by Rich Miles
Do any of you wonder what this talk is in the TV commercials about a 23% sales tax? I mean, I see this topic getting way out of hand if there isn't some clarity injected into the discussion. So let me give it a try:
First, let me say that I'm not sure if I favor this plan yet or not. There are too many uncertainties to it. I know that if it were laid out the way several countries in Europe do it, then I would be for it, wholeheartedly. But I still have infinite faith in our government to take a perfectly fine idea, and fuck it up miserably. So I'm not going to express an opinion on it until I've seen what, if anything, our lads in Washington are going to do with it. I rather expect it won't be anything like what I'm about to describe, at least in its first incarnation. Assuming there will be a first incarnation.
OK, so here's what is being bandied about, though not with a very high priority at the moment. It's called a value-added tax, or VAT, and it's common in many of the other countries of the civilized world.
But most countries who have a VAT do not apply it to everyday purchases like groceries, toiletries, soft drinks, etc. VAT is intended as a consumption tax. Great Britain has an approximately 17% VAT, in addition to income tax and assorted other taxes - but NOT sales tax. I don't know what other countries charge, though it should be easy enough to ferret them out on the Internet.
So what would be the point of America adopting a VAT, which is the 23% tax that's being talked about? Well, if the income tax remains in effect, there would be little point to it. But if the VAT were to replace the income tax, and were attached to enough commodities, it might end up being a boon to all of us - no income tax, and a refund on a portion of the VAT at the end of the year.
So far, there hasn't been enough (none is not enough) sane discussion of the tax to determine if it's feasible in America. But it's not automatically a rotten idea. There are circumstances under which a VAT could be a good idea.
But you'll never convince a repug of that. It's a tax, and there's nothing else for it but to reject it.
So that's what the tax is about. It will take a lot more talk before it can even be considered in this country.
And if you have a clearer explanation of VAT, please comment here. I'd appreciate it.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Find John Roberts a new job
by Rich Miles
Yellow Dog, over at Blue in the Bluegrass, has posted on a topic that I think should become near and dear to the hearts of all liberals: the impeachment of Supreme Court justices who do not serve the people. Go read the whole thing.
But here's what I think: This - the impeachment of one or more extremely biased Supreme Court justices - is one of the best ideas I've seen in years. In fact, I had this idea about a year or so ago, but figured it would lead to civil war, so never put it out there.
But ya know, all considered, civil war may not be such a bad thing. At least, not considering the alternative, which is the destruction of the American way of life.
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and arguably one or two others, need to be gotten rid of (this is NOT a physical threat, but an urging toward the use of law to remove them from office). The Supreme Court must always be seen as the last, FAIREST resort of American government, and now it's like the judges on the courts of some banana republic, where the rulings are pretty much decided in advance.
And the Citizens United ruling is unquestionably the WORST ruling the U.S. Supreme Court has EVER handed down. It literally hands the right to vote to wealthy corporations, to the exclusion of the rest of us.
We're seeing the effect of this now, in the 2010 election cycle. NO ONE thinks this is a good idea except the CEO's of large corporations.
And have you ever parsed out WHY corporations agree with this ruling?
It's because Citizens United allows corporations quite literally to BUY POLITICIANS. It's no longer covert - the pols are for sale, and they're just about price-marked and on the shelves waiting for the highest bidder.
And of course, after those pols are bought and placed in office, they continue to have allegiances, required allegiances, to those whut brung 'em.
Again, to the exclusion of the rest of us. So our Supreme Court is no longer ours. It belongs to the corporations, which according to the courts, are just like human beings and have every right to give as much money as they wish to any candidate they wish.
Now how can anyone view that as anything but permission to buy politicians? Give 'em as much money as you want, and then expect them NOT to do your bidding at every turn? Are we really that stupid, that we think that's NOT what's going to happen? And who gave us this ruling, but Roberts' court?
And how do we get rid of corrupt justices? And what doubt can there be that several of our justices are unquestionably corrupt?
Impeach Roberts. To start with. And then we'll see what happens next.
Yellow Dog, over at Blue in the Bluegrass, has posted on a topic that I think should become near and dear to the hearts of all liberals: the impeachment of Supreme Court justices who do not serve the people. Go read the whole thing.
But here's what I think: This - the impeachment of one or more extremely biased Supreme Court justices - is one of the best ideas I've seen in years. In fact, I had this idea about a year or so ago, but figured it would lead to civil war, so never put it out there.
But ya know, all considered, civil war may not be such a bad thing. At least, not considering the alternative, which is the destruction of the American way of life.
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and arguably one or two others, need to be gotten rid of (this is NOT a physical threat, but an urging toward the use of law to remove them from office). The Supreme Court must always be seen as the last, FAIREST resort of American government, and now it's like the judges on the courts of some banana republic, where the rulings are pretty much decided in advance.
And the Citizens United ruling is unquestionably the WORST ruling the U.S. Supreme Court has EVER handed down. It literally hands the right to vote to wealthy corporations, to the exclusion of the rest of us.
We're seeing the effect of this now, in the 2010 election cycle. NO ONE thinks this is a good idea except the CEO's of large corporations.
And have you ever parsed out WHY corporations agree with this ruling?
It's because Citizens United allows corporations quite literally to BUY POLITICIANS. It's no longer covert - the pols are for sale, and they're just about price-marked and on the shelves waiting for the highest bidder.
And of course, after those pols are bought and placed in office, they continue to have allegiances, required allegiances, to those whut brung 'em.
Again, to the exclusion of the rest of us. So our Supreme Court is no longer ours. It belongs to the corporations, which according to the courts, are just like human beings and have every right to give as much money as they wish to any candidate they wish.
Now how can anyone view that as anything but permission to buy politicians? Give 'em as much money as you want, and then expect them NOT to do your bidding at every turn? Are we really that stupid, that we think that's NOT what's going to happen? And who gave us this ruling, but Roberts' court?
And how do we get rid of corrupt justices? And what doubt can there be that several of our justices are unquestionably corrupt?
Impeach Roberts. To start with. And then we'll see what happens next.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Bush lets self off hook too easily - again!
by Rich Miles
Today, the Huffington Post reports that George W. "I never did anything wrong while in the presidency" Bush finally admits to having done something less than perfectly while he warmed the seat in the Oval Office. Can you believe it?
But he gets this one wrong too - he says that his biggest mistake while president was not privatizing Social Security!
I mean the gall of this guy! First, he really seems to believe that it was all his doing that it failed, and secondly, he seems to think it would have been a GOOD thing if he'd succeeded
Read the whole thing here.
You know, a pattern is beginning to emerge in American history - I'm being hyperbolic, it's already emerged. The pattern is, every time since Reagan inclusive that a Republican president has been in office, the American treasury has taken a major hit, and the Democrats have gotten blamed for it.
I mean, Reagan's tax cuts, and other monetary chicanery, and Bush's additional tax cuts, PLUS the establishment of the Homeland Security department, and the consolidation of all those cabinet departments under its aegis, and other spending and deficit accumulation over 8 years - I mean, people, it's not just cant to say that there was a SURPLUS in the federal budget before Bush hit Washington - there really was a SURPLUS!!! MORE money than we needed to pay the nation's bills! You know...a SURPLUS!
And now, after 8 years of Bush and less than 2 years of Obama, there is a MASSIVE and I mean massive deficit - and it all gets blamed on Obama???
I mean, how stupid can Americans be? Do we really think that just SAYING that Obama is responsible for the deficits of the past 10 years makes it so?
(I mean yeah, Obama and his people have made some decisions that have added to the deficit, but c'mon!!! Let's look at the figures - Obama's additions have been a small percentage of what Bush put there with his people, his Congress, and his executive orders, and so on.)
I'm beginning to despair of Americans' intelligence - do we really have so little ability to remember history, to observe facts, to really figger it out, that we're going to hand over Congress to the very people who put us in this mess, in the hope that they'll pull us out of it this time? Are we really that stupid? That we're going to expect a segment of the population to behave totally against type? That we will expect liars to tell the truth this time?
Will we do this at our own peril? And will we suffer the consequences - among them the loss of Social Security payments as Republicans take the SocSec surplus and apply it to the general fund deficits?
Think it over, people. It's not only the future of our country, and our children. It's our own future too. Believing Republicans is hazardous to our and our country's health.
If the pundits are to be believed, we are. And it just makes me sick in my guts to see it happening.
I mean, I keep praying for what looks like a miracle. And you know how useful that can be.
Today, the Huffington Post reports that George W. "I never did anything wrong while in the presidency" Bush finally admits to having done something less than perfectly while he warmed the seat in the Oval Office. Can you believe it?
But he gets this one wrong too - he says that his biggest mistake while president was not privatizing Social Security!
I mean the gall of this guy! First, he really seems to believe that it was all his doing that it failed, and secondly, he seems to think it would have been a GOOD thing if he'd succeeded
Read the whole thing here.
You know, a pattern is beginning to emerge in American history - I'm being hyperbolic, it's already emerged. The pattern is, every time since Reagan inclusive that a Republican president has been in office, the American treasury has taken a major hit, and the Democrats have gotten blamed for it.
I mean, Reagan's tax cuts, and other monetary chicanery, and Bush's additional tax cuts, PLUS the establishment of the Homeland Security department, and the consolidation of all those cabinet departments under its aegis, and other spending and deficit accumulation over 8 years - I mean, people, it's not just cant to say that there was a SURPLUS in the federal budget before Bush hit Washington - there really was a SURPLUS!!! MORE money than we needed to pay the nation's bills! You know...a SURPLUS!
And now, after 8 years of Bush and less than 2 years of Obama, there is a MASSIVE and I mean massive deficit - and it all gets blamed on Obama???
I mean, how stupid can Americans be? Do we really think that just SAYING that Obama is responsible for the deficits of the past 10 years makes it so?
(I mean yeah, Obama and his people have made some decisions that have added to the deficit, but c'mon!!! Let's look at the figures - Obama's additions have been a small percentage of what Bush put there with his people, his Congress, and his executive orders, and so on.)
I'm beginning to despair of Americans' intelligence - do we really have so little ability to remember history, to observe facts, to really figger it out, that we're going to hand over Congress to the very people who put us in this mess, in the hope that they'll pull us out of it this time? Are we really that stupid? That we're going to expect a segment of the population to behave totally against type? That we will expect liars to tell the truth this time?
Will we do this at our own peril? And will we suffer the consequences - among them the loss of Social Security payments as Republicans take the SocSec surplus and apply it to the general fund deficits?
Think it over, people. It's not only the future of our country, and our children. It's our own future too. Believing Republicans is hazardous to our and our country's health.
If the pundits are to be believed, we are. And it just makes me sick in my guts to see it happening.
I mean, I keep praying for what looks like a miracle. And you know how useful that can be.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
What's wrong with him?
OK, I'm stumped: What's the problem with David Brooks?
I mean, the guy spent 8 years being the biggest kind of Bush-lovin' asshole, and completely alienated me, among many others.
And now, at least to a certain degree, Brooks has lately been a perfect, or near-perfect, gentleman!
Today's column (10/5/10) is a positive paean to - of all people on the opposite side of the aisle - Rahm Emanuel! Brooks spends pretty much the entire column talking about how misunderstood and mischaracterized poor Rahm is, and how he's a much nicer guy than everyone thinks he is.
Read the whole thing here.
Now, I have no way of knowing if Rahm Emanuel is a nice guy or not - I've only met him once, and that was at an all-Democrat function where he would be inclined to be on his best behavior. In that instance, he was indeed a gentleman, though one could sense the pent-up power of the man. But of course, pent-up power can move in two directions, so even that doesn't really say anything definitive.
Anyway, I'm out of things to say here. I'd love to have your opinions on Brooks' column, and any further perceptions you may have about Emanuel or about Brooks' recent tone. Thanks!
I mean, the guy spent 8 years being the biggest kind of Bush-lovin' asshole, and completely alienated me, among many others.
And now, at least to a certain degree, Brooks has lately been a perfect, or near-perfect, gentleman!
Today's column (10/5/10) is a positive paean to - of all people on the opposite side of the aisle - Rahm Emanuel! Brooks spends pretty much the entire column talking about how misunderstood and mischaracterized poor Rahm is, and how he's a much nicer guy than everyone thinks he is.
Read the whole thing here.
Now, I have no way of knowing if Rahm Emanuel is a nice guy or not - I've only met him once, and that was at an all-Democrat function where he would be inclined to be on his best behavior. In that instance, he was indeed a gentleman, though one could sense the pent-up power of the man. But of course, pent-up power can move in two directions, so even that doesn't really say anything definitive.
Anyway, I'm out of things to say here. I'd love to have your opinions on Brooks' column, and any further perceptions you may have about Emanuel or about Brooks' recent tone. Thanks!
Friday, October 01, 2010
Too many truths, too many lies
by Rich Miles
Dear Republicans:
I don't know why I bother with these open letters to Repugs. As a group, you've all made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to anyone except those who say exactly what you want to hear. But I keep thinking if I continue to try to get some truth down to you, eventually a few of you will wake up to something resembling reality. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. So far, I'm fairly certain I'm wrong.
Anyway, today's sermon is on the topic of Social Security. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I am a recipient of SocSec benefits. But this only serves to make me more careful to get my facts straight when discussing the matter.
Let me start by pointing out that almost everything Republicans have said on this topic has been either wrong or a deliberate lie. Democrats have made a few errors on the matter, but I don't think I've so far seen any direct lies from a Dem.
Anyway, I'd like to ask you all, of either persuasion, to take note of a very salient fact in the discussion: in the portion relating to how long SocSec can survive, the numbers keep getting bigger. For instance, as recently as about 18 months ago, it was being said that benefits could be paid for 25 years, after which 75% of promised benefits could be paid almost into perpetuity.
Now, the estimate is that all promised bennies can be paid through 2039 (29 years out), and that 80% will be paid for almost-ever.
The numbers are getting bigger, see?
Predictions of SocSec insolvency have been made for decades. There was an article in Esquire magazine back when I was still in high school, prior ro 1971, that said the insolvency would ALREADY be here, by 1996 if I remember correctly.
But it's still solvent, and the actuarial estimates for how much longer it will survive are another 29 years out.
I begin to believe that the entire purpose of the Republican party and all its members is to KILL SocSec. Nothing else, just that. They certainly haven't DONE anything else to dispel that belief.
BUT - there is one bit of misinformation that is making the Democratic rounds that I'd like to put a stop to:
Some people seem to think that the way to absolutely ensure solvency is to increase the maximum income level up to which payroll assessments for the system are made, or eliminate any maximum and just keep taking out deductions up to infinity. It's currently at $106,800, which means that if you make more than that, your employer will stop deducting SocSec from your gross pay.
But the suggestion has been made, repeatedly, that deductions should continue to be made no matter how much one makes. That would increase contributions to the fund by a lot, and add to solvency. Well, that's not entirely true, but here's why such a plan would not be fair: because of the maximum amount on which benefits are calculated. That amount is, you guessed it, $106,800. If you make more than that, your benefit when you retire will not increase as a result. So, it's not really fair to ask high income makers to pay more for something that will not benefit them more.
Or so the theory goes. It's up to you whether you agree that it's unfair to continue to take deductions for something that doesn't produce a benefit. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm tending toward the old leftie position of "Shut the fuck up and pay the money", but I'm not sure yet.
Got an opinion on this?
Dear Republicans:
I don't know why I bother with these open letters to Repugs. As a group, you've all made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to anyone except those who say exactly what you want to hear. But I keep thinking if I continue to try to get some truth down to you, eventually a few of you will wake up to something resembling reality. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. So far, I'm fairly certain I'm wrong.
Anyway, today's sermon is on the topic of Social Security. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I am a recipient of SocSec benefits. But this only serves to make me more careful to get my facts straight when discussing the matter.
Let me start by pointing out that almost everything Republicans have said on this topic has been either wrong or a deliberate lie. Democrats have made a few errors on the matter, but I don't think I've so far seen any direct lies from a Dem.
Anyway, I'd like to ask you all, of either persuasion, to take note of a very salient fact in the discussion: in the portion relating to how long SocSec can survive, the numbers keep getting bigger. For instance, as recently as about 18 months ago, it was being said that benefits could be paid for 25 years, after which 75% of promised benefits could be paid almost into perpetuity.
Now, the estimate is that all promised bennies can be paid through 2039 (29 years out), and that 80% will be paid for almost-ever.
The numbers are getting bigger, see?
Predictions of SocSec insolvency have been made for decades. There was an article in Esquire magazine back when I was still in high school, prior ro 1971, that said the insolvency would ALREADY be here, by 1996 if I remember correctly.
But it's still solvent, and the actuarial estimates for how much longer it will survive are another 29 years out.
I begin to believe that the entire purpose of the Republican party and all its members is to KILL SocSec. Nothing else, just that. They certainly haven't DONE anything else to dispel that belief.
BUT - there is one bit of misinformation that is making the Democratic rounds that I'd like to put a stop to:
Some people seem to think that the way to absolutely ensure solvency is to increase the maximum income level up to which payroll assessments for the system are made, or eliminate any maximum and just keep taking out deductions up to infinity. It's currently at $106,800, which means that if you make more than that, your employer will stop deducting SocSec from your gross pay.
But the suggestion has been made, repeatedly, that deductions should continue to be made no matter how much one makes. That would increase contributions to the fund by a lot, and add to solvency. Well, that's not entirely true, but here's why such a plan would not be fair: because of the maximum amount on which benefits are calculated. That amount is, you guessed it, $106,800. If you make more than that, your benefit when you retire will not increase as a result. So, it's not really fair to ask high income makers to pay more for something that will not benefit them more.
Or so the theory goes. It's up to you whether you agree that it's unfair to continue to take deductions for something that doesn't produce a benefit. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm tending toward the old leftie position of "Shut the fuck up and pay the money", but I'm not sure yet.
Got an opinion on this?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Held Hostage
by Rich Miles
You know, there are lots of people who write blogs and columns who are trying very hard to make noise and get noticed. So when a guy with a national forum just plugs along, telling major truths without shouting about it, it's kinda refreshing.
So it is with Paul Krugman. I know I've spent a lot of time and column inches praising him lately, but he really does seem to be one of the few national voices telling us the unpleasant truths. He's a leftie, that much seems undeniable, and that's probably one of the reasons I like him so much. But he's also revealing some of the deep-level machinations going on in Washington, and we need such revelations.
Like, for instance, that the Republicans in Congress are seeking to blackmail the entire country if they don't get what they want: consider this excerpt from Krugman's column of this date (9/23/10):
“Nice middle class you got here,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. “It would be a shame if something happened to it.”
O.K., he didn’t actually say that. But he might as well have, because that’s what the current confrontation over taxes amounts to. Mr. McConnell, who was self-righteously denouncing the budget deficit just the other day, now wants to blow that deficit up with big tax cuts for the rich. But he doesn’t have the votes. So he’s trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy.
You got that? He's willing to raise taxes on the middle class and poor in America, and if he doesn't get the permanent tax cuts he wants for the TOP 2% of wage-earners, he will hold the remaining 98% of us HOSTAGE by raising our taxes.
Now seriously - what kind of total scumbag would do something like that? Who, other than a repug moron, like oh I don't know, Mitch McConnell, thinks that the richest 2% of our population deserves more consideration that that poorest 98%?
And to go back to the top of the page, my point about Paul Krugman is that he's just quietly revealing this sort of information, very quietly, without fanfare or acrimony. Or name-calling or hatred or childish behavior. He just tells it like it is. Which is pretty damn rare these days.
But back to the point: Mitch McConnell and his party-mates are willing to fuck you in order to score partisan points. They'll harm you, raise your taxes, AND leave the taxes of the wealthy UNraised.
I mean, did all these jerks fail basic arithmetic? Do they not understand that wealthy people have more money than the rest of us? I mean, as surprising as it may seem, I don't, and most liberals don't, want rich people to be taxed punitively. We don't want them taxed so much that they cease to be wealthy.
We just want them to pay their fair share. Like about, oh I don't know, Clinton-era tax levels. No one went bankrupt at those tax rates, and we ended up with a budget surplus (yes, that's right, a SURPLUS) for about a minute and a half, till the repugs lied their way into office in 2000.
Doesn't anyone remember George Bush claiming in the campaign debates, more than once, that his tax cuts would benefit all Americans, and Al Gore replying that the actuarial analysis showed that Bush's proposal for tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the top 1-2% of taxpayers, and Bush lying his ass off, even ridiculing Gore by saying that it wasn't true.
But it was. True, I mean. And a few months after the election, when the big-time pundits discovered it was true, they acted soooooooo surpriiiiised! One of the network guys, I wish I could remember which one, even said that there was "no way we could have predicted such an outcome." I remember this much - when I saw the guy say that, I wanted to wring his effin' geeky little neck.
And it remains true. And the entire repug side of the entire U.S. Congress, both houses, are willing to lie through their teeth right to our faces.
And these same repugs want us to give them CONTROL of both houses in November, so they can do stuff to aid the wealthy and big business even more. And by extension, whether intended or not, to screw the rest of us. And I'm pretty sure it's intended.
Man, talk about yer class warfare!
Democrats, stand up and knee these guys in the nuts! Please!
And repug voters, come ON!!! Look at what's going on around you! They're screwing you too, you know. It doesn't take much research to see it.
It's not partisan politics. It's the future of our country. Believe it!
You know, there are lots of people who write blogs and columns who are trying very hard to make noise and get noticed. So when a guy with a national forum just plugs along, telling major truths without shouting about it, it's kinda refreshing.
So it is with Paul Krugman. I know I've spent a lot of time and column inches praising him lately, but he really does seem to be one of the few national voices telling us the unpleasant truths. He's a leftie, that much seems undeniable, and that's probably one of the reasons I like him so much. But he's also revealing some of the deep-level machinations going on in Washington, and we need such revelations.
Like, for instance, that the Republicans in Congress are seeking to blackmail the entire country if they don't get what they want: consider this excerpt from Krugman's column of this date (9/23/10):
“Nice middle class you got here,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. “It would be a shame if something happened to it.”
O.K., he didn’t actually say that. But he might as well have, because that’s what the current confrontation over taxes amounts to. Mr. McConnell, who was self-righteously denouncing the budget deficit just the other day, now wants to blow that deficit up with big tax cuts for the rich. But he doesn’t have the votes. So he’s trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy.
You got that? He's willing to raise taxes on the middle class and poor in America, and if he doesn't get the permanent tax cuts he wants for the TOP 2% of wage-earners, he will hold the remaining 98% of us HOSTAGE by raising our taxes.
Now seriously - what kind of total scumbag would do something like that? Who, other than a repug moron, like oh I don't know, Mitch McConnell, thinks that the richest 2% of our population deserves more consideration that that poorest 98%?
And to go back to the top of the page, my point about Paul Krugman is that he's just quietly revealing this sort of information, very quietly, without fanfare or acrimony. Or name-calling or hatred or childish behavior. He just tells it like it is. Which is pretty damn rare these days.
But back to the point: Mitch McConnell and his party-mates are willing to fuck you in order to score partisan points. They'll harm you, raise your taxes, AND leave the taxes of the wealthy UNraised.
I mean, did all these jerks fail basic arithmetic? Do they not understand that wealthy people have more money than the rest of us? I mean, as surprising as it may seem, I don't, and most liberals don't, want rich people to be taxed punitively. We don't want them taxed so much that they cease to be wealthy.
We just want them to pay their fair share. Like about, oh I don't know, Clinton-era tax levels. No one went bankrupt at those tax rates, and we ended up with a budget surplus (yes, that's right, a SURPLUS) for about a minute and a half, till the repugs lied their way into office in 2000.
Doesn't anyone remember George Bush claiming in the campaign debates, more than once, that his tax cuts would benefit all Americans, and Al Gore replying that the actuarial analysis showed that Bush's proposal for tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the top 1-2% of taxpayers, and Bush lying his ass off, even ridiculing Gore by saying that it wasn't true.
But it was. True, I mean. And a few months after the election, when the big-time pundits discovered it was true, they acted soooooooo surpriiiiised! One of the network guys, I wish I could remember which one, even said that there was "no way we could have predicted such an outcome." I remember this much - when I saw the guy say that, I wanted to wring his effin' geeky little neck.
And it remains true. And the entire repug side of the entire U.S. Congress, both houses, are willing to lie through their teeth right to our faces.
And these same repugs want us to give them CONTROL of both houses in November, so they can do stuff to aid the wealthy and big business even more. And by extension, whether intended or not, to screw the rest of us. And I'm pretty sure it's intended.
Man, talk about yer class warfare!
Democrats, stand up and knee these guys in the nuts! Please!
And repug voters, come ON!!! Look at what's going on around you! They're screwing you too, you know. It doesn't take much research to see it.
It's not partisan politics. It's the future of our country. Believe it!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Krugman Scores Again
by Rich Miles
Here's the paragraph of the week, from Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Princeton University. I tried to reduce it to one sentence, but I couldn't do it. So, for your reading enjoyment:
It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.
I mean, ain't that great??? This from a column entitled "Appeasing the Bond Gods", in which Dr. Krugman shows us how Republican operatives are treating the bulk of the American people like human sacrifices whose only function is to appease the gods.
I've probably said this before, but I think based on Krugman's column today and on current circumstances in our country, it bears saying again: What do the repugs plan to do for servants and peons, once they wipe all of us poor and middle-class people out? When I first posed the question, I intended it to be more or less humorous, but as time passes it seems a more and more serious concern for the poor Repugnicans. If all of us Democrats and other lefties are reduced to struggling skeletons fighting each other for scraps of food, or worse if we start dying of starvation, which is the logical extreme of Republican policy, then what will the fat cats do for valets, butlers, cooks, etc.? Surely they won't have to polish their own shoes, prepare their own meals, wipe their own asses, etc., etc., etc?
OK, so it's a long time till that happens - but the process has to start somewhere. And driving the bulk of the middle and lower classes to abject poverty is, as far as I can see, a good first step toward it. And they (the repugs) have been embarked on this mass murder for at least 40 years, since Nixon was president.
Add to this direct effort at impoverishing us, there are wars to kill off our young men, ignoring global warming, and for all I really know a concerted effort to purchase land away from the coasts, so when global warming kicks in, and the ice caps melt, and the coasts close in on us, they'll have some place to go, and we won't.
There is lots more, but I'll leave that to your imagination. I also realize how paranoid this whole article is. I at least acknowledge that there is no organized plot to achieve this - at least, not yet.
But if the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor continues to widen, as it has done for the past 25-40 years, none of this - NONE of it, mind you - is impossible. No matter how unlikely it may seem, it's not impossible.
Read your science fiction. Note how much of what USED to be science fiction is now fact. And consider how much more could become so. Try reading "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood, to see how people can become second, third or lower-class citizens in the service of the wealthy. In Atwood's tale, rented or hired wombs. In The Terminator, men vs. machines, machines created by wealthy men who wanted control of Earth. And of course, Harlan Ellison's I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, among many others he wrote that spoke to the same topic.
Men like Paul Krugman are, whether they know it or not, fighting against these sorts of things. Unfortunately, before most of us will join the battle, we will require proof that amounts to nearly losing the battle. That's called complacency.
In the paragraph of the week above, substitute "the poor and lower classes" for "the unemployed", and it works much better for the right-wing extremists. Or maybe even "the unwashed lower classes". Or worse.
Here's the paragraph of the week, from Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Princeton University. I tried to reduce it to one sentence, but I couldn't do it. So, for your reading enjoyment:
It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.
I mean, ain't that great??? This from a column entitled "Appeasing the Bond Gods", in which Dr. Krugman shows us how Republican operatives are treating the bulk of the American people like human sacrifices whose only function is to appease the gods.
I've probably said this before, but I think based on Krugman's column today and on current circumstances in our country, it bears saying again: What do the repugs plan to do for servants and peons, once they wipe all of us poor and middle-class people out? When I first posed the question, I intended it to be more or less humorous, but as time passes it seems a more and more serious concern for the poor Repugnicans. If all of us Democrats and other lefties are reduced to struggling skeletons fighting each other for scraps of food, or worse if we start dying of starvation, which is the logical extreme of Republican policy, then what will the fat cats do for valets, butlers, cooks, etc.? Surely they won't have to polish their own shoes, prepare their own meals, wipe their own asses, etc., etc., etc?
OK, so it's a long time till that happens - but the process has to start somewhere. And driving the bulk of the middle and lower classes to abject poverty is, as far as I can see, a good first step toward it. And they (the repugs) have been embarked on this mass murder for at least 40 years, since Nixon was president.
Add to this direct effort at impoverishing us, there are wars to kill off our young men, ignoring global warming, and for all I really know a concerted effort to purchase land away from the coasts, so when global warming kicks in, and the ice caps melt, and the coasts close in on us, they'll have some place to go, and we won't.
There is lots more, but I'll leave that to your imagination. I also realize how paranoid this whole article is. I at least acknowledge that there is no organized plot to achieve this - at least, not yet.
But if the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor continues to widen, as it has done for the past 25-40 years, none of this - NONE of it, mind you - is impossible. No matter how unlikely it may seem, it's not impossible.
Read your science fiction. Note how much of what USED to be science fiction is now fact. And consider how much more could become so. Try reading "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood, to see how people can become second, third or lower-class citizens in the service of the wealthy. In Atwood's tale, rented or hired wombs. In The Terminator, men vs. machines, machines created by wealthy men who wanted control of Earth. And of course, Harlan Ellison's I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, among many others he wrote that spoke to the same topic.
Men like Paul Krugman are, whether they know it or not, fighting against these sorts of things. Unfortunately, before most of us will join the battle, we will require proof that amounts to nearly losing the battle. That's called complacency.
In the paragraph of the week above, substitute "the poor and lower classes" for "the unemployed", and it works much better for the right-wing extremists. Or maybe even "the unwashed lower classes". Or worse.
Friday, August 13, 2010
This one is positively criminal!
by Rich Miles
Well, we've all watched Rand Paul stumble, slash, lie and apologize his way through this campaign, and I don't know about you, but it makes me tired just to watch him. I want the campaign to be over so I don't have to wake up almost daily to his latest faux pas or lie or idiocy or whatever.
But this one - the moronic remark du jour - is just too much. He's crossed over the line from stupidity to genuinely aiding and abetting criminal behavior. My friend Bob over at Blue Bluegrass has detailed for us today (8/13) how stupid Rand has declared that the drug problem in eastern Kentucky is not a pressing issue.
I mean, what kind of total moron would say such a thing? Surely no one who has ever been to Eastern Kentucky for longer than 5 minutes. Surely no one who has any friends or relatives in that part of the state (or indeed, anywhere in the state). Surely no one who has ever read a state-based newspaper with a bureau in the eastern half of the state.
Surely no one with an effing BRAIN IN HIS HEAD.
I mean, fer cryin' out loud, there were 114 overdose deaths in the 21-county area in the first - wait for it - TWO MONTHS of this year!! And Bubblehead Paul thinks that Kentuckians won't miss the Operation UNITE anti-drug task force because most of us haven't even heard of it. And most of the voters in the region will vote for him because he and they are socially and fiscally conservative.
While the high-powered rifle fire is passing through their homes....
I'm serious - this remark from Rand Paul is no less than aiding and abetting criminal enterprise. In order to take a tiny little bit of pressure off the federal budget, we should let an extremely vicious and ruthless criminal element just ply their trade unimpeded. It's hard to interpret this any other way. Except perhaps that Rand doesn't think the loss of an average 57 Kentuckians a month, nearly 2 a DAY, to overdoses is any big deal.
Does this anger you? Does it anger you even a bit worse that the man who said all this now wants your vote in getting him elected to the Federal legislature, where he can actually vote on such actions and perhaps help them get passed?
Is he going to apologize for this one too? And if so, Republicans, are you going to let the apology count?
Or is it time yet to kick this clown to the curb? Hasn't anyone else gotten as sick of this little dweeb as I have?
I simply don't know where else to go with this. I can't imagine an adult saying something like this. But then, we're not really sure Rand Paul is an adult.
Whup his ass, Jack. PLEASE!!!!!
Well, we've all watched Rand Paul stumble, slash, lie and apologize his way through this campaign, and I don't know about you, but it makes me tired just to watch him. I want the campaign to be over so I don't have to wake up almost daily to his latest faux pas or lie or idiocy or whatever.
But this one - the moronic remark du jour - is just too much. He's crossed over the line from stupidity to genuinely aiding and abetting criminal behavior. My friend Bob over at Blue Bluegrass has detailed for us today (8/13) how stupid Rand has declared that the drug problem in eastern Kentucky is not a pressing issue.
I mean, what kind of total moron would say such a thing? Surely no one who has ever been to Eastern Kentucky for longer than 5 minutes. Surely no one who has any friends or relatives in that part of the state (or indeed, anywhere in the state). Surely no one who has ever read a state-based newspaper with a bureau in the eastern half of the state.
Surely no one with an effing BRAIN IN HIS HEAD.
I mean, fer cryin' out loud, there were 114 overdose deaths in the 21-county area in the first - wait for it - TWO MONTHS of this year!! And Bubblehead Paul thinks that Kentuckians won't miss the Operation UNITE anti-drug task force because most of us haven't even heard of it. And most of the voters in the region will vote for him because he and they are socially and fiscally conservative.
While the high-powered rifle fire is passing through their homes....
I'm serious - this remark from Rand Paul is no less than aiding and abetting criminal enterprise. In order to take a tiny little bit of pressure off the federal budget, we should let an extremely vicious and ruthless criminal element just ply their trade unimpeded. It's hard to interpret this any other way. Except perhaps that Rand doesn't think the loss of an average 57 Kentuckians a month, nearly 2 a DAY, to overdoses is any big deal.
Does this anger you? Does it anger you even a bit worse that the man who said all this now wants your vote in getting him elected to the Federal legislature, where he can actually vote on such actions and perhaps help them get passed?
Is he going to apologize for this one too? And if so, Republicans, are you going to let the apology count?
Or is it time yet to kick this clown to the curb? Hasn't anyone else gotten as sick of this little dweeb as I have?
I simply don't know where else to go with this. I can't imagine an adult saying something like this. But then, we're not really sure Rand Paul is an adult.
Whup his ass, Jack. PLEASE!!!!!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Hey, Babes, Let's Network!!
I've always envisioned all the bloggers across the country as a force of almost unimaginably massive proportions to be reckoned with - thousands or ever hundreds of thousands of individual writers with their own personal outlets, who can if they want reach almost every human being with a computer all across the country and even around the world. That is, to me, what blogging is all about, or should be.
So now I'm asking you to help me fulfill that dream by reposting the following information. You see, the Republicans have been trying to defeat Social Security ever since it was first created in 1935 - in fact, some of them have made it their life's work to try to do so. But obviously so far, they have failed.
But they're still trying to this day - and for reasons that so far escape me, some of the high-level pundits whose work I usually admire seem to believe that somehow, this time, they may actually have a chance to pull it off.
So spread the word, far and near, spread it loud and permit no bullshit to get in your way: Social Security is NOT going away, and any politician who votes for it to be repealed does so at peril of his career.
PLEASE REPRINT THE FOLLOWING - AND ASK ALL YOUR BLOGGER FRIENDS TO DO SO AS WELL. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CONCISE AND CLEAR DELINEATIONS OF THE SITUATION I'VE SEEN ANYWHERE, AND I ASK YOU TO HELP ME GET THE WORD OUT TO EVERY AMERICAN, WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A COMPUTER.
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS. BUT I SURE DO WANT IT SPREAD. PLEASE HELP!!!! And you can cut&paste the links at the bottom of the page if you want further information.
I'd love to see this on every blog in America. Except of course the right-wing ones. That's never gonna happen!
=====================================================
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.
Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?
Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?
Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=1 If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.
Top 5 Social Security Myths
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team
Sources:
1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=4
2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=5
3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=6
4. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=7
5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=8
6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=9
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Richard Hauenstein on July 29, 2010. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.
So now I'm asking you to help me fulfill that dream by reposting the following information. You see, the Republicans have been trying to defeat Social Security ever since it was first created in 1935 - in fact, some of them have made it their life's work to try to do so. But obviously so far, they have failed.
But they're still trying to this day - and for reasons that so far escape me, some of the high-level pundits whose work I usually admire seem to believe that somehow, this time, they may actually have a chance to pull it off.
So spread the word, far and near, spread it loud and permit no bullshit to get in your way: Social Security is NOT going away, and any politician who votes for it to be repealed does so at peril of his career.
PLEASE REPRINT THE FOLLOWING - AND ASK ALL YOUR BLOGGER FRIENDS TO DO SO AS WELL. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CONCISE AND CLEAR DELINEATIONS OF THE SITUATION I'VE SEEN ANYWHERE, AND I ASK YOU TO HELP ME GET THE WORD OUT TO EVERY AMERICAN, WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A COMPUTER.
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS. BUT I SURE DO WANT IT SPREAD. PLEASE HELP!!!! And you can cut&paste the links at the bottom of the page if you want further information.
I'd love to see this on every blog in America. Except of course the right-wing ones. That's never gonna happen!
=====================================================
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.
Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?
Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.
So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?
Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=1 If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.
Top 5 Social Security Myths
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team
Sources:
1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=4
2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=5
3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=6
4. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=7
5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=8
6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=9
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Richard Hauenstein on July 29, 2010. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Paul Krugman copies me
by Rich Miles
A most remarkable thing happened this morning. I mean really remarkable. I've often had major thoughts about stuff before anyone in the MSM does (I predicted the major gum-up in the intelligence community, and its concomitant huge expense, years ago, for instance), but rarely if ever has there been any proof of this. If I let the thought go by without expressing it, I was screwed - no one knew I'd had this profound thought.
But today, Paul Krugman wrote on the same topic (mostly) that I did yesterday: The attempted rehabilitation of George W. Bush, all the while using that rehab to make Barack Obama into the Great Satan.
Dr. Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, is impressing me more and more, though he's been a brilliant man for a long time now. He recognizes the little stuff inside the big stuff, and tells us about it, all the while informing it with the big picture.
But today's Krugman column tells secrets that the repugs don't want you to know - that they're not only not working with the president to make America better, they're actually working against him, and seeking to bring back the Bush administration, the one that almost broke America completely.
I mean, what the hell is it with these people, and what was it about Bush that made them so keen to get him, or at least his ideologies, back in place in America? I've said before that Reagan was never a charismatic figure, and if Reagan wasn't, then Bush damn sure wasn't. So it isn't that he was such a towering public figure.
Are we as a nation and a people so venal, so self-absorbed, so lacking in perspective that we'll vote for a politician who will destroy the rest of the country, as long as he promises to lower taxes? Is that all that matters to us any more, lower taxes?
Read Dr. Krugman today. See if his premise doesn't scare hell out of you. I think it just might. Karl Rove is speaking publicly again. That alone should make you wee yourself.
And I'm quite sure that there are interests in this country - self-interests, mostly - who would love to see another Bush era. Because it would benefit them. Never mind the deep damage it would do the country. We have become a nation of selfish bastards, and there are those - quite a few of them actually - who are trying to make sure we stay that way.
A most remarkable thing happened this morning. I mean really remarkable. I've often had major thoughts about stuff before anyone in the MSM does (I predicted the major gum-up in the intelligence community, and its concomitant huge expense, years ago, for instance), but rarely if ever has there been any proof of this. If I let the thought go by without expressing it, I was screwed - no one knew I'd had this profound thought.
But today, Paul Krugman wrote on the same topic (mostly) that I did yesterday: The attempted rehabilitation of George W. Bush, all the while using that rehab to make Barack Obama into the Great Satan.
Dr. Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, is impressing me more and more, though he's been a brilliant man for a long time now. He recognizes the little stuff inside the big stuff, and tells us about it, all the while informing it with the big picture.
But today's Krugman column tells secrets that the repugs don't want you to know - that they're not only not working with the president to make America better, they're actually working against him, and seeking to bring back the Bush administration, the one that almost broke America completely.
I mean, what the hell is it with these people, and what was it about Bush that made them so keen to get him, or at least his ideologies, back in place in America? I've said before that Reagan was never a charismatic figure, and if Reagan wasn't, then Bush damn sure wasn't. So it isn't that he was such a towering public figure.
Are we as a nation and a people so venal, so self-absorbed, so lacking in perspective that we'll vote for a politician who will destroy the rest of the country, as long as he promises to lower taxes? Is that all that matters to us any more, lower taxes?
Read Dr. Krugman today. See if his premise doesn't scare hell out of you. I think it just might. Karl Rove is speaking publicly again. That alone should make you wee yourself.
And I'm quite sure that there are interests in this country - self-interests, mostly - who would love to see another Bush era. Because it would benefit them. Never mind the deep damage it would do the country. We have become a nation of selfish bastards, and there are those - quite a few of them actually - who are trying to make sure we stay that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)