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 politics of Fear

While glancing at the usual places where I read and remembering some of my exchanges with conservatives as well as my impression of the RNC. I started thinking about how fear is not only being used, but created, exploited and cashed in on by those who are on the right.

The politics of fear are nothing new to our political spectrum, but even in an age of instant information, wireless communication, and media saturation, the politics fear are stronger than ever an in electorate of which half of are scared to death. 

Whether it be fear of Muslims from 9/11, to fear of the LGBT community; to becoming a failed economy like Greece, the Republican party of today are using fear as an effective political motivator to defeat Barack Obama. 

What drives that fear? 

People are resistant to change, change of habits, diet, perceptions, and ways of thinking. To change one must have an open mind. To many that can be a scary thing. It's sort of like being afraid of the dark, you don't know what you'll find there. To be afraid of the unknown is not something that's uncommon. To draw a parallel I look at the full Imposition of the ACA in 2014. People on the right are afraid of it one, because they're not sure what it means for them, and two, because the Republican establishment has perpetuated lies about it, saying that it's a bureaucratic takeover of your healthcare by the government, and that politicians will be getting between you and your doctor. Not to take away from the fact that the president didn't really sell healthcare reform to the people as well as he could have. 

Republicans have also sold the public on the uncertainty factor as it pertains to healthcare reform. Telling the base that businesses wont hire because they're uncertain about what will happen when the ACA becomes fully implemented, which pins unemployment squarely on the shoulders of Obama and the Democrats who passed health reform. That brilliant strategy shifted focus away from the massive obstructionism in the congress when presented with the jobs bills the President pushed for.

One last thing about fear of change, the whole idea of conservatism is keeping things the same, not progressing forward, not trying new and scary things. That has a huge impact on a part of the population who as a majority is undeniably older, who pine for the glory days of the 1950's (which ironically had tax rates of up to 90% on the wealthy) and are still afraid of social progress which is held as a platform of the modern GOP. That's not to say there isn't progressive elderly, I know a few myself.

But it's not just fear of change.

Fear of the "other" is also a huge part of the Republican party. That Democrats, and specifically Barack Obama, are somehow not American, that their ideas are...foreign. They've gone so far as to even question where the President was born, and when presented the evidence, it's hailed as some sort of elaborate cover-up. I wish I could say it's a fringe attitude, but with a CNN poll from 2010 saying that six out of ten Americans doubt that our president told the truth about his place of birth, I just can't. According to another Pew poll 17% of Americans think he's a Muslim, even though he assures us of his Christian faith. 

I personally don't care if he's a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or even a Satanist, as long as he does his job and protects the constitution by not allowing his faith to influence policy. 

There is also this idea that President Obama is a socialist, which a whopping 63% of Republicans believe. This is a fear that is akin to the McCarthyism of the mid 20th century. It's a fear of losing the American way of life to some Communist hellscape filled with free healthcare! *gasp*

Perhaps the most worrisome part of this "fear of the other" on the right is the fact that major party spokespeople have spread the idea that all social programs, are either just handouts for lazy minorities, or reparations. All this does is gin up resentment for minorities by saying "Obama wants to take your hard earned money and give it to...those people." Since President is half black (his mother was white) he is still considered by the right as the physical embodiment of  the "other" and therefore only works on behalf of those who are not real Americans

Fear of the other doesn't stop there.

The LGBT community has also been used as a way to scare people into voting GOP. The Republican party repeatedly speaks out against gay marriage, and not just speaks out, but actively stops efforts at allowing gays to marry. They say of course that their purpose is to protect traditional marriage. A task that actually not possible since the definition and use of marriage has changed throughout the centuries. Still it's an effective way of making an argument that uses fear as a way to keep the rights of Americans down. The common theme among the right is that if we allow gays to marry, then men and women wont get married to each other anymore, people would marry animals and the entire human race would set itself on a course for extinction because no children would be born anymore. Everyone would just be gayin' it up all day.Oddly enough the "no more children" argument is also used by pro-life proponents as well.

Fear of Immigrants. 

More like fear of Illegal immigrants. The horrible bogeymen of the GOP is one that can be easily used to scare Americans who are already fearful of losing their jobs. A common refrain heard from the right is that the illegals are coming to take your jobs. The GOP plays on that fear, to their own benefit as seen with the new voter ID laws which are, according to the Republicans, there to stop "rampant voter fraud." The real effect of the voter ID laws are that many voters who are Americans and who have voted would no longer be eligible, a majority of which vote primarily democratic.During the debates there were even talks of a fence, an electrified fence, between the U.S. and Mexico. It got a great applause line from the crowd, though later Mr Cain came back and said it was a joke. 

Sure.

A theme also heard by those on the right is the fear of American decline.

This fear is manifest in the idea of America no longer being the city on the hill, the shining beacon of freedom, and it's people being complacent and no longer exceptional. It takes the form of opposing anything that is used for the common good as well as tools used to further that purpose, specifically social programs and taxation. We hear from the right on a regular basis how taxes are too high, there's too much regulation and red tape that's choking innovation and job creation. We hear how Obama and the Democrats are creating a culture of dependency on government programs like SNAP and TANF, and that use of these programs takes away your freedom and gives it to the government. We read and hear daily about the "evils of collectivism" over the government created Internet on our laptops, or on the radio in our union built cars as we drive down government created highways. The fear of collectivism seems to outweigh the understanding that we all need to invest in our countries infrastructure. The irony of this whole fear of American decline is that  those who have this fear are perpetuating an actual cause of decline by denying the government the ability to reinvest in Americas once envied infrastructure. 

What is the medias role in this?

The media has a large role in the politics of fear. Fox news is undeniably the number 1 rated news channel on television. Fox news calls itself fair and balanced, many of us know that it is anything but. Its role in the Republican party is nothing short of setting agendas, framing debates and demonizing opponents of the pro-corporate Republican agenda. It used its influence to galvanize the Koch backed Tea Party movement when it was still young and when it still railed against bank bailouts and against privatizing gains, while socializing losses. Yet went after the Occupy movement that were protesting the same things. Fox news regularly uses fear to promote their corporate agenda, by calling the president and his policies socialist. They also have called him Anti-American. 

Radio host Rush Limbaugh has even said that Obama hates America. All of this toxic crap plays up fear and the belief that we have an illegitimate, foreign born, anti-American, freedom hating, socialist that wants to give white peoples hard earned money to black people and illegal immigrants because he hates you.  

In my opinion the politics of fear is an extremely difficult thing to deal with. Fear is a base emotion that came naturally with evolution, it's kept our species alive but now it's hindering progress. How can one dispel the politics of fear if the only tools you have, facts, logic, and reason are ignored? Fear is in the gut, Colbert calls it truthiness. I call it a successful tool for manipulation. We can't stop fear itself, but we can stop those who spread it around with lies. 

Ryan Lied, Boehner nearly cried, and Eastwood loses it: The 2012 RNC my take

The RNC is mercifully over with Mitt Romney accepting his hard fought nomination over tough contenders like Herman Cain and Rick Perry and...who the fuck am I kidding Mitt was the least worst of all the candidates, and that's saying something.

The Convention itself was filled with numerous WTF moments, like the ironic "We built it." theme that took place in a stadium built with 62% of public funds. To Ann Romney talking about love in an odd attempt to humanize her husband, as well as screaming out much the Romney's loved women. To Chris Christies's disappointing  speech that changed the theme of love to respect and the fact that he really wanted to set himself up for 2016. Of course there was also the fact that Mitt Romney himself, was hardly even mentioned during the entire thing, oh and we can't forget about Clint Eastwood yelling at a chair.

That's not all.

The Santorum speech was extremely odd, with a strange, and slightly disturbing emphasis on hands; but probably the strangest thing that I can think that happened was that Fox news, actually called out Paul Ryan for his lies during his speech. Sally Kohn called the Ryan speech an "Attempt to the set the world record for blatant lies." 

What kind of bizzaro world did I wake up in this week?

One thing I kinda figured would happen, was the near absolute lack of mention for our last Republican president and the Dark Lord of the Sith Dick Cheney. The only mention of former President G.W.Bush was from his brother Jeb, who in a not so shocking but equally wtf moment stood up for his brother by telling the crowd about how his brother kept us safe. Didn't he get the memo about the whole 9/11 thing?

One surprise I did have was the fact that Romney didn't even mention the war in Afghanistan.


I suppose I shouldn't have been too surprised, this fits in with the Republican strategy of "Lets not talk about our candidate (or our records)  but instead trash yours." narrative that the Romney campaign and the party as a whole have taken. I think in that respect they've certainly achieved their objective. Especially since Clint Eastwood is being talked about more than Romney is.

Then again who isn't entertained by the Eastwooding hashtag?

The 2012 RNC: Whitest Convention Ever

The Republican National Convention is now in full swing in Tampa, despite hurricane Isaac that threatened to drench the area.

Upon watching the coverage of the convention I was struck by quite a site. An elaborate stage fully equipped with a debt clock and adorned with a sign that says "We built that." A dig of course at our President and his statement that was taken out of context, spun by the right wing media, and thrown back in his face.

Charming.

Another thing that I noticed was in the crowd, it was a sea of white. There were also no black speakers, no black staff, just white...everywhere. Except a for a  poor camerawoman that was attacked.

There's a good explanation for that of course, the purpose of the convention being to formally nominate Mitt Romney who currently enjoys 0% of the black vote. That's right, zero percent. Nada, None.

So why attend a convention for a guy you obviously do not like?

There's a bigger problem here than just that. Romney wasn't even going for the black vote, automatically assuming that they will vote for Obama just because he is black. That's one reason African Americans are turned off by the Romney campaign and the Republican party in general, but there are many others.

The big part is the makeup of the party leadership. There are very few African Americans in leading roles. Yes I know about Michael Steele, who was former head of the RNC, and Herman Cain. There are actually a fair but small number of black Republicans, just not in leadership positions.

A good bet is because of the rhetoric we have been hearing, coming from the likes of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and some of the dishonest racially charged ads from the Romney campaign and super-Pac ads.

Santorum's famed blah people gaffe, is a great example of Republican politicians being too honest about how they really feel. He says that he wasn't going to say black but what other word would he have been trying to say? When you really think it about there's really nothing within that context he could have been trying to say that caused him to get tripped up.

Newt Gingrich also attacks President Obama with a racially charged attack by dubbing him the "Food Stamp President." The motivation behind this attack fits into the narrative that food stamps go to mostly lazy black people, which simply isn't true. There are simply more white people on food stamps than blacks, and not because either of us are lazy mind you, but because of the whole recession that nearly destroyed our economy. According to a recent report  the need for food assistance has increased 76% since the start of the great recession. A byproduct of millions of people losing their jobs.

Then there's the welfare ad, an homage back to the Welfare queen attacks by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. Which is of course has been proven a blatant lie by every fact checker out there. Nonetheless the red meat thrown out there by the Republican establishment this election is just a continuation of the southern strategy that has worked well for the last 40 years.

We also have to take into account Romney's religion of Mormonism. Mormons believe that being black is a curse from god for Cains defiance. That the "Lamanites" (Sons of Cain) are not equal to that of white people. So one has to wonder if Romney himself believes that or not.

Now after saying all these things I have to keep it real. I know that not all White Republicans (& Mormons) are racist, I know that there are African Americans that believe in small government conservatism. I'm just pointing out how the current Republican racial dynamic is slanted towards trying to secure the racist white vote. This strategy is not only detestable, but it excludes an ever growing part of the population that would otherwise vote Republican.

There's one last thing I want to point out. How the demographics of the nation are changing.Which means white people will begin to become a minority in this country. I for one welcome diversity. We're all human beings after all. But unless the Republican Party finally abandons its racist southern strategy and begins to bring more diversity into the party,  the Republican party will become a minority party.

Dirty Politics: The GOPs lowbrow attacks

There has always been an innate nastiness to political rhetoric. From the muckrakers of the 1800s, to the McCarthyism of the 1950's. But never has it been so nasty, so distasteful and so divisive as it is today. It's also never be so normal. Normal to question the integrity of an entire party, Normal to ensure the failure of a President through legislative blocking, normal to project an image of a traitor onto a sitting president. And yet here we are, in 2012, being pummeled ceaselessly by political ads and rhetoric that not only lie, & obfuscate, but make it seem that the president himself isn't even an American citizen.

In the center of this is a party that uses every dirty trick in the book to ensure a sitting president is not only defeated in November, but derided as a complete failure. Not only do they wish to tarnish the image of a sitting president, but they even went so far as to attempt to destroy his signature achievement, one that they came up with in the first place, one that would help millions of Americans, and one that they offer no replacement for.

I am of course referring to the GOP, a party struggling to find itself after the eight dismal years of George W. Bush. Who have found themselves being cascaded further right by its fringe elements. So far in fact that the moderate conservatives have been leaving the party altogether.

Over the weekend former Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, even went so far as endorse Barack Obama.

So as the fringe right continues to take control of the Republican party the attacks against the President, and the Democrats become even more nasty, and divisive. Now I do know that even Democrats can get nasty, I wont deny that, but I think in many instances the Democrats claims are usually backed up with facts, whereas   many Republican ads are completely made up.

Take the Romney Welfare ad that charges Obama with taking the work out of Welfare. Essentially saying that people on Welfare will no longer need to train for a job but instead; "They just send you your welfare check." This line of attack has been completely made up.

Even though the ad has been fact checked again and again being shown to be completely dishonest, Romney is doubling down by charging that the Obama welfare waivers are just an effort to shore up the base.

Which is funny because the wealthiest among us are receiving tons of corporate welfare in the case of subsidies, tax breaks, and oh yeah, bailouts.

That's not even close to being the nastiest attacks.

Rep. Allen West, from Florida in a nod to McCarthy accused most of the Democratic party of being Communists. Former Gov. John Sununu insinuated that the President doesn't understand America and is somehow foreign. Reince Preibus has said that the President looks toward Europe for his policies. All of them regularly call Obama and his policies "Socialist" and make charges that he wants to make America into Europe. The insanity just doesn't stop.

There is also the various Nazi references to President Obama, as well as comparing him to Stalin.

Nasty.

Of course a side effect of all this blind hateful rhetoric being thrown around all the time is that we've become accustomed to hearing the word Socialist, Communist, European being tossed around by the candidates and even the leaders of the Republican party. We've become desensitized to these labels that are frankly not even used correctly. Ask most people and they don't even understand the word Socialism, or even the word Liberal anymore. Fact is that Nazi-ism and Communism are complete opposites in theory. Nazi-ism is a very nationalist right wing idea, that espouses racial purity, anti-homosexual attitudes, anti-worker, anti-abortion, pro corporation, statist, and anti-civil rights themes.

Even worse are the charges of the president not even being a citizen, Trumped up by of course, birther king Donald Trump. He gets help from birther queen Orly Taites, and even Mitt Romney who claims to have made a poor joke to his base during a speech in my home state of Michigan. This rhetoric works quite well, in a 2011 poll 1 in 4 Americans think that Obama wasn't even born in the U.S.

But is it really the leaders who have lurched the party so far to the right, or is it the base?

That's a difficult question to ask, but no one can deny the base is responsible for electing these leaders. I remember during the debates, how the crowd was cheering about executions of possibly innocent people in Texas. How about during the video of the gay soldier serving his country being booed just for being gay and wanting to be open about who he is. Even worse is the subject of the man without health insurance, and how we should just "let him die" which drew massive applause. Then there's the Hank William Jr's, the bloggers, hell even a couple of my old friends from Facebook believe in this terrible stuff.

The question I have here, is what came first? The leaders spouting this crap, or the base influencing the leaders? Maybe it's both, or maybe its the coding, the language and the deluge of false information in the media.

The guns, god, and gays agenda of the right wing, wrapping all of those things up with patriotism and charge those who wish to regulate guns, keep god out of the legislature, and allow gays to marry as un-American, socialist, commu-nazis is an example of how the worst of American culture can be allowed to wield so much power in our government.

I don't however believe that the majority of  America is like this. In fact I can prove just how disgusted America is with all the nasty politics. The low approval numbers say it all. So maybe it's just a matter of time before the politicians start being civil again.

I think before that happens the Republican party may have to self-destruct. Maybe then it can regain its collective sanity and again become a party we can actually work with to solve the real problems facing our great nation.

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.

Todd Akin: Symptom of a larger issue

Yes, another post on Todd Akin, as if we didn't give this jerkoff enough attention already, but he's just the gift that keeps on giving.

Despite the stupid remarks he made about "legitimate rape" (as if there is such a thing) and his subsequent backpedal ultimately culminating in an apology ad for his blatant misunderstanding of human female anatomy. Mr Todd, "the liberal media is after me" Akin is still in the race for the Missouri Senate seat occupied by Democrat Claire McCaskill.

Yep, he's still running after being urged by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to drop out, Even Fox news host Sean Hannity has urged Akin to drop out on his show.

So why the hell is the right wing eating one of its own despite the fact that the Republican party platform is right in line with Akins beliefs?

Because Akin has committed the cardinal sin of Republican politics, honesty.

This wasn't a gaffe, it was honest admission to how little Republican politicians in Washington know and care about women's bodies, and their rights to make their own decisions about them.

See the Republican party believes that women should have rape babies, and possibly die from unhealthy pregnancies. That's not pro-life, that's destroying one life at the expense of another.

They also believe that once a woman has that baby that she shouldn't get government assistance, cause, ya know, big government and all.

Republicans know that Akins' position is extreme, and extremely unpopular, which is why even though they believe the same thing they know it's politically toxic. Why else did Scarborough call his own party the "Stupid Party."?

Because as a Republican it's stupid to tell the truth.

That's why they run as progressives or outright lie, throwing out words like socialism, marxism and even comparing the Democratic party as full of freedom hating communists and nazis. While they continue to take positions that look more and more like 1930's Germany (anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-gay, anti-liberal, pro-war, anti-worker)

That's why demonization of the other party is a central tactic of the Republicans. "Obamacare will create death panels, Obama wants to raise your taxes, Obama wants to give your money to people on welfare who don't work." All of this shifts the focus away from their own massively unpopular policies, like cutting taxes for the rich, privatizing Social Security and making Medicare into a voucher system.

And they wrap it all up with words like "free markets" "capitalism" and "small government"

There's nothing small about a government that forces itself into a woman's Uterus.

But I guess that's not considered legitimate rape.