Saturday, February 28, 2009

The Republicanistical Party

One of the things I can't stand about Republicans is how many refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. It's immature name calling that reminds me of the school yard bullies as a kid who would try and make fun of your name. Well the other day I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and he had a Republican politician on the show with Rep. Barry Frank whom I think is super smart and a great advocate.

So the Republican started answering a question and mentioned the, "Democrat Party" and Chris interrupted him and started asking him why he and his Republican colleagues insist on calling the party that way. He said he was tired of Republicans playing that stupid game and that's why I love Chris Matthews--he calls people on shit that most reporters are afraid to do. He's not afraid of anyone and I like that kind of moxie.

Well finally it was Barney Frank's turn and he started out his response saying something like, "I wanted to thank my friend and colleague from California (the Repub was a Representative from California) who represents the Republicanistical Party." Ha!!!!!!!!!! I laughed my ass off especially when they showed Chris Matthews trying not to laugh. See that's why I like people like Frank--he's not afraid to get feisty when needed unlike some wishy-washy liberals. So until the Republicans stop saying "Democrat Party" I will by calling them the Republicanistical Party from time to time.

By the way, I just watched Rush Windbag, er, Limbaugh's speech at CPAC the red meat conservative conference and I would love nothing more than to see him as the Republican nominee in 2012. He or Palin because the harder right they keep going the less relevant they will be. America has clearly gone moderate-left evolving past the outdated, sometimes backward and increasingly radical views of the what use to be the Republican Party. These radicals have hijacked that traditional Republican Party and the more extreme they get the more voters are going to flock to the sensible, even keeled attitude of President Obama. And the Republicanistical Party will continue to slip into irrelevancy.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Gov. Bobby Jindal Takes Government Money While Wanting to Deny it to Other States.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Obama Speech Soars while Jindal's Bores.

Until last night I had been a little worried that President Obama was being a little too pessimistic about the economy but he struck the right balance between that and hope last night. It really was an excellent speech and that's saying something given all the great speeches he's delivered. He split those two extremes in his speech yesterday by underling our struggles but also placed us upon his wings to show us a brighter future. Such sentiment was most powerfully and convincingly spoken when he said:

“While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this,” Mr. Obama said. “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

TPJ: It was a very convincing expression of strong optimism and confidence that tells me that the president is firmly at the helm of the ship and has a plan of action to move forward. His honesty was refreshing in stating though that we will have to make sacrifices but that together we will emerge stronger if only we are willing to work together. So far that hasn't happened so much from Republicans. So far they haven't seem to have seen the urgency of the matter at hand and have been obsessed with opposition and obstruction to score cheap political points in a sad attempt at exacting revenge for the lost election. It makes them look petty, childish and out of touch with the American people.

And for those who have concerns that we have fallen too far that this crisis is bigger than us and our president he used history (much to the joy of this historian) to show us how we've done it many times before. He reminded us of the civil war, which was also a time of economic peril and not just a war but America prevailed. The same went for the Great Depression and we aren't near those waters--yet but Obama gave me confidence last night that he is doing everything possible to keep us from backsliding any further and reversing this trend.

He reminded us of surviving two world wars and building the middle class through government reinvestment in veterans coming home through the G.I. Bill so they could better educate themselves for the jobs of the future, which then were mostly in manfucaturing. Well, last night Obama showed us the future--green energy, which will use traditional manufacturing combined with new technology to not only build a new industry that will employ generations to come but will also make us energy independent. Thus shoring up our security both foreign and at home. No more wars for oil under President Obama.

He reminded us to be patient because growing pains can take some time but that as he said we will emerge ever stronger if we but work together. I hope the Republicans finally get the message that we need to work together and not just in a token manner. I liked the way that he led the way in reiterating the need to sacrifice on both sides to move America forward, Given these realities, everyone in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.

TPJ: The other big line that I liked was his call to America's youth to take schooling more seriously and see it as being more about them individually. It was great to hear him say that basically America is counting on them to step bravely into the new paradigm we are facing. I thought it was a great rallying cry and reminder to young people of the importance of education when he said that dropping out of high school is giving up on America.

As for Governor Bobby Jindal's speech? Not impressed and I really tried to give him a chance but it's hard to do that and take him seriously when he reads the speech off the prompter like he's reading a book to children. It came off as fake and patronizing while the jokes and stories were clumsy and awkwardly framed with that cheesy grin. The walking up to the camera from behind the wall was a little weird as if he was trying to mimic the president walking down the great hall to the podium in the White House. His delivery was rushed and seemed stiff and insincere when he, "evoked emotion" making it look and sound contrived. The speech itself was full of throw away lines like, "The strength of America is not found in its government," the governor asserted. "It's found in its people."

TPJ: Of course President Obama and the Dems believe that America's strength is in its people but he and we also know that the government isn't some boogey man out there separate from us. We are the government and when our strength falters like right now in this deep recession the government is there to step in and soften the pain a bit.

It's not and either or proposition--it's not an accept total government control or leave it completely as Gov. Jindal suggested last night in his response to Obama's speech. How is Obama's plan for cutting taxes for 95% of Americans not being for the people? Finally I wanted to add that I saw a poll today on the news, which said that Obama's approval for things was in the mid 60's and that is pretty good for any president but after the speech it hit 80% so I'm glad that Americans seem for the most part to have confidence in our president. Frankly we can not afford not to have confidence and hope in our president. And it will take some time. We aren't going to get out of this in a year--maybe even two. It's easy to slide down into the pit but harder to dig back out so I hope everyone gives him some patience and time.

P.S.-This is the blog's 1,500th post!!

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Republican Purge.

If you want to see just how committed the Congressional Republicans are to bipartisanship (other than the goose egg they put up on the board on the stimulus bill) then look no further than their own ranks. Not only have they not gotten the clue that Americans have rejected the Republicanism of Bush-Cheney and that of the hard right Republicans in the Congress but now they are going after their own members to purge the party of anyone moderate enough to dare working with President Obama.

You see, they don't even believe in bipartisanship in their own party!! What happened to that "big tent" claim Mr. Steele? That would be Michael Steele the new RNC chairman who claimed inititally that he was going to "grow the party." Hmmm, interesting theory...grow the party by destroying it first? Is that anything like the old Vietnam adage of "burn the village to save it?" Big tent usually means diversity of views but now you have shown your true colors again--by collapsing your big tent and packing it up. From now on it's invitation only apparently.

They are going after fellow Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe for daring to work with the majority party to actually try and get the economy moving. They are talking about putting up primary challengers to these three senators. However, that would backfire I think because I would submit that voters aren't going to be in the mood to vote for politicians who stand in the way versus those who try to actually do something. It may not work exactly how Obama is planning it but at least he's trying, which is more than can be said for the Republicans wandering around in the political desert. In comparison what did Obama do with the wobbly Joe Liebermann? He welcomed him back and said he should keep his chairmanships. See, bipartisanship.

In Pennsylvania, which is a growing blue state (meaning it's voting more and more for the Democrats) the Republicans can put up some hard line conservative to beat Specter in the primary and that hardliner might win. However, I highly doubt such a hardliner would be voted for in the general election given the political winds backing moderate Republicans and Democrats right now. And Specter is a moderate. The Republicans need to reinvent themselves or they will continue to be driven out of government in further elections by sticking with the hard line ways of the Neo-conservatives. They'd do well to look toward Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida and yes, even Gov. Arnold out in California.

It seems to me that these hardliners, which are about all that's left on their side of the aisle because they live in safe districts. The rest got voted out by the Independents and growing numbers of Democrats. It seems to me that they think they can still win with the same ideas and that it was just the specific personalities of the Senators and Representatives who got voted off the island, er, I mean out of government that people didn't like. No. Newsflash!! Americans have rejected your ideas.

Trickle down economics finally, thankfully died out with the Bush administration. Unfortunately it drug us down with it off the financial cliff. Thanks Bush. It was on life support since Bush the first when he came to the realization that Reaganomics might sound good on paper but that it tends to produce recessions. Thus he had to raise new taxes to cover costs. Then came Bush the Idiot reviving the laissez-faire, capitalism on steroids, trickle-down economic bullshit that had shown it was prone to recessions under Reagan and Bush the first.

However, this time "w" was going to throw in a twist--tax cuts but not just any old tax cuts like to the middle class, which helped Clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. Nope. Tax cuts to the RICH and in a time of TWO WARS!!! Raising taxes during an expensive war was never tried until Shrub came along. Yep, the only thing that trickled down for most Americans was job losses, shrinking benefits, shrinking salaries and shrinking investments. See, the crux of Reaganomics is that the rich who get the big tax cuts are supposed to send some of it down stream. However, instead they dam up the stream and with their gobs of cash build a nice, calm pool in the economy for them and their yachts that cost the GDP of some small African countries.

And that has proven to be the case when Reagan started it, when Bush 1 kept it going and when Bush II finally shattered our economy with it. The problem with it is that these fat cats NEVER spread the wealth around as the Reaganomics theory hinges upon. Greed has always won out with that economic policy and now it's time for some good old fashioned, adult supervision (regulations) again. In addition to an overdue dose of some government intervention in cases where the gov't is the only one left to pick up the pieces and get America's engines going again.

How many lost elections will it take for the Old Republicans to get the message--I hope they get destroyed and come back with something better to offer us besides more of the same. I can't believe some of these clowns who say that the Bush tax cuts would have worked if we only would have given them more time. MORE TIME?!!! Like what, another 8 years under McCain? Been there done that--and Obama won. Check that, America won. After eight years of Bush there was hardly any progress economically and in fact the opposite--decline, quarter after quarter.

So I say keep playing the same old record GOP because you'll get kicked in the teeth again next election if you do. I really do want to work with your side but not if you insist on the same games during the Bush administration. Come back when you're serious about bipartisanship and not just trying to maneuver bipartisanship in away so that you can take advantage of the new president. He's smarter than you--get that through your thick skulls.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Republican Governors Play Politics While Their States Suffer.

There is a saying that when the rich wage war it's the poor who die. Well in some cash strapped states the phrase should be retrofitted to say, "When the politicians play games it's the poor who suffer." First the Republicans in Congress backed by many Republican Governors opposed President Obama's stimulus bill saying it is "wasteful spending" and "generational theft." Then they turned around once it passed and bragged to their constituents back home how there will be all kinds of money for this project and that project.

Then they shift gears again and say, "Well we might not take all of the money because we need to be 'fiscally responsible'" like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. So you know what Jindal and next-door neighbor Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi are doing? They are going to take most of the money but refuse the money slotted to help the unemployed because in their eyes it would mean a long term commitment to paying extra to help the unemployed. Oh the horror!! What a horrible thing to have to do--help people find new jobs. Yeah, that wouldn't help the economy at all--idiots. Plus, many of these southern states have had finanical struggles even before the recession and he's going to refuse some of the money???

I don't know about you folks but I can tell when smoke is being blown up my ass. You're not going to sit there Gov. Jindal and tell me that you're fiscally responsible by refusing (in comparison) a tiny fraction of the funds but accept the vast majority of them!! That's like eating all the cookies in the box but two and argue that you didn't eat the last two because you wanted to be "responsible" when it comes to your weight. Since we are the ones who pay the tax dollars and since we back in our states are hurting then don't you think that we have the right to some of those dollars when we really need them? Of course. That's how it works, we invest in the government to keep things going and then when we can't keep things going the government invests back in us until we can right the ship again.

Like someone on Huffington Post said: Having one of these Govs in your state is really a whole lot like taxation without the tax payer send your $$$ to the Feds and when they give you some back, [TPJ: via the stimulus] a retardo like Jindahl, Perry, Sanford, or Haley "Boss Hogg" Barbour decides you don't get anything????

I like what Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in response to the games of these other Republican Governors. He said today that if they refuse some of their alotted money that he'll gladly take it--so would I.

And did you notice that many of the Governors that are talking about refusing some of the money to their states via the stim bill are people being talked about as favorites for the Republican party nomination for president to challenge President Obama in 2012? Gov. Jindal was talked about as being a possible V.P. choice for McCain and is now being talked about for 2012. Alaska is one of the states talking about refusing some of this money and we all know about Sara Palin's political ambitions.

In addition, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina was talked about as a V.P. choice in '08 and there is considerable buzz that he might run in 2012. So, I ask you dear readers, "Is this about a principled stance or about political ambitions for president in four years?" I would bet the house on the later--if I had a house but maybe Richy Rich Jindal could offer me his. I hear the Gov. mansion in Louisiana is pretty posh--and it's paid by the people of LA so maybe they should foreclose on his house. Speaking of which, that might just happen. You might want to cool your jets a bit Gov. Jindal on refusing some of the money to look good to your base so that you can run for prez in 2012. You might not get re-elected as Gov. if you refuse this money for your constituents who are hurting. Not to mention still reeling from Hurricane Katrina and Rita.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Republicans Take the Stimulus Money Despite Voting Against the Bill.

Well I was right. There are many Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill who despite bragging about doing so are now holding their hands out for the benefits of the bill for their states:

McClatchy Newspapers' David Lightman points out that Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, for instance, issued a press release last week heralding how he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners" by working with Democrats to pull a provision from the Senate bill that he feared would hurt American Indian and Alaska Native owned businesses.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., issued a press release saying, “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future.” As Lightman points out, "nowhere in the Mica statement, or in Young's initial statement, was any mention that they opposed the bill."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., recently tweeted: "If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out."

TPJ: I thought their opposition to the stimulus bill was out of principle of standing up for fiscal conservatism? It sounds to me like they knew the bill was going to pass so they split the baby to get a twofer--vote "no" so that they can stay in elected office by the constituants for standing up against the evil, commie, big spending liberal government. At the same time, however, take the money and make your constituants happy again!! They must have two left feet because they are walking in circles--take advantage of the bill they loved to hate while decrying the "excesses of government" at the same time. There is a name for people like these guys and gals--Charlatans.

If this bill is so horrible and government spending is such an terrible thing then why take the money? They should refuse it or else don't claim to be standing on principle of fiscal conservatism. Yet you know that these same Congress people will use the fact that they voted, "no" as something to run on in their districts in the next election. I hope their constituents realize that they are being played by their Representatives and Senators.

And ironically some of the most conservative states (in the south) get more money form the federal government then they give to the federal government. So they've been doing this "bite the hand that feeds them" routine for awhile now.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Will Republicans Accept the Stimulus Money for Their States Despite Opposing the Bill? Count on It.

O.k., so House Republicans, Republican Senators and some Republican Governors are opposed to the Obama recovery plan because it is "reckless" spending and "generational theft." Yet I'll believe their "principled opposition" more if they refuse the money slated to come to their states to help them keep employees and cover other costs such as police and fire departments.

If they stood against this bill on principles of opposing government "wasteful spending" then they should refuse the money to back up their "principles." They won't. They'll take the money and still continue to bash Obama's further economic policies, which next will be helping the housing market and that is the area where Americans need the most help. It is the area where the slide started according to some economists.

We'll see what Republicans do with the housing recovery bill but I bet they pull another "principled stand" and then when they lose they will still gladly accept the money for home owners back home. They are trying to have it both ways--oppose the plans but then accept the benefits when it passes. Breath taking isn't it?

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Generational Poverty, Republican Governors and States Rights.

So Senator John McCain is railing against the Obama recovery bill, which was signed by the president today here in Colorado. He seems to think that he's still in a presidential campaign against President Obama. He saying that this recovery bill is "generational theft" because of the borrowing we must do to pay for it (Yet he had no problem dumping money in Iraq). Here's the problem and a way to answer those annoying Republicans in your family who are repeating something like this over and over like a myna bird.

The amount of money needed is so massive that the only way we can come up with the cash is to borrow. We can print more money but then we risk inflation and losing more value of the dollar and seeing how the dollar is weak enough I think borrowing is the only option left. It is simply the nature of this deep recession. As it is some economists say we still need more money than the recovery bill calls for.

The Republicans are acting like we have other choices but they are blinded by partisan politics apparently to see we don't have time to play games. We could be in a depression any day now so we need a massive injection of money into our economy and the only way to do that in the timely fashion is borrowing. Besides the majority of the bill is tax cuts (it will put needed money in the hands of 95% of Americans) anyway so knowing that they are for tax cuts it's hard to believe that they were opposing this out of principle.

Generational theft?? We might not have a next generation to worry about if we don't take this risk and yes, we don't know if it will work exactly the way we want it to but we're in MacGyver mode at this point. We have to try something--fast and it has to be big because we are literally standing on the edge of the abyss and I can't believe the Republicans don't see how bad this really is for not just us but the world.

So instead of working with our president in the most trying economic times since the Great Depression they are off playing Aerosmith songs and bragging about being obstructionists. By the way, I wonder if social conservatives realize that this song is partly about prostitution in the old west. So the guys and gals have been puffing their chests out about how no House Republicans voted for the bill.

O.k., think about what you're doing Republicans by being so partisan. You are following the orders of your Saint Rush Limbaugh who wants this president to fail, which means if he fails then our country fails and if our country fails than our government could quite literally collapse. So what difference would your "principled objections" make if you had no job like the rest of us?

Oh and by the way, a new poll shows Democrats in Congress with higher approval ratings in the midst of trying to fix this economic mess and you Repubs are declining:

In the Gallup poll, the support among Democrats more than doubled between January and February -- from 18 percent to 43 percent -- while congressional approval moved up far more marginally among Independents (17 percent to 29 percent) and actually declined among Republicans (23 percent to 19 percent).

TPJ: Plus, nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the job President Obama is doing in office and 66% say the Obama plan will likely help improve the economy.

And by the way 22 Republican governors (who represent nearly half of the states) support the stimulus bill including the popular Governor of Florida, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont and Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut to name but a few. Even conservative ruby red Utah's governor believes the bill will stimulate the economy in Utah. So you Republicans claim to be the party of "states rights" where you say that states should have balanced power with the federal government. However, how does preventing a cash strapped state from getting federal stimulus dollars helping them stay strong to balance federal power?

I'm for states rights too but Republicans can't claim to be the party of states rights by opposing states from getting vital dollars. State governments and cities are the first line of defense for the country. They deal directly with the people and know the needs of the people better than Congress off in Washington D.C.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, February 15, 2009

We're All Swedes Now.

The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s -- or the United States in the 1930s -- the only way to save it is to nationalize it. As free-market economists teaching at a business school in the heart of the world's financial capital, we feel downright blasphemous proposing an all-out government takeover of the banking system. But the U.S. financial system has reached such a dangerous tipping point that little choice remains. And while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's recent plan to save it has many of the right elements, it's basically too late.

Last year we predicted that losses by U.S. financial institutions would hit $1 trillion and possibly go as high as $2 trillion. We were accused of exaggerating. But since then, write-downs by U.S. banks have passed the $1 trillion mark, and now institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and Goldman Sachs predict losses of more than $2 trillion.

But if you think that $2 trillion is high, consider our latest estimates at the financial Web site RGE Monitor: They suggest that total losses on loans made by U.S. banks and the fall in the market value of the assets they are holding will reach about $3.6 trillion. The U.S. banking sector is exposed to half that figure, or $1.8 trillion. Even with the original federal bailout funds from last fall, the capital backing the banks' assets was only $1.4 trillion, leaving the U.S. banking system about $400 billion in the hole.

Two important parts of Geithner's plan are "stress testing" banks by poring over their books to separate viable institutions from bankrupt ones and establishing an investment fund with private and public money to purchase bad assets. These are necessary steps toward a healthy financial sector.

But unfortunately, the plan won't solve our financial woes, because it assumes that the system is solvent. If implemented fairly for current taxpayers (i.e., no more freebies in the form of underpriced equity, preferred shares, loan guarantees or insurance on assets), it will just confirm how bad things really are. Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end.

First -- and this is by far the toughest step -- determine which banks are insolvent. Geithner's stress test would be helpful here. The government should start with the big banks that have outside debt, and it should determine which are solvent and which aren't in one fell swoop, to avoid panic. Otherwise, bringing down one big bank will start an immediate run on the equity and long-term debt of the others. It will be a rough ride, but the regulators must stay strong.

Second, immediately nationalize insolvent institutions. The equity holders will be wiped out, and long-term debt holders will have claims only after the depositors and other short-term creditors are paid off.

Third, once an institution is taken over, separate its assets into good ones and bad ones. The bad assets would be valued at current (albeit depressed) values. Again, as in Geithner's plan, private capital could purchase a fraction of those bad assets. As for the good assets, they would go private again, either through an IPO or a sale to a strategic buyer. The proceeds from both these bad and good assets would first go to depositors and then to debt-holders, with some possible sharing with the government to cover administrative costs. If the depositors are paid off in full, then the government actually breaks even.

Fourth, merge all the remaining bad assets into one enterprise. The assets could be held to maturity or eventually sold off with the gains and risks accruing to the taxpayers.

The eventual outcome would be a healthy financial system with many new banks capitalized by good assets. Insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks would be broken up into smaller pieces less likely to threaten the whole financial system. Regulatory reforms would also be instituted to reduce the chances of costly future crises. Nationalizing banks is not without precedent. In 1992, the Swedish government took over its insolvent banks, cleaned them up and reprivatized them.

Sweden's restructuring agency was not an out-of-control bureaucracy; it delegated all the details of the cleanup to private bankers and managers hired by the government. The process was remarkably smooth.

Basically, we're all Swedes now. We have used all our bullets, and the boogeyman is still coming. Let's pull out the bazooka and be done with it.

TPJ: By the way, Al Franken needs donations to help fight his case against Norm Coleman in court to keep his victory. Thus giving Demcocrats 59 of the 60 votes needed in the Senate. If you can spare $10 please consider throwing it Franken's way. Donate here.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, February 13, 2009

Republicans Vote Against Jobs.

Well once again not a single Republican has voted for the Obama economic recovery plan and it looks like the senate will be pretty one sided as well. As I mentioned in a previous post the Republicans on capitol hill sure seemed ready and waiting to sandbag President Obama's desire for bipartisanship from day one of his administration. Because they signaled to their members to vote against Obama's plan before they even met with the president.

It's might be a neat parlor trick to oppose whatever the president had to present even before talking with him but I think it's pretty clear that the Republicans are interested only in playing politics while America suffers. If they were honestly interested in bipartisanship then surely at least one, ONE Republican in the House of Representatives would have voted for this plan. The fact that not one single Republican voted for this bill in the House today tells me that they are more interested in party unity and politics.

It seems unlikely that all those Republicans voted against this bill purely because of some ideological stand. It's more probable that some who were wanting to give Obama a chance were bullied into voting against it by their leadership. Republicans are known for following their leaders out of a sense of loyalty and fear. There was probably some feelings of "payback" for losing the election as well. An over zealous attempt to show that they won't simply bend over backwards for the president. Well they definiately showed that they will still fight but what they haven't done is shown that they can be big boys and girls and compromise. They looked at Obama's outstretched hand, slapped it aside and dug in their heals like a bunch of two year olds.

And It's pure politics to claim that this bill is nothing but spending (as if spending in and of itself is "bad") as around a third (38%) of it is in the form of tax cuts, which you would think would appeal to Republicans since they're always talking about cutting taxes. Actually there there will be more tax cuts in this bill than spending--14% more tax cuts--spending is only 24% of this bill. Yes, much of the tax breaks go to the middle and lower classes, which is what Bill Clinton did and helped create the major economic boom of the 1990's. So Republicans aren't always for tax cuts. As for spending, I find it annoying yet hilarious that they were fine with government spending until a Democrat won.

It seems they are only for tax cuts when it benefits the wealthy more than the average working folks. The Republicans want to continue the tax cuts for the rich that Bush enacted and not only didn't they work but they made things worse. You'd think that they'd have done even the slightest bit of good if they were the answer to all our economic woes but despite it all unemployment numbers kept going up and the stock market kept going down. And so the American people reject those old, worn out, failed ideas in electing Obama.

A recent poll showed overwhelming support from Americans for the president's recovery package. The Republicans seem more interested in being obstructionists during a time of economic emergency than actually working with the president to get something done for the country. The thug Republican House leader John Boehner said today that they aren't the "No party," huh??? Every single one of you in the House voted "no" but you're not the party of "no??" Look, the bottom line is that Obama's bill is trying to create more jobs and the Republicans voted against it. They voted against creating new jobs and they voted against their precious tax cuts!!! They are hoping this all fails so that they can try and blame it all on the Dems in 2012. On final thought to the Republicans--America is watching.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Senator Mitch McConnell the Bat Boy.

I realize this is a bit immature but I always thought Senator Mitch McConnell looked freaky and vampire like. He's also called Darth Vader because he's usually cold, unforgiving and an ideologue. Then when I saw him today on the news it finally dawned on me--BAT BOY!!! Bat boy was an on-going bit in the mostly fictitious, infamous tabloid, "Weekly World News." It is said he was raised by bats in a cave. We use to read this "newspaper" on long road trips for laughs and to stave off boredom. So, you decide. The Bat Boy image is below:
---End of Transmission---

Saturday, February 07, 2009

A Few Questions for Pro-Lifers.

The next time you get into a debate about abortion and whether it should be legal or illegal ask them these questions:

Do you believe abortion should be legal or illegal? When they say illegal then ask them, "What should be done with the mother's who still chose to get abortions illegally at that point? Chances are you'll be greeted with a blank stare or some lame excuse that holds less water than a sieve.

To which you can reply: "Well if abortion is murder, (which they claim it is) and is a major reason that you want it illegal then shouldn't the mother be thrown in prison for premeditated murder? Because a woman has clearly thought about it or else she wouldn't be considering an abortion. Yet despite thinking about it these mother's go ahead and commit what they deem is murder. Pro-lifers encourage this premeditation because they want laws requiring a "think period" before any abortion can be done.

Therefore, they should be thrown in prison and perhaps even put to death as many of these pro-lifers also are pro death penalty for premeditated murder. They believe the world is black and white with no shades of gray. In addition, as the quote above indicates many of these pro-lifers believe that abortion can never be justified. So if that is the case then there is no other solution but to throw women in prison for premeditated murder if they choose to have an illegal abortion. No excuses because after all you can't justify murder.

Check out this video, which is where I got the idea for this post. It is sad but somewhat hilarious to watch the blank faces and the look of gears turning in their heads as they try and think this one through. They are stumped. So if you ever want to shut one of these obnoxious pro-life demonstrators down just ask them these simply questions:
If the video doesn't work then here is the link to You Tube where it is hosted. Click on this sentence to take you there.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, February 06, 2009

President Obama, Keep Reminding America that the Bush Tax Cuts Failed.

President Obama stumbled a bit with this stimulus bill in terms of the messaging and let the Republicans walk all over his good will gestures and went a bit too far on the bipartisan spirit. He is now rightly using the power of his office to whip up support and show everyone why his bill is a good bill. The president sought to get the advice of Republicans and even had them over for drinks one night yet even before his first meeting with Republican Congress members Rep. John Boehner was already telling his colleagues not to vote for it. Well, if they want to play hardball then it's about time that Obama is throwing some punches.

He is rightly pointing out that the plan the Republicans want implemented is basically a mirror image of Bush tax cut policy to the rich, which somehow people seem to have forgotten didn't work!! Obama's plan it a combination of spending AND targeted tax cuts. Bush kept those tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans during his entire 8 years in office and did the economy improve? No. Did the unemployment numbers keep increasing? Yes. So It's about time that Obama is reminding the GOP of that inconvenient truth. As well as reminding them that America spoke loud and clear voting for him and that means no more Bush era economic policies. As it is the Republicans are acting like they won the election!!!

If the Republicans are going to eschew bipartisanship as they did right off the bat in saying they'd vote against the bill before even meeting with the president then I say bulldoze over the top of them, pick off a few moderate Republicans and pass the damn thing already.

Oh yeah and Sarah Palin is annoyed by bloggers--good, that means we're doing our job. Keep it up!!

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Wall Street Executives Whine About Pay Freeze.

So by now I'm sure you've heard that President Obama is putting a pay freeze of $500,000 a year for executives and others working at banks/companies that are receiving tax payer money. However, many up on Wall Street are complaining that with the pay cuts they won't be able to make it. One going so far as to say that $500,000 a year is not a lot of money!!! WTF?!! Mr. James R. Reda who is the owner of Compensation Consulting Firm.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!! We're all losing our jobs, getting pay cuts, having hours cut back and yet we have to shell out tax dollars (our money) to keep the banks afloat, which I understand but subsidizing excessive bonuses and salaries??? I realize that we can't let all of these banks fail but I refuse to reward the very people who got us into this mess by using my tax dollars to pay bonuses. See, I come from a place where you only get a bonus if you do well not if you screw up and certainly not if you screw up so bad that you need the government to come and prop you up.

Not a lot of money? $500,000??? They should feel lucky and be happy that 1). They have a job and 2). They are making $500,000 a year when the very people allowing them to keep their $500,000 a year job (you and I) make a tiny fraction of that kind of money. You and I will be lucky to see $100,000 a year and these clowns are whining that they can't live on $500k?!!

If that's not enough money for your Mr. Reda then maybe you should do what a lot of Americans are doing these days--get a second job or shut your pie hole. You'll earn more when you can turn your companies around and get off government welfare. Welfare is exactly what they are on and if they want to see true hardship then they should try and live on real welfare checks and/or social security disability payments. They'd shut right up and take they $500k right quick.

People are bitching that these guys and gals will walk if they don't continue to get a ton of money--now at our expense. So I say, fine. Let 'em walk. Thin out the herd. Let's get some young talent in there who is willing to work for that pay and will rebuild these companies. The unemployment rate is near 10% so I'm sure we could find plenty of people to fill those jobs who couldn't do much worse than the guys and gals in there now.

In the end this is about tax payer dollars--it's our money and we have a say in how things are run. I'll be o.k. to let my tax dollars pay for their bonuses and higher salaries if they pay for a trip around the world for me when they are financially profitable again. Its' called good old fashioned payback--bitch.

---End of Transmission---

Lesbian Prime Minister Takes Office in Iceland.

REYKJAVIK (AFP) — Crisis-hit Iceland's first woman (Johanna Sigurdardottir) and first openly gay premier took power Sunday as her new left-wing coalition government started attempts at digging the country out of economic meltdown.

The 66-year-old, who married her companion Jonina Ledsdottir in 2002, officially took the reins when she sat down to start a meeting of her cabinet with President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson on Sunday evening.
Sigurdardottir, 66, is one of Iceland's most experienced politicians and served as minister of social affairs in the outgoing government.

While she has never hidden her sexuality, Sigurdardottir has never discussed it in public. Many Icelanders only learned of her homosexuality when her name emerged as the possible future prime minister. She is believed to be the modern world's first openly gay government head.

HBW: I have always liked and been intrigued by Iceland and now I have another reason to do so. It probably has something to do with my Nordic heritage but It also has to do with their progressive values and politics. Thank-you Iceland for showing the rest of the world what true equality looks like. May your new leader and government bring economic and cultural relief to your wonderful country. May my country of America follow your lead and thank-you for your example.

---End of Transmission---