Are You Better off?

The question that's being asked now by Republicans in the media is none other than the famous question asked by Ronald Reagan over thirty years ago. Are you better of now than you were four years ago? It's a great question, straightforward, easy, but very difficult to answer for an incumbent politician during a bad economy.

Graph Taken From Thinkprogress.org

Which is why the Romney campaign picked a perfect time to ask. With unemployment at an 8.2% national average, public sector employees suffering continued layoffs or pay freezes, the median household incomes for the middle class have lost ground, union membership is at the lowest in history. , gasoline is over $4 a gallon and food prices continuing to rise, not to mention the fact that though we've had job growth, many of those jobs are part time or low wage, this question seems to destroy any hope of Obama winning a second term, except  for this one caveat.

These things are directly attributed to Republican policies.

Yeah, they built that.

Over the past thirty years since Ronald Reagan, Republican administrations, with help from Democrats have aggressively campaigned against public workers, unions, social safety net programs, taxes on the wealthy and regulation on financial institutions. These policies have lead to right to work legislation, which decreased the power of unions to collectively bargain and have cut off funding that is used to elect pro-labor candidates. A relentless media campaign against so called "union bosses" have turned the people who would benefit from labor unions against them. Because of all these factors unions no longer have the power to strike effectively, and since the recession have become even weaker due to the availability of unemployed workers or the from the threat of relocating overseas.

So because of the decline of labor unions we see see a decline in income.

Another Republican policy that has led to one of the many problems we see today is deregulation. Republicans are the champions of letting business do whatever it wants, especially when it comes to the finance industry. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999 significantly stripped financial regulation away and eventually led to the creation of the Too Big too Fail banks that merged lending with risky investment banking. To be fair Bill Clinton, a Democrat signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law.

Then there's the tax cuts, combined with increased military spending and constant warfare, that has led to massive deficits under Bush, have caused many states to cut social programs for the poor in order to keep those tax cuts as well as funding for the big programs, Social Security, and Medicare.

These Republican policies of cutting taxes on the super wealthy, and regulation on the banks that will cause another wall street collapse from risky gambling like in 2008, not punishing corporations that send jobs overseas, and getting rid of programs that help the poor and middle class are extremely unpopular with regular people.

Which is why we didn't see any mention of policy at this years Republican National Convention, most of it was pie in the sky pandering and good ol' fashioned Democrat bashing and lots of blame for the bad economy. These things conveniently skirt around the fact that there are a group of people who better off now than four years ago.

Well surely corporate profits hitting all time highs while wages stagnate are reasons we should throw out the incumbent president, right?

Wrong

These are the exact same people a Romney administration would benefit. The whole Romney plan involves cutting taxes for the wealthy & corporations, deregulation, and cutting the social safety net for those who need it.

And it wouldn't even be revenue neutral.

Graph Taken from Moveon.Org

Let's not forget too that we tried tax cuts and deregulation during the Bush years, and it led to massive deficits, modest job growth, and oh yeah, a giant recession!

We all also have to look at how the country itself is doing as compared to four years ago. In 2008 the economy was in free fall, but was turned around after the stimulus.

There's no mistaking the fact that yes, things are not great now, but they are getting better, slowly.

But Romney and the Republicans if they win intend to go back to the same policies that caused the recession but on steroids.

I don't know about you but I don't want to look back four years from now in a Romney presidency and think "Yeah I was totally better off under Obama. Now I'm just fucked."

Think about it.

The Bain Files: a look into Mitt Romney

Before I start, I want to give full credit to the guys at Gawker for digging up this story. It's an amazing piece that shows just how the wealthy shield their money from U.S. taxes so that they pay more, and we pay less.

For weeks the media has been asking to see Mitt Romney's tax returns, to see just where he stores his vast wealth from U.S. taxation and as a result of that, just how much he actually paid in taxes compared to those who would be voting for him.

Although the Romney's have consistently said no to "You people" when it comes to the state of their finances;  citing that whatever they release is so bad that it will just give the Obama campaign more ammunition to use against them, despite that fear, just the fact that they will not even provide transparency has led to many people into speculating about what Mitt is actually hiding; if anything.

Just so happens it seems to be worse for him than any of us realized.

There is so much information in those Bain files and I can admit that it is too much for me to sit down and read at one time, I am not a tax guy, but I know a fraud when I see it.

I also happen to know a little thing about hypocrisy.

But what really has struck me is the fact that his investments in the Caymans were strictly made to avoid U.S. taxes.

"The Partnership is a qualified intermediary and intends to conduct it operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources.... Under the current laws of the Cayman Islands, there are no income, estate, transfer, sales, or other Cayman Islands taxes payable by the Partnership." 

How can Romney make the case that he wants to invest in America and help American business when his businesses are all based in shell corporations that go out of their way to avoid U.S. taxes?

Another way Mitt has avoided paying taxes is using something called an Equity Swap, essentially an agreement to transfer the losses and gains on a particular asset or set of assets without actually transferring ownership. These help offshore hedge funds avoid paying taxes by disguising who owns the stock in order to help clients avoid a withholding tax. 

Like I said, I don't quite get how it works, but it's already seems pretty sketchy. 

So how is all this stuff actually relevant? 

This shows the type of character that Mitt Romney is, a ruthless businessman that does everything in his power to make every last penny. He's calculating, cold and efficient. He's willing to invest in things that he publicly opposes, like cigarette companies and casinos, and even a company that disposes of aborted fetuses.

So much for Pro-life.

All of this shows that Mitt Romney is as moral as the corporations he owns, not intrinsically good, not completely bad, but amoral. As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks always says. Corporations are amoral machines, their only purpose is to make as much money as possible. So to is Romney, only out to make the most money the best way he can, and the only thing left for him to do in order to maximize profit, is to become president and ensure taxes on himself and his businesses are the lowest possible. He is the embodiment of the corporation.

So when you think about the election and where Mitt Romney's real motives lie you have to realize two things. It's not about leadership, it's not about America. 

It's about money.

In case you missed it you can find the Gawker Article here.

Should The Presidency Require Business Experience?

In a word, No.

In two words, fuck no!

Let me explain why this makes no sense to me.

Conservatives argue that in order to be a good president that you must have a background in business, and some even say you need military experience.

That's utter crap, here's why.

Government is not a business, it doesn't run as a business and it shouldn't ever be run as a business. See people tend to forget that a government is really a contract between the government, and the governed.

Business however is different, it exists to make profit, usually by providing a good or service in exchange for something of value. They're not really similar at all.

To prove my point I turn to the founding fathers.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

John Adams: Thoughts on Government, 1776

I love that quote.

Business exists to enrich the owner of said business, or as John Adams says, the private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.

What I am saying is if government is ran by a businessman, and is run like a business, it wouldn't favor the common good, it would work for the interests of a few people, a few wealthy, powerful people.

That's called an Aristocracy.

Another difference between government and business is how they work. Businesses are run by a CEO, usually put there through a board of investors (this is obviously in the case of a large business) Those investors let the CEO do what he needs to do to make money and will not usually interfere too much so long as the business is profitable.

Government works through a careful system of checks and balances so no branch gains more power over the other, there is no de facto leader in a government as each branch depends on others in order to get things done. If the business loses money it cannot function, and must downsize or run the risk of not being able to pay its stockholders, creditors and workers. Government however is able to run a debt and continue, not indefinitely of course but nonetheless it can function while running a deficit without going under.

Of course it's best to run make a habit of running deficits, which is why we have taxes, unlike business. I think Mr. Hamilton addressed this one...

"As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine."

Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801
So why shouldn't business experience be required to be president as Mr. Romney had once said? Because they are different. They are run differently and have different goals and ways to get there. One should never run government like a business, one should never even consider it, and one should most definitely NOT merge government with business.

I think there is a word for that.

Why Trickle Down equals Trickle Dumb

Of all the cracked out, nutty ideas that have been floated from the right wing, supply-side "voodoo" economics has to be the one that makes the least sense. Let's break down the simple premise here. Supply side economics simply states that if you give more money to people who are already fabulously wealthy, that will somehow cause the wealth fairy to sprinkle riches all over the rest of society and we'll all be happy. I'll tell you one thing, for the last thirty years we've been sprinkled with something from those at the top, and it ain't wealth.

The whole idea that continuously cutting the tax rates for the people at the top 1% of the wealth spectrum and how that will somehow create more wealth and increase governmental revenue is whole lotta bullshit that only a third grader will think is a great idea.

Here's why. Rich people do not create jobs.

Okay, now that you have gotten out of the way of any shrapnel that came from conservative heads exploding around you I will explain how things actually work.

Rich people are a consequence of capitalism, not the source.

In our system of capitalism businesses are successful because they provide a product or service to the people. The consumer decides the value of the product or service through choice, they will buy it if the product is worth the price, if not they will go to a competitor. In our society choice is the greatest tool and the consumer is the greatest asset.

Businesses can produce widgets to sell all day, but if no one has the money to buy them, that business will fail. That is why the middle class is so important, the middle class holds up the top and keeps the bottom from falling out. When the middle class has disposable income it can use to buy products and services those businesses that provide them reap the reward, that in turn puts money into government coffers through progressive taxation that fund roads and bridges, schools and firehouses, teachers, cops, firemen, post office workers, well you get the picture. It helps keep all those people into middle class jobs, which feeds this circle of wealth.

What happens when you take that wealth out and shift it to the top? It just sits there for the most part. Yes some of it gets donated to good causes, some of it used to buy things like Yachts, but most of it sits there, usually somewhere in the Caymans. It literally leaves that closed circle of wealth I described above. That's a big problem, less wealth in the system means our roads and bridges start to fall apart, teachers and firemen get laid off and the poor get essential services cut, and government debt soars. Sound familiar?

Now if you're a conservative reader that is still reading this far, first off, Kudos to you. You're probably saying "Silly Lib, poor people don't create jobs. *snort* I want to say that is one of the most simplistic, idiot statements that comes from the right. Ever heard of a guy named Bill Gates? He didn't start rich, he was an innovator, built computers in his garage, and he sure wasn't getting capital gains. Yet I'm pretty sure most of you are reading this on a machine with Microsoft Windows installed.

Henry Ford wasn't rich, Thomas Edison wasn't rich, but they all had another thing in common, they created something which led to jobs. The rich candle makers didn't innovate, they wanted to keep selling candles, the light bulb replaced those candles and therefore created new jobs, because light bulbs led to lamps, fluorescent light bulbs and whole world of new stuff that also needed people to make them, poof, jobs!

Henry Ford created the mass assembly line and good paying jobs, therefore allowing regular people to buy his cars, which made him quite wealthy. History is replete with regular people with an idea that challenges or replaces an older idea and creates a tidal wave or new jobs and innovation.

Few of those people started out wealthy, and few of the wealthy innovate and therefore, create jobs.

So why are we as a nation rewarding those who don't create new jobs, or innovate and create new ideas and are already extremely rich off older ideas and have no reason to change the status quo?

Because big business has bought those who create tax policy, this is why regular people with new ideas are crushed. Why solar and wind and other "green" energy technologies are underfunded and constantly derided by the corporate media and the right wing. I've heard of many stories of regular guys in their garages creating cars that will run on water or have created their own bio diesels or even converted their cars into electric powered vehicles. Yet they are constantly crushed by a business and state that is profiting massively off keeping things the way they are.


Supply side is an effort to take from everyone else what the person taking it already has a lot of, it's literally Romney-hood.

Obfuscation Nation

With the Romney/Ryan campaign now fully underway and with the excitement for campaign politics renewed in the press, I just want to note once again how many are forgetting about the issue of Mitts tax returns and how much of his money he is hiding in the Caymans. Luckily my good followers on Twitter as well as many others have not forgotten to press him on the returns, lest he gets away with shifting the focus away from his most likely absurdly low tax rates and the possibility that he received amnesty for illegally hiding his money in Switzerland.

This whole campaign shift just serves to remind me of how much politicians in general hide from public scrutiny. These days we know so little about the people in power or who want to be in power. We have super-pacs that are not required to disclose donors leading to unlimited dark money going to campaigns from who knows where. Eccentric & often shady billionaires like the Koch's sinking millions of dollars into right wing causes, think tanks and bribing foreign governments. 
Not to mention the huge amount of Koch money that went to Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

What we live in today is an era of dark money, shady billionaires, and bought politicians. A blip in the news cycle last week showed just how much influence Goldman Sachs has on even the Obama administration. Goldman testified before the Michigan senator Carl Levin about how the emails showing that Goldman execs knew they selling toxic crap securities to customers that were packaged as good deals. Yet Goldman denies wrongdoing for its role in the 2008 housing bubble crash. Though Goldman denies any wrongdoing for its role in selling a "shitty deal" to investors they still paid a $550 Million fine for it.

Who the fuck pays a fine if they didn't do anything wrong?

Eric Holder, the AG for the Obama Administration denied finding what they did to be wrong and therefore will not prosecute Goldman Sachs, so according to Holder, lying to investors, packaging bad securities, and helping to crash the economy is perfectly legal so long as you pay a token fine (They can easily afford it, since they made billions off it and through free money from the Fed) I should note that Goldman Sachs was one the largest contributors to the Obama campaign in '08, but has jumped ship to support Romney and Ryan.

This is an example of how another veil thrown onto those who have the money and power to placate the people. Thing is, the people aren't stupid, we're catching on to how things really work, and we're going to try and put a stop to it.

Let the Medicare attack ads begin

Now that the Ryan pick has been confirmed, like I said last night Liberal pundits are high-fiving each other all over the country. Ushering in a direction to this campaign with Romney saying that his campaign will be focused“American aspirations and American ideals.”

It's a big change from talking about Bain and the economy, or hiding from his tax returns. It's no secret the Obama campaign has been hitting him on his time at Bain over and over, like the Joe Soptic ad that talked about his wife dying from cancer because they didn't have health insurance, as well the many good paying middle class jobs that were lost while Romney and Bain walked away with millions.

The Ryan pick in my opinion is the result of a desperate need to change the narrative in the media, to Medicare, where they can hit Obama back for his supposed $500 Billion in cuts to Medicare in the ACA which is crap that easily debunked the non-partisan CBO. It does make for some good politics though, going after the Tea Party "get your gubmint hands off my Medicare" crowd, which is ironic at its best.

Another reason I think for the Ryan pick is that it shifts the focus off of Romneys tax returns, after today few people will be talking about what is in his returns because they will be so focused on this VP pick.

That's not to say this isn't important, choosing Ryan like I mentioned will change the narrative, whether it works in Romneys favor is yet to be seen, but Ryan like Romney has a bunch of baggage that can and will be scrutinized.

Lets start with the fact that Paul Ryan used Social Security to help him get through college, and now he wants to privatize it so that Wall st. can get richer. Wow, big surprise. He wants to turn Medicare into a coupon that does not automatically change in value if healthcare prices increase, that's not saving Medicare that is shifting the cost the seniors while giving them lip service. We'll continue that Paul is Ayn Randian follower who gave out copies of Atlas Shrugged on Christmas. (Thank goodness I'm not on his Christmas card) Ayn Rand is famous for being a staunch libertarian but not so well known for taking Social Security and Medicare benefits near the end of her life. How fucking hypocritical are these assholes? Talk about burning bridges.

The Ryan plan cuts government spending, by a lot. It also repeals the Affordable Care Act, which has been gaining popularity since the supreme court decision upheld its constitutionality. Like I mentioned it changes Medicare into a coupon, privatizes Social Security, lowers corporate taxes, and promotes drill baby drill.

The plan is awful, it takes from the poor, and the elderly, and gives it to oil companies and corporations.

Lastly I think the Ryan pick is there to excite the conservative Tea Party base. Ryan has been a rising Tea Party star in the House and is the perfect person to unite the Teabangelical base with the moneyed establishment. It also gives the Romney campaign some help overcoming the trust issues conservatives have with Romney. Before the Ryan pick conservative voters only backed Mitt because he was the anti-Obama, they never trusted the one who implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts which then became the model for Obamacare. They never trusted the "I will be to the left of Ted Kennedy on LGBT issues" Mitt Romney, and the Romney who was in favor of not overturning Roe v Wade, combine that with the fact that 68% of independents polled say that Mitt Romney represents the rich.

This is why both sides are thrilled about the Romney/Ryan ticket, it gives the Obama team ammunition to use (and lots of it) while giving Romney a chance to change the narrative as well as excite the base and help ensure high turnout on Nov. 6th