him fade in the near future. Please?

I must confess, I watched a bit of Saturday's NH debate and hearing Romney trot out the red-meat lines to please the hard-right GOP base, I continue to wonder if he's sort of winking to the rest of us more moderate Americans, assuring us that he has to say this stuff to win the nomination but that he doesn't really believe it so please don't be afraid. OR I wonder, does he actually believe these far-right positions that he now claims to believe in?? If he were to be the next president, would he actually become the second coming of GW? Obviously, it's not just me wondering about these questions, but Republicans likewise are befuddled and fear he would instead tack back to his more moderate days as governor of MA.

What's hilarious about this is the modern-day Republican Party has forced it to be this way. The party and its base are so far to the right, so extreme, that if they were to elect one of their true zealots as their nominee, even they have to know that such a person would have little chance of winning in November. So the party is left with a once more moderate figure, such as McCain and Romney, and yet to win the nomination via appeasing and placating the base, the McCains and Romneys must twist and turn, contorting themselves like a pretzel to rid themselves of their pasts and try to convince the doubters that they now think like them, that they've seen the light, that the far right agenda is a beautiful thing.

And yet the base still doesn't quite believe, offering only tepid support, and meanwhile if/when this newly-converted moderate gets to be the GOP nominee, the job becomes increasingly difficult for now this person must try to appeal to the more moderate general electorate. And yet too much has already been said by the GOP nominee, too many statements endorsing far-right positions and criticizing programs and beliefs that are popular with the majority of voters -- and it's all captured on videotape, ready-made for 30-second ads.

You can see how the GOP has more or less made it near impossible for one of their own to make a successful run at the White House. It's difficult enough to have everything break your way to come out on top when making a go of it for president, but given the obstacle course that the GOP has created in addition to all of the other obstacles that come with the territory of running, the odds of succeeding certainly plummet that much more.

Fellow Democrats and liberals could say, "Bravo!" Let their kooky dysfunction remain, thus benefiting the likes of Obama and future Dems looking to reside in the WH. However, the problem is as long as they remain extreme in their views, not waking up to the problems that stem from it as described above, enough far-right Senators and Congresspersons will likely win office to serve as strident obstructionists. As we've come to learn, a Democrat as President is much less effective with these folks playing partisan games, as opposed to when Reagan was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. I don't recall then the Dems refusing to compromise on everything Reagan tried to do....

If Romney were to beat Obama (just saying), and the GOP continued to control Congress, Romney would conceivably be able to pass many of the things Obama would like to pass but hasn't been able to due simply to partisan obstruction. Suddenly stimulus-like measures would be framed in a new way and Republicans would rally around and support them. It would have nothing to do with Romney and everything to do with party-line politics in this day and age.

So for the good of the country, I believe it's better for the GOP to finally realize the quagmire they've created for themselves and to once and for all begin to purge the far-right nutballs and wingnuts and return to the days when the party was more moderate and reasonable. I never would've thought that those days would be more like Reagan, since he was thought to be fairly extreme at that time, but in comparison to today he's just a bit right of FDR! It would ultimately increase their chances of getting a Republican back in the White House, but more so it would help to get this country on the right course to recovery. Isn't that what counts, country first?

Having said all of this I continue to be amazed at how much Obama has been able to actually accomplish despite stern resistance from the opposing party. Just take a look at the chart below, showing the progress he has made on the job front, all the while receiving no help from Republicans. Bravo indeed.

2011-12-21T06:59:00.000-05:00

Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Lincoln appeared on Entertainment Weekly's "Worst Books of 2011" list. I'm sure Bill will slam the magazine with something like "written by a bunch of commie, socialist pinheads!" His usual brainy retort.

2011-11-13T00:04:00.000-05:00

Penn State, Paterno and cover-up. As with the Catholic Church scandal, protecting the institution came before protecting the rights of individuals. In this case, it was apparently protecting a football program and a coach's legacy that became priority #1. Beyond shameful. And my understanding is we've only heard about the tip of the iceberg, with much more to be divulged and surface....

With Rick Perry paying Fox $1 million for ads, one has to wonder to what extent this is a gift to Fox. Perry's campaign is flush with cash and yet he's been plummeting in the polls and for all intensive purposes is out of the race. So why the big cash outlay? Is it to perhaps insure favorable coverage in the future (as if there was any doubt)? Is it to perhaps convince Fox to offer him a job at some point down the road, if his popularity in Texas dries up?? Very odd.

Don't look now but the whack-a-mole game that is the GOP presidential race now has Gingrich rising in the polls. Yes, it's now Newt's turn to get a closer media look, which has not fared well for Bachmann, Perry and Cain and in the past has not been a good thing for Newt. But for now, he's failing upward and winning by attrition.

Don't we get a fair amount of food from China? This bit of news ain't good.

Many are beginning to wonder if natural gas fracking is causing earthquakes.

As for the Herman Cain escapades, I wish more serious-minded political commentators would stop discussing and even following this guy's campaign as it's a waste of time. Cain has no shot of becoming the GOP contender. As Rachel Maddow has been stating, he's been running a faux or fake campaign. Heck, they've all learned from Newt Gingrich, who figured it out long ago that running for president is a terrific business move. Newt does it every four years as it helps to boost his speaking fees, it keeps him "relevant" and in the public eye, it gives him supposed credibility, it boosts book sales, it channels much traffic to his web site (where he has stuff for sale). The bottom line is he very likely makes much more in return for what he puts into his "campaign." I believe Michele Bachmann learned to do this, and Rick Santorum has been doing this, and Sarah Palin sort of did it with her fake dance maybe/maybe not going to run -- and now we have Herman Cain. But alas, many Republican voters are clueless about it, believing many of these clowns are earnestly running for president. Both hilarious and sad.

2011-11-07T07:00:00.001-05:00

I've posted this graphic in the past, but I believe it's worth updating and re-posting. Keep this chart in mind the next time someone says "Obamacare" is going to destroy our private healthcare system. If that were true, these managed care stocks would not have crushed the market since the end of last October. Bottom line is investors as a group are typically not stupid and such massive stock outperformance indicates these companies will likely do better than ever (i.e. "Obamacare" didn't go far enough).

Click on to enlarge

2011-11-03T06:34:00.000-04:00

Glenn Beck, Goldline and charges of fraud. Does this shock anyone?

2011-11-01T06:51:00.000-04:00

As you may have noticed with the frequency of my updates, I'm not a professional blogger. My other life too often gets in the way. I do collect many news items, jotted-down thoughts, etc., meant to be posted up here fairly expeditiously but unfortunately instead they become quite past due. Rather than just tossing in garbage, I hope you don't mind when I post them anyway....

One of my favorite political writers ever, Jonathan Alter, recently wrote about the possibility of Obama switching Biden for Hillary for this upcoming election. Could this actually happen? Alter writes, "I’d say the odds are long -- but it’s definitely not impossible." Then almost as if on cue, Time releases a poll showing Hillary would trounce the Republican contenders if she were running for president, by margins larger than Obama. Admittedly such a poll can be a bit dubious given Obama has been in the #1 spot for 2+ years, receiving all the shrapnel and wounds in this difficult period, and it's always appealing to think "What if she had won her way into the White House, would things have been different...?" However, as the polls tighten up between Obama and Romney, I would assume Obama would do everything necessary to secure a victory. Biden has more or less been invisible in this term, esp. compared to VPs Cheney and Gore. Meanwhile, Clinton has been very high profile and I would say has received very positive reviews from both parties. With the GOP likely to use everything at their disposal to defeat Obama, trotting out all the usual beyond-the-pale campaign methods, there will be a need for an attack dog in the race, one who can land blows and yet do so tactfully, avoiding embarrassment. Hillary can do this better than Biden, who as we know often puts foot in mouth. In addition, it would be great to get Bill Clinton more overtly involved in working his magic to get Obama another four years -- he still remains one of the most amazing and gifted political minds and strategists that I've ever seen. And I would also mention, do not discount that woulda/shoulda mentality, "if only it were a Hillary/Obama ticket to win in 2008, would things be different...." It may be folly, but there's enough people (like myself) who originally wanted Hillary to go all the way and just the thought of her becoming #2 in charge and having more explicit influence over decisions and day-to-day operations could be enough to tip the scales in what is shaping up to be a close election.

Apparently the governor of California, Jerry Brown, is shocked at just how pigheaded and untrustworthy his Republican cohorts are -- where the hell has this guy been?! In the article we learn a few things about Republicans in California that hold true for the party on a national scale (proving that Republicans are a-holes no matter where they hold office). They refuse to accept facts, they believe that a 50/50 compromise is unfair and unacceptable, and they lie and don't honor their word. And yet reasonable people are expected to work with such clowns and actually attempt to get something accomplished for the sake of the people. It defines insanity, as per Einstein: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Nearly 200 companies/special interests/lobbyists have registered to "influence" the 12-member congressional "Super Committee" which is expected to find many billions in spending cuts. So let me understand, after all the Tea Party-inspired BS we had to endure concerning the debt ceiling, this is what we get? Instead of the entire Congress getting "influenced" by lobbyists, now it will be fine-tuned to just 12, simply making the job easier for the lobbyists. Way to go Tea Party idiots! We're roundabout back to the original problem: $$$ in politics. Which is what the antithesis Tea Party -- OWS -- is highlighting, the root cause of the rot, not the symptoms.

I highly recommend reading this interview with economist Richard Koo. Many fear we're headed down the road of Japan, doomed to experience a "lost decade" of malaise and muddle-through. Koo has extensively studied the problems in Japan, becoming the go-to expert on it's "Great Recession." Along with several excellent suggestions and prescriptions, Koo concludes, "The Japanese government didn't do enough spending in the early 1990s and added another 10 years to the problem. If the U.S. avoids that mistake, maybe in a couple of years you will be out of this mess." And note, with regards to the recent impressive U.S. stock market rally, Japan has enjoyed more than a few 35+% rallies during its 20-year protracted bear market.

The John Podhoretz column in the NY Post is hilarious. It's as if one were to bake a cake, ice it with dog feces and then complain about the taste. John, your party has spent years carefully crafting a "master recipe" of what they like and dislike, ultimately producing this cast of nincomepoops. It's what the GOP deserves.

More items to come....

2011-10-18T23:40:00.004-04:00

I happened to watch the Republican debate tonight. It was like getting a broken nose reset.

The verdict was clear: Romney won easily, Perry lost badly. And forget about the rest, they're inconsequential.

RP needed to hit this one out of the park to have even a remote chance of climbing back into the race -- not going to happen. His wife can stop bitching about the way her hubby is being treated, he's toast.

Let it be said one more time that the only reason Romney has been winning these debates is because his competition is hapless and inferior. He's winning due to relative superiority.

Wait until he's up against Obama, one on one. It will be a stark contrast compared to this cast of kooks and yokels.

2011-10-18T23:40:00.002-04:00

2011-10-18T23:40:00.000-04:00

2011-10-14T06:54:00.000-04:00

I must say I sort of saw (predicted?) OWS coming....

Fortunately it has thus far remained non-violent. Let's hope it remains that way and doesn't eventually attract the "wrong" people as its sphere of influence expands.

2011-10-05T21:43:00.001-04:00

Buffett takes on Murdoch -- clash of the titans!

Surprise! Lobbyists "infiltrate" debt super committee.

The difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme.

Reagan increasingly looks better (more moderate) in relative terms than the GOP kooks of today (who would most likely cast him out as too liberal).

"Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales." Imagine if Soros did this....

As the planet warms, forests die, and as they die = less trees to absorb CO2 and pollutants, and with less trees to absorb CO2 and pollutants, planet warms even more -- repeat.

Clarence Thomas must go. If he can't figure out how to complete a form, what does that say about him ruling on some of the most complex and important issues that face this nation?

Remember when Mr. Tea Party, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), was going to shake up Washington, change how it's done down in DC....?? Yeah, right. More BS eaten up by naive supporters.

"Every day, more than 100 million cubic feet of natural gas is flared this way — enough energy to heat half a million homes for a day. The flared gas also spews at least two million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, as much as 384,000 cars or a medium-size coal-fired power plant would emit, alarming some environmentalists."

Bloomberg: continued high unemployment could lead to expanded rioting.

"Congress spent over $120 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell them it’s time to rebuild America."

How many investigations on Solyndra, four? And amounting to $500 million, it's the only failure of close to $40 billion invested in green energy, or about 1% of funds. What an outrage. Meanwhile, how many investigations were assigned to the $18 billion in cash missing in Iraq under GW's reign??

2011-10-05T20:25:00.000-04:00

I saw these two headlines as consecutive emails in my inbox:

"Sarah Palin Says She Will Not Seek the Presidency"

"Steven P. Jobs, Co-Founder of Apple, Dies"

Oh, how to describe the chasm between the two regarding importance....

2011-09-29T07:37:00.001-04:00

This Boston Globe story speaks volumes. The average percentage of uninsured working adults in this country is 22%, the average for Massachusetts is 7% and the average for Texas is 32%. For children ages 18 and under, 10% on average are uninsured in the U.S., compared to 17% for Texas and just 3.5% for Massachusetts.

So Texas has 10% more uninsured adults and 7% more uninsured kids than the national average. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has 15% fewer uninsured adults and 6.5% fewer uninsured kids than the national average. Yet Perry pats himself on the back for the healthcare in Texas while Romney can't run fast enough away from the good he did in this regard as MA's governor -- huh?

This country is insane. Up is down, black is white, etc.

From the article, "Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country - 24.6 percent - and the number of uninsured that has grown by 35 percent during Governor Rick Perry’s 11-year tenure.... And what is the price Texas pays for so many without insurance? A host of health problems, researchers have found. Overall health care quality for Texas is poorer than in every other state, especially when it comes to preventive, acute, and chronic care, as well as care for diabetes, heart, and respiratory diseases, according to the 2010 report of the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.... Texas ranks third to last in the country for the percentage of adults with a regular source of medical care, according to Commonwealth Fund data on state health system performance.... [I]n a state where 16.8 percent of children are uninsured, more than all but one other state, only half of Texas children have a medical provider who knows them and coordinates their care. More than a third of them have not received recommended medical and preventive care within the year, and immunization rates are low as well. Texas also ranks last in the country in the percent of children who receive needed mental health care.... Doctors recount horror stories of uninsured patients who die of treatable diseases because families delay seeking medical help or must endure long waits for appointments with specialists."

Some Texas miracle....

2011-09-26T20:23:00.002-04:00

Let me understand, Intel is smart enough to realize that with interest rates this low, it pays for them to float debt and use the proceeds to repurchase their stock. In other words, issue debt at an average of say 3% interest and buyback stock which will net 4+% in gains. A no-brainer for the corporate world.

Then why is it in a near-zero interest rate environment (real rates are actually negative) for the nation that we're not likewise taking advantage of cheap (free?) borrowing rates to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy, increase employment and frankly invest in our country literally via infrastructure projects? Studies show we need to invest trillions of dollars in bridge repair, etc., and these projects only get more expensive with delay. Best to take them on now while borrowing is very cheap, and it would serve to meaningfully boost employment.

It all just makes too much sense -- what's the catch? Oh right, Republicans don't want Democrats to do well next year. Party first, f*ck the country.

2011-09-14T20:02:00.000-04:00

Proof that Republicans have been more intransigent and uncompromising towards Obama than the Democrats were towards GW.

It's not even close -- which shouldn't surprise anyone.

2011-09-07T21:59:00.000-04:00

Maureen Dowd's recent column received much (deserved) attention. So many have grown so frustrated with Obama -- if he's not already, he should be sweating. As much as the GOP appears to have an exceedingly weak field, he's not invincible.

I will quibble with a line Dowd wrote: "[Obama] is now just a guy in a really bad spot."

Not true. I bolded "now" because Obama has been in a bad spot ever since he took office. As Dowd stated in the first line of her column, no thanks to GW.

The problem isn't as much that he's been in a bad spot, but rather that he hasn't followed through on promises and stated solutions to address these problems. Although Obama and his advisers often treat his supporters as if they have the IQ of a birch tree, the fact is if Obama simply did what he said he was going to do, even if he didn't solve the problem his supporters would be fully by his side today, emphatically praising him.

Unfortunately, his behavior and actions have been less than what he promised us in 2008. He was going to be different, and yet he's just the same.

2011-09-07T00:07:00.000-04:00

Perry makes GW look like the second coming of Einstein.

Yes, maybe we should've went with Hillary after all.

Robert Redford is beginning to doubt Obama when it comes to the environment.

Is Obama Bad for the Environment?

Obama's EPA catering to big industry.

Monsanto could very well be the scariest company on the planet.

Even CEOs are getting fed up with the partisan divide in Washington. I'm sure they're leaning on their Republican buddies to cut the crap, stop working against the Democrats on everything and start to give in and compromise. Yeah, and oh look, a pig just flew over my house....

2011-09-04T10:05:00.000-04:00

Worse than Bush.

I just have to wonder when it comes to many issues where Obama has raised the proverbial middle-finger to his supporters, would Hillary have been this bad? Would she too have caved so often on positions she had campaigned on/for? Or would she have shown much more spine and vigor when it came to standing firm for what she believed in and more so, what she had promised those who voted for her??

Where does it end with Obama? Just when you think he's all but morphed into Republican-lite, he does something else that makes the "-lite" questionable.

Does he believe he is that much of a lock in 2012, that many of us will have no choice but to hold our noses and vote for him (yes, the HNV (Hold Nose Vote) strategy)? Someone should tell him that many may just stay home, fed up and disgusted by his lack of follow-through on so many things.

Oh, and those of you on the right who still think Obama is a pinko socialist, at this point you're simply insulting all actual pinko socialists.

2011-09-02T07:14:00.003-04:00

At this point, it should be apparent to most non-Tea Baggers that the stimulus was not big enough given the scope of our economic problems. Krugman has been saying this forever. Meanwhile, we've been put into a fiscal straight-jacket thanks to ignorant Republicans (who as Kevin writes, argue that WWII got us out of a similar situation not too long ago).

The fact is with an election year around the corner, Republicans will not go along with anything that might have a chance of working to improve the economy. Partisanship before country is their rule.

However, it's no coincidence that riots have sprung up all over, in unrelated places like Philadelphia, London, Chile, Egypt, Libya, etc. The Tea Bag faction did hold the entire country hostage during the debt-ceiling "debate" and their shenanigans played a big part prompting the S&P downgrade. If social unrest continues to spread and escalate due to high unemployment, food price inflation, and increasing wealth disparity, to name a few reasons, one has to wonder if the GOP will stick with their staunch austerity positions.

Whereas Tea Baggers used blackmail to get what they wanted in the form of spending cuts and no taxes, if the economy remains weak or worsens, there's a good chance more outbreaks of unrest will occur due to dire frustration and anger. Will such unfortunate and threatening acts serve as reverse-blackmail, provoking action from Republicans?

Look, of course no one wishes to see violence erupt -- duh. But while we constantly hear about how 1% own 40% of the wealth or similar such stats, need I remind that 1% of the approximate 300 million people in this country amount to just 3 million. In other words, the super-wealthy are outnumbered 297 million to 3 million. I have a feeling this notion is not lost on many of the 3 million and could make them very nervous if conditions in this country, or elsewhere, truly get ugly.

Again, let's pray it doesn't happen, that it doesn't come to this and things do improve, but foolish, misguided decisions frequently have consequences.

2011-08-28T21:11:00.003-04:00

I spent a few days away with family and friends. Needless to say, many are Republicans and worse yet, Tea Baggers.

I'm sure many of you can sympathize (empathize?) with this situation, looking to spend some R&R time away, visiting loved ones, catching up with old acquaintances, and yet knowing all the while the political leanings of those you will meet and that there's always the chance of something being said -- whether it be by them or you -- where if not handled delicately could domino into a full-blown squabble. On the one hand, you simply want to meet/greet/converse and keep things light, not because you want to but rather because you have to. Been there, done that, and past occurrences have dictated that's the way it has to be (unfortunately).

On the other hand, if something is said politically, you do not want to just let things go with a nod and grin, wanting instead to respond to whatever was said. Odds are it was something about Obama, or the deficit, or the woeful economy. Whatever was said, you know it was likely something paraphrased from FOX News and is either based on fiction or incorrect assumptions, or both.

Do you dare say something that undoubtedly will be perceived as "elitist" (code word for factually correct AND liberal-leaning)? Or do you just suck-it up, not wanting to risk having a brief statement mushroom into an ugly scene?

You never know which way things will go. Republicans and esp. Tea Baggers seemingly by nature harbor much inner-anger and are quick to jump all over you if they sense they're not discussing something with like-minded-thinking folks.

I have a tendency to try and go half way, perhaps injecting some facts into the dialogue (without mentioning sources up front since too often if you say NY Times or the like, it's immediately dismissed as leftist dogma), but stopping well short of giving a fleshed-out basis for my thoughts on the matter. I must say though that at times even this brief attempt at introducing something other that what Rush or Hannity might say does ignite some sparks. I must then make a quick decision: do I look to change the subject, if not for anyone else than for the sake of the kids if an argument ensued, or do I gingerly but forcefully rebuff the stoked-up incitement? Do I want to be another wet noodle? Another spineless liberal ala Harry Reid? Or do I do what Republicans and Tea Baggers do best, meet their intimidation and anger head-on with a dose of my own??

Again, for the sake of the kids, you want to avoid what could easily become an embarrassing spectacle. But also I am frequently outnumbered by this crowd and they appear to be fully aware of this and use it to full advantage, pressing their views while knowing they have numbers in bodies and can bully thanks to children being present.

Fortunately this time around, I was able to make some brief comments unscathed, deftly side-stepping any openings or possibilities for eruptions. Whew.

A relief, yes. But still it never ceases to amaze me the things I hear uttered by someone only to later hear something else said by the same person that contradicts or conflicts with what he or she said just a short time earlier.

For example, someone mentioned an article in the latest National Geographic magazine that informs of the women in Brazil having fewer babies thanks to their educating themselves about birth control alternatives. This person felt the article was very interesting and understood that in part Brazil's success over the last several years is due to their population becoming more developed and progressive in their thinking. However, this person is very much against abortion, actually he's against all forms of birth control, and also has a personal situation involving a teen pregnancy -- will leave at that, but I don't believe it was lost on him that education and birth control could have prevented that teen pregnancy.

Conflicting logic and dare I say hypocrisy is the norm when one is with Republicans and Tea Baggers. Yet as I mentioned, it's always amazing to observe their lack of realizing or acknowledging these many conflicts, that they live their day-to-day lives with so much incongruence, denial and (willful?) blindness.

Some other examples of topics that surfaced which I either elected to briefly offer comments and keep fingers crossed heated debate didn't follow, or I just let it go without comment (have to conserve energy, can't risk entanglement at every turn):

* Weather. Irene was obviously a subject of discussion, but so also was the torrential rains this summer coupled with parts of the country experiencing consecutive days of excruciating heat (e.g. Austin had 70 straight days of 100+ degree heat). You'd think maybe climate change would receive a mention as a possible factor in all of this -- nope. Instead, the usual babble about how weather is cyclical, this admittedly strange weather is no different than times in the past, it's just Mother Nature "getting angry", etc. Please. I did state that in fact the trends are not cyclical, that the charts all show the direction of heat and CO2 heading in one direction: up. Cyclical infers an up/down pattern -- over time, it's just not there. I also asked my favorite question, "where do you think the CO2 and pollutants go, into outer space?" and as per usual, never received a response.

* Riots in Philadelphia. I heard accolades given to the mayor of Philly, saying finally that city gets a good mayor, tough on "hoodlums" and enforcing curfews. I didn't think establishing something close to martial law in a U.S. city was a good thing, and was certainly a worrisome development to say the least, not so much warranting congrats to one individual but rather demanding analysis. Why is this happening? What are the root causes and how can those be addressed? I had to remind it's not likely just a coincidence that similar riots had been occurring elsewhere in the world (London, Chile, Egypt, Libya, etc.). The non-rich and non-elite are growing increasingly weary and frustrated with the state of things, whether it be high unemployment, rising food prices, ballooning wealth disparity, entrenched corruption, to name a few. People are getting pissed. Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do, it may also help to prevent further civil unrest -- but the GOP and Tea Baggers are too short-sighted to recognize such an act as a wise "investment."

* Stock portfolios. There was much chatter about the stock market. Will it go up from here or continue to go down? Do I have too much in stocks? Should I buy gold? Any advice?? No mention about how the stock market began its descent right after the Tea Party debt ceiling victory, effectively initiating a massive austerity program which leaves the economy sputtering on its own, with the government in a fiscal straight-jacket, not able to help. The stock market decline simply reflected the fragile state of the economy but more so it being sent out alone on the high-wire with no balance pole, no net, no nothing. S&P literally stated their downgrade was due largely to the Tea Party hostage-taking maneuver, and according to Sen. Mitch McConnell it will be used repeatedly in future. Heck, even Bernanke strongly hinted that the economy could use more help than just what the Fed could offer in monetary cures. But all of this was lost on this Tea Party crowd, who simply wanted to blame Obama, period.

* Libya/Gaddafi. Much grousing about why are we there at all. Oh boy. So it's OK for GW/Cheney to invade another oil-rich country that had nothing to do with 9/11, spending over $1 trillion to do so, using "shock and awe" methods to both scare and impress the world, and heavily reward a company called Halliburton -- and yet it's not OK for Obama to spend very little regarding Libya, doing so quietly, and obviously getting good results...? Gads, I just let this one go....

You get the point. It went on and on over several days. Some retired folks who were proud government workers for many years (decades), and yet recited more than a few anti-government GOP talking points. Mind you these same people had stated they loved their Medicare (when I asked) and even enrolled their name/address/phone# on a government website to receive robo-calls about Irene. I even heard one person seemingly slip up and tell me that in his town children attending a Catholic school receive busing to that school on the town's dime, via the public school bus system. I asked how could this be, why should the local public there pay for transportation to a non-public school -- never received a coherent answer.

As much as I love vacations and seeing family and friends, this aspect of the visit never changes and serves to spoil what should be an enjoyable time. I have no problem with differences of opinions, as long as the arguments involved are based on facts, reason, logic and non-conflicting beliefs. As you can see, rarely do I encounter any of this. A shame.

2011-08-16T23:06:00.001-04:00

Michael Tomasky recently wrote a piece that exposes not only the true culprit behind our deficit (nothing surprising on this front), but also exposes the Tea Baggers as crazed hypocrites.

The Boston Globe ran a chart (see below) last Sunday that I’d buy billboard space to reproduce in every decent-size city in America, if I were running the Democratic National Committee. The premise of it was very simple: It showed how many trillions each president since Ronald Reagan has added to the nation’s debt. The debt was about $1 trillion when Reagan took office, and then: Reagan, $1.9 trillion; George H.W. Bush, $1.5 trillion (in just four years); Bill Clinton, $1.4 trillion; Obama, $2.4 trillion.

Oh, wait. I skipped someone. George W. Bush ran up $6.4 trillion. That’s nearly half—44.7 percent—of the $14.3 trillion total. We all know what did it—two massive tax cuts geared toward the rich (along with other similar measures, like slashing the capital gains and inheritance taxes), the off-the-books wars, the unfunded Medicare expansion, and so on. But the number is staggering and worth dwelling on. In a history covering 30 years, nearly half the debt was run up in eight. Even the allegedly socialist Obama at his most allegedly wanton doesn’t compare to Dubya; and Obama’s debt numbers, if he’s reelected, will surely not double or even come close as we gambol down Austerity Lane.

In percentage terms, the case is even more open and shut. This table (below) tells the sad tale. The percentages in question here are debt as a chunk of the GDP. It was more than 100 percent after World War II ended, for defensible and obvious reasons having to do with financing the war effort (the government buying all those tanks and planes from GM, and everything else). But after it went back down, it had tended to hover in the 40 to 50 percent range during good times. Well, Reagan raised it 20 points, to 53 percent from 33 percent. Bush Sr. a gaudy 13 points more. Clinton lowered it by 10 points, back down to 56 percent. Bush Jr.? Up 28 points, to 82 percent of GDP. Obama has raised it nine points. Once again: In a 30-year increase from 32 percent to 93 percent of 61 points, nearly half, 28 points or 46 percent, happened under Bush.

When I haven’t had to leave the room to avoid smashing the television, I can only laugh when I hear Tea Party conservatives avow today, with all the credibility of Larry Craig explaining his wide-stance technique, that they have no love for Bush. Nonsense. What did they have for him in real time? Were there protest marches, mass donnings of tricorn hats, nullification threats from states regarding federal legislation? Of course not. In real time, there was a little polite caviling, but in the end they voted for all this debt. After all, Bush was defending freedom.

It is truly an incredible record when you stack it up. First, the party fought tooth and nail against every single move Clinton made that ended up putting us in surplus. Then it got power—and let’s not get into how that happened—and ran up completely unprecedented debts and deficits. Then it put the foxes in command of the henhouses at the SEC and OTC and brought the world to the very brink of total economic collapse. (The economic “growth” rate in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to recently revised Commerce Department figures, was negative 8.9 percent; even during the Depression rates were typically higher.) Then a guy from the other party got back in, tried to do what the vast majority of economists would say should be done in such a situation (the government should spend money while the private sector couldn’t), and they fought him tooth and nail. And now they’ve forced him into a deal (which he should not have agreed to) that will help ensure that the economy remains stuck in neutral until, oh, November 2012, to pick a date out of the air. Next, that guy will identify tax cuts to spur job growth, and they will invent reasons to oppose these measures, just as they once invented reasons why “deficits don’t matter."

Well, there you have it, succinctly put. The exploding deficit was not a problem as long as one of their own was in the White House. But with a Democrat winning fair and square to take up residence there, all hell breaks loose, they throw a sh*t fit. And it doesn't help that this Dem is 50% not white, further driving them over the edge.

The key charts are below. In the first graphic, note that almost 50% of Obama's contribution ($2.4 trillion) is comprised of stimulus measures that 1) had to be implemented due to the Great Recession that Obama inherited and 2) which worked.

Click to magnify

2011-08-16T00:13:00.000-04:00

In his NY Times op-ed, Warren Buffett sums up today's America:

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent....The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.

This country has been reduced to one word: greed. How else to explain the utter silence on this matter? Despite the fact Buffett generously writes, "I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people....Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes," why is he the only super-wealthy person to regularly speak out about the unfairness in the tax code? Where are all the other "decent" folk of which he speaks, who seemingly hide in the shadows and avoid making such an impassioned plea to raise taxes on their brethren?

Reminder: there were many super-wealthy people on the Titanic.... Rich, poor, there's no difference at the bottom of the ocean.