Sometimes...

Sometimes, recently approaching all the time, I want to FACE DOWN THE FINANCIAL POWERS‑THAT‑BE IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, SLAP THEM BACK‑AND‑FORTH ACROSS THE FACE A FEW TIMES, HARD, TO GET THEIR ATTENTION, AND DEMAND OF THEM, "HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL FROM AMERICA'S HISTORY???"

Armando at Daily Kos, faced with the same frustration, wrote a well-reasoned position paper, "The Lessons of 1937"; his post is probably less damaging to our cause than all that face-slapping would be, though I don't know that it will have any more positive effect on Obama's Wall Street gang...

Do you suppose there's any way, perhaps through the work of a stage hypnotist, to implant a suggestion in all of Obama's advisors that "austerity" is equivalent to, say, "obscenity," or perhaps "marijuana," or maybe "WikiLeaks"?

Tax Rates And Job Creation

Here's a conversational tidbit for you, via ThinkProgress. The next time your Republican friend or colleague (or, heaven preserve you, close relative) brings up the "fact" that raising taxes on the "job creators" (i.e., the wealthy bastards and the corporations they control) is a "job killer," remind them that during the Bill Clinton presidency, which was our most recent era of substantial economic and job growth, the top marginal tax rate was 39.6 percent... and small businesses grew twice as fast during Clinton's term as during the Dubya Bush years. In other words, Reaganomics and Bushonomics just plain didn't work, despite all the GOP's fancy arithmetic.

On the other hand, the numbers that DO add up, those from Clinton's presidency, reveal that a moderately high top marginal tax rate (39.6 percent is by no means the highest individual tax rate ever; that was 90 percent, under... sorry, GOPers... Eisenhower) leads to lower unemployment, greater productivity and yes, solid economic growth.

There is one other reason I know this is true. I experienced it firsthand. I am a living, breathing example. The Bill Clinton years were the golden age for my one-man self-employed contract IT business: I seldom lacked for work during those eight years, and my income grew steadily. Momentum carried my little shop through the first couple of years of GeeDubya Bush, but after eight years of economic "malfeeance" (Bush-speak for "malfeasance"), the bottom dropped out, and I had no choice but to close the doors. Leave it to a Republican president... an unelected Republican president... to kill "job creation" for fun and profit, while preserving the privileged class untouched. That's what Republicans do. That's who Republicans are.

Avedon Carol And Stuart Zechman: Vote To Make A Statement, Knowing The New Deal Is Going Down No Matter How You Vote

Please read. Ms. Carol (interleaving quite a bit of Mr. Zechman's prose) has contemplated the same bone-chilling possibilities I foresee, whoever is elected. She comes to a different conclusion on whom to vote for, but only by a hair. You'd better start thinking about what life will be like without the crux of the New Deal to civilize the jungle that is America today, because neither major party candidate will keep it safe, and no minor party candidate has a chance in Hell. Go vote, and Dog preserve you all from the worst possible results.

Are We (Bleep!)ed?

Please read FDL's masaccio's A Glimpse of the Oligarchy’s View of the Future for US Workers. Better read the comments as well. Please tell me what you think of the content.

Are we as fucked as masaccio believes we are? Will voting do any good? Are hard times about to befall us again? Are manufacturing jobs about to reappear in the US, but with salaries reduced to $13 — $18 an hour to compete with Chinese wages? If any or all of this is the case, what can we do about it?

And... will there be violence in the streets in America, violence which the oligarchs are said to fear above all else? If there is, will the oligarchs persuade their tame "elected" public officials to act to use the US Army to impose indefinite detention on citizens within the US, as implied in the National Defense Authorization Act? (See comment on above post by 1der, quoting Chris Hedges. Please follow all links regarding Hedges's suit against the Obama administration, resulting, for now, in a ruling that the NDAA is unconstitutional... Obama is of course appealing.)

If masaccio is right, let me add that we are not the first nation in history to suffer a vanishing middle class through the deliberate efforts of the very wealthy. Solutions have not always been tidy. Please feel free to offer your favorite comparisons.

Mother Jones Publishes Secret Video Allegedly Of Rmoney At High‑Dollar Fundraiser - UPDATED 2x

Via Paul Krugman, we have David Corn at Mother Jones providing videos, text transcripts and of course Corn's commentary on Rmoney's remarks at what appears to be a secret fundraiser for "a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires" (Paul Simon). Paul Krugman expresses some minor doubt that that really is Rmoney speaking (as whoever it is, is off‑camera), but I have watched (heard) all the videos all the way through, and I am persuaded that no actor could imitate Rmoney's speech that well, nor could anyone else write a script with the unconscionable depth of mean‑spiritedness on display in the segments of the speech.

If this is indeed Rmoney, he holds at least half of Americans in raw, unmitigated, unjustifiable contempt. He maligns the poor in almost every way possible; I kept expecting him to say that they... we... don't wash under our arms. Yes, it was that vile.

Rmoney correctly assesses that the election turns on as-yet-undecided independents, many of whom voted for Obama in 2008. But two things are clear: those indy voters are not stupid and are unlikely to be played as a group, and many of those same voters now find themselves in dire economic circumstances more like Rmoney's much-maligned lower-income and zero-income people. Perhaps some of the independents will indeed blame Obama (who, for all his faults in matters of human rights and civil liberties, is by and large not to blame for our nation's economic failures). But many of us can see through the smokescreen, and will at a minimum not vote for Rmoney. (I will in fact vote for Obama, with regret even as I push the button, but I will do it.)

And now that some of us have seen (heard) those videos, I suspect a few soft Rmoney supporters will be driven by outrage to vote for Obama. Maybe I am overestimating the common sense of the American people, or underestimating the effect of the next month and a half of false and vituperative Rmoney campaign ads, or failing to credit the effectiveness of the GOP's voter suppression program. But the revelation of these videos can only have a positive effect from our viewpoint.

We have a nation to save from vile plutocracy. It has nothing to do with whether Obama is your favorite president, or person, or anything else. Rmoney and Ryan are worse human beings than GeeDubya and Cheney ever dreamed of being in their most villainous fantasies. We have a job to do, and these videos, once authenticated, will help us to do it.

UPDATE early Tuesday 9/18: video confirmed by Rmoney at a 10:00pm presser as indeed being him, confirming his point but (paraphrasing his own words) admitting it was not "elegantly" stated. Then he doubled down on the content, once again calling approximately half of Americans lazy bums who don't work and don't pay taxes. What a motherfucking jerk.

UPDATE 2  early Tuesday 9/18:  Jeebus! David Brooks... yes, that DAVID BROOKS... agrees that Rmoney fucked up bigtime! Brooks even makes some rare sensible, even sensitive observations. Read him quickly, before he changes his mind!

An Astonishing Lapse: Rmoney's Moment Of Truth

 


I suppose we should not be surprised. It is bound to be wearying to speak platitudes one doesn't believe, day after day, concealing one's true beliefs in pursuit of a dishonorable, self-centered goal. Sooner or later, the truth will out. Here, from Raw Story (H/T Enfant) is Rmoney's unintended "moment of truth":

...

... Romney’s own understanding of the presidential role has never been entirely clear,

He may, however, have accidentally let his beliefs slip out at a campaign event in Florida on Friday, when he referred to the United States as a “company.”

U-S-A! U-S-A! ...

“[Obama] didn’t know what it takes to actually make the economy work,” Romney told his audience. “Paul Ryan and I understand how the economy works, we understand how Washington works, we will reach across the aisle and find good people who like us, want to make sure this company deals with its challenges. We’ll get America on track again.”

Romney hesitated slightly after the word “company,” as if he was vaguely aware he might have used the wrong word, but then plowed on without correcting himself.

...

In his own mind, Rmoney has never left the executive offices of Bain Capital. And the USA is a "company" in a vulnerable position, and therefore to be bought, tapped, sucked dry and discarded. You've known it all along, but it is chilling to hear Rmoney say it aloud himself, in public.

I wonder if the rank-and-file Republican faithful have known it. I suspect that, if so, their faith will protect them from believing the simple truth of the statement, despite the fact that it is right there on video. Faith conquers all... including truth.

Medicare Under Siege: Mitt Rmoney Will Cut Benefits For Current Seniors

... and fuck the "contract across generations" that has bound our society in one form or another for almost a century. Brian Beutler explains:

...

But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.

As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.

That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.

On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”

...

There is a third option Beutler didn't mention: Rmoney could go jump in a lake. It would save the American people considerable grief.

When I paid my taxes for my parents' generation to receive Medicare, I did so in the then-scarcely-questionable assumption that a younger generation would pay my way when my time came. Now Rmoney wants, not merely to whack Medicare, but to funnel that money straight into the greedy hands of the wealthy bastards he thinks he represents. What a deal! It's a lot like what he intends to do to Social Security (see recent post): take all the money we paid into these programs all our working lives, and hand it out to his rich cronies.

Rmoney is threatening to change the rules in the middle of the game, rules on which everyone but the wealthiest 0.001% of Americans depend to stay alive. If Rmoney denies me my well-earned retirement, I will have nothing to lose, through no negligence on my part. We all know what people who are left with nothing to lose do, don't we? Good... I don't have to explain it to you.

Social Security Under Siege: Sen. Bernie Sanders

I could not possibly describe the situation better than Sen. Sanders does:

...

... Before Social Security existed, about half of America’s senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent live in poverty.

Today, Social Security not only provides retirement security but also enables millions of people with disabilities and widows, widowers and children to live in dignity and security.

...

In these highly-volatile economic times, when millions of Americans lost their life savings in the 2008 Wall Street crash, it is important to remember that since its inception, through good economic times and bad, Social Security has paid every penny owed to every eligible beneficiary.

... Social Security, which is funded by the payroll tax, does not contribute to the deficit. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund today, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years.

... Social Security is run with very modest administrative costs.

...

As Sen. Sanders emphasizes, the same is very much NOT true of Wall Street firms, where people like Paul Ryan and Pete Peterson want to put Social Security money. We all remember what happened in 2007 when the last bubble burst, yielding the great crash of 2008. If you believe the future does not hold a similar crash at some point, you are a sucker, ready to be taken for everything you've put into Social Security through the payroll tax over the years. Sucker, or smart taxpayer... which will it be?

Sen. Sanders is rightly wary of President Obama's approach to Social Security: the president emphatically said "no cuts" before the 2008 elections, and now isn't saying anything much, except vague statements that it may have to be cut. Sen. Sanders has challenged this by introducing a bill that advocates exactly the program Obama advocated in 2008. I have my doubts that that bill will have any champions except for Sanders in this Dog-awful Congress we have today.

There is no rational basis for cutting Social Security at all:

• It works... well. 
• It is solvent. 
• It is in no way a financial burden; indeed, it runs a surplus. 
• It will pay out its scheduled benefits for 21 years with no alterations. 
• With one small change (and this is the crux of the radical Right's real objection), it could continue paying out scheduled benefits indefinitely. 

The change? apply the payroll tax to annual income above $250,000. I have never understood why there is a cap on the payroll tax income in the first place, but we will somehow have to beat down the wealthy bastards, the Pete Petersons, the Mitt Rmoneys, the Paul Ryans of the country, to achieve fairness on this issue. In the Declaration of Independence, there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no similar right to be obscenely wealthy and not share that wealth with society. Benjamin Franklin said it superbly well:

Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt.

And there you have it.

People Unclear On The Concept Of 'Truth': Paul Ryan Edition

When even ABC News says GOP veep candidate Paul Ryan, um, misspoke, you know it's got to be bad:

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.

“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. Ryan said he did not.

“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.

But as we’ve now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

...

Ryan lives in a fantasy world of Ayn Rand. He has those who publicly oppose him arrested. And he's a liar, liar, plans (for "prosperity") on fire.

Seriously, a man who believes the stimulus was not necessary, when in fact an even bigger stimulus would have helped more, is delusional, and should not occupy the office a heartbeat away from the presidency. Paul Ryan's false claim not to have requested a stimulus, a claim he abandoned only when confronted with the paperwork showing that he himself requested a stimulus, is just another indicator that he is the perfect running mate for Rmoney.

He Did It: Rmoney Picked Ryan

... and Democrats are happier than a kid having ice cream for dinner:

...

... Mitt Romney is inextricably tied now to the architect of the GOP’s plan to privatize Medicare, and Ryan’s proposal to slash entitlements is guaranteed to receive more national attention than ever before.

“In naming Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment to the flawed theory that new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, while placing greater burdens on the middle class and seniors, will somehow deliver a stronger economy,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement Saturday morning.

The Obama campaign had already spent months trying to link Ryan and Romney together in voters’ minds, highlighting every statement from the Republican candidate in which he praised the House Republican budget Ryan created. Democratic officials routinely referred to the “Ryan-Romney” plan in interviews and campaign materials — now it’s the Romney-Ryan ticket.

...

Rmoney says he is not running on Ryan's budget plan. To which I can only reply: ya wanna bet, mofo?

This is the gift of a lifetime. Gawd, I hope the Dems don't fuck it up...