In earlier posts (the Clueless in the USA series), I discussed how Republicans 2008 have a way of being, well, you be the judge:

• Stealing. In an attempt to appeal to music-loving middle-aged American voters, they use - without permission - copyrighted music. That is called, in polite circles, theft. So much for hiding behind 'law-abiding' and the 7th Commandment
• Stupidity. Either they steal somewhat blindly, or just don't understand: they repeatedly use (without permission) songs that convey a message opposite of what they think it conveys. Or, in their usual contempt for the American public, they think that we are the ones who are too stupid to notice
• Stubbornness. When confronted with demands to cease and desist using music without permission, they dig in their heels and refuse to stop... until the attorneys' letters start mentioning 'injunction.' Then they flip-flop and stop stealing ... until the next moronic GOPer gets a bright idea... and launches another activity that is illegal, futile, and just plain idiotic.
  

A partial list of the stupidly misappropriated music:

• Jackson Browne - Running On Empty
• John Mellencamp - Our Country and Pink Houses
• Heart - Barracuda
  
• Van Halen - Right Now
  and the pinnacle, the dumbest of them all
• Bruce Springsteen - Born in the USA
  

There are several others that I can't remember now.

Labels: 7th commandment, barracuda, Born in the USA, flip-flop, Hagar, Halen, heart, Jackson Browne, mellencamp, moronic, Our Country, Pink Houses, republican, Right Now, Running On Empty, springsteen, theft

pavolican (n.) A cur that is completely obedient and fiercely loyal to its master. It does as it has been trained to do: salivate at the sight or sound of anyone who has an (R-) after its name, and go into attack mode on anyone who has a (D-) after his or her name.

Labels: cur, loyal, obedient, pavlov, republican, salivate

The Republicans are showing their contempt for you and for every American. Contempt? Hatred?

Yes. A resounding, loudly trumpeted "YES!"

• They know that if you are well-informed, that you will not vote for their candidates.
  
• They have to lie to you.
• They think you are so stupid that you will fall for their BS.
• They think that you are as clueless as they are.
• They need you to be barefoot, blissful, and ignorant.
  

And "How," you ask, "are they showing this contempt and hatred?"

They are trying to get you to believe something absurd, something that will convince you that their candidate is actually qualified to be George W. McCain's next melanoma away from being President. The candidate in question is John McBush's choice for his running mate in the upcoming presidential election: Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor for the past 20 months.

• Fox News morning host, Steve Doocy, testified to Sarah Palin's national security experience on Friday by saying that her state, Alaska, was so close to Russia.
• Cindy McCain (aka Cindy Bush Lite) endorsed this mind-boggling claim on ABC in an interview with George Stephanopoulos. Cindy McCain gives ditzy blonds a bad name.
  

All of this begs the question: just how unqualified is that person? Is that the best they have?

Labels: alaska, bubble-headed bleached blond, cindy mccain, ditzy, george w. mccain, john mc bush, john mccain, republican, russia, sarah palin, steve doocy

Make war, not love.

Hey! It could work.

Labels: abstinence, aids, make war not love, republican

The other day George Bush tried to take a shot at Barack Obama by citing a Senator who regretted not negotiating with Hitler. Bush tried to imply that a Senator who was willing to talk to people whom Bush considers to be enemies was an appeaser.

George, George, George. You are so clueless. Someone should smack you upside the head with a reality sandwich.

Reality:

1. The senator involved was Frank Borah, a Republican senator. He was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 1936 and 1940. Like most Republicans in the 1930s, he was an isolationist who argued strongly against getting involved in the "unrest" in Europe.
2. The Republican Party platform in 1936 included the following:

   Foreign Affairs
   We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.
   
   Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.
   
   We shall promote, as the best means of securing and maintaining peace by the pacific settlement of disputes, the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals, which shall determine such disputes in accordance with law, equity and justice.
   
   National Defense
   We favor an army and navy, including air forces, adequate for our National Defense.
   
   We will cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments and control of tragic in arms.
   Source: The American Presidency Project

3. In those days, there were many Republicans whose patriotism was at best, suspect.
   
   One prominent Republican Senator was not content with denouncing our war effort against Nazi Germany. He continued to do business with the government of Germany while we were at war with Germany. Among his activities was providing financing to the government that was killing our troops. Finally - during the war - the US government seized those businesses, over the objection of that Senator and other Republicans.
   
   The senator was quite wealthy. His children and grandchildren attended the finest schools and entered "public service." His name: Prescott Bush. His son and grandsons George, George, and Jeb became great leaders.
   
   Grandson George disparages anyone who agrees with those portions of the Republican party platform. Not only has he not renounced or denounced his grandfather's dealings (and the inherited wealth generated by those dealings).... he closely associates with Republicans who likewise deal with the enemy. As one example, Halliburton Corp, under the leadership of Bush 'associate' Dick Cheney, did business for many years with Iran. Iran has been 'the enemy' for 30 years; it was (and is) illegal to do business with Iran.
   
   
4. For several days (or weeks) prior to this bonehead's bone-headed statement, his own handpicked Secretary of State (Ms. C. Rice) has been working behind the scenes to set up high-level talks with officials of (gasp!) Iran.
   
   
5. On the same day as the bone-headed bone-headed statement, the Bonehead-in Chief's own handpicked Secretary of Defense (Mr. R. Gates) supported Ms. Rice and said

   "The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.
   
   "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
   
   In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.
   
   "I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said."
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html
   

Shall I go on? Or is it clear that neither the Prez, nor his speech writers understand what's going on around them, understand history, have a clue, and see the irony in all of this.

And my imaginary friend wonders why I can no longer support those people.

Labels: appease, arms limit, clueless, Condeleeza Rice, George Bush, republican, republican party platform, Robert gates

To Republicans, lower taxes masquerade as fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts, in the right-wing delusion, solve everything.

Lower taxes don't solve anything (unless you are part of one of the special interest group at whom tax cuts are typically aimed). Interestingly, good things happen after tax increases. I'm not advocating high taxes, but I'm pragmatic: go with what works.

Republicans have always laid claim to fiscal responsibility.

That is a myth. The facts say otherwise.

First, a quick summary

• Republican presidents
  1920-1932
  income taxes - negligible
  economy upward trend first 7 years
  then the biggest economic crash in history
  don't forget those really cool scandals & corruption
  

• Democratic presidents
  1932-1940
  higher income taxes on wealthiest
  economy recovered, slowly but steadily
  1941-1948
  higher income taxes on nearly everyone
  economy improved (war spending was a two-edged sword)
  

• Republican president
  1952-1960
  economy slowed
  deep recession
  
  
• Democratic presidents
  1961-1968
  economy soared
  

• Republican presidents
  1969-1972
  economy leveled
  1973-1976
  "stagflation" - stagnant economy and high inflation
  
  
• Democratic president
  1977-1980
  stagflation subsided, but the resulting credit crunch persisted
  

• Republican president
  1981-1992 borrow and spend like crazy under Reagan
  1981- biggest income tax cut in history
  budget deficits skyrocketed
  economy went backwards
  1982 - biggest income tax increase in history
  economy recovered
  1986 - shifted income tax burden away from wealthy to middle/lower classes
  1987 - 2nd largest wall st crash in history
  economy went into recession
  1989-1992, recession continued and worsened
  

• Democratic president
  1993-2001
  income tax hike
  economy went into best 9 years in historybudget deficits decreased every year, with 1997-2000 having budget surpluses (paid down national debt)
  

• Republican president
  2001-2008
  income tax cuts to wealthiest 10%
  went from budget surplus to biggest budget deficits in history
  economy slowed dramatically
  economy went into and stayed in recession
  

Now, let's back up the claims:

To measure fiscal responsibility, let's consider the change in the relationship between federal debt and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That relationship demonstrates growth (or decrease) in the government's debt in the context of growth (or shrinkage) of the economy as a whole. In other words, when times are good, does an administration use that as an opportunity to pay down debt? Or the opposite? Does fiscal policy cause increases or decreases in debt when times are bad?

Running up debt:

• Since 1945, every Democratic president presided over decreases in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's good)
• Since 1945, every Republican president presided over
  1. in the best years, smaller decreases than under all Democrats
  2. in worst years (20 out of the last 36 years under Republicans), sharp INCREASES in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's bad)
     

• 1977-1980, the Carter administration, was interesting in that
  1. his one term saw solid decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio
  2. Nixon/Ford preceded him, and had deficit increases
  3. Reagan/Bush followed him, and had huge budget deficits
     

What about jobs?

• From 1929 to the present, job growth (net annual increase in number of jobs)
  1. under EVERY Democratic president, significant net increases in creation of new jobs
  2. under EVERY Democratic president, increases in rate over rate under preceding Republican
  3. under EVERY Republican president, smaller net increases than under ANY democratic president with one exception: 1945-1948, the net increase (under a Democrat) was smaller than those in 1969-1972 and 1985-1988 (under Republicans)
  4. Under two Republican administrations (but ZERO Democratic administrations) there were net job losses during their terms: specifically, 1929-1932 and 2001-2004; if the economy continues to fall this year, the small increase of 2005- part of 2007 could be erased.
     

So... can we conclude
Taxes = evil
Tax cuts = sacred & honorable
???

No and No.

• Borrow-and-spend (increase the national debt) is far worse than tax-and-spend.
• Borrow-and-spend creates the illusion of something good happening, but leaves it for future taxpayers to pick up the tab.

The facts:

1. Increases in income taxes always immediately precede economic improvement AND lower budget deficits.
2. Decreases in income taxes usually precede economic downturns AND higher budget deficits
3. Budget deficits fall, and the economy improves under Democratic presidents
   
4. Budget deficits increase and the economy nearly always slows (or worse) under Republican presidents
   

Let's face it:

• conventional wisdom about taxes is wrong: 'lower' does not mean 'better' and 'higher' does not mean 'worse'
  
• what matters is how the economy is doing, how many jobs are out there, how much money you have left at the end of the pay period, and whether or not we've prepared for the future (national debt increases or decreases).

Sorry, Republicans. Ouch!

Labels: borrow-and-spend, depression, economy, GDP, higher taxes, jobs, lower taxes, national debt, no longer a republican, recession, republican, tax cut, tax-and-spend

There are several reasons why I am no longer a Republican.

• The party has sold its soul to religious zealots.
  
• The party's platforms and beliefs are based on hypotheses that have been proven wrong.
  
• The party eagerly assists those who would claim righteousness while performing very unrighteous actions.
• The party has abandoned its principle of a strong national defense.
• The party accepts - worse, encourages - fiscal recklessness.
• The party climbs on the backs of entrepreneurs to promote the growth and profit of wall street's worst.
• The party has tossed accountability and personal responsibility in favor in expedience.
• The party approves of winning - saying and doing anything - at any cost.
• The party's vision extends only to the next election.
• The party is in bed with the targets of the "Southern Strategy": the latter-day racists.
  

My imaginary friend is stunned and demands an explanation. He, and you, will have to settle for understanding each of these one day at a time. Stay tuned.

Labels: do anything, no longer a republican, recovering republican, redneck racist, republican, southern strategy, strong national defense, zealotsay anything