Through the Republican Looking Glass: Prosperity=Socialism?

My last post highlighted the sharp divide between what Republicans believe (and want you to believe) and reality. Truth is they're a hot mess of a coalition which exists in an alter-reality. It is there that an echo chamber of groupthink reinforces a collective psychosis and an often angry delirium, within the depths of which it is reasonable to believe that man lived with dinosaurs, the earth is 6000 years old, and that America was a hotbed of Marxism until the arrival of God's candidate in the year 2000 (read on).

Johnny McSame used to present himself as someone who took great relish in railing against the absurdity evident in the through the looking-glass reasoning of George W. Bush and his half-witted minions. Then in 2000, the GOP handed his head to him in South Carolina and Johnny decided to venture through the looking glass himself...abandoning all pretense of reason for sycophancy and the promise of power.

Nowhere is Johnny's journey into the GOP twilight zone more evident than in his criticism of Barack Obama's plan make the necessary corrections to the fiscally ahistoric and irresponsible Bush II tax cuts for the wealthy at a time of war-- the very tax cuts which have turned the the robust middle class of the Clinton Administration into the dying and besieged working and middle classes of a dark Bush/McCain 2008 economic reality.

Once the healthy backbone of the American economy, the shrinking middle-class has fallen victim to the McBushenomics redistribution of wealth upward, through which the greatest disparity in wealth between the super-rich and everyone else since Great Depression has been created in less than eight years.

You see, while Johnny now opposes Obama's planned tax cuts for 95% for Americans and a return to Reagan era tax progressivity, in 2001 and 2003 John McCain not only supported what Obama now proposes, but railed loudly against the very same Bush II tax cuts he now seeks to extend and expand. In 2001 Johnny not only thought that Clinton's tax policy was fair, but that the wealthy should bear an even greater tax burden than they did under Wild Bill Clinton, and that the middle class should be the ones targeted to receive tax relief.

You see, McCranky was for Obama/Clinton tax policies, before he was against them and firmly believed that the Obama/Clinton approach was not only fair, but THE ONLY WAY way to assure the long term fiscal health of the country

Today however, John McCain sees the fiscal policies of the Reagan era and the hyper-economic-growth Clinton era as dangerous experiments in socialism (or even...gasp...Communism). Why, he says, should we abandon the wildly successful Bush II economic policies (heck...business at soup kitchens is booming!) in in favor of revisiting the horrors of the Clinton fiscal policies, which yielded unbearably good times and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. Why would anyone be crazy enough to settle for a return to Clinton's massive Federal Budget Surpluses when it is so clearly the case that continuing Bush's record breaking half-TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS are the path to a new American heyday!

Sure Ronald Reagan might have been a communist at heart, after all it is rumored that he tried to join the Communist party (and that they rejected him), but I had no idea that he was visiting a red-menace of his own upon 1980's America by signing into law a capital gains tax of 28% and signing off on the wildly Marxist tax policies of the Reagan/Bush I era!

And Bill Clinton...the 1990's...don't get me started. I think we all remember the sheer hell of rising wages, cheap gas, low inflation, and booming business (Damn you Robert Ruben!!). Thank the gods (you know...gods Greed and Power) for the enlightened approaches of the Bush/McCain era!

I think you'll find that it is possible to find McCain's plans sensible, but only if you are willing to stand with him, and view reality from through the Republican Looking glass. Yes, give yourself to the collective psychosis that characterizes Republican thinking and it all makes sense. Or not.

Now, which pill was it...which one makes the Economy bigger and which one makes it smaller? Red? Blue?

Which one takes us to the reality of a brighter future and which one leads us down the same delusional Bush/McSame Rabbit Hole?

You already know the answer...

VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN '08!

There is a coordinated effort by the GOP to suppress student, minority, and elderly votes (and those of other other likely Democratic Voters), so prepare yourself for any contingencies by VOTING EARLY after having read 7 Easy Steps To Steal Back Your Vote .

Don't let them BLOCK YOUR VOTE!





XOXO
Politigal1

Sphere: Related Content

Plumber Schlummer! It's Still the Economy Stupid and Republicans Always Screw it (And You) Up!....Down, Sideways, and From Behind!

Republican Fiscal Fiction Versus Reality

Who will save the economy? John McCain wants to put Bushenomics on steroids and has now adopted the decades old Republican (provably false...read on) rhetoric of Democratic fiscal irresponsibility and the lie of superior economic stewardship by Republican Administrations. What’s the real truth? How has it worked out for Americans EVERY time we’ve elected a Republican President during the past 40 years? And why is McCain trotting out such dusty attacks on Obama?

First, let’s get McCain’s 20 year rhetorical time-warp to the tired politics of elections past out of the way. The reason for the tactical shift is completely understandable: McCain has discovered that no matter how many times he closes his eyes and clicks his ruby slippers together saying "There's no place like Nam, there's no place like Nam" or screams "Obama!...Ayres! Terrorist BFFs!", Americans aren’t buying any of it. He's desperate.

So will American’s buy this latest tactical shift from Team McCain? Short answer: not a chance. The long answer requires a deeper look at why the American people have become so weary of Republican economic promises by examining the long term effects of Republican policy through the eyes of history from a temporal altitude several decades high.

Lets begin our journey in the present. What is the truth about John McCain’s latest economic proposal? Will it benefit the panicked masses? Or will it be just more of the same Bush giveaways to the super-wealthy and more Bushenomic spit in the eye of the little guy? Jared Bernstein (love Crunch) characterized McCain's plan in the following way:

"The good number crunchers at the Tax Policy Center examined who would benefit from the McCain proposal. The middle fifth of families end up with all of 0.2% of the benefits. That's not a typo. The tax break would lower their annual tax bill by $4.00. OK, that is a gallon of gas, but it's not what you'd call a game-changer. The top 20% end up with 98.3% of the benefits of the cut, and the top 1%, with income above $600,000 get 75% of the gains, for an average benefit of $37,600. The average tax savings for the top 0.1%--income above $3 mil--is $244,000."

So McCain plans to give $4 in tax relief to the Middle-Class and a $244, ooo to the über wealthy top o.1 percent!? Could that be right? Yep, you read that right. It’s obscene and it speaks volumes about where McCain’s true priorities lie in these troubled economic times. His plan is just more of the same old trickle-down flim-flam that has never worked. It's Bush times two. If you like what you've gotten over the past eight years, you'll just love an even bigger helping from a President McCain. If an economy in shambles isn't what you're after, well, read on...

I suppose it might be easier to stomach (and far less insulting one's intelligence) if the whole Republican idea of fiscal responsibility really did have a track record of delivering robust markets, a reduced national debt, balanced budgets and prosperity for all, but ...

Republican administrations yield less to the investor, wildly expand both the National Debt and Federal Deficits, and increase the concentration of wealth at the top while sticking it to the middle class and poor!

Allow me to make my points graphically. Well start with an examination of market performance under Republican and Democratic Administrations over the past 80 years. Time spent in the Whit House has been split roughly equally over that time period with 40 years of Republican control and 40 years of Democratic control.

Lets have a look at what a $10,000 stock-market investment would've gotten you under the Republican administrations during their 40 years of control, and what that same $10,000 would have gotten you under Democratic administrations during their 40 yeas of White House control.

Whoa! Didn't see that one coming did you? It's not even close: Democratic Administrations would have turned your $10,000 into $300,000 and Republican administrations wouldn't even have kept pace with inflation over their four decades of control with a pitiful $1,733 in capital gains (and that's best case--with Hoover's disastrous administration left out). Bottom line, if you want to see your 401k grow, pray for a Democrat in the White House.

But what about revenue and spending? You know, fiscal responsibility. Who really is a better steward of Government finances? One political Party ALWAYS keeps Federal deficits, the National Debt, and spending under control, and one Party ALWAYS puts America deeper in the hole and more indebted to countries like Japan and China. Which is which? The answer might surprise you but the facts (from the far left folks at the U.S. dept of Treasury) are crystal clear.

Take a second and really soak in that graph. The Republican rhetoric sure doesn't match American fiscal reality at all, does it? Turns out Republicans over the past 40 or so years have always run the country like 12 year olds with a their parent's credit card, and Democrats have always kept the American financial house in order. If you don't want to leave your kids and grand kids an even bigger bill than Chimpy already has...Pray for a Democrat in the White House.

(Be sure to check out the chart below too, it really makes clear who consistently spends America into massive debt.)

OK, you say, so the Republicans always screw the pooch when it comes to market performance and fiscal responsibility, but what about their promises of prosperity for all? Surely they deliver on THAT perennial promise right? Once again...nope. The chart below shows the growing gap between the super-rich and the bottom 90% of Americans, a gap which has become increasingly pronounced under the Bush Administration's policies (the chart is from The Nation's June 30th issue The New Inequality...a must read issue for understanding the New Guilded Age. I'd also recommend Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal).

As the top chart points out, in 2006 the insanely wealthy 0.01% of Americans averaged more than 976 times more income than the bottom 90%. The bottom graph shows what the effective tax rate is for the those making millions and billions. Turns out they don't pay the marginal tax rate at all, but through utilization tax-loopholes pay only 23%--even less than someone (maybe you) earning $32,550 - $78,850 (marginal rate 25%).

Doesn't sound much like "prosperity for all", now does it? It sounds like an unfair redistribution of wealth upward. Against all reason (he's workin' that extra-chromosome thing like a champ) McCain wants to continue, and even intensify the Bushenomic policies so that the already advantaged become even more advantaged and the other 80% of Americans are effectively told to get bent. McCain really is MORE OF THE SAME, and he is hoping against hope that you don't figure out that his new-found "Joe the Plumber" populist message is nothing more than...well..lipstick on a pig.

So who should you trust to fix the economy? Well, if you are all for doing the same thing and expecting different results (ie. clinically insane), then vote McCain. If what you are after is an effective, thoughtful, new approach to dealing with America's growing economic challenges...don't just pray for a Democrat in the White-House--put one there! Put an end to the insanity! Vote Obama/Biden in '08!

PolitiGal1

FOR VH:
Charts from U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ
The charts below illustrate the growth of the U.S. Natioal Debt from 1940-2008. The first is not adjusted for inflation and the second has been adjusted for inflation.

As you can see when adjusted for inflation, the graph provides an even more pronounced illustration of the almost exponential (not quite a J curve though) expansion of debt under both Reagan/BushI and under Bush II. It also illustrates the effects of the Clinton Administrations move from huge Bush I deficits to the Surplus of 2000, evident in the leveling of f just before Bush II's disastrous eight years at the helm.

Sphere: Related Content

Sean Hannity = Anti-Semite? Flipping the GOP Script

About those glass houses they're always talking about...

During and after the debate last night, there was scarcely a mention of William "Bill" Ayers...unless of course you were watching Fox. They droned on and on about it, with Sean Hannity leading the charge and trumpeting importance of a person's associations (especially the impersonal, passing, tangential kind) when evaluating that person's character and judgement. Then he met Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs...


Andy Martin, is a main player in the creation/propagation of the wholly disproved idea that Barack Obama was and is a (Secret?) Muslim.

In addition to being the source of wildly hateful lies about Obama, Andy Martin also has a long history of Antisemitism (2), so when Sean Hannity gave such a reprehensible human being a wide audience and the "Hannity sanctioned" air of authority on his special Obama & Friends: A History of Radicalism, what's a girl to think? Is it wrong to hold him to his own high standards, and draw similar conclusions? Eh...it was just the one time right? Wrong.




Ealier in his career Sean Hannity befriended Neo-Nazi Hal Turner, who "was regularly welcomed on Hannity’s show, even after saying on the air that if it weren’t for the graciousness of white people, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa."

In fact, instead of breaking his contact with turner, the two became close, with Hannity allegedy at on point "offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News's Hannity and Colmes"

Is there a pattern here? Those are some pretty unsavory associations, and Sean sure seems to find the same kind of people again and again...What guilt should we infer from his associations?

"If putting lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig, does putting half white genes in a nigger still leave you with a nigger?" -Hal Turner

Clearly some reasonable (unreasonable) truths (untruths?) can be logically (illogically) inferred about Sean Hannity by invoking the "Hannity-RNC Rules of Guilt By Association"----based upon his more than passing associations with Noe-Nazis and White-Supremests , it is only reasonable (isn't it?) to conclude that ol' Sean holds the same racist beliefs as his pals, and is himself an Anti-Semitic White-Supremest who agrees that Jews are dirty and African-Americans would be little more than apes were it not for the white man...

Maybe Sean should engage in a little self-examination, though I doubt he's psychologically equipped or inclined to do so. . Hmmm...I seem to recall something in the Brick (LEGO) Bible about all this.......

Politigal (Politgal1)

Sphere: Related Content

Fresh Off The Presses--"That One" Won!

In order for John McCain to have won the debate tonight, he would have had to leave the American public with no doubt about who had won the debate. He left no such impression. Instead John McCain proposed a massive new government program to buy up failing mortgages:

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Now, a $300 billion dollar buyout of bad home loan mortgages is the kind of prima facie big government liberal program that is likely to have those Republicans that count themselves as fiscal conservatives shaking their heads vigorously just before they stroke out. But fear not evil ones, there is one man who is committed to making sure all government spending is frozen, except for a few critical items (and a home mortgage rescue program isn't on the list), and that man was at the debate too.

That man's name....JOHN MCCAIN! Yes my friends, good old two face returns...or maybe it was an MPD McPenguin...you be the judge (is it a sin to mix Batman memes?).



Yes, the schizophrenia that has plagued McCain's campaign almost from the beginning reared it's beautiful head again tonight as Johnny (McPenguin #2), took a position diametrically opposed to Johnny(McPenguin #1) by uttering the followingl:

So we're going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that -- except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze.

Zoinks! Surely things couldn't go further south for the Johnnies...could they?

Oh yeah! I'm not sure which Johnny McPenguin it was (maybe cranky-ass JohnnyMcPenguin... who am I kidding, that's pretty much all of 'em) but one of 'em unforgivably refused to call Barack Obama by his given name, and chose instead to refer to him as "that one":

"You know who voted for it? You might never know. (pointing dismissively at Obama) That one. You know who voted against it? Me."

Wowsa! Johnny McPenguin, you got some 'splainin' to do! Now you've gone and done it! The Right is pissed, the American Public confused (are you a spender or cutter?), more than a few folks are offended, and your chances to become President are falling faster than the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

But lets be clear, McPenguin didn't loose the debate all by himself, Barack also clearly won it on points and charisma. On more than one occasion Obama absolutely owned McPenguin (all of 'em), pointing out the laughable chasm between who John McCain says he is and who he actually is. Responding to an attack by McCain that Obama should be more like Teddy Roosevelt, speaking softly and carrying a big stick, Obama launched the following scorching salvo:

Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

Ahhh...was it good for you?

More later,
PolitiGal1

Sphere: Related Content

Palin:"There's a Place in Hell Reserved for Women Who Don't Support Other Women"

HUH? Burning Bush? Blinding flash of light? No, it was a steaming cup of coffee.


God apparently spoke to Sarah Palin Saturday in a "provincial" moment while she was drinking a cup o' joe (Size: Godly Latte Flavor:Joya del Dia Blend™...to die (a on a cross?) for...just divine!) from Starbucks. It would seem she looked down at her cup, and no doubt, using her LensCrafter Barbie Superpowers, managed to see something that wasn't explicitly there...a Heavenly admonishment for women to (and a damning of those who don't) support her run for VP as part of the McCain/Palin VP ticket:

"I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, okay? The quote of the day... It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. ... Now she said it, I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women."

Today Madeline Albright set the record straight about her quote and which ticket she believes smart women should support:

"Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."

Whoa...Lourdes, Fatima, and...Starbucks? Last time God spoke to her like that she was holding a math book (she's never actually touched an English book) with no name yet chosen for her new baby...and then...God spoke...

Definitely some mysterious ways afoot here...or not.

Is this girl special or what? Ya'Betcha (Wink)!

-Politigal1

Sphere: Related Content

Uh,..Looking Back? Not Really...Just Trying To Make Sure An Ugly Yesterday Isn't Dragged Into Our Brighter Tomorrow

Who's your daddy? Really, that's the first question we're asking you Mack Bush (totally rhetorically BTW), because that guy beat the hell out of us (half the team is unconscious, and a quarter is dead) and we're still trying to stop the bleeding.

The second question we're asking you is--in what ways are you different than that bastard daddy of yours, Chimpy Bush? None? You say you don't see ANYTHING wrong with what he did and want to continue the beatings...only harder?

Well excuse us trying for to keep the beatings of our yesterdays from becoming a featured part of our tomorrows. It's kinda hard to see rainbows and blue skies through swollen shut eyes. Protecting ourselves from future pain isn't what we call looking back, it's what we like to call "lookin' out".

Listen, Mack, a few years ago before you "growed-up" all ugly and mean (same flavors as your dad only uglier and meaner) we'd hoped you'd turn out different from your old man, but guess not.

Forgive us for pointing out the obvious---you have no soul, and more importantly no remorse, and there is no way in hell we're letting you take over the team. You say you want change, but the only change you're talking about is changing the the name of the guy beating us.

Our real friend, young hopeful Barry O, is the guy we've decided to go with to run the team because he promises some real changes. He knows the beatings were wrong (is that looking back too?), has never beaten an anyone he was charged with protecting in his life, and promises to get the swelling down so we can see those awesome blue skies again, feel the sun on our skin, and fully appreciate majesty of the occasional rainbow.

Let us say this slowly for you, because that extra chromosome of yours is really slowing your thinking down...Making sure the tragedies of our yesterdays don't become the tragedies of our tomorrows isn't looking back, its looking out. And pointing out our abusers isn't blaming (this ain't a case of who spilled the milk Mack), it's protecting ourselves and anyone else in earshot from getting beaten or fooled into taking a beating in the future.

Sphere: Related Content

Palin the P-O-T-A-T-O-E Speller or Palin the Debater Tonight?

Though this past week of Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin presented the portrait of a LensCrafter Barbie more likely to be elected Mrs. South Carolina (errr Alaska) than Vice President, don't expect the same cracks in her brittle, ill-informed, and incurious mind to be on display tonight. She will (appear to) be a different woman.



The differences in formats and purposes between a network interview and presidential debate will necessarily yield different results.



Many in my camp are privately hoping for a Dan Quayle-ish performance from the Alaskan Governor. Publicly they are spinning Palin debate performance expectations upward should she somehow exceed the low expectations the public and media have set for her. I would remind my wishful friends and you, that when it came time to debate, Dan Quayle (the debater) was no Dan Quayle (the potatoe speller).

He held his own. One need only watch the following 1992 vice presidential debate footage between the intellectually gifted Al Gore and the intellectually impoverished Quayle to understand:



Tonight, the difference between Palin the Potatoe Speller and Palin debator will be equally stark. You will see the illusion of competence evident in the Palin Gubernatorial debates of 2006 on display here tonight, not the fumbling, unsure interviewee of the past week or so.

The apparent dramatic shift in competence is an illusion (like making a horse look like it can count) borne of the different task specific demands of being interviewed and those of debating. In the interview, where one interviewer probes one interviewee, there are an almost infinite number of possible questions that might be posed, and any non-answers will almost certainly be followed up upon by a competent interviewer(see Charlie Gibson).

In a debate the questions are generally limited in scope to current events and policy positions. Time for answering the questions is strictly limited, and the moderator's ability to chase down an evasive answer is nullified by debate duration time concerns.

Additionally, in preparation for the debate, each of the candidates will, in the course of preparing for the debate, have memorized several "on message" responses to be given in the event of a knowledge or willingness gap.

Charlie Gibson was able to toss Palin a question about the Bush Doctrine that threw her embarrassingly off, and had the time to press her into a painfully revealing corner. If she were to have been asked the same question in a debate by a moderator she would have replied:

"John McCain and I are well aware of what's laid out by the Bush Doctrine, but I think the American people are less concerned in these troubled economic times with any policy of the previous administration, and more with finding ways shoring up our failing economy and fixing the dysfunction and special interest infected Washington system that has landed us in this mess. The want maverick change...and thats what they would get in a McCain-Palin administration...maverick change."

The above answer could easily but modified to be used if faced with a question about Alan Greenspan's policies or those of the Clinton Administration's Robert Rubin, and in each case Palin would appear to be reasonably bringing the conversation back to the crisis facing the American people today and rather than avoiding the question asked.

That, my friends, is how you make a fool seem a genius, and a potatoe speller a debater.


******POST DEBATE UPDATE**********
Did you notice how fervently Palin was shuffling through her note cards during the debate, barely lifting her head during each of Biden's responses? She was madly looking for prepackaged responses provided beforehand by McCain advisers, one answer per card.

The Advisors (who, incidentally, also wrote her well practiced one liners) tried to anticipate all possible questions, but not being psychics, couldn't. The times Palin refused to answer the asked questions were the times she either had no prewritten response or couldn't find it amongst the hundred or so cards she had to shuffle through to find it.

This should make you smile (laugh aloud?) next time someone points out how bold Palin was in refusing to answer the questions Gwen Ifill (the moderator) asked in order to talk directly to the American people. She wasn't bold...she was desperate.

Did she meet the low expectations set by the media and her republican handlers? Ya'Betcha (Wink)! Would she have been able to answer any of the questions without her raft of notecards? Nopester...she woulda been refusing questions all night long in order to speak directly to the American People (that bold babe!).

Was it a success?...."In what respect, Charlie?"



Politigal1

Sphere: Related Content

Double Vision

Sphere: Related Content