Lawrence Nails Rep. Chaffetz as Tax Cheat

This has to be seen to be believed.



After getting Rep. Jason Chaffetz that he would seek to raise the Social Security retirement age, and cut the COLA for Social Security Benefits - which by the way have already been frozen for the last two years - O'Donnell closes in and Boom goes the Dynamite.

The issue Lawrence raises is the fact that Rep. Chaffetz doesn't Rent a place to sleep in Washington and instead uses his office, as a result he gains a benefit from avoiding paying that rent which he doesn't declare on his income as taxes. The issue has been raised in a letter by CREW which points out that 7 Democrats and 26 Republicans are currently having these "Sleepovers".

[U]nder the Internal Revenue Code, members who sleep in their offices are receiving a taxable benefit. The IRS treats lodging as a taxable fringe benefit unless it is offered on the employer's business premises, is for the employer's convenience, and is required as a condition of employment. As living in a House office clearly is not a condition of serving in Congress, members must pay taxes for imputed income based on the fair market value of their lodging.

Notably, members of Congress and congressional staff already have imputed taxable income based on the fair market value of their reserved parking spaces. If members must pay taxes to lodge their cars, surely they must pay taxes for their own lodging.
"Americans expect members of Congress to follow the tax laws just like everyone else. If legislators are going to treat their offices as dorm rooms, at the very least they should pay the appropriate taxes."

CREW sent their letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics which has yet to respond or rule on the matter, but it's clear this type of thing has been going on for decades.

From CBS News.



By doing this these Congressmen will save about $20,000 in Rent out of their $174,000 yearly salary.

Chaffetz sort of laughs this all off as "ridiculous", but he doesn't seem to realize that O'Donnell was the former Chief of Staff from the Senate Finance Committee so he probably knows Tax Law better than most law makers since it happens to be staffers like him who actually write the laws.

In fact O'Donnell led the Senate Staff during the consideration of President Clinton's first budget - so when Lawrence brings this up - in all likelyhood he knows what's he's talking about!

It's also not like issues like this haven't come up before.

Many members of Congress may have a Tom Daschle problem. A week after the former senator withdrew his nomination for Health and Human Services secretary because of reports he didn't pay taxes on a car and driver, lawmakers are facing their own tax questions. Some of the same lawmakers who criticized Daschle also neglected to pay taxes when they brought family members on trips paid for by outside groups, according to tax experts and a watchdog group. Most Americans pay taxes when they bring a spouse or family members on a business trip on the company's tab.

But many members of Congress have been ignoring that section of the tax code since they wrote it in 1993. It's hypocritical for some members to criticize Daschle's tax problems while ignoring their own, said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group that filed a complaint with the IRS on this issue in 2006. "It is identical," Holman said. "It's such an obvious issue, but the IRS looks the other way." But most members of Congress don't see it that way. They don't agree that the money for spouse trips is taxable, and they don't see any comparison with Daschle's failure to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver. "There is a clear difference between members of Congress being accompanied by a spouse in the course of official duties and a private citizen failing to pay taxes after being given a limousine and driver," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "This isn't comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apple juice to Dom Perignon." Boehner is one of many lawmakers who have taken their spouses on trips paid for by outside groups. Another is former Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who has been confirmed as President Obama's secretary of Transportation.

Just as the lawmaker themselves would have to disclose a gift and pay taxes for having received it, they should have to disclose and pay taxes for the gift of a trip provided by and outside group.


And I strongly suspect, although I'm not a tax expert, that O'Donnell is also correct that lawmakers who choose to avoid paying for rent by living on government property - which is essentially accepting a gift from the American people who actually OWN that property - they should disclose it and file it on their taxes as income.

Villanova Law Professor James Edward Maule thinks they possibly should.

CREW could be correct, but it requires tax analysts to answer several difficult questions in particular ways to reach the same conclusion.

First, CREW contends that members of Congress are receiving lodging, and that it is taxable because it is not provided as a condition of employment, as required by § 119 for the lodging to qualify for exclusion from gross income. CREW points out that no member of Congress is required to live in their offices. Though this conclusion is debatable – certainly when Congress meets late into the evening or overnight, as sometimes happens, one might reasonably infer that members are required to remain on the premises – the difficulty with the analysis is that it presupposes that the government is providing “lodging” when a member of Congress stays overnight. But does an office constitute “lodging” simply because someone falls asleep therein? Or because someone takes a nap therein? [...]

If someone is specifically bringing a cot to sleep in, it's not a matter of then occasionally "taking a nap" - it's part of a deliberate plan to avoid paying for rent by squatting in their offices. And according to the CBS report and various others, saving money is exactly their goal - not just convenience.


Vyan

So Why do the Righties Love Reagan - the tax raising, cut and running, terrorist appeaser - Again?

Mike Stark Strikes Again... in this brilliant pwning of Rush Limbaugh.

Stark: I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists (Iran-Contra) guy is a hero to the conservative movement?

CBO says Bush Tax Cuts will Explode Deficit, Again!

It's been said before, but yet again in their most recent update to the current Budget CBO has said it again. Here are the before and after projections.



As you can see there is a marked increase from the OMB numbers for FY2011 Budget compared to latest CBO projection. Why the difference? Follow over the flip.


From the CBO's Full Report

Revenues under the President’s proposals would be $1.4 trillion (or 4 percent) below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, largely because of the President’s proposals to index the parameters of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax reductions enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). CBO’s baseline projections reflect current law, under which the parameters of the AMT revert to earlier levels and the reductions under EGTRRA and JGTRRA expire as scheduled at the end of December 2010.

...

CBO has also updated its baseline budget projections, which—unlike the President’s budget—assume that current tax and spending laws and policies remain unchanged. CBO has not modified its economic forecast, so those updated projections just take into account new information obtained about various aspects of the budget since the previous projections were completed in January. The resulting changes are modest, adding $11 billion to the projected deficit in 2010 and reducing projected deficits over the 2011-2020 period by a total of $63 billion.

So they make it pretty plain, the Bush Tax Cuts from 2001 and 2003 are why the deficit will not drop nearly 50% by 2012 as President Obama's administration had previously predicted.

But what about that "Job-Killing Health Care Spending Act"?

Other proposals—including ones associated with significant changes in the nation’s health insurance system—would, on net, increase revenues.

In other words, it would reduce the deficit.

And what would happen if we follow Tea-Publican advice and extended the Bush cuts permenently?

Another set of proposals would permanently extend or modify certain provisions of EGTRRA and JGTRRA that are set to expire at the end of December 2010. Those provisions include reductions in tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and other income;4 relief from the so-called marriage penalty; and an increase in the child tax credit. Other proposals would modify estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes by extending 2009 law permanently. If enacted, those changes would reduce revenues, relative to the baseline, by $2.2 trillion through 2020, according to estimates provided by JCT.

Not that such simple A-B=C math seems to work for Tea-Publicans like Michele Bachmann who responded to the President saying "every day families sacrifice to live within their means — they deserve a government that does the same."

With this...

"He's absolutely shameless," the Minnesota Republican could be seen saying to her seatmate, Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, according to a video taken in the U.S. House chamber during Obama's State of the Union address two nights ago.

Bachmann, 54, who later gave a televised response to the president on behalf of the Tea Party Express, turned back to face Obama and repeated, "Absolutely shameless!" She spoke as the president was saying the government should balance its budget more like average American families.

Interesting the Bachmann's SOTU-Prom Date was Jeane "Coward's Cut and Run" Schmidt.

And of course Bachmann would think it's "Shameless" since she's been going around Touting this bogus chart which attempts to blame all of our deficit and debt problems on President Obama.



Michele Bachmann may honestly not know this since she apparently doesn't know that John Quincy Adams died almost 20 years before the ratification of the 13th Amendment which finally abolished Slavery, or the fact the he's not a "Founding Father" since he was only 9-years-old in 1776, it's his Father was a Founding Father - not him, but she also doesn't know that the Federal Governments Fiscal Year for 2009 began on October 1st of 2008 - which was one month before Obama was even elected.

Via Factcheck.

Before Obama Took Office, The FY 2009 Deficit Was Projected At $1.2 Trillion. As reported by the Washington Times: "The Congressional Budget Office announced a projected fiscal 2009 deficit of $1.2 trillion even if Congress doesn't enact any new programs. [...] About the only person who was silent on the deficit projection was Mr. Bush, who took office facing a surplus but who saw spending balloon and the country notch the highest deficits on record." [Washington Times, 1/8/09, emphasis added]

The Actual Deficit Chart from the End of Clinton (which shows a surplus) through Obama (which shows the deficit dropping after Bush's explosion) looked like this before the Bush cuts were extended by Decembers Tax Cut Deal.



Tea-Publicans like Bachmann are constantly trying to pin our budget problems on President Obama, but the fact is that the deficit began with Bush and that continuing to implement Bush's Policies will do nothing but continue to worsen our budget problems and deficit - not improve them.

Vyan

Obama and the Enemy of Perfection

Yeah, I heard Keith and I heard Rachel on how much a bad deal this tax deal is. I think they both amazingly impassioned and energized and dead wrong.

Keith position seems to be that Obama should have barnstormed around the country campaigning against the Republicans. a) He spent all summer doing that already and b) there's not enough time to put the screws to them before the rise of Speaker Boehner and all bets are off the table.

Rachel proclaimed repeatedly that this deal wasn't as good for Dems and the middle class as Obama said ti was, but these are the number via thinkprogress.



What Obama GOT in this deal helps 30 TIMES as many Americans and provides them with $80 Billion more than Republicans got from it.

Here's a newsflash. Obama is not a Progressive. He never said he was a Progressive. He came to Washington to get things done, and if that means cutting a deal - then that's what it means. The principles people seem to think he's betrayed aren't His principles. He's a pragmatist and a problem solver, not an ideological crusader.

What he's done here might not be good for Democrats, it might not be good for his Presidency, but it's good - or at least far better - for the nation than the various alternatives.

This nation wasn't founded in perfection. It doesn't exist in perfection now. The original Constitution as it was ratified as a Deal made between the North and the Southern States. It included a clause that specifically prohibited Congress for makling one law.

Congress was NOT ALLOWED to ban the importation of African Slaves until 1808.

It also included the 3/5th apportionment clause for taxation and representation of African Slaves, as well as the Fugitive Slave Clause which required Northern States to act as the police and recovery squads for slaves who escaped from the south.

It was because of clauses such as these that the Dred Scot decision was made where it was said that the Constitution Does not Recognize Africans as Citizens protected by the Laws of the State whether they be Slaves or Free.

Quite literally they didn't count. They had no rights.

That was because of the deal, but would standing up for the principle of true equal rights at that time have prevented the nation from forming as a single unit? The Articles of Confederation with it's incredibly weak central government had alraady failed. Would the Southern split that led to the Civil War have simply occured 70 years earlier if Northerners and anti-Slavery proponents have dug in their heel against the cold hard stump of principled perfection.

Admittedly it's hard to say in hindsight, but I dare say this wouldn't be the nation we have now if they had.

When Obama says that compromise is what this nation was founded on, he's absolutely correct. And sometimes, many times, it's not pretty.

This is a point that only Lawrence O'Donnell made last night.





Among all these Liberal Pundits, from Jane Hamsher to Ezra Klein, not one of them could name a single time where a Democratic President successful strong armed a pack of wild Republicans in the way they insist the Obama has to do now. The one possible case was to go all the back to Woodrow Wilson.

So basically, we're asking Obama to do the near impossible - and everyone's getting pissy because he knows it's functionally imposible in the time left in this session.

Obama is absolutely correct about Social Securiy and Medicare both begining as very limited, flawed and imperfect programs. Obama is correct that "We can't stand entirely on principle" and essentially hoist the American people high on the petard of our perfection. He's also correct that this is the Public Option debate once again. In all honesty, that debate didn't end and the heartburn from it is still clearly compounded by this latest deal.

I know I've pointed out repeatedly that the Final Health Care Bill actually DOES HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION it's simply managed by the Office of Personnel Management instead of HHS and subcontracted out, rather than administered directly by federal employees, but in all other aspects, premium controls, medical loss ration, economy of scale and cost containtment - It's the Same.

Contrary to Rachel's claims all the Repubs are not in love with every aspect of this deal.

“We cannot add on something like a year of unemployment benefits.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

“If we’re going to extend the unemployment insurance beyond its normal level, let’s at least pay for it and get this nation off its ruinous spending path.” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — the de facto leader of the Senate GOP and a past opponent of jobless aid — told National Review shortly before the deal was struck that the inclusion of unemployment benefits could influence his position. “The question [for Republicans] is: At what price are you buying?” he said.

“I would definitely look at how they were going to cover the expense of extending the unemployment [insurance].... I firmly believe we need to live within our means.” Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)

Arkansas GOP Rep.-elect Steve Womack said “There’s a limit to just how much this country can afford,” and went on to say that enough was enough when it comes to jobless benefits

Club for Growth? Against It, because they wanted MORE.

(The Plan) didn’t make both the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax repeal permanent. Their plan: “Instead, Congress should pass a permanent extension of current rates, including a permanent repeal of the death tax, and drop all new spending.” The only “new spending” included in the plan, of course, is a desperately needed extension of lapsed unemployment benefits that will ultimately help at least 7 million jobless Americans and prevent the loss of another 600,000 jobs next year

Heritage Foundation? Against it because it Wasn't Enough for them.

“By allowing for only a two-year extension of current tax rates, the President’s agreement provides no long-term certainty that is essential for economic recovery. Heritage, too, denounced the inclusion of jobless benefits, calling them a “permanent entitlement” while repeating the canard that they will discourage the unemployed from seeking work at a time when unemployment is at 9.8% and there are five job seekers for every one available job.

And the worst part is the Obama's own base, is REALLY against it.

A new Survey USA poll finds that 74 percent of those who contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign are against his tax cut deal. The poll also finds that 57 percent of contributors are less likely to donate to Democrats who support the deal, and 51 percent are less likely to donate to Obama in 2012 because of the deal.

Ouch!

Yes, this deal is essentially a can kick down the road - it's a stalling tactic for 2012 when (with luck) we can win back the House and set this ship back on course by Raising the top marginal rate to 42%. These rates can't continue forever, and if someones going to take a hit - it ought to be the ones who can afford it.

But we're not going to do any of that without an energized and fired up base. That won't happen unless we look at this as just one battle in a long war, one where we gained for more than the other side did, and certainly prevented them from taking for more than we could have ever afforded by making ALL the Bush tax cuts permenent as they would have certainly attempted next session.

This deal ain't perfect, it potentially continues to blow a hole in the deficit and it's stimilative are questionable (although it does include all of the most stimulative tax policies available as documented by the CBO)



But I can guarantee that loss of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, the Making Work Pay Credit, the Payroll Tax Holiday that essentially gives everyone a 2% raise and cutting off Unemployment Benefits for the Next year while making the Bush Cadillac Paris Hilton Tax Bonuses Permanent would have been much, much worse.

I know that defending Obama from the Center can be a dangerous thing to do around these parts, and I've had my head chewed off more than once for agreeing with him and his positions - but this is how I see it.

It ain't pretty, but it's a victory.

Vyan

Letting ALL the Cuts Expire would be Best Thing, 2nd Best - Force Up or Down Vote on Everything!

It appears that Mitch McConnell is feeling a bit Cocky today after successfully blocking Democratic attempts to implement tax cuts for All Americans on their first $250,000 of income.

Signaling confidence that Democrats will stop blustering and cave on tax cuts, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell predicted today that all of the Bush era tax rates will be extended temporarily.

"I think it's pretty clear now taxes are not going up on anybody in the middle of this recession," McConnell said on Meet the Press. "It isn't going to happen."

Well, gee, since he asked so Nicely I think the only charitable thing we can do is NOT GIVE THEM SQUAT!

Unless of course, they drop to bended knee - and BEG.



Now we all know that White House is negotiating some kind of deal, and it's looking like it might be a 2-fer. Extend current tax rates for a year or two, while also extending unemployment benefits for a year (or maybe two). I'm thinking if Paris Hilton is going to get her Bonus Tax Cut for Tchotke's and a new Bedazzled Droid then the Unemployed should be able to keep paying their mortgage and utility bills.
 

And that does seem to be the plan right now, and if anything the ones who seem to be pre-caving are the GOP.

President Obama himself all but signaled that the Democrats lost this fight during a statement about a recently-announced Korea free trade agreement yesterday. "We need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impasse -- in the next few days -- to give the American people the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up on January 1st," Obama said. "It will require some compromise, but I'm confident that we can get it done."

The White House is pressing the GOP to allow an extension of unemployment benefits and the tax breaks in the stimulus bill in exchange for an extension of income tax rates. According to the Huffington Post, Obama will allow the cuts to expire if the GOP refuses. On that score, McConnell claimed there's no impasse.

"I think we will extend unemployment benefits," he said.

GOP Holds America Hostage for Paris Hilton's Tax Cut

Wanna see what Monday's failure to extend Unemployment Benefits Means for over 2 Million Americans?

This:

Katie: I got my check today and it's my last one. I don't know what we're going to do... I don't know what we're going to do.

The Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office has clearly stated the the most stimulative thing that the government can do, is put cash in the hands of those who will immediately go out and spend that cash on gas, food, rent and their mortgage payment.

They even made a handy dandy graph of the comparative effects of eleven different policy options. See?



Add some chalk and it's something even Glenn Beck could understand. As you can see the least stimulative - I repeat the Least Stimulative - option on the list is reducing income taxes.

Eat the Rich, Because They've got all the Meat

We have a new batch of Republicans in Congress now, and boy are the up in arms about deficits and spending, however they all seem to have a curious idea about Taxes. They seem to think that Reaganomics and the Laffer Curve actually work and that by cutting taxes - you can boost the economy and increase revenue.

But that's just a snare and a delusion.

What Run Away Spending?

Day in and day out we've heard the refrain that Washington has a Run-Away Spending problem. This has been the mantra of the Tea Party since it's inception and the mantra of nearly every Republican in Congress whose one lone goal has been - "To Cut Spending." This they argue must be done to reduce the "Mounting Dept heaped onto the backs of our children" - yet when you actually look at the current deficit projections after the first two years of the Obama Presidency, that deficit is actually Shrinking Already.



Contrary to popular myth, the rise in the deficit began before Obama's Presidency at the beginning of FY 2009 and is currently on track to be cut IN HALF to about $700 Billion by the end of his first term. This year the deficit has been reduced from over $1.5 Trillion to approximately $1.2 Trillion which is a $300 Billion Improvement.

The Other Stupid Thing Alan Simpson Said..

Besides his "Greediest Generation" line, he also said this...

"You don't want to listen to the right and the left -- the extremes," he said. "You don't want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Minnow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They're entertainers. They couldn't govern their way out of a paper sack -- from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers -- thirty, fifty million a year -- to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. Emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.

Frankly, that's a lot of Horse Hooey!

In no way, shape, form, or fever dream delusion are Rachel or Keith equal to Rush and Beck. As stupid as the "Greediest Generation" line was - this was even dead doornail dumber.

For starters Keith and Rachel don't LIE!

I've HAD IT up to my Left Eyeball with this "Socialism" Crap!

Over and over, from the Bailouts to the Health Care Debate we've heard the repeated complaint of "Socialism" used against Democrats and the President. Time has come to slap this ridiculous canard down hard.

This started out with of course, Sammy-Joe the Unlicensed Plumber-Pundit who said "That Sounds Like Socialism" to then Candidate Barack Obama.

Does anybody even remember what that conversation was really like?



Joe Said he was going to buy a company - He wasn't. He said he was a Plumber. He doesn't have a License (And therefore couldn't buy or operate the company). He said it made about $250,000. It didn't. Barack told him that under his plan He'd get a tax Cut! And otherwise his taxes would go back to where they were under Bill Clinton.

So this is "Socialism"?

Under Bill Clinton we had more people reaching the American Dream than ever before, more Millionaires, more new business and at the same time we Balanced The Budget and put programs like Social Security on a path toward solvency - all of which was ruined by George W. Bush's Tax Cuts for the People that Don't Need Them.

All the Wingers talked about was Barack saying he wanted to "Spread the Wealth Around" - but what he clearly meant by that was return us to an America where more people had a opportunity to become wealthy rather than just a few people getting richer and richer while the rest of us fall further and further behind them. All of their arguments were CRAP and we know it. America was NOT a "Socialist" nation between 1992 and 2000, and going back to that tax plan won't make it one.

But don't just take it from me according to Bloomberg News - if all of Wurzlebacher's bogus claims had been true - this is how badly Obama's Tax Plan would "Hurt" Him.

Bloomberg reports that "one other problem in making Wurzelbacher a symbol of the overtaxed" is that — even if he did earn an adjusted gross income of $280,000 — "he would pay just $773 more in taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s." That amount would hardly deal a crippling blow to his potential small business.

That's about $2 per day. Ouch, break my back why don't ca.

Then there was Sarah Palin who argued vehemently against Barack The Wealth Spreader.

"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans" stated Palin.

Alaska is sometimes described as America’s socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources—an arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the state’s oil royalties.

As former 1/2 Term Governor of Alaska, Sarah "Death Panels" Palin oversaw the Redistribution of Wealth from Alaska Oil Companies to it's populace to the tune amounts as high as $3,000 per citizen.

So wasn't Sarah Palin Spreading the Wealth Around by taxing the Oil Companies and giving away checks to the people? Sounds a whole lot like WELFARE to me.

Speaking of taxes how about this - the tax rate over the last half century - and the split between the most wealthy and the rest of the Country has looked like.



When George W. Bush left came into Office he had a Surplus, when he left there was a $1.3 Trillion Deficit. That was NOT Barack Obama's Fault!

It was George W. Bush who passed the Wall Street and Automaker Bail Out Plans. He Originally wanted to spend ALL OF IT IMMEDIATELY and do so with no questions asked.

Congress asked questions, and restricted his ability to only spend half - leaving the other half for the next administration.

Yes, Obama followed up with the Stimulus Package - and although it did increase the deficit (mostly because of it's Tax Cuts) - and it's clear the recovery from the Bush Bust has a long way to go - but so far the result has been This!



On Health Care we've had accusations that Democrats want a Big Government Socialized Medicine Take-Over - and they've followed that up with these kind of comments.

– “Last week Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead.” [Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), 7/21/09]

– “They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they’re in line.” [Rep. Steve King (R-IA), 7/15/09]

– “The Republican plan will] make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” [Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), 7/28/09]

– “That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die.” [Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 7/10/09]

– “One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! … I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.” [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), 7/15/09]

Yet when one Democrat finally throws their ridiculous Lies BACK AT THEM - pointing out that their meager proposals to implement buying across state lines and so-called "Tort Reform" would only benefit the pockets of the Insurance companies and would reward BAD DOCTORS while punishing GOOD LAWYER's for doing their job on Malpractice cases - the Republicans demand - DEMAND that he apologize for his "Outrageous Rhetoric!"



The simple fact is that 44,000 Americans Dying Every Year isn't a Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda - it's the Current Reality. And yes, it IS a Holocaust - just do that math all the way back to the 40's when Truman first proposed Universal Health Care.

That's clearly MILLIONS of people dead unnecessarily and prematurely - just like in the Armenian Holocaust. (Any Armenians out there screaming for an apology from Rep Grayson? Didn't think so!)

In exchange for jacking up prices and cutting expenses by dropping care for Millions of Americans - the Health Industries see profits like this:

Fortune 500's List of Most Profitable Industries for 2008 (Profit as % of Revenues)

1	Network and Other Communications Equipment	28.8%
2	Mining, Crude-Oil Production	23.8%
3	Pharmaceuticals	15.8%
4	Medical Products and Equipment	15.2%
5	Oil and Gas Equipment, Services	13.7%
6	Commercial Banks	12.6%
7	Railroads	12.4%
8	Entertainment	12.4%
9	Insurance: Life, Health (stock)	10.6%
10	Household and Personal Products	10.2%

It's time to stop the BULLSHIT.

None of this is "Socialsm" - anybody who makes such a claim might as well tattoo "Fracking IDIOT" to their forehead.

Are the Nations Police Forces "Socialist" because they aren't privatized? They're paid for with Tax Dollars. Would it be better if people would only get the police protection they could afford to Pay For it? Those with money get protected from Rape and Robbery, those without money have to Suck it up?.

How about Fire Protection, people who've paid up their insurance get their House Saved - everyone else gets to watch their Home burn down?

"Socialism!!!!"

What about Paramedics? You got your payments up to date and they pull you out of the car-wreck - you don't and you bleed out on the pavement?

The fact is those scenarios are exactly what our actual Health Care Insurance System is like - We Already RATION our Health Care and let the poor suffer - and that's the way Republicans want to KEEP IT.
Corporations don't have a "Right" to get Rich by doing everything they can to keep America Sick, and yes - "Help them DIE FASTER."

Fighting against them isn't "Socialist" - it's Humanist!

The Constitution of the United States requires this...

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Under Article 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The point is that Congress has the Power to pass all Necessary and Proper laws which will Regulate Commerce across the states - including how Health Care is delivered - in order to promote and protect the General Welfare of the Nation.

Only those people who currently benefit from the system being as broken as it is - and their lapdog syncophants - would dare call this "Socialist!"


Vyan

Garafalo Invited to Pal Around with Racists Tea Baggers

What do you know - The Dallas Tea Party Wants Janeane Garafalo to come to a little Casual Soiree - but I'm thinking that back in the day they used to call these types of get together's something else... Man, what was the word again?

Oh yeah, "A Lynching!"



Some key Excerpts:

We gathered in hundreds of cities to stand for Liberty and let our elected Officials know that we will not be Bullied into Socialism. On April 16th you denounced our airing of Legitimate Grievances as "Straight Up Racism" - and chocked it to up to an act by a bunch of "Tea Bagging Red-Necks" (I ain't no Redneck). You're bigoted statement slandered all of us, when you didn't know any of us.

And none of you apparently, know Janeane.

First of all, the primary complaint coming from the Tea Parties was the issue of Government Spending, particularly in the wake of the 2009 Deficit. That would be shown in the following chart from OMB in Billions of Dollars (I've added a column showing the difference between these years, item by item, and the percent of increase to the deficit for each item so we can all see exactly where it came from)

Spending	2008	2009	Difference	% of Deficit
Discretionary Spending
Defense	612	726	114	9.84%
Non-Defense	508	586	78	6.73%
Mandatory Spending
Social Security	612	675	63	5.44%
Medicare	386	425	39	3.36%
Medicaid	201	262	61	5.26%
Other	411	429	18	1.55%
TARP		260	260	22.43%
Recovery Act		267	267	23.04%
Interest	253	167	-86	-8.85%
Disasters		4	4	0.41%
Total Outlays	2983	3801	818	70.58%
Taxes
Individual	1146	953	-193	-16.65%
Corporate	304	175	-129	-11.13%
Social Security	658	655	-3	-0.26%
Medicare	194	192	-2	-0.17%
Unemployment	40	44	4	0.35%
Retirement	9	9	0	0.00%
Excise	67	66	-1	-0.09%
Estate Tax	29	26	-3	-0.26%
Customs	28	24	-4	-0.35%
Fed Reserve	34	25	-9	-0.78%
Other	17	16	-1	-0.09%
Total Taxes	2526	2185	-341	-29.42%
Deficit	-457	-1616	1159

It may seem like a legitimate grievance to point out the U.S. Deficit jumped from $400 Billion to $1.6 Trillion in one year, but the truth clearly shows the primary reason why was - Tax Revenues Went DOWN ALMOST 30%!!! There are two reasons for that, one is from Tax Cuts Implemented by President Obama in the Recovery Act and the other is the fact that people lost their jobs (and homes) during the economic down turn - which came to full-blown fruition under President Bush's "starve the people/feed the corporations policy" - that they weren't able to pay taxes the way they did the previous year. They were Broke!

Tax Receipts Alone count for a $341 Billion Jump in the Deficit.

So the Primary Complaint these Tax Tea-Partiers have - is actually coming from a dramatic CUT in the amount of Taxes we're paying! The next two items are the spending portion of the Recovery Act and the TARP which again was initiated under President George W. Bush. Just basic math shows you that well over 50-60% of the shift in the deficit came from Bush's last acts in office, not from Obama's first actions. If you factor in the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Conflicts which Bush kept Off Budget so it wouldn't reflect on the deficit (but now under Obama it does) the numbers shift even further, rising another $187 Billion in 2008 for an actual deficit of -$644 Billion, and causes the Tax Portion of the change to jump to a whopping -35.08%, while the Recovery Act goes to 27.47%, and TARP to 26.75%.

It wouldn't be fair or accurate to blame Bush for the entire $1.6 Trillion deficit, but neither is it fair, accurate or frankly Rational to lay it all at Obama's feet either.

And yet, during the Tea Party Protests we had posters like this...


This...



This...



And This...




Which is the picture Garofalo specifically mentioned when she was Stalked and Ambushed by Griff Jenkins of Fox News.



I initially thought Garofalo went too far in her comments on Olberman, but when Jenkins and his Radio Talk Show pal flat out REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE the sentiment that is shown in these pictures - I changed my mind.

No, not everyone is holding up signs like that - not everyone has the same reason for protesting, but I have yet to see - YET TO SEE - anyone who went to these protests Call these guys Out! All they've said is "It wasn't me" - while standing right next to the guy with the big Obama "Ear-Marks" sign.

Why the hell didn't you bitch at THAT GUY for making your little "movement" look bad instead of Janeane for pointing out those guys make the rest of you look bad!

Sorry, but if you don't stand against them - YOUR WITH THEM! Didn't Bush teach you that?

Didn't Sarah Palin say Obama couldn't be trusted because he was "Palling Around with Terrorists!!" This, despite the Fact that William Ayers was never tried or convicted of anything - because of gross FBI misconduct- let alone even charged with hurting anyone in his entire life? Obviously Facts, and 40 years of non-violence since Vietnam didn't matter - Obama still couldn't stand dare to side-by-side with him (even though he nver did) or for that matter Reverend Wrong. We weren't allowed to consider them different people with different viewpoints - yet you people can stand in ideological solidarity with people like the Pittsburgh Cop Killer and not think it rubs off?

Those people next to you are the same people who think Obama wasn't born in the United States, helping to justify, feed and fuel the paranoia of the Holocaust Museum Shooter. These are the people that called Obama "Socialist" long before George Bush Took over the BANKS!!!. These are the people who believe in the FEMA CAMP conspiracy. Who think Obama is going to take Away all our Guns.

These people were part of your demonstration - THEY EXiST - and you can't wish them away, especially when Homeland Security says they might be dangerous - You, yes, I'm talking to you Michelle Malkin - DEFEND AND EXCUSE THEM. You embolden them with your words and deeds. The rest of us aren't blind. They may not be each and every one of you personally, or technically but they really are on your team - because despite all the claims that the Tea Protests are "Non-partisan" - exactly where were all the Anti-George Bush Signs?

Where were you people who now rail about losing our "Liberty and Freedom" while George Bush was Obliterating the 4h Amendment and Spying on everyone's - Everyones - phone calls and emails overseas? Where the FUCK were you people when Bush started kidnapping innocent people like Maher Aher or Abu Omar and shipping them off to be tortured in Syria and Egypt. You want to talk about "Losing Freedom" - that's some serious Freedom Deficit Building Up there pal.

Did you really believe that Bullshit about Abu Ghraib simply being the act of a "Few Bad Apples" when each and every thing they did, including using Dogs, Nudity and Sexual Humiliation was specifically authorized by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld? We have it in writing. With their signatures on the documents.

You guys seriously want us to believe that your protest isn't either racial or partisan when - in the midst of your "good faith plea" for Janeane to "really get to know you" - you say stuff like this?

We all know you're only and actress but we all know that that language is a cop out. And let's face it if Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Baldwin can do it - how hard can it really be?

Cheap shot much?

I mean, are you Fracking Kidding Me? They're going to ignore the guy with the Hitler-Obama picture and try and talk smack about 3-Time Oscar Nominee and 2 Time Oscar winner Sean Penn? People might fairly disagree with his polical causes, but you really want to attack his Talent? Or Rosies or Alec's who've both been in the Movie business for decades? Should the left take a cheap shot at Robert Duvall or Clint Eastwood (who directed the movie where Sean won his first Oscar) simply because they're Republicans? This is your idea of reaching out? This is supposed to convince Janeane you guys aren't either a bunch of racist/partisan Nutballs or the biggest pack of deluded enablers in history?

Nice try. No sale.

Oddly enough the best "actor" in your little commercial is clearly the (Planted Token) Black Guy - he actually sounds like he's not reading a script, except that it's obvious HE IS.

Or did you guys use a Teleprompter for that?

Vyan

Janeane Garofalo vs the "Tea Baggers"

In yet another example of Ambush Journalism Fox News sent one of their "Producers" Boston AM Radio guy Ken Pittman challenged Janeane Garofalo over her "Racist Redneck Tea Bagger" comments, and almost manage to make me think she might have had a point.

Now when she made her original comments on Countdown, there were a lot of Democrats - myself included - who thought she'd gone WAY over the top. Now my sentiment, for one, has changed.

This time she gets repeatedly asked if she'd apologize for her comments that "all the tea baggers were redneck racists" - and she just WON'T do it.

I don't agree with the blanket nature of her original statement, but she does manage to turn the interview they're trying to have with her, into an interview of them - and they kinda FAIL.

This is what happens when you try and ambush a person whose a faster thinker and better at media than YOU are.

Her main point, "Where was all this outrage while Bush was running record deficits?" Also I'd like to point out again, that the Bailout was Bush's plan, and the AIG bonuses were his mistake. Most of the massive up-tick in Obama's budget comes from not hiding the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars anymore. Most of the complaint is about his stimulus plan, which so far, seems to be working. So where were the Bush=Hitler posters when he started robbing the poor to give to the rich 8 years ago? In fact, where are they now?

These are some of signs she's talking about.











It would be ridiculous to argue that this represents everyone involved, but the problem the Fox guys have is that these aren't a figment of Janeane's imagination, and when you stand next to the guy with the Obama-Hitler sign and refuse - REFUSE - to call him out for it, your silence indicates that you accept the premise - it means you essentially ENDORSE it.

I'm certain there are and were many people who have legitimate tax concerns who are willing to speak out against this stuff, but all I've heard them say is "I didn't do it!" Yeah, well, that's Not. Good. Enough.

You can't whine about Obama bowing to the Saudi King while you're bowing to the guy with the URKEL poster, by failing to call them out.

Earlier in the program Van Susteren talked to Karl Rove and he spent the one portion of the interview talking about how "Civil and polite" the Republicans are and how Mean and Vicious the Democrats are. Yes, Really!



They have an example of a CBS guy saying U.S. soldiers would shoot Nancy Pelosi and strangle Harry Reid before taking out Osama Bin Laden. A) So much for the "Liberal" Media and B) I think predicting and assassination of two national leaders is much worse than wishing health problems on a guy with a drug history - but maybe that's just me.

Look, again I don't agree with Sykes Kidney comments, but frankly I didn't see many fans of Limbaugh calling HIM out for his vicious LIE that Michael J. Fox was exaggerating his M.S. Parkinson's symptoms just to generate sympathy and greater support for Clair McCaskill. Fox had also support Arlen Specter while he was still a Republican so his endorsement was purely based on what he said it was - her support for Parkinson's research - period!

I didn't see many Republicans calling out George Allen for his Racial "Maccaca" slur.

I don't see people except for Colin Powell objecting when Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail, all of them ignoring the fact that if he fails - America FAILS. They'd rather watch the country go down and flames out of partisan spite rather that try to support a "liberal" idea, even after 8 years of every one of their ideas falling flat on their face in FAIL. And Powell seems to be being repaid be being excommunicated from the Party via Cheney.

Nice.

That's a real big PUP tent the GOPasauras are pitching these days.

During the Garofalo ambush they accuse her of being "Bigoted Ideologically" of being "Biased Against Conservatives" - a charge which Janeane counters with the fact that the current Republican party bares no resemblance to what Barry Goldwater the "father of Modern Conservatism" actually stood for. A point which is emphasized in more detail by John Dean's Book 'Conservatives without Conscience".

But I think the more interesting assertion is the idea of Conservatives as a Protected Class. This view explains why Conservatives feel they should have their own form of Affirmative Action and have a nominal representative everywhere in the media. They certainly act like they're in a perpetual state of victimhood, but consider this - if someone can be bigoted ideologically against conservatives then someone can be an anti-Liberal BIGOT too.

If that's true, then they pretty much just proved Janeane's point - because the reason so many people were willing to passively stand-by in solidarity with the element of racists who were there and lend them additional credibility is because they are IDEOLOGICAL BIGOTS themselves.

And that's something I completely agree with in the case of pretty much everyone involved in this Tea Party Effort, ideological intolerance isn't really all that much different from being racist itself. Either way it's still bigotry.

After this video I now feel that Garofalo should apologize when Anyone from the Tea Partier movement apologizes for those signs or failing that when Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly or Michael Savage apologies for just a fraction of the anti-Liberal Hate Speech they've spewed over the years.

I would prefer that people generally calmed down and acted in a CIVIL manner with each other but yeah, I know...we're all going to be waiting a long, long time for that to happen.

Vyan

Update: Here's Janeane's side of the story without Fox editing. More on this from Here w/Marc Maron.



Now if she could just explain why the hell she's on "24" - watching her get bullied by Jack and into violating FISA against her better judgment, then embarrassed by Chloe and turned into a yipping petty harpy when she finally figures out something Chloe can't is not Zesty.

Update 2: Great Comment Here. Emphasis mine.

I think she has a point, maybe it is possible that if ANY Democrat got into office, they would be protesting all the same. But there is no similar past effort to look back on to set the precedent. Instead what we see are a bunch of people who are afraid of what they view as an outsider taking office. Many think he is Muslim, they question his motives and there is a heightened level of fear in their irrational minds.

I think it is perfectly logic to believe that irrational fear is stemming from the fact that there is now a Black man in office with a Muslim sounding name. That is racism. Keep in mind that for the two or three years of the primaries (it went for ever it seemed), these were the Fox viewers being told that Obama is buddies with terrorists, that he is Muslim, that his birth records are suspect, and seeing news stories where he is often confused with Osama bin Laden.

So why is it so wrong and out of line to think that these people, who have been fed years of racist-based stories and misinformation, are racist.

And what I find hillarious is the line of questioning they give her. "The people I know who were protesting, and I only know super smart, informed, and fair and balanced people, truly believe they were being patriots." Lol. OMG that is classic. First of all, they fall for the typical BS that because you are friends with them, and agree with them, that must make you all smart, normal, nice and far people.

Second, well...if they really BELIEVE something, no matter how stupid, ignorant and misinformed and detached from reality...surely they can't possibly be criticized. Nope. Leave it to the crazy christian right to confuse their beliefs with actual reality.

Finally, they conclude by associating everything they do with patriotism. Once again proving the right has turned the word into a cliche and effectively made it a meaningless, worthless term. And Garafalo busts them for it...no they aren't patriots. If they were patriots, they wouldn't have spent the last 8 years DEFENDING and rationalizing Bush's crippling spending habits. Hell, they actually condemned anyone who did criticize Bush's spending as being shrill, America hating, vitriol and nothing more than Bush hatred. Not long ago it was patriotic to support massive spending. It was patriotic to just accept that Bush/Cheney's buddies were robbing the tax payers blind and billions were disappears and soldiers were being poisoned, etc.

Patriotism? Please. These are the same people who thought criticizing the president during a time of war was equal to treason. Now they LOVE dissent and President bashing and calling the President Hitler. Gee...what ever happened to demoralizing the troops? Patriotism? What happened to all the demonizing of the Bush protests or the many other protests that occurred over the past 8 years...all of which were much much larger than these pathetic tea-bag parties? Suddenly they all love protesting and it is the act of great American?

Sorry, if you ask me, Garafalo didn't go over the line. She should have gone further and called them ignorant, confused, misinformed Fox puppets as well.

She probably will in a hot minute, give it time.

I disagreed with her initial statement because it was so overgeneralized and I feel that unfounded accusations of racism greatly diminish the power of addressing Real Racism, but then when you look at it in wider context - I'm now agreeing with her. Standing next to an ignorant racist without commenting or opposing them makes you a Racist Appeaser, an Aider and Abetter, and there's pretty much no excuse for that.

There's no first Amendment protection for Hate Speech, and for good reason.

A Honest,Sincere Letter to the Tea Partiers from a Damn, Dirty Democrat

Crossposted on Dailykos

I'm going to try something unusual today, I'm writing a serious and sincere letter to the Tea Partiers.

Yeah, yeah, I know - it's unlikely that any of them will be willing to listen, will give a RIP what I - a damn, dirty DEMOCRAT with centrist/progressive leanings - might have to say, but I think it's important to drop the snark, drop the cheap double-entendres for a moment and attempt a real conversation.

How about some basic ground rules, I won't call you guys "Tea-baggers" or "Nut-Balls" (anymore), if you drop the "Socialist/Fascist" stuff, ok? Can we agree to that?

Fine.

Let's start with the fact that, whether you realize it or not, most of us from the center to the left actually Agree that Government Spending has been out of control for quite some time. WE'VE BEEN SAYING SO for at least 7 years, some of us - like myslef - for much longer.

But even though we all essentially agree on that point - there are reasons why you guys aren't being taken seriously. Valid reasons. You need to come to grips with those, and not just whine about "Liberal Bias" but really get serious in order to be taken seriously. Right now, you're coming off like the people who say "9-11 Was An Inside Job" or that "Elvis has been only playing Possum" and "Area 51 has Alien Bodies Stashed in it".

I'm not saying that to bust your balls - it's just not that credible.

But your underlying premise, that we need to get government spending under control ISN'T WRONG, it's right - unfortunately it's been misdirected and misguided.

For example Tea Partiers have railed against the Stimulus Bill, when most of that bill - was Tax Cuts for individuals and small business.

You Guys were Protesting Taxes, Immediately after your Taxes Were Cut.

That's not logical.

The people that cut your taxes, were not Republicans. Every republican voted against the Stimulus bill. Now, I would not say that bill was perfect, it had some flaws --but it did some things correctly and we should be happy about that. YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY, but instead you spit on the bill?

Again, how is everyone else to take that?

So, let's at least come to a basic agreement that the problem here is bi-partisan - ok? Democrats have messed up. Republicans have messed up. See - that wasn't hard was it? What the rest us are wondering is - what's your solution?

"Stop government spending."

Ok, which part? Which part of the armed forces, police, fire-departments, teachers, road-workers and hospitals are you going to lay-off? Who else are you going to put out on the street?

See, this issue didn't start yesterday, it's one that been with of for quite some time. I myself got on this political merry-go-round with the Gingrich Congress of '94, and watched pretty closely through that entire period, including both government shutdowns, the mandate for a "date-certain" balanced budget and the eventual surplus that was created largely by President Clinton's efforts, then destroyed by Bush.

Exactly as was pointed out by this Democrat at the Pensacola Tea Party

(Crowd applauds as he takes the microphone)
All right. Thank you very much.

I want to start also by honoring the service of our veterans, our current servicemembers, our Gold Star parents, thank you so much for what all you've done for this country. (Crowd cheers)

I also want to say, a little history lesson here, back in 2000, there was a budget surplus in the country. (Man in crowd: Yeah!) And during the next eight years, (Man in crowd: What happened?) it was destroyed by the profligate spending of the Bush administration. (Crowd reacts)

And so here we are today, here we are today in a situation ... let me ask you this: Cheer if you make less than 250,000 dollars a year. Just cheer. (Crowd cheers) Your taxes are going to be cut under the current budget. Congratulations!

I was laid off in September because my employer had to make budget cuts. That was before the election, okay? So let's remember, that if you're going to argue about more taxes and less spending, to place the blame where the blame belongs, and that's squarely in the hands of the Republican Congress until 2006 (Crowd starts to react) and the Bush administration. (Crowd boos)

Why was this so difficult to simply agree with? I'm not saying that Democrats don't share in the blame, clearly - THEY DO - but this guy wasn't wrong.

Again, I constant read claims by Tea Partiers that "This isn't Partisan", but when someone points out specific things that Republicans did to put us where we are - you ARGUE about it.

Many partier comments have been defensively claiming "this isn't about Democrats" immediately followed by a long list of Democrats to blame like Barney Frank (with dosses of "Fag" thrown in) and Maxine Waters ("Bitch"). What's up with that?

You complain about being called "Racist" when you've got pictures of the President with Buckteeth and Giant- "EarMarx". You do that stuff and you lose you're right to complain about Janeane Garafalo and some bad fellatio jokes. I mean really, think about it.

Many Democrats deserve some criticism, that we can agree on, particularly those who voted along with Bush Deficit Busting Cuts, and those who back in 1998 voted to repeal Glass-Steagal the act that had created a a firewall between regular banks and investment banks. Without that firewall people were able to take you're mortgage and play with it on the stock market - it gave an incentive to get creative and crazy with financing and we don't need newer, flashier ways to flush our money down the toilet, we really don't. President Clinton deserves blame here also, since he signed this bill into law.

Only Byron Dorgan saw the writing on the wall.

I want to sound a warning call today about this legislation. I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible. I hear all these words about the industry remaking itself--banks, security firms and insurance companies, and that we'd better catch up and put a fence around where they are or at least build a pasture in the vicinity of where they are grazing. What a terrible idea.

What is it that sparks this need to modernize our financial system? And what does modernization mean? This chart shows bank mergers in 1998, in just 1 year, last year, the top 10 bank mergers. We have discovered all these corporations have fallen in love and decided to get married. Citicorp, with an insurance company--that is a big one--$698 billion in combined assets; NationsBank--BankAmerica, $570 million; and the list goes on. This is a massive concentration through mergers.

Is it good for the consumers? I don't think so. Better service, lower prices, lower fees? I don't think so. Bigger profits? You bet.

....

I am not anti-bank, anti-security or anti-insurance. All of them play a constructive role and important role in this country. But this country will be better served with aggressive antitrust enforcement, with, in my judgment, fewer mergers, with fewer companies moving in to the ``too big to fail'' category of the Federal Reserve Board, with less concentration.

This country will be better served if we have tighter controls, not firewalls that allow these companies to come together and do inherently risky things adjacent to banking enterprises, but to decide the lessons of the 1930s are indelible transcendental lessons we ought to learn and ought to remember.

Byron is a Democrat, but I'm not gloating. 38 Democrats in the Senate voted for this bill. They messed up, not just Phil Gramm - all of them.

Even without the Community Reinvestment Act, monetizing mortgages would have been a problem. Even without ACORN, even without rampant immigration. Glass-Steagal was put in place to prevent a repeat of the Original Great Depression. Pulling it out almost gave us a second one - and only 8 Senators voted against it.

I've read a number of discussions about the Pensacola video beyond where it was originally posted (on Dailykos) and I've seriously seen people argue that There Was No Surplus.

This is what most of us outside of Fox News World call - "CRAZY TALK!"

Ok, I'm not a CPA or a government accountant, but I did make an attempt at finding out the numbers for myself. This is what I found from Treasury Dept.

Dec 1997 5,502,388
Dec 1998 5,614,217
Dec 1999 5,776,091
Dec 2000 5,662,216
Dec 2001 5,871,413

See that drop in 2000? That's what happens when you have - say it with me now - A SURPLUS of government funds. I will admit that it wasn't that much, but it was definately there, and the primary point that Pensacola man was trying to make was that the downward trend was initially reversed by Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

Here's another chart which shows both the ratio between growth of wealth for the largest earners in America and the top tax rate (which during the 50's was 93%).



Barack Obama has simply preposed letting the Bush cuts expire - which they will in 2010 - and going back to the rates that Clinton had. That's a 3% change. THREE PERCENT. In response he's been called a "Fascist" and a "Socialist".

I know it's not fun to be called "Crazy" or a "Racists" but responding with "Socialist" doesn't help - particularly when you've got a Barack Obama The Nazi poster in your hand.

Here's another controversial Video - one from Chicago with a CNN reporter, the first part of which was broadcast on air, the second part where the reporter is confronted by a "NormaL" Tea Party protester was not.



The first guy in this video (and there is another sequence from before this one with the Barack-Nazi Guy I just mentioned) is not answering her question about his sign stating that his child si already in debt at two-years-old.

This is a point I've made myself, in fact - for years I've called it The Birth Tax - so, yet again, we're in agreement on the core point, but the problem begins once he opens his mouth and starts to rail indirectly about Obama by misquoting Lincoln.

Man: Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it

So basically he's saying tha Lincoln was against taxation? Uh....no.

Lincoln wasn't talking about Taxes, he was talking about Slavery!

Indeed, work was as fundamental a value as freedom, argued Mr. Lincoln. In 1854, Mr. Lincoln wrote: "The ant, who has toiled and dragged a crumb to his nest, will furiously defend the fruit of his labor, against whatever robber assails him. So plain, that the most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself."9

"I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights,"

He was talking about being PAID for you work, the fruits of your labor. This is at least partially why the reporter blows him off - cuz yet again - he's spouting CRAZY TALK.

No, sorry it's not just a "matter of opinion", and he's not entitled to "his view", not when he's just making SHIT UP! And it wasn't even neccesary because he was already correct about the Birth Tax to start with.

Every time you guys do this stuff, the rest of us tune you out!

Now, following Mr. Lincoln-Guy comes the real discussion - which is really just a complaint about the bias of CNN going out of their way to ignore the legitimate arguments being brought forth in order to just highlight the "crazy people". Here's the problem with that - the Crazies are always going to stand out, that's what they DO. It's like asking the News to ignore the guy on fire and instead pay attention to the girl sitting in the corner with a book. THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

The reporter says the crowd is "Anti-CNN", to which the people in the crowd respond that CNN is "Anti-Them".

Here are some of the comments to this video from the Not-so-Anti-CNN people.

Cammie2035 (1 hour ago)
CNN = socialist, anti-free thinking SCUM

freeserb (1 hour ago)
CNN is dead last in ratings.

The Tea Party movement is universal.
How many laid off teachers and govt workers will join the Tea Party movement?

It's no longer Left/Right, Dem/Rep, it's more like working people who've been crushed vs. the arrogant state employees who are racist scum.
CNN is a branch of the state.

Anybody who says "tea-bagger" is a vile, disgusting perverted pedophile.

danspeaks (1 day ago)
anti-CNN, way to be a victim lady... i was there and hardly anyone paid attention to them or cared... anti govt... more like pro-freedom

TV media is crap

Anyone see the irony here?

Look, I don't watch CNN and frankly can't stand it - but this isn't helpful.

And is really saying...

The Federal Reserve Runs this Nation... We do have not representation...they're getting all our money, they all need to be thrown out.

...all that much better? You DO have representation. You may not like your respresentative, but you have one, actually THREE of them. All the Republicans voted against the Stimulus - AND LOST. You just plain lost, that's all.

What you need to do, is learn how to WIN again - and what I'm saying to you, in all seriousness, is that a temper tantrum is not a winning strategy. You need convincing rational arguements, not conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, or ACORN, or Obama-the-Socialist.

Really you don't. Look we just won two sets of elections 2006/2008 in a row - we kind of know what we're saying. Places like Dailykos DON'T ALLOW CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, they really don't - and there's good reason for that.

Take a hint.

Here's one last example, via a discussion of the impact of the Tea Parties on C-Span which was posted oby Michelle Malkin.



Malkin's Comments

Watch this. Liberal toady James Wolcott argues that since he didn’t see big Tea Party crowds on his favorite left-wing tv stations and didn’t read front-page stories about the protests in his favorite left-wing newspapers, they weren’t newsworthy and no one really turned out except at the ones Fox News covered. C-SPAN host Susan Swain then displays front page after front page of local news coverage showing thousands of Tea Party participants:

“Does that change your view?”

Wolcott: Er, no.

Again, let's talk common sense. Wolcott is saying that the Tea Party crowd simply wasn't all that impressive - and Malkin is putting words in his mouth making assumptions about the papers he reads in New york. Does she know for a fact that one of those papers isn't the New York Post or the Wall Street Journal? No. Did either of these papers have a front page picture of 100,000 TeaParty protestores? No, they didn't becaue at BEST the entire nation wide number of Tea partier's was about 240,000 - but look at this picture, this is from the 2006 immigration protests in Los Angeles, which -in that one city alone - included 500,000 people.

Crowds like these are what completely derailed both the plans of Tom Tancredo to aggresively shut down the border and the plans of President Bush for a more "comprehensive" approach to immigration. THIS was impressive, you guys were not.

I know it's a natural tendency, I can't say I haven't done it myself, but my point is that viciously Insulting people - that at the core actually agree with your point on deficit reduction - is not how you go from 200,000 to 500,000 to 1 Million to winning elections. Are you starting to feel me here?

Now Obama has promised to reduce the deficit by 50% by the end of his first term. According to OMB projections, he just might do that. CBO - which uses different assumptions says that the defecits will continue and increase for decades?

Also note that a key driver of the new CBO deficit numbers after 2014 are estimates about long-term economic growth—where CBO is somewhat more pessimistic than the consensus. For example, CBO projects long-term real economic growth that declines to 2.2 percent per year. Blue Chip pegs long-term real growth at 2.6 percent per year and the Federal Reserve forecasts long-term real growth of between 2.5 and 2.7 percent—the same as the Administration, which is projecting real long-term growth of 2.6 percent. These differences may not seem big, but over time they accumulate

Whose Right?

It's hard to say, but from the experience we had during the Clinton years in the 90's, Clinton relied on OMB and the Gingrich Congress relied on CBO. Who was right then?

I think you see my point.

Since Obama's been President this is what has happened to the Dow Jones.


We've gained back everything we lost prior to January 20th, and are continuing to gain ground. Companies like Citigroup are starting to show a profit, and since we are now share-holders in these companies - WE ARE GOING TO SHOW A PROFIT.

So let me say it again - CALM DOWN! Now is not the time to panic.

A lot of us understand your frustration, really we do - we've been there, but right now is when things are finally starting to get a little better, not worse.

What you guys really don't want to do, is turn into what Evangelical Frank Scheaffer describes - the crazy guy in the corner annoying everyone.



Consider this a wake-up call. This is your future, for many of you - it's already the present. I'm not saying this to put you down, it's a chance to recognize where you're going and change direction. If you really do care about your country, and not just your own ass, then calm down - take a breath - and get involved in a real, honest and open discussion of these issues.

The time is now, but it's you choice.

Vyan

Tempest in a TeaBagging

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Tempest in a Tea Party
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Open Letter to Terrible Ted: Lessons in EPIC FAIL

Last Sunday Terrible Ted Nugent - the Yosemite Sam of Rock-n-Roll - wrote an Op-ed for the Waco-Tribune Herald, in which he threw in full bore with Rush Limbaugh and against President Obama.

Ted Nugent: Praying for Obama to fail

Observe how the Obama media machine and soulless liberal media jumped on Rush Limbaugh’s comments that he “wanted Obama to fail.”

Anyone with a half a brain knows Rush wants only this: for America to succeed and for anti-American policies to fail.

To leave no doubt where I, your humble Motor City guitarslinger, stands, let me report without ambiguity, that I get down on bended knee daily and pray to God that he does what he can to ensure President Obama fails.

Being a fellow Rock Musician, and yes a fan (of some of his music) I've felt for the last few days that a open-letter to Theodore was needed in response, one which shows the appropriate tone and respect. To wit.

Dear Ted, you ignorant pedaphiliac slut.

When you say that the current duly-elected President of the United states is "Anti-American" - exactly what the fuck does that mean? What is he Canadian? French?

Trust me, I have more than half a brain, and when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted "Obama to Fail" he seems to be under to sad delusion that their is any possible way that Obama might fail, and the rest of the country won't go down too. We are facing challenges to the economy, challenges overseas diplomatically and strategically that are enormous. Let me tell you something Theodore - FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!

Ok, to be fair - I'm gonna let you answer my question above for yourself, being slightly more than half-brained as I am.



Like Rush, I wouldn’t want Obama to fail if his agenda weren’t built on feeding the gluttonous, unaccountable Fedzilla beast, so clearly the enemy of the free market, of real jobs and proven economic growth.

Since that is Obama’s agenda, however, those of us who believe in a limited federal government and the wondrous wealth-and-job-creating free market should hope, pray and work to ensure Obama’s anti-free market policies fall flat on their face.



So let me get this shit straight, "Obama is feeding the FEDZILLA!"? Ok, he's doing this how? By putting money in the hands of the States with the Stimulus bill? If the FEDZILA was growing under Obama, how exactly are Palin, Jindal and other governors able to even make any arguement that they don't WANT the money? (Even though all of them are taking the money!) Obama wants to put funds in the hands of the people, not into a huge federal byzantine bureacracy that will dictate and control everything. That kind of thing was someone elses gig...

Wasn't it President Bush who instituted the largest growth in Federal Power and Employees of the past 40 years with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Why, yes it was. Wasn't it Al Gore, during the Clinton administration who reduced the size of all departments of the Federal Government by a an average of 10% in order to produce the first federal surplus in the last half century? Didn't Bush BLOW THROUGH THAT Surplus like a drunken sailor?

Yep, he did.

The guy who implemented a limited government was Clinton, Bush's government simply didn't work - period. The result wasn't a "wondrous wealth-and-job-creating free market" - it was a complete and total meltdown. How's Your 401-K doing Ted? Most people saw their incomes rise under Clinton, then saw them fall under Bush by an average of $2000. We had enforcement of the laws in order to keep criminal corporations for running rampant under Clinton - under Bush we had poison in our food, poison in our rivers, streams and fish, and a bunch of greedy drunken fucking pirates running our corporations like Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Bear-Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG deep into the ground.

But then you aren't comparing Obama to Clinton are you - you have another hated Democrat in mind.


A wise man once stated that those who fail to remember the lessons of the past are destined to repeat them. If we can compare President Obama’s economic carnage agenda to anyone in the recent past, it unquestionably would be Jimmy Carter.

Carter’s deranged economic policies in the late 1970s ruined the economy and put America in the worst fiscal shape since the Great Depression.

Remember gas rationing, double-digit interest rates, stagflation?


Ok, let's get serious. Exactly WHAT policies did Carter implement that caused that? What did he do the CREATE inflation? Maybe it wasn't him, maybe it was something else?

How about Vietnam?

You remember the Vietnam War don't you Ted? That was the War that you avoided by spending weeks CRAPPING IN YOUR PANTS (or so you claimed), so you could duck out of the draft. I guess,it's tough for people who don't have few lucky anal cysts handy.

A lot of Carter's problems had to do with the post-Vietnam downturn that usually follows in the wake of a massive ramp-down in defense spending after a war. (The same thing happened in the early 90's as the cold-war ended, and would've happened after WWII if not for the massive domestic investments implemented by Truman and Eisenhower) Don't think so? Ok, look at this chart.



See that first spike of inflation in 1970, and the second in 1973? Who was President then? If you said "Carter" - you Fail!

Think seriously Theodore, the tendency for inflation was already in place. The match was already lit, what happened to Carter was the addition of a few thousand barrell's of gasoline - or rather - Oil. How much of the gas rationing of the 70's had to do with the OPEC Oil embargo of 1973-1974? I think just about all of it. The rise in inflation in the late 70's (under Carter) was clearly related to other factors including the Iran Hostage Crisis, which no one could have anticipated. Even the students who stormed our Embassy didn't know what the hell they were doing at the time, or what would happen as a result. Carter, I think to his credit, avoided letting that situation lead us into a war - but he did so at the cost of his Presidency.

The point here is many of these situations were created by the actions of Nixon, Ford, and U.S. policy going back for decades. Carter inherited all of that inflation mess from those who came before him. In fairness, I would agree that Carter didn't handle things well, but it's not because he implemented policies that created or exacerbated the situation - certainly not by raising taxes which he DIDN'T DO - it because of the opposite. The simple fact is, Carter didn't do enough. He sat on his hands, he was slow in responding - that's what he deserves to be criticized for, not "creating" that situation.

But what-oh-what Teddy, since you were so thoughtful as to dredge all this ancient history up - is it that Obama should do instead of the stagnating "policies" of Carter?



Fast-forward just a few months after American voters fired Carter for his gross incompetence on all levels. America was on the road to a 25-year economic expansion, possibly the longest in our nation’s history.

Recognizing that unfair, punitive high taxes were the road to economic destruction, Ronald Reagan cut taxes and the economy lifted off. Interest rates fell. Inflation was curtailed. Americans went back to work in droves.


It seems to me that taxes were pretty high in the 50s, and in the 60's and the economy was doing just fine. As a matter of fact they were - see the bottom chart number 2, which shows that the top marginal tax rate during that time actually peaked at 92% during the 50's. Somehow, life (and American prosperity) went on...




Yes, Reagan cut taxes for the wealthiest from about 80% all the way down to the low 30's (as the bottom part of the chart shows), but that not really what made the economy take off. He also dramatically increased spending - particularly defense spending.

During the 80's I worked for a defense contractor, and I can tell you from first hand experience - it was a major economy booster, at least until 91' when the cold war ended. People had jobs, with paychecks and they spent their money. On food, on cars, on homes, on travel and vacations. They spent quite a bit, and that defense spending put money in the pockets of lots of people who had nothing to do with the industry.

But it was nowhere near the utopia you paint.

One year after implementing what was then the largest tax cut in history, Reagan immediately implemented the largest tax INCREASE in history (at that time) after his first cut exploded the deficit (Y'know - the FEDZILLA beast you're so a-scared of...? That's Reagan's Beast, not Obama's.)

Oh and don't even play that "It was the Democratic Congress" that wouldn't cut spending game - every budget that Congress approved during Reagan's Presidency SPENT LESS than what he asked for.

The end result of Reaganomics was a massive shift of the tax burden away from those who for decades had easily been able to shoulder the burden onto the backs of those who couldn't. Inflation went down, but then unemployment went up. Some people got rich, other people - particularly Veterans, which obviously doesn't include YOU Teddy - went homeless and untreated for PTSD and other disorders. Reagan talked a great game, really he did, but he ignored those who needed help the most. He demonized them, and hobbled the government from being able to do it's job. He ignored the Vets, he ignored the sick - particularly those suffering from AIDS and drug addition until both became epidemics raging out of control. Nice job Ronnie.

When we were attacked in Beirut - he CUT AND RAN LIKE A SCARED RABBIT!!!!

He not only "Pal'd around with terrorists" he gave them weapons!! And when he got caught, he LIED about it. Whatta Role Model he was.

You wanna talk about the "Free Market"? Hey, don't you remember "JUNK BONDS"? Corporate Raiders whose entire reason to exist was to buy a company only to dismantle it and ship the jobs overseas? Remember Black Friday and the Savings and Loan Crash? Remember Gordon Gekko?



"Greed is Good!" Right Ted? "So what if a few million Americans get trampled in the process, they shouldn't have been laying on the road in the way. Lazy FUCKS!!! They probably need and F-150 up their ass to give 'em some motivation!"

All of that shit either occurred directly on Reagan's watch or as a direct result of his ROB THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH policies, which were repeated and eventually led us to GRAND EPIC FAILURE of the Bush Administration.

And so, that's what you think we need to go back to?

I don't think so.



Remember your history and pray for President Obama to fail. I fear for America if we allow him to succeed.



America will succeed, but it's going to do with Despite You and your feeble self-defeating Prayers Teddy. We can't go back down the road we've been own after decades of Republican leadership. Only under President Clinton have we truly seen some of these massive fuck-ups straightened out, and even he didn't go far enough in ensuring that *everyone* has a decent and fair chance at properity, not just the connected, the lucky and the already rich.

You can pray for what you want - but I'm praying for YOU and Rush and Glenn and all your wingnut syncophats to massively fail - yet again - as your buddy Bush was too clueless and arrogant to pay attention to Bin Laden and failed to stop 9/11, failed to find ANY weapons in Iraq, failed to secure that country after they wrongfully invading it, failed to respond to the Insurgency, failed to understand that a person who trusts you will tell you truth while someone who fears you will tell you anything they think you want to hear, failed to keep the Congress safe from an Anthrax attack, failed after Katrina to rescue the desperate, failed to find, capture or kill Bin Laden, failed to provide us with vaccines to minimize preventable diseased, failed to realize Terry Schiavo was blind and brain-dead, failed to keep the American people safe from anti-freeze in our toothpaste, failed to protect us from poison in our medicine and a insane predatory lending/credit default-swap system of monitized mortgages that nearly brought the entire world economy crashing down around your ears!

Why the FUCK should we listen to you people now!!?

Republicans have done nothing but FAIL for years now. None of us have been praying for it - only praying for it TO BE OVER! Now it finally is. Show some class and eat your failure pie quietly in the corner like a good doddering old irrelevant Rocker. And take Up-Chuck Norris with ya.

If Obama had failed today - the Somali Pirates who had been holding a U.S. Captain hostage for the last several days would have succeeded. But they didn't, Obama succeeded while you were Praying. Against. Him! Good job, but you failed again.

Bottom line: You guys should already know a lot about MASSIVE TOTAL ABJECT FAILURE - it's all you're good at. Obama isn't Carter, and he's isn't Clinton either - he's his own person and the sooner you Wingnut Friedmanomic Luddites recognize that the better off we'll all be.

You're Real Rock friend, sincerely.

Vyan

P.S. If you haven't had enough from this whupping, I'll be happy to Whup your ass on Lead Guitar too, particularly since you haven't learned a new lick in 35 years. Hell, Tommy Shaw from you last credible band Damn Yankees could play circles around you Ted, what were you even there for - Comedy Relief? Haw!

Some may wonder why I bother spending so much time on a irrelevant dim-bulb like Nugent? It's because he's making noise about running for Governor of Michigan in 2010 - that's why! Yes, REALLY! One thing this nation doesn't need is another Palinite Blowhard NitWit Governor, Bow-hunting Deer from a Helicopter...while destroying our collective common sense.

Enough is enough.