Blog of Mass Destruction —

Mitch Daniels Pushes New Welfare Program

by The Reverend on January 25, 2012

in class warfare,collective bargaining rights,conservatives,economy,GOP,John Kasich,Scott Walker,union busting

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels gave the response to President Obama's SOTU address last night. Really smart GOP insiders wanted Mitch Daniels to run for president against the Dark Knight, however, Mrs. Daniels said no. No biggie, really…..Daniels is an unknown. But what Mitch Daniels is doing to the state of Indiana is kind of a big deal.

Like John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Daniels knows that crushing unions takes away Democratic assets…making it easier for Republicans to win elections and hold onto power at the same time that Americans are turning away from the divisive, intolerant and rich-serving GOP.

So, Daniels and his GOP legislature are right now trying to force a "right to work" law onto the citizens of Indiana. As we have learned in Ohio and Wisconsin, right-to-work laws are, in reality, union disintegration and destruction bills.

But right-to-work laws pushed by Republicans are much more than just attempts to finish off 30 years of conservative war against unions. Right-to-work laws are a frontal attack on democracy. In Indiana, Republican state legislators just defeated an amendment to the proposed right-to-work bill that would allow voters in Indiana to vote on whether or not they wanted such a new law. The vote was 59-39 to keep such a decision away from being made by Indiana voters…proving once again that the will of the people and right-to-work…have nothing in common.

In Indiana's not-yet-passed bill, the goal is transparent….

Under the bill, companies and unions could no longer negotiate contracts that require employees to either join a union or pay fees for representation.

In other words…..if Indiana's bill would pass, democracy and the democratic process would be totally eliminated for workers in that state. Workers would no longer be permitted to organize a union in their place of work…unless those workers first rejected the democratic, majority-rules provisions of any such process.

The majority rules, with rare exception, in our American democratic republic. Republicans want to make one more exception. Republicans in Indiana are pushing to eliminate majority-rules democracy in the workplace….and what's worse….replace it with a new entitlement program, a new welfare program. The cynical irony here is that while these same Republicans claim that "freedom" and "liberty" are at the core of their right-to-work legislation……nullifying the democratic process inside the workplace is their real goal.

Anti-union conservatives are telling us if a majority of workers vote to unionize a workplace, that vote doesn't apply to any workers who disagree with the vote. That's modern GOP "liberty" in action. If we applied this undemocratic thinking to, say, bills passed by a majority of the U.S. Congress…then any citizen who didn't like those bills, could feel free to violate any and all provisions of said bills.

That would be the active nullification of the democratic process….not "liberty", but total chaos. Every citizen could choose, cafeteria style, which laws applied to them and which didn't. The Confederacy tried this undemocratic approach to the U.S. republic…..and it didn't work out all that well.

What Republicans describe as "freedom" and "liberty" in the workplace…is simply the nullification of democracy and the spawning of an "every man can do as they see fit" form of chaotic tyranny.

The kicker about this new push by anti-democratic Republican governors, like Mitch Daniels, is the fact that "right-to-work" is a conservative welfare program. The same political party that prides itself on bashing liberal welfare programs they say creates "brainwashed" dependency, are pushing for the power to establish a brand new welfare program for, I guess, anti-democratic misfit workers.

Mitch Daniels longs for the time when a new employee at a union shop in Indiana is entitled to all the benefits of a union agreement…without having to be a part of that union. All gain, no pain. That sense of workplace entitlement is what Daniels, and others, deem as "liberty" or "freedom." That seems odd, especially when you consider how Republicans constantly berate Americans who receive some form of government "entitlement" as hopeless dependents "enslaved" to government dependency.

Wouldn't anti-democratic, right-to-work misfits in Indiana be taking something for doing nothing should they be granted the "liberty" to benefit from a union contract while rejecting any union provisions? Wouldn't right-to-work employees simply be cowering behind the same government fiats they criticize for making the poor and minorities hopelessly dependent on government handouts?

Of course right-to-work is anti-democratic. Of course right-to-work, at it's core, creates a new anti-democratic form of government dependency….a reliance on government power to create an entirely new exception to majority rule in the workplace.

Mix all of that stuff in with the Republican Party emphasis on American workers needing to work for less money…..and it's relatively easy to see why today's GOP is seen as the Party of the 1%.

Tagged as: "right to work", conservative welfare, entitlements, Mitch Daniels

{ 21 comments }

Angry Conservatives

by The Reverend on January 24, 2012

in 2012 election,Barack Obama,conservatives,disinformation,GOP primaries,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich

Last night down in Florida GOP candidate Mitt Romney basically called Newt Gingrich out as an unprincipled liar…which, of course, Gingrich is.

Starting at about the 9:40 mark…listen to Gingrich, a master of deception, attempt to convince viewers that the $1.6 million his company took from Fanny and Freddie wasn't for the purpose of lobbying and influence peddling. Watch how Romney calmly calls out outrageous bullsh*t on Gingrich…and also notice how Gingrich takes a long pause to consider which diversion or distraction to use to take him off the subject.

allowfullscreen>

Romney…

"On this stage, in a prior debate you said that you were paid $300,000 by Freddy Mac as an historian. They don't pay people $25,000 a month for 6 years as historians. That adds up to $1.6 million. They weren't hiring you as a historian. This contract proves you were not an historian, you were a consultant. It doesn't say you provided historical experience, it said you were a consultant. And you were hired by the chief lobbyist for Freddy Mac….You also spoke publicly in favor of these GSE's, these government sponsored entities, at the very time that Freddy Mac was getting America in a position where we had a massive housing collapse. You could have spoken out aggressively. You could have spoken out in a way that 'these guys are wrong, this needs to end'..but instead you were being paid by them."

Yes, Gingrich lied about his work for Fanny and Freddy. Presumably because patriotic conservative voters, according to Village Media Professionals commenting on Gingrich's recent and powerful debate performances, don't care about what's true and what's a lie.

What conservative GOP voters want isn't a candidate who tells the truth. I mean, seriously, consider the top two contenders left in the GOP primaries. Gingrich and Romney change their answers more often than most of us change our socks.

What, then, is the distinction, really, that differentiates Gingrich from Romney….at least to conservative voters? Isn't the answer that conservative voters think Gingrich can put it to President Obama in a mean-spirited, divisive, hate-filled way…in a way that Romney cannot? Isn't that it in a nutshell, so to speak?

Associated Press…

The Republican presidential debates have served up riveting TV and exposed the contenders' strengths and weaknesses. No one has benefited more than Newt Gingrich, whose in-your-face style has excited GOP voters who want a scrappy fighter to take on President Barack Obama in the fall.

The AP writer goes on…

That group of voters (the most conservative S. Carolina voters) backed Gingrich in Saturday's primary in the strongest numbers, in part because of two memorable debate exchanges.

The "two memorable debate exchanges" are explained as being the Juan Williams exchange with Gingrich in the Myrtle Beach debate and John King's hapless exchange with Gingrich at the beginning of the debate in Charleston.

Why do you think these two exchanges, specifically, made the difference in the S. Carolina primary?
I have an answer that conservatives will probably not appreciate.

Conservative voters are angry. They, and their mainstream media apologists, have been telling us that they have been angry ever since Obama took their country away from them. Conservatives are not simply angry, either. They're fighting mad. More than anything else this general election cycle, angry conservative voters want a candidate who will fight as if he/she was as angry as they are.

Angry people…I'm talking mad as hell…..don't care about pesky facts or inconvenient truths. They simply want a representative candidate who has the capability of spreading hostile poison all over the dreaded Dark Knight. These angry conservatives don't even care if their candidate loses the election in spectacular fashion. They don't.

They just want a hitman who will make them feel better when he "gives it" to that dark-skinned president. Gingrich…although truth-challenged and a master of deceit over his career….is just the bombthrowing fighter these angry, angry conservative voters are looking for.

Gingrich is not afraid to dress down an "uppity black" Juan Williams….instructing Juan that, no, he doesn't recognize his insults directed towards poor blacks and black children as "insulting." The audience roared their approval.

Gingrich is not afraid to drag out the rotted "liberal media" sleight of hand game….like Newt did with the pathetic John King the other night. Gingrich, and his conservative fans, just know that the media is "liberal", even though it isn't…and what better way to send tingles down the legs of angry, angry conservative sore losers than to publicly chastise a representative from that "liberal media" for asking a perfectly legitimate question about his 2nd ex-wife.

The "two memorable debate exchanges" which have rocketed Gingrich to the top in GOP polling are memorable only because of what those exchanges say about today's conservatives. Today's conservatives are goddamn angry….so angry they will leap to their feet when blacks and media members are put in their place.

You see, under the spell of one's own hateful anger…..truth, facts, empirical evidence, eye witness accounts….nothing really matters. All that matters to angry conservative voters is that their candidate has enough gumption and audacity to deliver the same ugly, hateful and divisive anger that they have been feeling over America's first black president.

Tagged as: conservative anger, Gingrich, GOP debates, romney

{ 8 comments }

Primary Colors Of GOP Frustration

by The Reverend on January 23, 2012

in 2012 election,Barack Obama,economy,GOP,GOP primaries,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich

South Carolina's conservative voters chose a GOP presidential candidate on Saturday who has unfavorable ratings nationally of 58-60%.

Newt Gingrich, despite his willingness to bait white conservative voters through outrageous racist arguments, would be utterly humiliated in a national election against Barack Obama. That is why Democrats are saying of a Gingrich candidacy…bring it the hell on.

When you give it some thought, perhaps Gingrich would be the right candidate at the right time….not for the nation, of course….but for the Republican Party. Perhaps a forty state loss to Obama and the national embarrassment that a Gingrich presidential campaign would soil his party with….would finally be enough to persuade the Party Of Lincoln….to reform it's damned self.

One can hope.

However, with 60% disapproval numbers nationally…..it's not likely that Republican primary voters in the other states that are not South Carolina will be so willing to experience the national-party humiliation that a Gingrich presidential candidacy would surely bring to the GOP. Possible? Yes. But not likely.

Even MSNBC's Morning Blow (sic) Scarborough knows what a lot of other non-S. Carolinian Republicans know…..

"Mitt Romney could attack Newt for not being a conservative because Newt is not a conservative. Google it! We [Republicans] ran him out of Congress in 1998 because he sold us out on taxes, he sold us out on spending, he went to the floor and he sided with Democrats on his last speech, calling us the perfectionists caucus. He called us jihadists. He's not a conservative…"

Not exactly nuanced.

So again…that leaves Mitt Romney.

If Romney is the eventual GOP nominee, he plans on running against President Obama by hammering him on his economic record. But how convincing of an argument can Romney make against Obama's economic record when he says stuff like this….

(Radio show host Laura)INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.

Romney is aware of the data which I shared with readers on January 11th. Almost two years worth of consecutive private sector job growth, a bullish stock market, record corporate profits, and returning consumer confidence is all evidence pointing to a recovering economy.

But if Romney's plan is to hit Obama hard on the national economy…..and yet, according to Romney, the economy is "getting better" under Obama's leadership….how do Mitt and the Republicans expect to make a compelling argument for changing presidents?

Rock…meet hard place.

In essence then, conservative, anti-Obama voters have two choices in front of them. Pick a guy who the nation overwhelmingly disapproves of in Newton Gingrich, or pick a guy who thinks that President Obama's stewardship of the nation's economy is producing positive results.

All of this puts flesh to Ann Coulter's bony framing awhile back that if ~~Baby Huey~~ Chris Christie didn't enter the race, Romney would be the candidate and the GOP will lose to President Obama.

Sadly…and most likely discouraging for conservative Republican voters….is the reality that Ann Coulter, like a blind (though hideously skinny) pig, actually stumbled onto an acorn of truth.

Tagged as: Gingrich disapproval ratings, Mitt Romney, S. Carolina GOP primary

{ 117 comments }

Lamestream Media Victimizes Newt

by The Reverend on January 20, 2012

in 2012 election,conservatives,GOP primaries,media,moral values,Newt Gingrich

Once again, another GOP presidential candidates "debate". CNN…again. Transcript.

CNN's John King, once a promising young reporter, now simply another Village idiot pretending to be a reporter, began the politico-drama last night by bringing up one of Newt Gingrich's ex-wives.

CNN, just like every corporate media outlet today, feigns objectivity. CNN knows…because they are oh-so-in-touch….that what viewers really want is to be entertained. King's opening question to Newt was offered purely for it's entertainment value. John King knew that his question to Gingrich about his 2nd ex-wife would rile up the far right audience…..another monumental confrontation (in conservative brains, at least) of the "liberal mainstream media" going after yet another poor, under siege, Republican.

John King has been around long enough to know that Gingrich would take the opportunity to bash "liberal media"….and that's just what Newt did. To CNN, and King, that would add entertainment value to the kickoff of the debate. Get the conservative audience's juices flowing and what not. To the question….'did you ask your second wife for an open marriage so you could continue banging your former aid Callista?'….Newt responded…

“No,” he said when asked if he wanted to address the issue. The audience burst into wild applause at his response. “I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country harder to attract decent people to run for office. I’m appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Now first off….the revelations from Newt's second wife that Newt behaved badly, you know, banging his former secretary while still married…..while simultaneously aggressively attacking President Clinton at the time for similar behavior….is well known. Not new and not news.

Quite a while ago I read the second Gingrich wife's account of life with Newt. She said that Newt told her it wasn't about what he did in his own life which was important. What was important, according to Gingrich, was what he had to say….allegedly his conservative message. All that was important was that Newt's message be heard by the American people. What Newt did in his own life was simply insignificant…not that important.

Therefore, when John King asked a question implying that Newt's personal life was…umm…less than virtuous….the question could easily be dismissed by the former Speaker. You see, asking Newt personal questions is irrelevant…..unless, of course, you are part of the "destructive, vicious, negative" news media out to do harm to the Party of Jesus, the GOP.

In the soap opera debate last night, John King played the role of 'nasty, Jesus hating, commie-loving, liberal mainstream news guy'…out to victimize yet another pure and righteous Republican candidate by asking a question about an old ex-wife story. Gingrich played the role of the pure and righteous Republican being victimized by "lamestream liberal media" guy.

The audience played the role of a World Wide Wrestling-like audience piling on those "liberal" refs who dared to question their righteous and beloved, "liberal media"-hating superstar.

It was all oh-so-predictably nauseating…..and phony.

But again….it's just what the "hate Obama" crowd needed. Like a heroin fix. Slapping a "liberal media" guy, even if that media guy is not liberal and is only play acting for the sake of ratings, invigorates the ~~Jerry Springer~~ ultra-conservative audience. And isn't that all that really matters? Isn't the entertainment value of these mock-debates all that matters?

I sincerely hope that Newt Gingrich wins in S. Carolina tomorrow…and eventually goes on to win the GOP nomination….though I still doubt that will happen. If Mitt Romney personifies all that is wrong and destructive about Wall Street and the financial industry's control of our nation over the last 30 years…..then Newt Gingrich personifies all that's turned ugly about the modern Republican Party over the same period.

Gingrich was the creator of today's ugly, hateful, divisive and fact-free politics. The Founding Father of Ugly. Trail blazer of the Alice in Wonderland politics which oozes daily, like slime, from America's right. But to people who pretend to be reporters and journalists….Newt packs just the entertainment punch corporately-owned, non-news outfits are looking for.

Finally….the opening of last night's "debate" reminded me of the old teevee show, Laugh-In. That's the one where Goldie Hawn giggled and became famous. Audiences for Laugh-In knew what was coming, what to expect. The straight man would ask a question…and then Goldie, or someone else, would pop their head out from behind a prop wall with window openings and give the punchline answer. All very humorous and entertaining….but only silly, childish fluff that no one took seriously.

You do the translation.

Tagged as: "liberal" media, CNN GOP debate, john king, Newt Gingrich

{ 30 comments }

What Insult?

by The Reverend on January 19, 2012

in 2012 election,Barack Obama,discrimination,GOP primaries,Newt Gingrich,states rights

During the GOP debate the other night, Fox liberal-poser, Juan Williams, asked Newt Gingrich this question….

“Speaker Gingrich, you said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools,” Williams asked. “Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?”

“No. I don’t see that,” Gingrich said flatly.

The "no, I don't see that." was followed by exuberant applause from the, I assume, entirely conservative/Republican debate audience. Take the 2 minutes to appreciate at what point the audience responded enthusiastically.

In Newt Gingrich land, a land where unicorns frolic, opportunistic, conservative hate-spreaders never, never, never "see" racial disharmony. However, those in unicorn land who say they don't "see" racial disharmony are usually always the people who are, you know, agitating racial disharmony.

The fact that Newt Gingrich had singled out inner city black and poor children to surround his 'kids-should-be-janitors' hooey….is all anyone needs to understand here. Instead of Newt making a broader point about all kids today, or even all schools today….Newt purposely chose to comment about black inner city kids…the kids Newt claims won't work unless illegality is involved.

Why do you think Newt chose to agitate by race-baiting white conservative voters?

Well, first off…it works. According to what I heard Pat Buchanan say publicly, Republicans have won a lot of elections by using the "southern strategy"….in other words, baiting white voters into checking the GOP box on the ballot by reminding them that their tax dollars are being used to help black families. That's what the "food stamp president" thing is all about. Reminding white, conservative voters that their tax dollars are going to pay for food for black families……and look, it's a black president who is taking the tax monies of whites and paying for food for blacks. We must take our country back….from…well….blacks.

Even though more whites benefit from "welfare" than blacks….Gingrich made inner city black kids an issue in order to entice conservative voters to his side. I mean, listen to the audience's response. The loudest and most sustained applause and hoopla in the Fox debate was over Newt and Juan's back and forth over questions of insensitivity concerning race. Gingrich responded that he did not see how what he said was racially insensitive and the crowd gave Newt a rousing ovation. Newt played the "southern strategy" perfectly.

Food stamps, inner city school kids, ObamaCare…..it's all the same to the conservatives Gingrich is trying to draw to his candidacy by baiting according to race. In ObamaCare millions more poorer families will have access to Medicaid. To conservatives, that means more blacks will get health care paid for by the tax dollars of whites.

Now most conservatives will disagree with what I've said thus far….claiming that racism has no place in the modern conservative movement. To those I submit the words of a Republican operative who made his living by race baiting….Lee Atwater….

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Get it? See…saying "food stamp president" is a lot more abstract than saying "nigger, nigger"…but is meant to deliver the same message. Whether it's ObamaCare, food stamps, inner city kids who won't work unless they're doing criminal activity, ….it's all part of the same rotted and stinking "southern strategy" begun by the Republican Party after civil rights legislation was passed in the 60's.

Not only did Newt Gingrich "see" what Juan Williams was getting at the other night with his question about "can't you see…that's an insult"…..Newt had planned it that way. Not an accidental bug but a pre-meditated feature.

The disgusting part of the entire exchange was not that Gingrich had purposely baited according to race to lead to Williams question….that's to be expected. That's how Gingrich operates in order to sell more of his books and DVD's. It was the roaring conservative audience approval of Newt's defense of his "southern strategy" which disgusted the most.

Tagged as: food stamp president, GOP Fox debate, inner city youth, Newt Gingrich, southern strategy

{ 87 comments }

$374,000 Yearly Chump Change

by The Reverend on January 18, 2012

in 2012 election,class warfare,GOP,Mitt Romney,moral values,tax avoidance,tax cuts

Following up on yesterday's post…it seems that the GOP presidential candidate-to-be, Mitt Romney, has responded to calls to release his tax returns by stating yesterday that his income tax rate is…

"probably closer to 15 percent than anything."

Romney also told reporters that he….

….gets speaker fees "from time to time, but not very much."

Do you know how much is "not very much" in the eyes of Mitt Romney?

$374,000.

Mitt Romney made $374,000 in fees for speeches given from Feb. 2010 through Feb. 2011. Golf outing tip money perhaps. Limousine driver tip money, maybe. But "not very much" in the mind of Mitt Romney, ultra-wealthy candidate for the presidency. Mitt's estimated net worth is nigh on $270 million. Romney's deal upon leaving Bain Capital provided a lifetime yearly income in the millions, so that his nestegg of $250-270 million can be eventually handed down to those who have earned it through their hard work of being biologically connected to Mitt. And if Mitt has anything to say about it…..that future inheritance money that the Romney brood will share will not be taxed by the federal government upon transfer….eliminating the estate tax a top priority of all Republican candidates.

So what to make of this?

A person who receives $374,000 in income in 12 months is automatically in the top 1% of our country's income earners. Yet, Mitt Romney said that that was "not very much." See the problem?

From June 2007 to June of this year, they said, median annual household income declined by 7.8 percent for non-Hispanic whites, to $56,320, and by 6.8 percent for Hispanics, to $39,901. For blacks, household income declined 9.2 percent, to $31,784.

Not only that, but also this…

U.S. household income fell to its lowest level in more than a decade in 2010 and poverty rose to a 17-year high,….

Framed by that dismal looking backdrop….Mitt Romney told reporters that $374,000 a year was "not very much."

The leading contender for the GOP presidential candidacy stated publicly that $374,000….almost 7 times the average family's income during our jobless recovery dating back to the last Republican administration……didn't really amount to "very much."

That is not a symptom of tone deafness. That is a symptom from a man who is not self-aware. A self-aware leading candidate hoping to dethrone the Dark Knight would know better than to add the words "not very much" to a statement where $374,000 was the topic. But not Mitt Romney.

That comment will again reinforce existing doubts over whether Mitt Romney is out of touch with average Americans. Not one American outside of the top 1% would describe $374,000 as "not very much."

Couple the "not very much" Romney comment with the candidate's income tax platform of reducing income tax rates by one third on the top 1%, all during our worst jobless recovery in my lifetime, and my claim that the former governor lacks self-awareness seems reasonable. Who is Romney trying to reach with such comments?

Then we have the half-hearted admission by America's first Mormon candidate that he pays an income tax rate "closer to 15% than anything." Even though Romney doesn't work for Bain Capital any longer, and hasn't for quite awhile, his platinum parachute, studded with diamonds, from Bain continues to pay Romney millions each year. What's more, because the parachute was put together based on the egregiously low capital gains and dividend tax rates of the Bush administration…..Mitt's ongoing millions for doing absolutely nothing is only taxed at 15%. Middle class earners pay at an average of 20%…..for working.

As I said yesterday, I have no insight into how the Republican Party thinks Romney can reach average American voters. If anything, Romney is the very personification of what most Americans detest about the 1%. Detached, arrogant, out of touch, and not self aware.

In a very difficult economic period for most American families, a period marked by huge income disparities between the top 1% and the rest of us…..the Republicans will feature a candidate for the presidency who pays a lower income tax rate on his yearly millions than most of the public employees whom Tea-fueled GOP governors have been attacking as overpaid and coddled. In a very difficult economic period for most American families when their yearly incomes have actually declined by 2.3% over the last couple of years to an average of between $30,000 and $55,000….the Republicans will feature a candidate for the presidency who claims that $374,000 per year is "not very much."

Who would vote for such a person to be the nation's president and CIC?

Better yet…..why would anyone vote for such a person?

Tagged as: Mitt Romney, out of touch, self-awareness, tax rates

{ 28 comments }

Shocker: GOP Wants Lower Taxes On The 1%

by The Reverend on January 17, 2012

in 2012 election,class warfare,economy,GOP primaries,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,Ron Paul,tax cuts,unemployment

Seriously…..can you remember an election cycle when there were so many primary debates? Last night it was sponsored by the GOP-owned teevee network….Fox News. Transcript is here.

BAIER: I’d like to ask a question about keeping money for all of the candidates down the line. What is the highest federal income tax any American should have to pay? We are looking for a number.
Governor?

PERRY: Seven 7 percent flat tax. Simple. Keep it simple.
BAIER: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Well, my plan has two rates, 10 and 28 percent, which is the highest rate under Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes.
BAIER: Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now it’s at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately let’s get it down to as low as we possibly can, if it’s 20, if it’s 25 but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.
BAIER: So the highest you had was 35?
ROMNEY: Well, that’s what the law is right now, but 25 is where I would like to see us go.
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich.
GINGRICH: I would like to see it be a flat tax at 15 percent and I would like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue, not raise revenue to meet the government.
BAIER: Congressman Paul.
PAUL: Well, we should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913 it was 0 percent. What’s so bad about that?

In other parts of the debate, the GOP candidates repeated the only other idea that Republicans have….I mean other than lowering taxes on the already wealthy. The only other idea that Republicans have is to cut government spending. The reason Republicans want to cut government spending is….wait for it….so they can reduce taxes on the already wealthy.

All the talk in last night's "debate" about shuttering federal departments and cutting back on the number of weeks the unemployed receive checks, etc, etc,…..was for the purpose, the objective, of lowering government spending IN ORDER TO cut taxes further on America's already wealthy.

Notice in Brett Boy's question that he didn't ask what middle class tax rates should be, did he? Brett Boy only asked what should the highest tax rate be? Inherent in the question was the deep and sincere concern that Republicans, and those who shill for Republicans, have for America's wealthy….at best, the top 2%.

Santorum's suggestion was the smallest decrease for the already-rich. Paul's was the biggest. Ron Paul, if words mean anything, wants to eliminate the income tax altogether. But the frontrunner and soon-to-be GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, would lower income tax rates on the already-rich to 25%. That would reflect a reduction of 10 percentage points….which means that Mitt Romney would cut the income taxes of the already-rich by about one third.

The already-rich in America are paying income tax rates…right now…that are at 60 year national lows. At the same time, income disparity in the United States has never been so gapped in favor of those already-rich. What that all means to GOP hopefuls is that tax rates on the already-rich are too high….and, apparently, the income disparity gap is still too small. Don't ask me, I can't understand it either.

The corollary of Republican's deep, heartfelt desire to lower income tax rates on the already-rich is the entirely bogus belief that the already-rich in America are our nation's jaaabbb creators. The notion being that the already-rich can't create any new jaaabs if they don't see a reduction in their 60 year low tax rates.

And that's where the GOP hopefuls' heartfelt care and concern for the already-rich hits the harsh shores of reality.

The last GOP administration lowered income tax rates. The already-rich benefited the most from those tax cuts. To boot, the last administration also lowered capital gains and dividend tax rates down to 15%, affecting primarily the already-rich,…..making it possible for people like Warren Buffett…and Mitt Romney….to pay taxes at a lower rate than millions of middle class workers. (Note: that's the reason Romney is refusing to release his tax returns….he's paying at the 15% rate, which is a lower rate than the janitor pays who Newt wants to fire and replace with students.)

And yet, with those deep tax cuts on the already-rich firmly in place for 10 years now……and after a GOP administration which oversaw the most meager job creation over 8 years in modern U.S. history….GOP presidential hopefuls for 2012, like dogs back to their own vomit, are recommending more and deeper tax cuts on those already-rich.

America, as I have repeated umpteen times….is in the middle of a jobs recession because demand for goods and services is too low. Almost 70% of our economic activity is created by consumer demand. When Americans do not have jobs they cannot stimulate demand as we're used to in better times. No matter how far income tax rates are lowered on the already-rich……demand will not be affected. If income tax rates on the already-rich are lowered to zero……demand for goods and services will still not be affected. Those alleged jaaabb creators will still have no reason to hire new workers. They will just have larger bank accounts and trust funds….that's it.

So, in summary…..I don't know who Romney and the Gang are representing when they argue for even lower tax rates on the already-wildly-rich. Tax cuts on the wealthy NEVER result in more jobs being created. The reason? It isn't the rich that stimulates and maintains demand in our economy…it is all the rest of us…the 99%. It is the millions of average workers in America who create market demand…..and for GOP presidential hopefuls to offer even lower income tax rates on the already-rich as some kind of magical cure for our national economy…is one of the biggest disconnects the GOP has with reality.

Tagged as: GOP Fox debate, Mitt Romney, more tax cuts for rich, trickle down

{ 53 comments }

"Inconsistent With Our Values"

by The Reverend on January 16, 2012

in 9-11,executive powers,Guantanomo,Hillary Clinton,hubris,indefinite detention,Iraq,moral values,torture,war on terror

There has been quite a bit of noise surrounding the U.S. Marines urinating-on-Taliban-corpses story. Most of the noise has been of the polite disapproval type. You know, 'I support our soldiers killing the terrorists over there, but those brave boys shouldn't be making videos of themselves desecrating dead bodies….that's just not right.'

The typical "condemnations" were issued by all the proper government folks. Kings of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton both condemned the urinary actions by our fighting-for-freedom Marines and did what these proper government folks always do….announced that there would be an investigation.

Defense Secretary, Kings of Leon Panetta didn't just condemn the urination patrol….

“I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation into the matter.

"in the strongest possible terms." Well, that makes all the difference in the world then.

Nothing much will come of any "investigation" into this incident…..and that is the exact reason there will be an investigation….so that nothing much will be done about this embarrassing situation.

Or is it an embarrassing situation? At least one CNN contributor thought it was a situation to be very proud of….

Dana Loesch: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was — as part of an organization murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war.

The one thing which has changed about the American people since 9-11 is our willingness to embrace the inhumane treatment of those we call our enemies. Our first offshore gulag, Guantanamo, is still proudly open for business, indefinite detention of whomever the president claims is an enemy combatant is now the law in the free country of the U.S., government's warrantless eavesdropping on all U.S. citizens electronic communications continues every single day, the numerous incidents of U.S. military personnel conducting criminal acts of savagery, and the bipartisan enthusiasm for launching hellfire missiles from robotic drones down onto Muslim "militants", including infant, child and mother "militants" in 7 different countries.

Anyone embarrassed by any or all of those realities? Any celebrity Leaders rushing to microphones to declare any or all of those realities "inconsistent with our values?" Of course not. Why not? Because those realities accurately reflect our post 9-11 values. And that explains why Leaders like the conservative darling, Allen West (R-FL) can say to those who might question the urination circle jerk on Taliban corpses…."unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell"……he is only patriotically giving voice to the new American reality.

That new reality claims that America, alone, is entitled to do anything we want, to anyone we want, in any country we want to do it in. Anyone who complains about this new reality, whether it's complaining about U.S. soldiers executing, at pointblank range, an entire family including an infant, mother and grandmother, and then calling in an airstrike to cover their savagery….or it's complaining about U.S. soldiers stalking, and then raping an underage Muslim girl and then killing her and her family…or it's moaning and bitching over funtime videos of fellow U.S. freedom fighters urinating on the corpses of Taliban members…..anyone who complains about any of it is automatically acting unpatriotic just by complaining.

Other Leaders, say, like Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, do what they do best in a post 9-11 American values period…..feign outrage at U.S. Marines circle-urinating on Taliban corpses….by reminding us that such circle-urination, or at least taking videos of said fun, is very much "inconsistent with our values". Which "values" is Hillary referring to, ya' think?. Would urinating on Taliban corpses be inconsistent with our Guantanamo "values?" How about the hundreds and hundreds of Muslim women and children we have blown or burnt up since 9-11? How is urinating on dead Taliban bodies inconsistent with the "values" represented in slaughtering Muslim women and children in multiple countries?

You might think that Endless War in Muslim countries, where Muslim women and children are routinely killed by U.S. actions….you might think that offshore gulags where detainees have been rotting without due process for almost a decade….would prevent people like Hillary Clinton from bringing up anything about American "values"….if only for the sake of self-embarrassment at the obvious dissonance. But you would be mistaken. In post 9-11 America we are also post-hypocrisy, post-shame.

America is a lesser nation post 9-11. We have accepted new values. In this, Bin Laden, though dead, has won out. An insignificant Muslim man has been responsible for changing America for the worse, perhaps permanently. That's how weak America really is. It's a weakness of character, leadership and integrity. We've become a narcissistic nation in love with our own perceived-values reflection. We have become so un-self aware that we refuse to even consider the fact that the rest of the world sees post 9-11 America as an imperialistic, aggressor nation which has lost it's sense of decency and justice, yet continues to sermonize them on the so-called superiority of "American values".

Our nation's new values are the values of savages and tyrants. They are the values of the cowardly and the weak. They are the values of a nation which has fully endorsed the doctrine of "might means right."

What's worse, even though I'm typing this on Martin Luther King Jr Day, a day that celebrates hope, I don't see anything changing for the better anytime soon.

Tagged as: American values, corpse desecration

{ 12 comments }

The F Word

by The Reverend on January 13, 2012

in 2012 election,class warfare,disaster capitalism,GOP primaries,Newt Gingrich,Rick Perry

No, not that f-word.

I'm talking about the dreaded word…"fairness." For example…

“I think you have to look at the specific companies we are talking about and you have to ask yourself a very tough-minded question: Is it fair to have a system, is it right, is it the kind of country you want to live in, to have a system where somebody comes in [to] take over your company, take out all the cash and leave behind a wreck, and they go off to a country club having a great time and you go off to the unemployment line,” Gingrich said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News.

“Now this is not anti-capitalism, I am not for socialism, I am not for government stopping risk-taking, but I am for some sense of fairness that the entrepreneur and the worker have a joint investment in something succeeding.”

Who said those words?

Newt Gingrich said those words this week.

It also appears as if Texas Governor Rick Perry is thinking the same way about Mitt Romney's former job as a corporate raider….

“I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company Bain Capital with all the jobs that they killed, I’m sure he was worried that he’d run out of pink slips,” Perry said while campaigning in South Carolina.

Rarely do Republicans break St Ronnie's 11th commandment: 'thou shalt not talk smack about fellow Republicans.' But it looks like smack-talk has been breaking out all over as the GOP primary-palooza swings down into South Carolina where Mitt Romney is looking to finish off his less-than-stellar competitors and then prepare to battle the Dark Knight for the next 9 months.

But it's interesting…don't you think? That both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, allegedly rock-ribbed conservatives, would sound like progressives in their criticism of Mitt Romney's former profession as a corporate raider.

Yes, indeed, part of free market capitalism is plagued with "vulture capitalists." The Gordon Gekkos of real life. That would be Mitt Romney….a real-to-life, "greed is good", "greed works" Gordon Gekko. Romney headed Bain Capital in the 90's, made a fortune thanks to the hard, and often life's work, of others. Investment capitalists, they called themselves. Often, though, it was hard to differentiate Bain Capital from a flock of carcass stripping vultures.

How did Mitt Romney and his Bain Buddies see themselves in the 90's?

That's how.

Here's what the "progressives", Gingrich and Perry, were alluding to…

In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, from Mead Corp….

Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad's debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings.

The result: Ampad couldn't pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares.

….while as many as 185 workers near Buffalo lost jobs in a 1999 plant closing, Bain Capital and its investors ultimately made more than $100 million on the deal.

That is vulture capitalism. Corporate raiding. Purchasing an existing company, running up debt by 3000-4000%…..then selling off assets while issuing pink slips to all the employees while pocketing a cool $100 million for yourself and your oh-so-sophomoric Bain buddies.

The most popular form of what Romney did at Bain in the 90's….winds up offshoring the middle class jobs which helped in building up the original enterprise, leaving a skeletal crew of lackeys in the U.S. to shuffle papers, and then pocketing the difference between $30 per hour wages and $1 per hour Chinese wages or similar.

That's what corporate raiding looks like today. Oh no, they don't call it corporate raiding anymore, because the actual corporate entity doesn't suffer any harm, in fact, the corporation and it's stock holders benefit. It's only the people who used to do the actual work who suffer….because their jobs have been sent to Communist China by patriotic U.S. venture capitalists.

And so we get back to the f-word. Fairness. Is it fair for vulture capitalists, like Romney's former Bain Capital, to root around in the assets of a troubled company, enrich themselves by looting any asset not nailed down, run up ginormous debt if they can, put hundreds of average American workers in unemployment lines, and then pay the Chinese 1/30th of what they paid American workers? I'm not asking whether it's legal….I'm asking whether it's fair to average American workers, is it fair to America?

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry…..two of the most right leaning Republicans still running in the 2012 GOP primaries…..don't think it is.

Tagged as: Bain Capital, fairness, romney, vulture capitalism

{ 28 comments }

Israel: Terrorist Nation?

by The Reverend on January 12, 2012

in iran,Israel,oil wars,pre-emption,war on terror

Imagine members of Hezbollah, recognized by the U.S. and Israel as a "terrorist" group, covertly entering Israel and over time assassinating a half a dozen of Israel's most distinguished science professors, one by one. James Bond movie style assassinations. Assassinations where a "terrorist" rides a motorcycle alongside a car carrying the targeted Israeli science professor and places a bomb with a magnetized base on the side of the car, and then speeds off.

If members of Hezbollah carried out such spy movie activities against Israeli science professors, is there any doubt that Israel and their lone defender in the world, the United States, would be calling those assassinations "terrorist acts?" Further, if Hezbollah extremists did such a thing wouldn't Israel and the United States be calling for reprisal the moment it happened?

According to a story out yesterday, a fourth Iranian scientist involved in Iran's nuclear program was assassinated Wednesday. The fourth. A fifth assassination attempt against the current head of Iran's atomic agency failed in November 2010.

A sixth key figure in Iran’s military program, Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, an Iranian missile expert who was charged with “ensuring self-sufficiency” in armaments, was killed in November in a huge explosion at the Bid Ganeh base outside Tehran.

Liars for hire in both Israel and the United States vehemently denied any complicity in these assassinations.

However, consider these comments by Israeli officials concerning the assassinations….

“Whoever carried out this attack, there is no doubt that it is positive, and should be seen as such,” the official said.

“I don’t know who took revenge on the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear.”

On Tuesday, Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz was quoted as telling the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that 2012 would be a “critical year” for Iran — in part because of “things that happen to it unnaturally.”

“Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period,” said Mickey Segal, a former director of the Israeli military’s Iranian intelligence department. “Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the Iranian regime is facing.”

Keep in mind here that there is still no evidence that Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons. None. Iran still claims that their pursuit is for energy purposes.

Also keep in mind that Israel, the nation who is most likely responsible for all the Iranian scientist assassinations, has somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons stockpiled. Iran has none.

In spite of there being no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, rigid sanctions have been placed on the Iranian government and the Iranian people by "non-terrorist" nations. Iranian banks have been hardest hit by these sanctions. Before the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003, Iraq had suffered under a decade of such harsh economic sanctions. Iraq didn't have nuclear bomb capabilities either….even though many, many bloodthirsty westerners made that claim.

What about the question of whether or not Israel should be considered a "sponsor of terror" or a "terrorist nation" for conducting targeted assassinations against select Iranian nuclear scientists? Is Israel in a declared war with Iran? If not, what should assassinating five important scientists inside Iran be called? Freedom fighting? Self-defense?

Ever since George W. Bush floated his "axis of evil" nonsense, including Iran in the trio of nations marked for invasion and/or regime change, it has only been a matter of when the U.S. and Israel, and any other weak European nations the U.S. can blackmail into helping them, will launch their attack into Tehran.

What seems odd to me is that all of this is considered part and parcel of some fictitious "war on terror."

So I ask….based on the five successful Israeli terrorist assassination attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists….carried out inside Iran……who is the "terrorist nation" or "nations?"

Who was the terrorist nation when Israeli commandos assassinated unarmed, humanitarian volunteers on Turkish flotillas? Who was the terrorist nation when Bebe ordered the slaughter of Gazans in late 2008?

And now, who is the terrorist nation…the state sponsor of terror…in the assassinations of five Iranian nuclear scientists?

Not a trick question.

Tagged as: assassinations, Iranian nuclear scientists, Israel, sponsor of terror

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →