Greendayman is stretched pretty thin these days and even though the outrages of the rightwingnut-o-sphere are multipying faster than ameobas and the successes of the Obama administration are piling up daily I'll have to leave you in the more than capable hands of:
The Huffington Post
Raw Story
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Think Progress
Firedog Lake
And the affiliated blogs that have links on the progressives above.
I'll be back, hopefully soon. Thank you all for your support!
-G
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
I'll Never Miss a Chance to Take a Shot at Fox News
The Gospel According to Fox NewsIt's mysterious how swiftly a society can collectively change its mind. As rapidly as the financial markets crashed, so has Fox News's credibility. What was gospel to an entire segment of voters and viewers just a few months ago has become a desperate flapping in the wind.
Some may view this as part of the swing cycle that politics is heir to. But from the Reagan era forward, certain truths were held to be self-evident, and far from inventing anything, Fox News simply put the high gloss of mass media on them.
If you tune in to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or the network's humbler toilers in the vineyard, their tactics haven't changed. They must be shocked to find themselves stranded, all the more because it seemed to happen overnight. In the spirit of Emerson's dictum that evil is the absence of good, it's worth recalling where good was absent just a year ago. Here are the working beliefs of the Fox News credo.
Article 1: The worst aspects of human nature are actually cherished freedoms.
This is Fox News's main rallying cry. Hating minorities, despising gays, ridiculing women's rights, and slandering the ACLU all fall under the rubric of precious liberties.
This is Fox News's main rallying cry. Hating minorities, despising gays, ridiculing women's rights, and slandering the ACLU all fall under the rubric of precious liberties.
Article 2: God loves gun owners.
Fox News rabidly seizes the high ground when it comes to law and order, an issue that is seen primarily as a loaded gun under every pillow and a triple-bolted front door.
Article 3: Patriotism is the last refuge of ratings wars.
Here the old axiom that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels has been updated (but by no means abandoned). Every Fox News commentator earns his battle scars by wrapping himself in the bloody flag, without ever personally endangering his own skin, of course.
Article 4: Ideology is way better than thinking.
Pre-chewed ideas are more easily digested than actual thinking. But ideology goes one better by answering every doubt in advance. Thus Fox News is never in doubt. Truth is as automatic as a gum ball machine.
Article 5: The mind's primary use is for bellowing.
I advise any prospective guest on Fox News to demand that there be no shouting. This immediately decouples the mind of O'Reilly and Hannity. Their most basic assumption is that any guest, once shouted down, has lost the debate. (I tested this gambit out personally and can vouch for its effectiveness.)
Article 6: Shamelessness is next to godliness.
In other words, you can sin at leisure as long as you keep pointing out other people's sins. Long a tactic enshrined in the Book of Hypocrisy, Fox News has turned holier-than-thou into a moneymaker.
Article 7: Don't bother me with the facts.
My mind is already closed.This is really just a corollary to the belief in ideology, but it deserves its own chapter and verse because of the ironical light it casts on the Fox News logo, "Fair and balanced."
Article 8: The little guy is always mad.
On the whole, Fox News tries to make the little guy feel that he is always right and those pointy-headed educated elitists always wrong. But sometimes the little guy proves tricky, as when he doesn't like Republican deficits and foreign wars. Luckily, Fox News always has a fallback -- the little guy is always blistered about something, and a little kerosene is a marvelous accelerant, as they say in arson investigations.
Article 9: "They" are about to get you -- watch out!
The bulk of Fox News's sanctimony rests on its pledge to look out for everyday working Joes. Since there is no record of the network actually protecting something realistic like clean air, freedom from assault weapons, and safety in the workplace, what is really being safeguarded is the right to be freaking paranoid every minute of the day.
Article 10: If I just said it, it must be right.
Here, as in several other places, Fox News, is indistinguishable from a drunken frat party where not only is bellowing a sign of intelligence, but never backing down, however cockeyed your last statement may be, shows that you are a man.
I am not a communicant in this particular creed, so I'm sure I've left out some key passages in the gospel. For full knowledge one would have to delve deep into the Old Testament of Fox News (i.e., the minutes of the John Birch Society 1958-date). Daily viewing will keep one abreast of new anathemas (i.e., socialism) and potential saviors (Sarah Palin). Or you could take the easy way out and celebrate the waning of Fox News's belief system and the cleaner air left behind.
Obama Mocks GOP Criticism
by kos at The Daily KosVery nice. Conservative criticism of Obama's foreign policy approach is so patently ridiculous, that he's now openly mocking the wingers freaking out over his handshake with Hugo Chavez.
Obama: "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela".
Greg Sargent:
It’s worth recalling that there was a time when Dems would quake with fear about national security attacks coming from the right, let alone respond to them with outright mockery. In this sense, Obama’s tone underscores how much the political climate has shifted on such matters.
It’s also a sign of his confidence that the public is with him — and has little trust in the Republicans — even on questions of national security. He appears to feel on solid enough ground that he can respond to the basic ideas underlying Republican efforts to depict him as weak with little more than contempt and derision.
Me, I'm still chuckling at "this imaginative crowd".
Monday, April 20, 2009
Well, Looks Like 4/20 is National Pot Smokers Day
I didn't know this. Being older than dirt and farting dust..... But hey - here's some links to make you smile:
April 20 is "National Pot Smoking Day."
by Anthony Papa
Communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance and Author of "15 To Life "
April 20 is "National Pot Smoking Day." It's a day where people across the world celebrate in the conspicuous consumption of the magical herb, marijuana. It's an unofficial counterculture holiday that is based on the simple concept of smoking some cannabis and being happy. More here
April 20 is "National Pot Smoking Day."
by Anthony Papa
Communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance and Author of "15 To Life "
April 20 is "National Pot Smoking Day." It's a day where people across the world celebrate in the conspicuous consumption of the magical herb, marijuana. It's an unofficial counterculture holiday that is based on the simple concept of smoking some cannabis and being happy. More here
Norm Stamper - Retired Seattle police chief, member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
...Booze vs. pot. How do the effects of these two drugs stack up against specific health and public safety factors?
Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim approximately 14,000 lives each year, down significantly from 20 or 30 years ago (attributed to improved education and enforcement). Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small. But evidence from studies, including laboratory simulations, feeds the stereotype that those under the influence of canniboids tend to (1) be more aware of their impaired psychomotor skills, and (2) drive well below the speed limit. Those under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be clueless or defiant about their condition, and to speed up and drive recklessly.
Alcohol-related traffic accidents claim approximately 14,000 lives each year, down significantly from 20 or 30 years ago (attributed to improved education and enforcement). Figures for THC-related traffic fatalities are elusive, especially since alcohol is almost always present in the blood as well, and since the numbers of "marijuana-only" traffic fatalities are so small. But evidence from studies, including laboratory simulations, feeds the stereotype that those under the influence of canniboids tend to (1) be more aware of their impaired psychomotor skills, and (2) drive well below the speed limit. Those under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be clueless or defiant about their condition, and to speed up and drive recklessly.
Hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur annually. There has never been a single recorded marijuana OD fatality.
Alcohol contributes to acts of violence; marijuana reduces aggression. In approximately three million cases of reported violent crimes last year, the offender had been drinking. Marijuana use, in and of itself, is absent from both crime reports and the scientific literature. There is simply no link to be made.
Over the past four years I've asked police officers throughout the U.S. (and in Canada) two questions. When's the last time you had to fight someone under the influence of marijuana? More here
Family Guy - Everything Goes Better With a Bag of Weed
by Ryan Grim
Warren Haynes, the Allman Brothers Band guitarist, routinely plays with the surviving members of the Grateful Dead, now touring as The Dead. He's just finished a Dead show in Washington, D.C. and gets a pop quiz from the Huffington Post.
Where does 420 come from? More here
Where does 420 come from? More here
Sunday, April 19, 2009
From Dr. Zaius 
Can you imagine what would have happened to the Dixie Chicks if they'd said something about nullifying the Union?
Secession and Racism By: Glenn W. SmithAnd now, just after the inauguration of America's first black president, comes loud talk of secession and nullification. What a coincidence.
It seems like only yesterday that right-wingers were condemning critics of a president as un-American, chanting "Proud to be an American," and branding as traitors to America those opposed to state torture. Today, they say their enemy is America. Oh yeah, and these are the same people who decried so-called "situation ethics."
Texas Governor Rick Perry got quite a bit of attention from his public flirtation with the secessionists during an Austin teabagging orgy. Just the week before, Perry endorsed the quirky "Tenth Amendment" movement and a states' rights resolution. I say quirky, but 23 states have adopted these non-binding paeans to antebellum saber rattling.
Here's a sample paragraph from the resolution adopted this year, by a vote of 43 to 1, by the Georgia State Senate:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Stupidest Effing Guy on the Planet Loses Title
We all owe Douglas Feith an Apology
From The Daily Doubter
'Whatever [Douglas] Feith may achieve during the remainder of his life and whatever epitaph he chooses for inscription on his gravestone, history will remember him as "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet."' - Andrew Bacevitch, The Limits of Power
After watching Friday's episode of the Glenn Beck program, I have to conclude that history is being unfair to Feith. Glenn Beck is the stupidest fucking guy on the planet. Because during the show, Beck said that Henry Ford was of the American heroes who stood up against the liberal progressive happy face fascism of F.D.R.
Ok, let's walk through this. F.D.R. headed up the war efforts against the Nazis during World War II. Henry Ford did everything he possibly could to prevent the United States from fighting the Nazis because he was a fan of the Nazi regime. Henry Ford was awarded and accepted the highest medal that Germany bestowed upon foreigners in 1938. The Ford factories in Europe helped build the Nazi war machine. The rabidly anti-Semitic paper that Ford published helped inspire the Holocaust and popularized the notorious Protocols of Zion.
But in Beck's warped, alternate universe, Henry Ford is anti-fascist because he didn't like the New Deal - see here for Dave Neiwert's debunking of Beck's previous invocation of Ford as anti-fascist champion - while the guy who actually headed up the government while it fought and defeated the fascists is a fascist. Here's a clue for the eternally clueless Beck: we actually had fascists in America during the New Deal - and some of them were opposed to it precisely because they were fascists.
More from Crooks and Liars here
From The Daily Doubter
'Whatever [Douglas] Feith may achieve during the remainder of his life and whatever epitaph he chooses for inscription on his gravestone, history will remember him as "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet."' - Andrew Bacevitch, The Limits of Power
After watching Friday's episode of the Glenn Beck program, I have to conclude that history is being unfair to Feith. Glenn Beck is the stupidest fucking guy on the planet. Because during the show, Beck said that Henry Ford was of the American heroes who stood up against the liberal progressive happy face fascism of F.D.R.
Ok, let's walk through this. F.D.R. headed up the war efforts against the Nazis during World War II. Henry Ford did everything he possibly could to prevent the United States from fighting the Nazis because he was a fan of the Nazi regime. Henry Ford was awarded and accepted the highest medal that Germany bestowed upon foreigners in 1938. The Ford factories in Europe helped build the Nazi war machine. The rabidly anti-Semitic paper that Ford published helped inspire the Holocaust and popularized the notorious Protocols of Zion.
But in Beck's warped, alternate universe, Henry Ford is anti-fascist because he didn't like the New Deal - see here for Dave Neiwert's debunking of Beck's previous invocation of Ford as anti-fascist champion - while the guy who actually headed up the government while it fought and defeated the fascists is a fascist. Here's a clue for the eternally clueless Beck: we actually had fascists in America during the New Deal - and some of them were opposed to it precisely because they were fascists.
More from Crooks and Liars here
Friday, April 17, 2009
CBO: Income inequality gap hit record high in 2006.
I have this conversation with my conservative neighbor on a regular basis.By Matt Corley at Think Progress
Arloc Sherman of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities writes today that “new data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that in 2006, the top 1 percent of households had a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income, and the middle and bottom fifths of households had smaller shares, than in any year since 1979, the first year the CBO data cover.” According to Sherman, this means that “the gaps in after-tax incomes between households in the top 1 percent and those in the middle and bottom fifths were the widest on record“:
Top incomes continued climbing in the 1990s, to 20.6 times higher than the middle fifth of households in 2000 and 21.3 times higher in 2005. By 2006, top incomes were 23.0 times higher than those of the middle fifth — nearly tripling the income gap between the top 1 percent and those in the middle since 1979.
The gap between the top 1 percent and the poorest fifth of Americans widened even more dramatically over this same period. In 1979, the incomes of the top 1 percent were 22.6 times higher than those of the bottom fifth. Top incomes continued climbing to 63.1 times higher in 2000 and 72.7 times higher by 2006 — more than tripling the rich-poor gap in 27 years.
Sherman adds that “taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top than at any time since 1929.”
What's Wrong with Texas?
Poll: 31% Of Texans Say State Has Right To Secede -- 18% Would Vote In Favor Of Doing It!
By Eric Kleefeld
Here's some good news (kind of) for the cause of Constitutional Unionism: According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 31% of likely voters in Texas think the state has the right to secede.
DeLay defends Gov. Perry, explains how Texas could secede from the Union.
By Satyam Khanna
Yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) raised the specter of his state seceding from the Union “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” Today on MSNBC, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay offered a staunch defense of Perry’s statement, saying the Texas governor was “standing up for [Texas’s] sovereignty.” DeLay elaborately explained how Texas could secede:
Chuck Norris Wants to Run for President ... of Texas
By HOLLY LAFON
Though you might have thought the Republic of Texas murmurings were constrained to a few lone biker clubs or trailer-sized headquarters somewhere, Norris says the undercurrent of separatist fervor runs thicker than anyone knew...
Palin's brand of crazy was just the tip of the iceberg
by David Waldman
Connect your own dots.
September 2, 2008: Sarah Palin's "First Dude" Todd turns out to have been a registered member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.
November 4, 2008: America laughs in Sarah Palin's crazy wingnut face one last time, and finishes her candidacy off with the GOP "superstar's" approval ratings swirling the bowl.
April 5, 2009: Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski's best friend Edward Percovic made a special point of telling reporters:
We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty. One of his concerns was why were these major events in America not being reported to the public.
April 6, 2009: Palin, responding to the North Korean missile test, says: (more here)
Real patriots, these folks.
Glenn Beck: Secession Or Suicide
by Jason Linkins
Yesterday, I couldn't help but feel cheated that the doom-rooming, gasoline-pouring, fake-sobbing, out-freaking Glenn Beck went all the way to the Alamo for the Fox Teabag Party Day and not give America that quintessential "54/40 or Fight!" moment that we all deserved to experience. Turns out, he saved that moment for later, when, while appearing on On The Record, he and Greta Van Susteren got onto the subject of Texas secession. Yes! Secession! It's not just for Vermont academics and Sarah Palin's spouse anymore, I guess!
Deep Thought
Conservatives are so incensed by warnings about the threat of right wing radicalism that they're considering overthrowing the federal government.
--Josh Marshall
By Eric Kleefeld
Here's some good news (kind of) for the cause of Constitutional Unionism: According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 31% of likely voters in Texas think the state has the right to secede.
DeLay defends Gov. Perry, explains how Texas could secede from the Union.
By Satyam Khanna
Yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) raised the specter of his state seceding from the Union “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” Today on MSNBC, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay offered a staunch defense of Perry’s statement, saying the Texas governor was “standing up for [Texas’s] sovereignty.” DeLay elaborately explained how Texas could secede:
Chuck Norris Wants to Run for President ... of Texas
By HOLLY LAFON
Though you might have thought the Republic of Texas murmurings were constrained to a few lone biker clubs or trailer-sized headquarters somewhere, Norris says the undercurrent of separatist fervor runs thicker than anyone knew...
Palin's brand of crazy was just the tip of the iceberg
by David Waldman
Connect your own dots.
September 2, 2008: Sarah Palin's "First Dude" Todd turns out to have been a registered member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.
November 4, 2008: America laughs in Sarah Palin's crazy wingnut face one last time, and finishes her candidacy off with the GOP "superstar's" approval ratings swirling the bowl.
April 5, 2009: Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski's best friend Edward Percovic made a special point of telling reporters:
We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty. One of his concerns was why were these major events in America not being reported to the public.
April 6, 2009: Palin, responding to the North Korean missile test, says: (more here)
Real patriots, these folks.
Glenn Beck: Secession Or Suicide
by Jason Linkins
Yesterday, I couldn't help but feel cheated that the doom-rooming, gasoline-pouring, fake-sobbing, out-freaking Glenn Beck went all the way to the Alamo for the Fox Teabag Party Day and not give America that quintessential "54/40 or Fight!" moment that we all deserved to experience. Turns out, he saved that moment for later, when, while appearing on On The Record, he and Greta Van Susteren got onto the subject of Texas secession. Yes! Secession! It's not just for Vermont academics and Sarah Palin's spouse anymore, I guess!
Deep Thought
Conservatives are so incensed by warnings about the threat of right wing radicalism that they're considering overthrowing the federal government.
--Josh Marshall
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The REAL Income Redistribution From the Middle Class to the Top
Taxing Matters by Robert L. Borosage
Tax Day. Fox News is flogging Astroturf "tea parties" underwritten by corporate lobbyists, while its pundits warn that raising the top income tax rate to the level it was under Bill Clinton constitutes "socialism." The Wall Street Journal editorializes about the evils of the estate tax. Ari Fleischer, Daddy Bush's old flack, is trotted out to complain that "redistribution of income" through the tax code "is getting out of hand."
Really? Here's the grim reality. Since 1980, when the conservative era began, inequality has reached Gilded Age extremes - while top end tax rates have been cut. The wealthiest few captured ever more of the nation's income while successfully lowering their tax rates.
And worse - this is still going on. This month, every Republican Senator - joined bizarrely by 10 Democrats - pushed for yet another tax break for the super-rich - those with fortunes over $7 million. Apparently worried that the heirs of the Paris Hilton class might not be able to keep the yacht clubs humming, Republican Senators voted in lockstep to direct the Congress to raise the full exemption of estates from $7 to $10 million per couple, and drop the top rate from 45% to 35%. Over a decade when fully in effect, this represents a bauble worth about $90 billion to the 1 in 400 estates (one-fourth of one percent) that reach that level.
Fleischer would suggest this is a small, but inadequate step to curb the confiscatory redistribution of the tax code. But he's peddling bull.
In 1980, as "Gilded Age Taxation," a study by the Institute for America's Future shows, the richest 1% of Americans captured fully 7.7% of the nation's after-tax income. The middle sixty percent captured about 50.9%. By 2006, the latest CBO figures show the opulent 1% -- making an average $1.3 million -- captured a staggering 16.3% of the nation's income after all that tax code redistribution. While the middle sixty percent garnered only 44.1%. If class war is being waged, the rich are on the march.
The Institute for Policy Studies details the staggering contrast to the Eisenhower years. In 1955, the top 400 taxpayers averaged about $12.3 million in income (2006 dollars) and paid, after exploiting every loophole imaginable, 51.2% of that in federal income tax. A half century later, the richest 400 average a breath-taking $263.3 million in income each, and pay a mere 17.2% of that in federal income taxes. (A lower tax rate than paid by most of their secretaries).
If those 400 taxpayers had paid at the same rate in 2006 as a half century earlier, the federal treasury would have collected $35.9 billion more in revenue, or enough to double the energy and transportation budget combined. No wonder Ike, clearly a stealth "socialist", could afford to build the interstate transport system.
So why do Republican Senators en mass and 10 wayward Democrats - Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Maria Cantwell, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Jon Testor - think the wealthiest one-fourth of one percent of Americans need another tax break? They wax eloquent about saving family farms and small businesses. But upon sober review, the New York Times editorial board provided a tempered evaluation of the argument: "That is swill." Opponents of the estate tax haven't been able to dig up a family that was forced to liquidate its farm or business due to the tax because these folks simply do not exist.
The sad reality is that conservative dominance over the last decades has had profound effects. One of these is that income inequality grew to Gilded Age extremes, while top end tax rates were slashed. Fleischer is right. We did witness a lot of redistribution. But it went from the middle class to the very top, not the other way around.
(Incidentally the new tax break isn't a done deal. A conference committee will decide its fate in the next week or two. You might want to call or write Republican Senators or the wayward Democratic 10 and tell them enough already.)
Tax Day. Fox News is flogging Astroturf "tea parties" underwritten by corporate lobbyists, while its pundits warn that raising the top income tax rate to the level it was under Bill Clinton constitutes "socialism." The Wall Street Journal editorializes about the evils of the estate tax. Ari Fleischer, Daddy Bush's old flack, is trotted out to complain that "redistribution of income" through the tax code "is getting out of hand."
Really? Here's the grim reality. Since 1980, when the conservative era began, inequality has reached Gilded Age extremes - while top end tax rates have been cut. The wealthiest few captured ever more of the nation's income while successfully lowering their tax rates.
And worse - this is still going on. This month, every Republican Senator - joined bizarrely by 10 Democrats - pushed for yet another tax break for the super-rich - those with fortunes over $7 million. Apparently worried that the heirs of the Paris Hilton class might not be able to keep the yacht clubs humming, Republican Senators voted in lockstep to direct the Congress to raise the full exemption of estates from $7 to $10 million per couple, and drop the top rate from 45% to 35%. Over a decade when fully in effect, this represents a bauble worth about $90 billion to the 1 in 400 estates (one-fourth of one percent) that reach that level.
Fleischer would suggest this is a small, but inadequate step to curb the confiscatory redistribution of the tax code. But he's peddling bull.
In 1980, as "Gilded Age Taxation," a study by the Institute for America's Future shows, the richest 1% of Americans captured fully 7.7% of the nation's after-tax income. The middle sixty percent captured about 50.9%. By 2006, the latest CBO figures show the opulent 1% -- making an average $1.3 million -- captured a staggering 16.3% of the nation's income after all that tax code redistribution. While the middle sixty percent garnered only 44.1%. If class war is being waged, the rich are on the march.
The Institute for Policy Studies details the staggering contrast to the Eisenhower years. In 1955, the top 400 taxpayers averaged about $12.3 million in income (2006 dollars) and paid, after exploiting every loophole imaginable, 51.2% of that in federal income tax. A half century later, the richest 400 average a breath-taking $263.3 million in income each, and pay a mere 17.2% of that in federal income taxes. (A lower tax rate than paid by most of their secretaries).
If those 400 taxpayers had paid at the same rate in 2006 as a half century earlier, the federal treasury would have collected $35.9 billion more in revenue, or enough to double the energy and transportation budget combined. No wonder Ike, clearly a stealth "socialist", could afford to build the interstate transport system.
So why do Republican Senators en mass and 10 wayward Democrats - Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Maria Cantwell, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Jon Testor - think the wealthiest one-fourth of one percent of Americans need another tax break? They wax eloquent about saving family farms and small businesses. But upon sober review, the New York Times editorial board provided a tempered evaluation of the argument: "That is swill." Opponents of the estate tax haven't been able to dig up a family that was forced to liquidate its farm or business due to the tax because these folks simply do not exist.
The sad reality is that conservative dominance over the last decades has had profound effects. One of these is that income inequality grew to Gilded Age extremes, while top end tax rates were slashed. Fleischer is right. We did witness a lot of redistribution. But it went from the middle class to the very top, not the other way around.
(Incidentally the new tax break isn't a done deal. A conference committee will decide its fate in the next week or two. You might want to call or write Republican Senators or the wayward Democratic 10 and tell them enough already.)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Teabaggin' - Thank Christ it's Almost Over
Leser on the Tea Parties: 'These tax day tea parties are a sham and a fraud'
By John Amato
Steve Leser, the Editor of OpEdNews, was on the Neil Cavuto show and made a few fairly accurate statements about the Tax Day Tea Parties that FOX News is taking an active interest in promoting -- and, some might say, financing and orchestrating.
FBN's Stuart Varney is the guest host and talks out of the side of his neck like a snake oil salesmen selling magic elixirs and potions.
Leser: These tax day tea parties are a sham and a fraud. They are being presented as this organic, grassroots movement...
Varney: Wait a minute. That's a very, very strong language to use. I read your piece . Is the 2 trillion dollar deficit this administration has rung up. Is that a sham and a fraud?. Are you dismissing this out of hand like it doesn't exist?
Leser: Absolutely. In terms of the deficit, we have an economic crisis going on that this administration inherited from the previous republican administration.
Varney: Wait, you're dismissing the these people as fraudulent --
Leser: I'm dismissing the fraud, the protest. That's absolutely correct ...
Leser: I'm insulting the way the movement is being portrayed. It is a sham. The way this movement is being portrayed is a sham and a fraud. It's not an organic grassroots movement like it's being portrayed. There's ten Republican think tanks, heavily funded by top Republican corporations and headed by people like Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. Those are the people who have created and organized this so-called grass-roots movement.
Varney: You're insulting people. More here
The Peasant Mentality Lives on in America - Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
This must be a terrible time to be a right-winger. A vicious paradox has been thrust upon the once-ascendant conservatives. On the one hand they are out of power, and so must necessarily rail against the Obama administration. On the other hand they have to vilify, as dangerous anticapitalist activity, the grass-roots protests against the Geithner bailouts and the excess of companies like AIG. That leaves them with no recourse but to dream up wholesale lunacies along the lines of Glenn Beck’s recent “Fascism With a Happy Face” rants, which link the protesting “populists” and the Obama adminstration somehow and imagine them as one single nefarious, connected, ongoing effort to install a totalitarian regime. More here
Very Serious Question
From Bob Cesca
Have the tea baggers secured the proper permits? You know, for their revolution?
(The Sons of Liberty didn't ask permission.)
Tea Bagger Fail of the Day
Tbogg delivers a Tea Bagger epic fail worthy of the Fail Hall of Fame.
It's a beatiful thing.
Ass Troturfing
The last time we saw Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, he was participating in Glenn Beck's insane "War Room" episode during which he helped to game out Beck's paranoid delusions. And the next day, Colbert discredited the whole ridiculous event -- right in front of Moore's smirky face.
Somehow being a laughing stock on both FOX News and Comedy Central hasn't prevented Moore from appearing on Hardball where he lied about the tea bag parties:
This really isn't something that's being driven, a) by the Republican Party, or b) by the national conservative groups. You gotta give credit where credit is due on this Chris, it really is a genuine kind of grassroots thing that kind of just spontaneously combusted around the country.
Lies. FOX News Channel, which could be considered a national conservative group, is promoting the tea baggers. FreedomWorks, a national conservative lobby, is funding the tea baggers. Fine -- whatever floats their boat. But don't say it's grassroots when it's clearly astroturfing of the highest order.
From The Rude Pundit
A Few More Notes Regarding the Tea Party Protests:
1. This doesn't seem quite right: The "Teabag Obama" blog offers "Proper Teabagging Instructions." And there's about ten things wrong there.
2. The same blog, which is just a damned funny read, says, helpfully and with no sense of irony, "Teabagging is for everyone." The Rude Pundit agrees. Sweet Jesus, he agrees.
3. The list of suggested signs for the events contains this call to violence: "Tea Party Today: Tar and Feathers Tomorrow."
4. Some of the truly awesome signs that have actually been held at various anti-tax protests:
Did someone ask that old white lady if George Bush also supported "unconstitutional, anti-Christ, socialism, federal deficit spending programs"?Ah, fuck this. Fuck the puns and the mocking. It's just too fucking depressing. Somewhere, Karl Marx is laughing his bearded ass off. Because what is this but classic exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie? It's a bunch of rich fucks, beginning with that tool Rick Santelli on CNBC and ending with the slavering profitmongers at Fox "news," making the poor idiots, who are desperate from fear of or actual job loss and heath insurance loss and home loss, do their bidding. Look at the people attending. Bedraggled Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin wannabes, clinging to the image of those who create the illusion of the working class without the work or the class. Ignorance is such bliss, man.This movement's gonna die a horribly gruesome death. It really is just the last hideous gasps of a kind of right wing populism that's got nothing to do with actual populism and everything to do with a desperate scrabbling to preserve the status quo for the wealthy. It's ideological endgame, motherfuckers, and the checkmate ain't gonna be pretty.
By John Amato
Steve Leser, the Editor of OpEdNews, was on the Neil Cavuto show and made a few fairly accurate statements about the Tax Day Tea Parties that FOX News is taking an active interest in promoting -- and, some might say, financing and orchestrating.
FBN's Stuart Varney is the guest host and talks out of the side of his neck like a snake oil salesmen selling magic elixirs and potions.
Leser: These tax day tea parties are a sham and a fraud. They are being presented as this organic, grassroots movement...
Varney: Wait a minute. That's a very, very strong language to use. I read your piece . Is the 2 trillion dollar deficit this administration has rung up. Is that a sham and a fraud?. Are you dismissing this out of hand like it doesn't exist?
Leser: Absolutely. In terms of the deficit, we have an economic crisis going on that this administration inherited from the previous republican administration.
Varney: Wait, you're dismissing the these people as fraudulent --
Leser: I'm dismissing the fraud, the protest. That's absolutely correct ...
Leser: I'm insulting the way the movement is being portrayed. It is a sham. The way this movement is being portrayed is a sham and a fraud. It's not an organic grassroots movement like it's being portrayed. There's ten Republican think tanks, heavily funded by top Republican corporations and headed by people like Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. Those are the people who have created and organized this so-called grass-roots movement.
Varney: You're insulting people. More here
The Peasant Mentality Lives on in America - Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
This must be a terrible time to be a right-winger. A vicious paradox has been thrust upon the once-ascendant conservatives. On the one hand they are out of power, and so must necessarily rail against the Obama administration. On the other hand they have to vilify, as dangerous anticapitalist activity, the grass-roots protests against the Geithner bailouts and the excess of companies like AIG. That leaves them with no recourse but to dream up wholesale lunacies along the lines of Glenn Beck’s recent “Fascism With a Happy Face” rants, which link the protesting “populists” and the Obama adminstration somehow and imagine them as one single nefarious, connected, ongoing effort to install a totalitarian regime. More here
Very Serious Question
From Bob Cesca
Have the tea baggers secured the proper permits? You know, for their revolution?
(The Sons of Liberty didn't ask permission.)
Tea Bagger Fail of the Day
Tbogg delivers a Tea Bagger epic fail worthy of the Fail Hall of Fame.
It's a beatiful thing.
Ass Troturfing
The last time we saw Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, he was participating in Glenn Beck's insane "War Room" episode during which he helped to game out Beck's paranoid delusions. And the next day, Colbert discredited the whole ridiculous event -- right in front of Moore's smirky face.
Somehow being a laughing stock on both FOX News and Comedy Central hasn't prevented Moore from appearing on Hardball where he lied about the tea bag parties:
This really isn't something that's being driven, a) by the Republican Party, or b) by the national conservative groups. You gotta give credit where credit is due on this Chris, it really is a genuine kind of grassroots thing that kind of just spontaneously combusted around the country.
Lies. FOX News Channel, which could be considered a national conservative group, is promoting the tea baggers. FreedomWorks, a national conservative lobby, is funding the tea baggers. Fine -- whatever floats their boat. But don't say it's grassroots when it's clearly astroturfing of the highest order.
From The Rude Pundit
A Few More Notes Regarding the Tea Party Protests:
1. This doesn't seem quite right: The "Teabag Obama" blog offers "Proper Teabagging Instructions." And there's about ten things wrong there.
2. The same blog, which is just a damned funny read, says, helpfully and with no sense of irony, "Teabagging is for everyone." The Rude Pundit agrees. Sweet Jesus, he agrees.
3. The list of suggested signs for the events contains this call to violence: "Tea Party Today: Tar and Feathers Tomorrow."
4. Some of the truly awesome signs that have actually been held at various anti-tax protests:
Did someone ask that old white lady if George Bush also supported "unconstitutional, anti-Christ, socialism, federal deficit spending programs"?Ah, fuck this. Fuck the puns and the mocking. It's just too fucking depressing. Somewhere, Karl Marx is laughing his bearded ass off. Because what is this but classic exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie? It's a bunch of rich fucks, beginning with that tool Rick Santelli on CNBC and ending with the slavering profitmongers at Fox "news," making the poor idiots, who are desperate from fear of or actual job loss and heath insurance loss and home loss, do their bidding. Look at the people attending. Bedraggled Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin wannabes, clinging to the image of those who create the illusion of the working class without the work or the class. Ignorance is such bliss, man.This movement's gonna die a horribly gruesome death. It really is just the last hideous gasps of a kind of right wing populism that's got nothing to do with actual populism and everything to do with a desperate scrabbling to preserve the status quo for the wealthy. It's ideological endgame, motherfuckers, and the checkmate ain't gonna be pretty.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Krugman: Republican Hypocrisy On Spending Is 'Wonderful' To Watch
By Brian Beutler TPM
One of the major themes of last week was the degree to which Republicans in Congress were deceptively referring to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposal as a weak-on-defense spending cut. The corollary to that claim--articulated by many Republicans, but also some Democrats--is that defense spending "cuts" will cost jobs. The problem is, though, that most of the people making that argument voted against the stimulus bill this past winter.
Last week we caught Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) in just such a contradiction. During the debate over the stimulus, Chambliss lashed out at the specter of government recession spending, calling it a "bloated government giveaway." But then, he called into the NPR program Talk of the Nation and said none of that matters as long as the spending is defense spending.
"[W]hen it comes to stimulating the economy," Chambliss said, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community."
On Sunday, Paul Krugman appeared on ABC's This Week, and picked up on the same thing, and called out Congressional Republicans for what one might call the "Chambliss hypocrisy". Here's Krugman:
What's so wonderful is watching Republican congressmen saying, "But this will cost jobs!" The very same Republican congressmen who were denouncing the stimulus, saying government spending never creates jobs, but cutting defense spending costs jobs. It's wonderful.
What Krugman doesn't note (because the panel covered it earlier in the show) is that these Congressional Republicans are basing their argument on spending cuts that don't exist. Funny, that. We'll be rounding up examples of this as we find them, from both Republicans and, perhaps, some anti-stimulus Democrats.
One of the major themes of last week was the degree to which Republicans in Congress were deceptively referring to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposal as a weak-on-defense spending cut. The corollary to that claim--articulated by many Republicans, but also some Democrats--is that defense spending "cuts" will cost jobs. The problem is, though, that most of the people making that argument voted against the stimulus bill this past winter.
Last week we caught Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) in just such a contradiction. During the debate over the stimulus, Chambliss lashed out at the specter of government recession spending, calling it a "bloated government giveaway." But then, he called into the NPR program Talk of the Nation and said none of that matters as long as the spending is defense spending.
"[W]hen it comes to stimulating the economy," Chambliss said, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community."
On Sunday, Paul Krugman appeared on ABC's This Week, and picked up on the same thing, and called out Congressional Republicans for what one might call the "Chambliss hypocrisy". Here's Krugman:
What's so wonderful is watching Republican congressmen saying, "But this will cost jobs!" The very same Republican congressmen who were denouncing the stimulus, saying government spending never creates jobs, but cutting defense spending costs jobs. It's wonderful.
What Krugman doesn't note (because the panel covered it earlier in the show) is that these Congressional Republicans are basing their argument on spending cuts that don't exist. Funny, that. We'll be rounding up examples of this as we find them, from both Republicans and, perhaps, some anti-stimulus Democrats.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
What The International Media Aren't Telling You About Somalia Pirates
By Susie Madrak from Crooks and LiarsJohann Hari from The Independent:
In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
Yes: Nuclear Waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."
At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."
This is the context in which the "pirates" have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia – and ordinary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence".
No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But in a telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: "We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas." William Scott would understand.
Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our toxic waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We won't act on those crimes – the only sane solution to this problem – but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 per cent of the world's oil supply, we swiftly send in the gunboats.
You can read the United Nations report here.
I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Republican Tea Bag Medley
First - Just what is this "TeaBagging" we are hearing so much about?
Definition here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tea-Bag
Just how crazy are the panic striken right wing republicans?
And to think, all it took was letting a 3% tax cut on the wealthiest segment of society expire to send these yokels into a tailspin.
I seem to not remember them acting this way when Reagan raised taxes…
Tea Party Video: Right-Wing Tax Protests Caught On Tape - Arthur Delaney - Huffington Post
Hundreds of tea party protests are scheduled in cities and towns across the country for tax day.
Rachel Maddow: Fox News "not just reporting on teabagging, they are officially promoting it"
By Heather - Crooks and Liars
Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox have a bit of fun at the teabaggers' expense. I don't know how either one of them made it through this segment without completely busting a gut.
Media Matters has the detailed factual rundown.
VIDEO: Fox News Signs On To Tea Party Agenda, Aggressively Promotes Anti-Obama Protests
By Victor Zapanta at Think Progress
Organizers of the radical anti-Obama “tea party” protests have been trying to claim that the events are rising up spontaneously. However, as Media Matters recently documented, Fox News has been aggressively promoting the anti-tax protests
Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests by Lee Fang
Despite attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests
yup
"These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown." -Sullivan
Definition here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tea-Bag
Just how crazy are the panic striken right wing republicans?
And to think, all it took was letting a 3% tax cut on the wealthiest segment of society expire to send these yokels into a tailspin.
I seem to not remember them acting this way when Reagan raised taxes…
Tea Party Video: Right-Wing Tax Protests Caught On Tape - Arthur Delaney - Huffington Post
Hundreds of tea party protests are scheduled in cities and towns across the country for tax day.
Rachel Maddow: Fox News "not just reporting on teabagging, they are officially promoting it"
By Heather - Crooks and Liars
Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox have a bit of fun at the teabaggers' expense. I don't know how either one of them made it through this segment without completely busting a gut.
Media Matters has the detailed factual rundown.
VIDEO: Fox News Signs On To Tea Party Agenda, Aggressively Promotes Anti-Obama Protests
By Victor Zapanta at Think Progress
Organizers of the radical anti-Obama “tea party” protests have been trying to claim that the events are rising up spontaneously. However, as Media Matters recently documented, Fox News has been aggressively promoting the anti-tax protests
Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests by Lee Fang
Despite attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests
yup
"These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown." -Sullivan
Thursday, April 9, 2009
COP On The Beat
by dday from Hullabaloo
As we learn today that the life insurance industry set to get in on the bailout act and receive TARP money, the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with actually overseeing the Treasury Department's TARP strategy, has released their latest report, which is largely unsparing. Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the COP, delivers a video introduction.
Warren's presentation is lucid and understated, and she makes an amazing amount of sense.The report looks back at how these types of financial crises have been traditionally handled over time. Warren offers three choices to policymakers: liquidation (essentially what we did in S&L crisis), receivership (the Swedish option), and subsidization (what we're doing to keep zombie banks alive, like in Japan). As you can see above, Warren handles each of these options expertly, and finds four crucial actions needed to successfully resolve banking crises:
• Transparency. Swift action to ensure the integrity of bank accounting, particularly with respect to the ability of regulators and investors to ascertain the value of bank assets and hence assess bank solvency • Assertiveness. Willingness to take aggressive action to address failing financial institutions by (1) taking early aggressive action to improve capital ratios of banks that can be rescued, and (2) shutting down those banks that are irreparably insolvent. • Accountability. Willingness to hold management accountable by replacing – and, in cases of criminal conduct, prosecuting – failed managers. • Clarity. Transparency in the government response with forthright measurement and reporting of all forms of assistance being provided and clearly explained criteria for the use of public sector funds.Warren concludes that the TARP bailouts failed to provide transparency, accountability or clarity. The Geithner Treasury Department plans, including PPIP and increased transparency, still fall short. "Bottom line: Treasury's efforts to date could be enough, but we will continue to press Treasury about these four tests." Essentially, Warren gives a mixed review, and she thinks that the Treasury efforts are based on the idea that the problems are temporary and not systemic.
One key assumption that underlies Treasury’s approach is its belief that the system-wide deleveraging resulting from the decline in asset values, leading to an accompanying drop in net wealth across the country, is in large part the product of temporary liquidity constraints resulting from nonfunctioning markets for troubled assets. The debate turns on whether current prices, particularly for mortgage-related assets, reflect fundamental values or whether prices are artificially depressed by a liquidity discount due to frozen markets – or some combination of the two. If its assumptions are correct, Treasury’s current approach may prove a reasonable response to the current crisis. Current prices may, in fact, prove not to be explainable without the liquidity factor. Even in areas of the country where home prices have declined precipitously, the collateral behind mortgage-related assets still retains substantial value. In a liquid market, even under-collateralized assets should not be trading at pennies on the dollar. Prices are being partially subjected to a downward self-reinforcing cycle. It is this notion of a liquidity discount that supports the potential of future gain for taxpayers and makes transactions under the CAP and the PPIP viable mechanisms for recovery of asset values while recouping a gain for taxpayers. On the other hand, it is possible that Treasury’s approach fails to acknowledge the depth of the current downturn and the degree to which the low valuation of troubled assets accurately reflects their worth. The actions undertaken by Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC are unprecedented. But if the economic crisis is deeper than anticipated, it is possible that Treasury will need to take very different actions in order to restore financial stability.I think Warren is being overly polite, but she's saying all the right things. And I think she's informing some of Congress' future moves in this area. Already the House Oversight Committee is examining the "special purpose vehicles" allegedly used to skirt executive pay restrictions, which contain elements of accountability and clarity. Warren's report deserves a wide audience.
As we learn today that the life insurance industry set to get in on the bailout act and receive TARP money, the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with actually overseeing the Treasury Department's TARP strategy, has released their latest report, which is largely unsparing. Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the COP, delivers a video introduction.
Warren's presentation is lucid and understated, and she makes an amazing amount of sense.The report looks back at how these types of financial crises have been traditionally handled over time. Warren offers three choices to policymakers: liquidation (essentially what we did in S&L crisis), receivership (the Swedish option), and subsidization (what we're doing to keep zombie banks alive, like in Japan). As you can see above, Warren handles each of these options expertly, and finds four crucial actions needed to successfully resolve banking crises:
• Transparency. Swift action to ensure the integrity of bank accounting, particularly with respect to the ability of regulators and investors to ascertain the value of bank assets and hence assess bank solvency • Assertiveness. Willingness to take aggressive action to address failing financial institutions by (1) taking early aggressive action to improve capital ratios of banks that can be rescued, and (2) shutting down those banks that are irreparably insolvent. • Accountability. Willingness to hold management accountable by replacing – and, in cases of criminal conduct, prosecuting – failed managers. • Clarity. Transparency in the government response with forthright measurement and reporting of all forms of assistance being provided and clearly explained criteria for the use of public sector funds.Warren concludes that the TARP bailouts failed to provide transparency, accountability or clarity. The Geithner Treasury Department plans, including PPIP and increased transparency, still fall short. "Bottom line: Treasury's efforts to date could be enough, but we will continue to press Treasury about these four tests." Essentially, Warren gives a mixed review, and she thinks that the Treasury efforts are based on the idea that the problems are temporary and not systemic.
One key assumption that underlies Treasury’s approach is its belief that the system-wide deleveraging resulting from the decline in asset values, leading to an accompanying drop in net wealth across the country, is in large part the product of temporary liquidity constraints resulting from nonfunctioning markets for troubled assets. The debate turns on whether current prices, particularly for mortgage-related assets, reflect fundamental values or whether prices are artificially depressed by a liquidity discount due to frozen markets – or some combination of the two. If its assumptions are correct, Treasury’s current approach may prove a reasonable response to the current crisis. Current prices may, in fact, prove not to be explainable without the liquidity factor. Even in areas of the country where home prices have declined precipitously, the collateral behind mortgage-related assets still retains substantial value. In a liquid market, even under-collateralized assets should not be trading at pennies on the dollar. Prices are being partially subjected to a downward self-reinforcing cycle. It is this notion of a liquidity discount that supports the potential of future gain for taxpayers and makes transactions under the CAP and the PPIP viable mechanisms for recovery of asset values while recouping a gain for taxpayers. On the other hand, it is possible that Treasury’s approach fails to acknowledge the depth of the current downturn and the degree to which the low valuation of troubled assets accurately reflects their worth. The actions undertaken by Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC are unprecedented. But if the economic crisis is deeper than anticipated, it is possible that Treasury will need to take very different actions in order to restore financial stability.I think Warren is being overly polite, but she's saying all the right things. And I think she's informing some of Congress' future moves in this area. Already the House Oversight Committee is examining the "special purpose vehicles" allegedly used to skirt executive pay restrictions, which contain elements of accountability and clarity. Warren's report deserves a wide audience.
Sixth anniversary of Baghdad’s fall marked by huge anti-American protests.
By Amanda Terkel at Think ProgressSix years ago today, coalition forces defeated Saddam Hussein’s regime and watched the toppling of the dictator’s statue in Firdos Square. President Bush called the day “one of the great moments in the history of liberty.” However, today many Iraqis are marking the day with anti-American protests rather than celebrations. “Tens of thousands of followers of anti-American Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr thronged Baghdad” to demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Protestors shouted, “Down, down USA” and “No, no occupation,” and burned American flags and an effigy of Bush. The AP notes that the demonstrations also coincided “with an uptick in bombings of Shiite targets around the city.”
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Baracknophobia: Hannity, Bachmann, And Beck Terrified Of Obama (VIDEO)
Jon Stewart took on people "speaking crazy to power" last night and shines the light of reality on Obama's accomplishments in his brief tenure as President. He also compares the last administration to this one in his own inimitable way.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks
From Think Progress By Satyam Khanna
President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world has been a welcome development after eight years of President Bush’s “us vs. them” approach. “Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he told the Turkish parliament yesterday. “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He told Turkish students today, “You will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.” Middle Eastern leaders are embracing Obama’s outreach already.
But apparently, the conservative establishment finds such outreach objectionable. On Fox News yesterday, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity all derided Obama’s comments to the Turkish parliament. They argued that in fact, the Iraq war served as evidence of America’s concern for Muslims. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also decried Obama’s praise for the “great civilization of Iran”:
BOLTON:There are an enormous amount of things we’ve done to benefit Muslims in countries all over the world. We have nothing to apologize for.
KRISTOL: But could Barack Obama say something that would be mildly unpopular to an audience which he was speaking? No. Could he say that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq are just and that we have fought for Muslims, incidentally under President Clinton we fought for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?
HANNITY: It seemed to me…that this was an attempt to apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein and the war on terror.
DOBBS: In his efforts to charm our allies, President Obama noted that Islam helped shape the world for the better, including the United States. He even declared Iran to be a great civilization.
Charles Krauthammer said Obama’s parliament speech was “not original and not terribly important.” Kristol responded that Krauthammer was being “too nice.” Compilation Video:
In his first trip abroad, Obama also extended a hand towards Europe, saying that America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” towards Europeans in the past. Again, the right wing saw this as evidence of Obama’s anti-Americanism.
The outreach is desperately needed. Over “70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world,” an April 2007 WorldPublicOpinion poll said. It seems that for the far right, however, the best outreach is always through bullets and bombs.
Update: In a press conference alongside Obama in Iraq today, Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki remarked: "I appreciate very much the call for dialogue that President Obama mentioned, especially between East and West, between Islam and Christianity, and also work to solve the Palestinian issue that will help reduce violence in the area drastically. It will help in giving people their rights also produce peace that we’ve been looking forward for a few years."
President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world has been a welcome development after eight years of President Bush’s “us vs. them” approach. “Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he told the Turkish parliament yesterday. “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He told Turkish students today, “You will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.” Middle Eastern leaders are embracing Obama’s outreach already.
But apparently, the conservative establishment finds such outreach objectionable. On Fox News yesterday, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity all derided Obama’s comments to the Turkish parliament. They argued that in fact, the Iraq war served as evidence of America’s concern for Muslims. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also decried Obama’s praise for the “great civilization of Iran”:
BOLTON:There are an enormous amount of things we’ve done to benefit Muslims in countries all over the world. We have nothing to apologize for.
KRISTOL: But could Barack Obama say something that would be mildly unpopular to an audience which he was speaking? No. Could he say that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq are just and that we have fought for Muslims, incidentally under President Clinton we fought for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?
HANNITY: It seemed to me…that this was an attempt to apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein and the war on terror.
DOBBS: In his efforts to charm our allies, President Obama noted that Islam helped shape the world for the better, including the United States. He even declared Iran to be a great civilization.
Charles Krauthammer said Obama’s parliament speech was “not original and not terribly important.” Kristol responded that Krauthammer was being “too nice.” Compilation Video:
In his first trip abroad, Obama also extended a hand towards Europe, saying that America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” towards Europeans in the past. Again, the right wing saw this as evidence of Obama’s anti-Americanism.
The outreach is desperately needed. Over “70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world,” an April 2007 WorldPublicOpinion poll said. It seems that for the far right, however, the best outreach is always through bullets and bombs.
Update: In a press conference alongside Obama in Iraq today, Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki remarked: "I appreciate very much the call for dialogue that President Obama mentioned, especially between East and West, between Islam and Christianity, and also work to solve the Palestinian issue that will help reduce violence in the area drastically. It will help in giving people their rights also produce peace that we’ve been looking forward for a few years."
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Lucky Ducky
The poor little duck who's rich in luck!
Digby's article below references Bolling's cartoon character and the similarities are startling.
Click cartoons for larger, perhaps readable, images:
Digby's article below references Bolling's cartoon character and the similarities are startling.
Click cartoons for larger, perhaps readable, images:
Lucky Duckies
by digby
CNN's week-end "money" show did a story on how the recession is affecting people in California. They interviewed an 84 year old waitress. That's right, an 84 year old waitress:
Professor Michael Shires: Right now it comes down to fear...Thelma Guttierez: Fear for people like Mildred Copeland, who's 84 and still waiting tables after 34 years. Shires: Unlike the recession in the early 90s that was driven by the collapse in aerospace, employees from all sectors of the economy feel like they're at risk of losing their jobs. Guttierez: Already tens of thousands have lost their jobs this year. In February, unemployment in California reached 10.5 percent and going up. Shires: most of the projections get us up somehwere around 12 percent between now and this time next year. Guttierez: That translates to loss of nearly a million jobs in the golden state, according to economic forecasts. 84 year old Mildred Copeland (video) :
Ali Velshi: That woman who you had in your story, the woman who'd been a waitress, I almost wonder whether people who live close to the edge, but don't carry a lot of debt are not as affected by this recession. They've sort of been living in that state for a while. There's not a lot of room they've had to fall. Guttierez: Ali, you're absolutely right. I think that's the lesson here. You look at somebody like Mildred, she's 84 years old. She's still waiting tables, but she's doing it to supplement her social security income. The most important thing here is that she has no mortgage.. Ali: right ..Guttierez: She doesn't have the monkey on her back that we all have and so she doesn't have to worry. She feels that she can move through this crisis because she lives simply, she was able to pay off her house, and she doesn't have the big worry so many people out there have, which is mortgage.Velshi: We hear a lot of people talking about their grandparents who experienced the recession, or the depression and how they learned the value of a dollar. That might be the silver lining to this thing. We might have a new generation who knows how to stretch a dollar and how to stay clear of as much debt as we've gotten ourselves into. Guttierez: Absolutely. And that's Mildred's point. You have to learn from this crisis. You have to take it to the future, you have to learn to live within your means, and make sure that you pay off that house and that you buy a house you can afford. She says that that's really the way that she's able to sleep at night."
Lucky, lucky Mildred. After all, she could be out of a job and then where would she be? I guess if we all play our cards right we too can be waiting tables when we're 84. As long as we live prudently, of course, and make sure we don't have any housing expenses at that age. Otherwise, it could get dicey --- and we'd only have ourselves to blame. Meanwhile, we learned that the most fortunate people in this recession are those who had nothing to begin with because they didn't have so far to fall. (The real victims of the recession are Thelma and Ali who have jobs and the "monkey on the back" of mortgage payments.) These people at the low end of the economic scale like Mildred are used to being "close to the edge" and are actually much better off than everyone else because being poor is acceptable for them. They can sleep at night. Lucky duckies all. Ali Velshi, by the way, was wearing what appeared to be at least a five thousand dollar suit as he piously lectured America about learning the value of a dollar.
CNN's week-end "money" show did a story on how the recession is affecting people in California. They interviewed an 84 year old waitress. That's right, an 84 year old waitress:
Professor Michael Shires: Right now it comes down to fear...Thelma Guttierez: Fear for people like Mildred Copeland, who's 84 and still waiting tables after 34 years. Shires: Unlike the recession in the early 90s that was driven by the collapse in aerospace, employees from all sectors of the economy feel like they're at risk of losing their jobs. Guttierez: Already tens of thousands have lost their jobs this year. In February, unemployment in California reached 10.5 percent and going up. Shires: most of the projections get us up somehwere around 12 percent between now and this time next year. Guttierez: That translates to loss of nearly a million jobs in the golden state, according to economic forecasts. 84 year old Mildred Copeland (video) :
Ali Velshi: That woman who you had in your story, the woman who'd been a waitress, I almost wonder whether people who live close to the edge, but don't carry a lot of debt are not as affected by this recession. They've sort of been living in that state for a while. There's not a lot of room they've had to fall. Guttierez: Ali, you're absolutely right. I think that's the lesson here. You look at somebody like Mildred, she's 84 years old. She's still waiting tables, but she's doing it to supplement her social security income. The most important thing here is that she has no mortgage.. Ali: right ..Guttierez: She doesn't have the monkey on her back that we all have and so she doesn't have to worry. She feels that she can move through this crisis because she lives simply, she was able to pay off her house, and she doesn't have the big worry so many people out there have, which is mortgage.Velshi: We hear a lot of people talking about their grandparents who experienced the recession, or the depression and how they learned the value of a dollar. That might be the silver lining to this thing. We might have a new generation who knows how to stretch a dollar and how to stay clear of as much debt as we've gotten ourselves into. Guttierez: Absolutely. And that's Mildred's point. You have to learn from this crisis. You have to take it to the future, you have to learn to live within your means, and make sure that you pay off that house and that you buy a house you can afford. She says that that's really the way that she's able to sleep at night."
Lucky, lucky Mildred. After all, she could be out of a job and then where would she be? I guess if we all play our cards right we too can be waiting tables when we're 84. As long as we live prudently, of course, and make sure we don't have any housing expenses at that age. Otherwise, it could get dicey --- and we'd only have ourselves to blame. Meanwhile, we learned that the most fortunate people in this recession are those who had nothing to begin with because they didn't have so far to fall. (The real victims of the recession are Thelma and Ali who have jobs and the "monkey on the back" of mortgage payments.) These people at the low end of the economic scale like Mildred are used to being "close to the edge" and are actually much better off than everyone else because being poor is acceptable for them. They can sleep at night. Lucky duckies all. Ali Velshi, by the way, was wearing what appeared to be at least a five thousand dollar suit as he piously lectured America about learning the value of a dollar.
Listen to the Chorus of Republicans Condeming Their Crazies
By Earth Bound MisfitYou'll need some serious amplification to hear them, for they will be drowned out by the sound of one cricket chirping from two miles awayU.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann says she fears the Obama administration will create “re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.”You will have to wait a very long time for a quote conservative unquote to stand up and say the obvious: Bachmann needs to have her meds adjusted. She can out-crazy the entire population of a psychiatric hospital. Bachmann is just flat-out insane (and so are a majority of the voters of Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District). Besides that, she ought to be forced to attend the funerals of the three cops killed in Pittsburgh, for it is tinfoil-hat conspiracy types like Bachmann who are speaking directly to the Pittsburgh Loserman who shot those cops. And it wasn't just shooting cops in a gunfight, one of the cops was lying on the ground, dying and Loserman pumped more rounds into him.As much as people on my side of the spectrum feared (and with good cause, I might add) that Bush was dragging this nation down the road to fascism, you'll have to search far and wide to find one person who conspired to either assassinate Bush or who went out and started shooting people. Yet the police and the Secret Service were breaking up plots to kill Obama before the election, we've had more than one shooting targeting liberals and now the Pittsburgh cop killer was spouting Bachmann-brand conspiracy drivel. But you'll still find Wingnuts like Bachmann and all of the Hindenbergs on Faux News spouting their conspiracy and racially-tinged bilge and you'll find armed imbeciles buying it. I fear that life in this country is going to get a lot bloodier. Let's call their motivation for what it truly is: It is racism. .
The Wingnuts are going batshit because there is a Black president. They cannot come to grips with that fact and they are seriously unhinged over it.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Shuster, Blow slam wingnut rhetoric
by Jed LewisonThis is truly amazing. David Shuster leads a panel discussion with gun activist Allan Gotlieb and New York Times columnist Charles Blow on the escalation of the right-wing’s revolutionary rhetoric. You won't believe this.
Video Here: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001121/
My comments: Take a minute to watch this and then think of your neighbors, your parents, co-workers or any of the 40 million people that watch Fox News and believe everything they tell them.
It scares the shit out of me.
Fox News should be illegal.
Sunday Funnies (on Monday... was fishing on Sunday)
Lets hope Yoo, Gonzales, Feith, and Cheney get the "Comfy Electric Chair".
Saturday, April 4, 2009
If You Are Listening to the GOP on the Deficit, You May Be Certifiable
By Earth Bound MisfitThat is not just my opinion, mind you. It is based on the historical record since 1980. This chart (left - click for larger image) shows the Federal debt, both in a dollar amount and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.
As you can see, for the thirty years from 1950 to 1980, both parties did a pretty good job at paying down the debt that was run up during the Second World War. But then the GOP passed from the hands of people who believed in things such as "economics", "science" and "reality" into the hands of people who believed in an economic ideology that was clearly a form of insanity.For nearly thirty years, the Republican mantra has been "tax cuts for the rich, to hell with the poor, fuck the middle class, who needs infrastructure and spend like a motherfucker on defense". Coupled that with the GOP's uter hostility to regulations and laws that control the behavior of rich people and corporations and, as a result, you have the economic disaster that confronts President Obama.None of that, however, stops the party of Hoover from proposing slashing social programs and giving more money to rich people as their cure-all. The record is clear: The only thing that will be "cured" by the prescription of the Disciples of Reagan is the status of the United States as an economic power, for the Hooverites would, if given the chance, complete their destruction of the middle class.
Friday, April 3, 2009
"Socialized" medicine: Next front in the right's "-isms" arms race
by Karl FrischAn "-isms" arms race is under way in America.
Turn on cable news or talk radio and you're likely to hear a conservative host, right-wing pundit, or Republican elected official accuse President Obama and the Democratic Congress of just about every "-ism" in the book.
Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism -- few, if any, "-isms" have been spared as the right escalates its daily verbal assault on the progressive agenda.
In fact, according to a search of broadcasts on TVEyes.com, since Obama's inauguration in January, these terms and others like them have been thrown around on cable news at least 3,000 times. Add conservative talk radio and the nation's newspaper op-ed pages to the mix and watch that figure grow like a well-watered, limited edition Bill O'Reilly Chia Pet.
Take the third most-listened-to radio voice in America, San Francisco's Michael Savage, who recently called Obama "a neo-Marxist fascist dictator in the making." That's one of the kinder things Savage has said of the president during his daily three-hour hatefest. He's also claimed that the "radical left," including Obama, "dream[s]" of "Maoist revolution" with "death camps" and that Obama appointees "actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did."
Then there's Fox News' "-ism" king, Sean Hannity, who has dubbed the United States under Obama the "United States of France" (bonus points for bringing up the dreaded French) and the president himself "commissar-in-chief." Hannity, who hates to pass up an opportunity to advance GOP talking points, has even applauded congressional Republicans for finally using the "S-word." He's also said the Obama administration "is on a mission to hijack capitalism in favor of collectivism. ... The Bolsheviks have already arrived." He opened one recent show by declaring, "Day number 52 of the socialism that you've been waiting for." At least he can count. Spelling, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be Hannity's strong suit. His Red-baiting blood runs so -- well, red, I guess, that his program recently misspelled "comrades" in on-air graphics.
The same folks who've likened progressive policy initiatives to communism have gone on to accuse the president and other Democrats of "McCarthyism." The bizarre nature of this historical comparison is apparently lost on those making the charge. It would be a bit like practicing magic days before kicking off a witch hunt. Hocus-pocus, indeed.
No issue incurs the wrath of these modern-day Red hunters more than health-care reform. For more than 75 years, conservatives have smeared progressive attempts to reform our faltering health-care system as "socialized medicine."
Let's get one thing straight. Anyone who argues that progressive health-care reform initiatives amount to "socialized medicine" is being disingenuous at best. At worst, they lack a basic understanding of what "socialized medicine" really is.
Simply put, health-care reform that leaves the for-profit health insurance industry intact, reform that leaves doctors and other medical professionals free to offer their services outside of a government system, reform that leaves citizens free to choose a private health-care plan over a government plan simply can't be described honestly as "socialized medicine."
As the Urban Institute put it last year, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description."
That is correct, of course, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from claiming otherwise for decades. Since the 1930s, conservatives have assailed at least 16 different progressive health-care reform initiatives as "socialized medicine" or as a step that would inevitably lead in that direction.
What exactly has constituted "socialized medicine" to conservatives over the past seven-plus decades?
How about Franklin Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 bill that created Social Security, or Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare? Both raised the ire of conservatives, who were quick to run with the "socialized medicine" smear.
In fact, back in 1964, Ronald Reagan, then stumping for GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, said of Medicare, "Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients."
Like Roosevelt and Johnson decades before him, Bill Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994 and his work to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997 were attacked time and again as "socialized medicine."
Pick a progressive president. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and now Obama -- they've all faced the stale "socialized medicine" routine from the right.
Will it get any better in the weeks and months ahead as Congress debates the president's budget, which will reportedly seek to reform health care? I'm not holding my breath. My own political pessim-ism? More like real-ism with an eye toward history.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his columns by email.
Turn on cable news or talk radio and you're likely to hear a conservative host, right-wing pundit, or Republican elected official accuse President Obama and the Democratic Congress of just about every "-ism" in the book.
Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism -- few, if any, "-isms" have been spared as the right escalates its daily verbal assault on the progressive agenda.
In fact, according to a search of broadcasts on TVEyes.com, since Obama's inauguration in January, these terms and others like them have been thrown around on cable news at least 3,000 times. Add conservative talk radio and the nation's newspaper op-ed pages to the mix and watch that figure grow like a well-watered, limited edition Bill O'Reilly Chia Pet.
Take the third most-listened-to radio voice in America, San Francisco's Michael Savage, who recently called Obama "a neo-Marxist fascist dictator in the making." That's one of the kinder things Savage has said of the president during his daily three-hour hatefest. He's also claimed that the "radical left," including Obama, "dream[s]" of "Maoist revolution" with "death camps" and that Obama appointees "actually have almost the same exact policies as the Nazi Party did."
Then there's Fox News' "-ism" king, Sean Hannity, who has dubbed the United States under Obama the "United States of France" (bonus points for bringing up the dreaded French) and the president himself "commissar-in-chief." Hannity, who hates to pass up an opportunity to advance GOP talking points, has even applauded congressional Republicans for finally using the "S-word." He's also said the Obama administration "is on a mission to hijack capitalism in favor of collectivism. ... The Bolsheviks have already arrived." He opened one recent show by declaring, "Day number 52 of the socialism that you've been waiting for." At least he can count. Spelling, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be Hannity's strong suit. His Red-baiting blood runs so -- well, red, I guess, that his program recently misspelled "comrades" in on-air graphics.
The same folks who've likened progressive policy initiatives to communism have gone on to accuse the president and other Democrats of "McCarthyism." The bizarre nature of this historical comparison is apparently lost on those making the charge. It would be a bit like practicing magic days before kicking off a witch hunt. Hocus-pocus, indeed.
No issue incurs the wrath of these modern-day Red hunters more than health-care reform. For more than 75 years, conservatives have smeared progressive attempts to reform our faltering health-care system as "socialized medicine."
Let's get one thing straight. Anyone who argues that progressive health-care reform initiatives amount to "socialized medicine" is being disingenuous at best. At worst, they lack a basic understanding of what "socialized medicine" really is.
Simply put, health-care reform that leaves the for-profit health insurance industry intact, reform that leaves doctors and other medical professionals free to offer their services outside of a government system, reform that leaves citizens free to choose a private health-care plan over a government plan simply can't be described honestly as "socialized medicine."
As the Urban Institute put it last year, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description."
That is correct, of course, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from claiming otherwise for decades. Since the 1930s, conservatives have assailed at least 16 different progressive health-care reform initiatives as "socialized medicine" or as a step that would inevitably lead in that direction.
What exactly has constituted "socialized medicine" to conservatives over the past seven-plus decades?
How about Franklin Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 bill that created Social Security, or Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare? Both raised the ire of conservatives, who were quick to run with the "socialized medicine" smear.
In fact, back in 1964, Ronald Reagan, then stumping for GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, said of Medicare, "Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients."Like Roosevelt and Johnson decades before him, Bill Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994 and his work to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997 were attacked time and again as "socialized medicine."
Pick a progressive president. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and now Obama -- they've all faced the stale "socialized medicine" routine from the right.
Will it get any better in the weeks and months ahead as Congress debates the president's budget, which will reportedly seek to reform health care? I'm not holding my breath. My own political pessim-ism? More like real-ism with an eye toward history.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his columns by email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
