Advertisement
My Blog
Blogs > jeffpilot > I Am Not The Barber Of Seville
I Am Not The Barber Of Seville
  
If Liberals really hated America, we'd all vote Republican.

I don't promise to know what I'm talking about.

Your indulgence is requested & appreciated.

Rightwingers, please burn no crosses on my lawn Sundays.
Title View |
Reply to Quilpieopal Feb 6, 2008 3:04 pm
793 Views
I've replied directly to others' blogs in the past, but without using their screen names. Because Quilpieopal used my name in his, I assume he'll be okay with my using his name here.
-------------------------------------------------
Hey Quilpie--

In a comment I left on someone's blog, I casually and jokingly described members of SFF as being dried-up. The phrase was a reference to our average age, which you must admit is well over 21.

You've taken exception to it and to me because dried-up is a colloquialism for decrepit and because you think that means I think we're all fit for the glue factory.

I'm surprised you--or anyone--took my using dried-up as a description I meant seriously. But since you ask, here's a brief clarification followed by my response to yours.

By way of clarification, I used the phrase dried-up kiddingly and thought my intended humor would be obvious to any objective reader. In the future, to assess a statement or description's likely intent, gauge its accuracy and what facts if any are offered to support it.

My use of dried-up was part of an obviously inaccurate and snarky blanket description of thousands of people I never met. And it was offered without any evidence to support it. Gee. Where do you think this is headed?

Say what you want, but I don't think it takes a genius to figure out I was kidding around.

Common sense says a description like the one in my comment would have to be one offered in jest. Which is exactly what it was. Indeed, some commenters on your blog pointed that fact out to you. So by third-party acclamation, the sentiment isn't just my own.

Clearly you didn't find it funny. I can't help that.

With regard to your response, offense like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And anger is an individual's voluntarily made choice. It's up to you to decide what to be offended by and what you're going to get pissed-off about.

You could have calmly asked me to explain my comment. In return I'd have been happy to acknowledge that my word choice and my assumption about others' reactions to it may not have been the best.

Instead you chose to go postal over it. Publicly even. I don't understand why. And I don't see out how your illness and the health-care providers' shortcomings and my one sillyass SFF comment are all connected. I'm not convinced they are. Lastly, there's not a thing I can do about fixing any of it.

Best of luck to you.
5 Comments
Don't laugh. This might happen. Jan 31, 2008 1:02 pm
713 Views
If anyone wants me, I'll be out in the yard pounding my head against an oak tree.
-------------------------------------------------

Since the inauguration of George Herbert Walker Bush on January 20, 1989, every President of The United States of America has been a member of one of America's two political royal families:

Bush. Clinton.

At Bush & Clinton Forever, we strongly believe that a family's political experience, pedigree, ambition and "brand name" are of paramount importance in American political life. It is our mission to help continue the Bush and Clinton back-and-forth political dynasty into perpetuity.

Here's our in-depth look at the past, present and expected future Bush and Clinton Presidents of the United States of America (from 1989 to 2057 and beyond.)



1989-1993 - President George Herbert Walker Bush


1993 - 2001 - President William Jefferson Clinton


2001 - Current - President George W. Bush - Term ends 1/2009.


2009 - 2017 - President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- If hoisted to the presidential mantle as anticipated in November 2008. Currently the front-runner. First Female president in US history AND first spouse of a former US president to be elected as President!! Also, first sitting US Senator to be elected President since JFK!!


2017 - 2025 - President Jeb Bush -- First time in US history that 2 different sons of a former US president are elected to the highest office in the land! First brother of a president to be elected president!! Also, I believe he would be the first Floridian to be elected President! First family in US history to have 3 members elected President (this definitely makes them the #1 US political dynasty of all time!)


2025 - 2033 - President Chelsea Clinton -- Youngest female president ever elected at age 45, AND first daughter of a president to be elected President! Stanford AND Oxford educated!! By the way, did you know that the first son of a former president to be elected president was not George W. Bush? Actually, it was John Quincy Adams who took office back in 1825! He was the son of our second president, John Adams.


2033 - 2041 - President George P. Bush -- First hispanic US President! Note: George P. Bush is Jeb's son and his mother is a native of Mexico. George P. Bush is a graduate of the University of Texas Law School!! He is currently a rising star in the Republican party and was recently featured in a Men's Vogue article! He also recently joined the US Navy Reserves! (That military experience will come in handy in the White House!) He would be only the second Grandson of a US president to be elected president. The first was Benjamin Harrison back in 1889, who was the grandson of our 9th President, William Henry Harrison.


2041 - 2049 - President ______ _______ Clinton -- First adopted President of a former US President! Yes, we know, the Clinton's must adopt a child to keep the dynasty going. They must adopt a child who is at least 2 years old now, so he/she are eligible to take office in 2041. The adopted child must be born in the US to be eligible to be president. (As an aside, this rule is why Governor Schwarzenegger is not running against Hillary Clinton in '08. He is a native of Austria. Thank goodness!) ***Update 10/16/07: One of our readers pointed out that the 2041 Clinton slot could also go to the future husband of Chelsea Clinton! Actually, this probably is a more realistic possibility than the adoption scenario above. So, first husband President of a former president's daughter, anyone?


2049 - 2057 - President Jenna Bush -- First granddaughter of a US president to be elected president! Also, first daughter of a former Republican president to take office! A possible VP dark horse in this race: Her twin sister Barbara, forming the first all-sister presidential ticket in US history!!


2057 - beyond! Honestly folks, our ability to see that far into the future is not quite as clear as our certainty that the Bush Clinton dynasty is majestic for America!!!!
5 Comments
36 epitaphs for Dubya's presidency Jan 31, 2008 12:13 pm
613 Views
This showed up in today's e-mail. Even better, a sexy girl sent it!
-------------------------------------------------

1. (On an infant's shirt): Already smarter than Bush

2. 1/20/09: End of an Error

3. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

4. Let's Fix Democracy in THIS Country First

5. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

6. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

7. You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time

8. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President

9. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant

10. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

11. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

12. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

14. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

15. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It

16. Which God Do You Kill For?

17. Cheney/Satan '08

18. Jail to the Chief

19. Who Would Jesus Torture?

20. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade

21. Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

23. Bad president! No Banana!

24. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language

25. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

27. Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood

28. Is It Vietnam Yet?

29. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either

30. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand Basket?

31. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

32. Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.

33. Impeach Cheney First

34. Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too

35. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

36. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
4 Comments
Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father Jan 28, 2008 1:40 pm
842 Views
A President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY
New York Times Op-Ed Column
Published: January 27, 2008

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”
12 Comments
Who is John McCain? Jan 26, 2008 8:19 am
685 Views
I have a hunch, one I hope is mistaken, that John McCain may be elected the next president of the United States. While the Clintons and Barack Obama squabble stupidly, polls already show Hillary losing the general election by two points to McCain. Independent voters decide presidential elections. McCain appeals to independents, and Clinton does not.

What does McCain have that he should be president? Well, you have to consider his competition. It ain't no busload of world-beaters he's up against.

Most importantly, he's not Hillary Clinton. McCain doesn't appear to be plain looney, like Mike Huckabee. Or a preening, opportunistic phoney, like Mitt Romney. Or, like Rudy Giuliani, a ferret-faced crook with a cousin for an ex-wife.

But McCain is no bargain either. His is a very checkered past. To a country weary of Bush's warmongering and his Republican culture of fear, McCain promises a bleak future. Under McCain, little is likely to change. And much could get even worse.

This article doesn't paint a flattering portrait of John McCain. But it paints an accurate one.
-------------------------------------------------

Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain

by Johan Hari

A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is "a bipartisan progressive"", "a principled hard liberal", "a decent man" – in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment.

But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary or Barack.

McCain is third-generation navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the Armed Forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: when he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He then swiftly married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune.

Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat", according to his biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out."

But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam – a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable", if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair.

On his release, he used his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican-– until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support."

McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: he turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington", and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behaviour hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual". He has never won an election without outspending his opponent.

But McCain has distinguished himself most as an über-hawk on foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann". He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction".

McCain has mostly opposed using US power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia – but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learnt this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the US invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones", and gunning down anybody over the age of ten who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed".

Then McCain's father, John, led the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing President who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Snr intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves". He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the US would take over Britain's role as a "world empire".

These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's programme for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practised." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia – and more.

So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: he proposed a programme to legalise the 12 million undocumented workers in the US. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologised for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions – but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity.

Yet these sprinklings of sanity – onto a very extreme programme – are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist". Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Hillary Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.
8 Comments
Who the Repugs will run for president in 2012 & other stuff Jan 23, 2008 2:54 pm
673 Views
General David Petraeus, that's who.

Petraeus has already said he wants to be president. I betcha The Republicans will use him to come back from their expected 2008 loss. Not a bad idea either. Let's see Hillary or Obama or any Dem run for re-election against a Real Live Gen-Yoo-wine War Hero. Petraeus has long struck me as an ambitious hack who to get elected would promise us we'll all live to be 100.

Getting back to 2008, the Repugs are in better shape than lots of people think they are.

Look at how the Hillary-Obama mess is fragmenting the Democratic Party. Ironically, Bill & Hillary Clinton are now the Repugs' best hope to win in November. Funny huh?

Except for Repugs now declaring Iraq "a victory," you can expect the war to stay disappeared from the news till the election; that's been the Repug/corporate media plan all along. Toward summer's end gas prices will go down considerably. That will help too.

Most importantly, George W. Bush is a criminal president who's willing to engineer some phoney military or terrorist incident to help the Republican candidate. Look for something sudden to happen within eight weeks of the election. It may work too.

Because Rudy Giuliani has turned out to be uninstallable, the Repug candidate will be John McCain. At last within sight of his life's goal, McCain the Old Fossil will ride warmongery and militarism for all they're worth. In the U.S., they're worth a lot. A McCain presidency is a real possibility.

And right after the election, Iran better watch out. 'Cause then Bush'll be free to do anything he pleases. Katy Bar The Door.

Have a nice year everybody.
7 Comments
Any redneck can open a theme restaurant. Jan 22, 2008 10:48 am
699 Views
In West Hollywood, California, there's a theme-restaurant called Opaque. At Opaque, patrons eat in near-total darkness and are served by blind or sight-impaired waiters. The restaurant claims that eating in the dark enhances diners' sense of taste and smell, providing a unique experience not available elsewhere.

Pretty trendoid, huh?

But so what? We rednecks here in North Carolina can run that tired old theme-restaurant play too.

As of right now, I'm looking for investors to back my new theme-restaurant concept. I call it Occupation!

Occupation is modeled after our five-year war in Iraq. Like Iraq, Occupation will be a (no pun intended) huge blast for everybody concerned!!

Honest.

To put it mildly, Occupation will provide a unique experience not available elsewhere.

Here's a little bit about my new restaurant concept:

1. All Occupation advertising will be totally false. That's right. Stem to stern bulls**t. Just like there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, at Occupation, there won't be any of what we say is there either.

Ha!

2. Once patrons enter Occupation, they can forget about getting out of the place. Just like U.S. servicepeople who get sent to Iraq. Maybe they won't get out of there for an awfully long time.

That doesn't mean they can't have a hell of a lot of fun while they're there. Here's how.

3. In keeping with Occupation's unique Iraq war theme, from their table-mounted mortars, grenade launchers and howitzers, patrons will be able to launch horrid-smelling, clothes-ruining, dignity-destroying chemical weapons attacks on diners at neighboring tables!

Think of the possibilities.

Say you don't like somebody's looks. Or their politics. Or that somebody's mannerisms annoy you. At Occupation, you don't have to sit there and take it. No sir! Instead, you can let 'em have it!

Why? Beause they're there and you know damn well they deserve even worse.

In the interest of good clean fun, at Occupation, all chemical weapons attacks will be completely harmless. Mostly anyway.

4. There'll be a special premium section at Occupation, avaliable at significant extra cost. Diners seated there will be a lot safer from all those good clean fun chemical weapons attacks then diners in the cheap seats.

We're going to call that special premium section The Green Zone!

5. From The Green Zone, Occupation's Premium Diners can shower chemical humiliation on everybody else in the place! Patrons. Staff. Owners too. Hell, why not? And for an extra-steep premium, even pedestrians and vehicles (police cars excepted) passing by outside!!

Just think what an angry nation we've become. Half of us hates Hillary! The other half hates Bush! About half of each half hates both of them! Carrying concealed weapons is a national craze, like the hula-hoop was. And lots of us think we're overdue bombing Iran, that Bush has been goofing off and hasn't nearly gotten is in enough wars yet.

We're such an angry people, Occupation will go national, in about two weeks, max!

Wait a minute.... I better not give everything about Occupation away.

So, what do you think so far? Can I count on your investing? How much you in fer?
-------------------------------------------------
Unless you're in my friends network, you won't be able to leave a comment. Thanks to a few of the better-known SFF idiots whose names some of you can guess, I've decided to restrict comments. If you'd like to comment but aren't in my network, just send an invitation. My apologies for the inconvenience. /--jeff
3 Comments
The fraud of Bushenomics: They Jan 19, 2008 9:28 am
839 Views
According to the author of "Wag the Dog," here's where we are and how Bu$hCo put us here. Don't bother thinking they just screwed up. They did it deliberately. Anyone stupid enough (That's right. I said stupid enough) to defend what George Bush has done to our country is welcome to try it here. I hope there's at least one. After seven years of Dubya's dumbbell dictatorship, we can all use a good laugh.
-------------------------------------------------

The Fraud of Bushenomics: They're Looting the Country

by Larry Beinhart

The New York Times made it official. The Economy is a problem!

So, now, at last we can discuss it.

Not just discuss it, in rapid order "recession" became the word of the day, from White House, Congress, the Fed and the media.

It's blamed, mostly, on the subprime crisis.

But that's not the problem. It's a symptom. It is the logical, and probably one of the necessary results, of Bushenomics.

Along with low, or no, job growth. Little or no business growth. Depressed wages. And the crashing dollar. (The president has a different vision of the economy. In his vision it's booming! And the number of jobs is growing! Though there is this little blip.)

The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:

The rich are the investor class.
If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
Their investments will create more business.
Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone's lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.

Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that's their pitch, and the media certainly seems to buy it, as do most of the establishment economists.

A more realistic -- and less idealistic -- view of Bushenomics is that the Bush administration and its cronies came at the economy with the attitude of oilmen.

They inherited a vastly wealth country.
They looked at it like the oil under the Alaskan wilderness. They craved to pump it out, turn it into cash and grab as much of that cash as possible.

Wherever possible, they literally sold off the assets. This was called privatization. Our biggest asset -- in terms of size -- is, of course, our defense establishment. With privatization, one dollar out of every three for direct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. So when someone says, "Support the troops!" with budget appropriations, they should really yell, "Two-thirds support to the troops! One third support to Halliburton, et al.!"

This is just an estimate. The degree of privatization is unknown. Presumably, that's deliberate. Nor does it count the amount of money the military spends with private purveyors to supply the troops and their operations. It is only the amount that goes directly to private contractors.

But for the most part, the assets of the United States, our collective wealth, could not be sold off in such a direct manner.

In order to turn them into cash, what the administration did was borrow against them.

That is, they cut taxes while continuing to spend lavishly, creating debt.

The debt is owed by all of us, the collective people of the United States.

The tax cuts hugely favored rich people. They also favored unearned income (dividends, capital gains, inherited money) as opposed to the kind of money people have to work for. The very richest got richer.

The spending was -- to the degree possible -- directed to themselves, their friends and their supporters: Big Pharma, the medical industry, insurance, banking and financial, among others. And, of course, Big Oil, from whom they have spent close to a trillion dollars of our money to conquer a big oil field for private exploitation.

Now let's take a look at some numbers.

The numbers will tell us if their idealistic tale about unleashing the capitalists to create a better world for us all is correct. Or if it's a fairy story that masks uncaring greed.

The big number is that the economy has grown.

As measured by the GDP it has. From 2001 to 2007 it went by 35 percent.

GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. It could more accurately be called Gross Domestic Transactions, because it is the sum of all the financial transactions in the country.

Now let us look at job creation.

In the first six years of the Clinton administration, 13.7 million jobs were created. In the same period, under Bush, only 3.7 million jobs were created. Barely keeping up with population growth, if that. (Source: Fox News)

Now let us look at median income. That's as opposed to average income (If Bill Gates walks into a bar with 10 people, the average income of everyone in the room goes up by $17,5000,000. But the median income just moves up half a notch, from between the fifth and sixth person, to the sixth person's income). From 2001 to 2005, median income, for people under 65, went down $2,000.

That's worth restating. From 2001 to 2005, the income of the average working person declined by $2,000.

Now, let's look at the value of America's businesses.

A good rough measure of the market value of America's best businesses is the stock market. Under Clinton, the Dow Jones went up 324 percent. Wall-to-wall, after the dot.com bubble burst, it more than tripled in value.

Bush arrived in 2001. Since then the Dow Jones is up just 10 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that's absolutely flat. (It was briefly up 23 percent. It is now below the 10 percent mark, and tumbling down as this is written). Just pain, no gain.

If jobs have not increased, salaries have gone down, and the value of business has not risen, where is that 35 percent growth in the economy?

There is a number called the M3 money supply.

The M1 is basically cash, plus checking and "current" accounts. The M2 adds savings accounts, money market accounts and CDs up to $100,000. The M3 adds in the big CDs, Eurodollar accounts and other large exotics.

Already rising very fast, the M3 took off like a rocket after 2001. The Fed stopped publishing the M3 in 2006 (conspiracy theorists, please note.) But a quick look at the chart of its growth, and assuming its trajectory continued, clearly shows that the M3 grew by something in the range of 35 percent.

The entire growth of the economy under Bushenomics is accounted for by growth in the money supply.

The administration did not directly inflate the economy by 35 percent.

They pumped it by the size of the deficit. The rest happened this way.

When a government is "printing money" (running big deficits), the big fear is inflation.

Particularly in the financial community. Bankers make their money on interest, and inflation eats their profits, point for point.

The administration, very proudly, grew the economy (or at least the amount of money in circulation), without inflation. Which actually is a pretty good trick.

In part, they were able to do so precisely because the policy was a failure.

If it had created business growth -- actual business, not just financial business -- that would have created jobs. Then there would have been inflationary pressure. Especially if they were good, high paying jobs. If salaries for ordinary people go up, even a little, the total is a big sum because there are so many of us.

But due to free trade, outsourcing, bad economic policy, policies aimed at keeping wages down, and relentless union busting, good jobs were lost, to be replaced with low-wage jobs, when they were replaced at all. The proof is in that median income figure (down $2,000 per worker).

Due to free trade and outsourcing, consumer goods mostly went down too. The exception being in favored industries like pharmaceuticals, insurance and oil.

Finally, and this the key to the next step in the process, the Fed kept interest rates down.

Low interest rates mean that it's cheap to borrow.

The administration largely believes in supply-side economics (otherwise known as "trickle down," or "piss on the people."); if you increase the supply of something, consumers will appear to buy it.

The actual results are a perverse triumph of the idea.

The supply of money was increased. The price of money was kept artificially low.

Think of borrowing as buying money. It is.

People (and businesses and corporations) did rush forward to buy it. Once they had it, what was there to do with it? There was no new trend, no dot.coms, no high techs, no bio techs, no nothing.

So they went out and sold money. That is, they made loans.

There are two big retail loan areas, credit cards and housing loans. Both were pushed very aggressively. With cheap, cheap money available to finance home buying, that market heated up. At the same time, commercial interests started aggressively buying up loans, packaging them together, and reselling them as financial instruments. That created more desire to make more loans (sell money). Financial institutions bought more money (borrowed), in order to sell it at a profit (make loans). Since the loans were quickly resold -- and profit taken off the top -- the quality of the loans didn't matter to the people who made them. The housing market -- or rather the loans that fueled it -- grew into a bubble.

The subprime crisis, the housing bubble, whatever you want to call it, is not the problem.

It's a symptom of pumping in money with no place to go.

Other symptoms are no job growth, no business growth, no stock market growth, falling median incomes, disappearing pensions and health plans, and the fall of the dollar.

When Bush came into office, a Euro cost 95 cents. Now it costs a $1.50. The Canadian dollar (the Loony) was 70 cents. Now it costs a dollar. Most mainstream economists and pundits will opine that a low dollar is good for American industry, because it will help us sell our goods. That's only true if we're producing things that no one else is -- or producing them better or cheaper -- and we're not.

Also, many foreign exchange rates are being kept artificially low against the dollar. Some, like many of the oil countries, are pegged to the dollar. They're making up for it by raising the price of oil (currently traded in dollars). Others, like the Asian manufacturing countries, are keeping their currency down to retain their edge in selling here, thereby canceling whatever advantage we're supposed to get from declining currency.

One way to think of what the administration has done, is as a leveraged buyout. That's when someone buys a company, using the company itself as the collateral for the loan used to purchase it, usually at very high interest, then pays off the interest by cutting the work force and salaries, selling outsets and even breaking up the company.

It's good for the guy who makes the deal, skims the cream off the top and gets rich. (The company that Mitt Romney got rich working for specialized in doing that.) It's good for the lenders, who get a good return (if the buyer is able to squeeze enough money out of his purchase), but it's bad for the work force, bad for the company, and, if no one comes along to replace it, bad for the business as a whole.

We've experienced a leveraged buyout of the national economy.

Our politicians, the media and economists are just now waking up to the fact that the economy is in trouble.

The current numbers make it clear that we are probably in, or probably headed for, a recession.

Also, the polls show that people are concerned about the economy, and it's an election year. The people are out ahead of our governing and media and professional economic classes on this, because they live in the real economy, the one that's been leveraged, and the professionals are either in, or work for, the investor class that has been doing well.

So there is, at last, talk about doing something about the economy.

The Feds will cut interest rates!

George Bush wants a stimulus package. Tax cuts, tax cuts and make my tax cuts permanent! After all, that policy has worked so well. He said the cuts must be at least 1 percent of the GDP. That will be $145 billion.

Harry Reid and Nancy Policy (the King and Queen of Effective Politics) will offer a competing one (tax cuts, tax cuts!). Although they promised pay-as-you-go economic policies from a Democratic legislature.

Pundits in the media talk about a crisis in consumer confidence. And how the fix is to restore it. So we will go out and buy. Presumably on credit.

How about consumers think there's a problem because there is one. Not because they're weird emotionally. They reasonably see themselves so overextended, with so little hope of being better earners, that they won't be able to pay things off. Not even with a one-time government check of somewhere between $300 and $1,200.

In short, most of those solutions will go to making things worse.

The real solutions are pretty obvious and pretty simple.

First, we have to make a choice: Do we want a sound economy for all of us and a strong America? Or do we want to have a few people of unlimited wealth who use that wealth, among other things, to control the government so that it helps them milk more money from the rest of us?

By the way, this is not a call for socialism! Or other ism! Except a call for sensible and effective capitalism. Based on what we've seen work and seen fail.

In the real world, there are no such things as free markets.

In the real world, business people manipulate and conspire to control markets, and governments both control and collude with business, while tax policies and government spending have a major affect on the economy.

Let us accept that, and then the argument is only over how best to do it.

Simply giving money to rich people doesn't work.

Bob Novak, the conservative commentator who calls the investor class "the most creative class," is flat out wrong. As we've seen, outside of their ability to buy influence in politics, the media and the law, the rich are like the rest of us, relatively passive and unimaginative, prone to putting their money in the easiest place that promises a return, in whatever bubble is in fashion at the moment and wherever some salesman who gets their attention tells them.

money has no mind of its own. It has to be directed toward areas that will generate and support business and good jobs at good wages. As it happens, our economic goals are on the same road as the social good.

The No. 1 target has to be alternative energy.

Energy that can be produced here, in the United States, renewable, nonpolluting, and not, like corn-based ethanol, requiring as much petroleum to produce it as it replaces. One-third of our balance of trade deficit is oil, year in and year out. If the United States can become the world leader in alternative energy and conservation technology, we will, at last, have something to export.

The No. 2 target is infrastructure.

By it's nature, infrastructure has to be largely produced here with local labor and it stays here.

Hard infrastructure, like roads and bridges, cleaning up New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, protecting our coasts from future storms, internet and phone service as good as Europe's, Japan's and Singapore's.

Soft infrastructure, like education, youth services, parks and recreation programs, public safety, and a saner criminal justice system. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the incarcerated population. That's expensive. And wasteful. Unsafe streets and high crime are expensive and wasteful.

Infrastructure makes doing business easier, quicker and cheaper. It becomes an invisible subsidy for all businesses. Try to imagine, for example, Fed Ex, that entrepreneurial triumph, without a national web of airports, flight controllers and roads.

The No. 3 target is health care.

Health care in the United States costs at least 50 percent more than the next-highest spending country and double what it does in most other modernized countries. All of them have better health than we do. They live longer and in better condition.

The difference is that they have national health plans. Mostly single-payer, usually tax-supported. Our plans are based on a hodge-podge of a thousand private insurers.

A single-payer national health plan should cut the costs of our health care by at least 25 percent, possibly 50 percent. That's an astonishing number. That money could go to more productive things. Or to even more health care.

American businesses who supply health care to their employees claim they are noncompetitive with companies from countries that have national health. This will make them more competitive. This will make American labor more competitive.

The No. 4 four target is a balanced budget.

There are, in fact, times for deficit spending. Just as there are times in our personal lives to borrow and times for business to borrow.

This is probably not one of them.

There is an ocean of money sloshing all around the world, looking for a home. If there are real business opportunities in America (like taking the lead in alternative energy, bio tech, and whatever is next around the corner), it will come.

Especially if there is a sound business environment and dollar investments return to being the most reliable in the world. That means paying down our debt.

How can all this be done?

Raising taxes.

On the wealthy. And on corporations. That's not class warfare. That's simple practicality.

After your first $20,000, how much of the next 20 do you need, to live, thrive and survive? Damn near all of it. After your first 20 million, now much of the next 20 million do you need? Not a nickel.

The rich will whine, writhe and scream that they won't do business, they'll be driven out of business, that business will collapse. Bullshit. If they dislike keeping 20 or 30 or 40 cents of each dollar of profit so much that they won't take the dollar, someone will come along who gladly will. That's how markets work.

All of this is pretty straightforward and common sense.

The illogic of Bushenomics is obvious. The results were foreseeable. After all, similar effects took place under Reagan and Bush the Elder, until they reversed courses.

The alternatives are equally obvious. The facts bear out the theory. Go back to Hoover and Roosevelt, then look at the down, up, down, of Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Lesser. (We do note that there are minor industries dedicated to proving that Franklin Roosevelt was, in the words of CNN's Glenn Beck, "an evil son of a bitch," that the New Deal really, really, really didn't work, and that Bush the Elder was really, really, really responsible for the boom of the Clinton years and that Clinton was responsible for the first recession during the reign of Bush the Lesser. But they are like people who see the image of the Virgin Mary in bread sticks and crullers.)

None of our politicians, pundits or economists are addressing the fundamentals.

The last time we switched from the nonsense of worshiping unmitigated greed, disguised as free marketeering, it took a market crash and the Great Depression to move us out of our public relations-manufactured delusions and make us understand that when we all do well the rich get richer too, so let's start with the common good.

Based on the dialogue as it stands now, we will go with tinkering and twaddle, doing more of what doesn't work. And only if the whole things collapses will we address the real problems.

See more stories tagged with: economy, bush

Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin."
12 Comments
The real reason Bush went to Saudi Arabia Jan 18, 2008 1:08 pm
856 Views
I didn't vote for Bush either time. So don't blame me. If you must blame someone, blame the people who leave the pissed-off comments below the article. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------
Why Bush Went to Saudi Arabia

by Greg Palast
Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Bend over, pull out your wallet and kiss your Abe ‘goodbye.’ The Lincolns have got to go - and so do the Hamiltons and Jacksons.

Those bills in your billfold aren’t yours anymore. The landlords of our currency - Citibank, the national treasury of China and the House of Saud - are foreclosing and evicting all Americans from the US economy.

It’s mornings like this, when I wake up hung-over to photos of the King of Saudi Arabia festooning our President with gold necklaces, that I reluctantly remember that I am an economist; and one with some responsibility to explain what the hell Bush is doing kissing Abdullah’s camel.

Let’s begin by stating why Bush is not in Saudi Arabia. Bush ain’t there to promote ‘Democracy’ nor peace in Palestine, nor even war in Iran. And, despite what some pinhead from CNN stated, he sure as hell didn’t go to Riyadh to tell the Saudis to cut the price of oil.

What’s really behind Bush’s hajj to Riyadh is that America is in hock up to our knickers. The sub-prime mortgage market implosion, hitting a dozen banks with over $100 billion in losses, is just the tip of the debt-berg.

Since taking office, Bush has doubled the federal debt to more than $5 trillion. And, according to US Treasury figures, on net, foreign investors have purchased close to 100% of that debt. That’s $3 trillion borrowed from the Saudis, the Chinese, the Japanese and others.

Now, Bush, our Debt Junkie-in-Chief, needs another fix. The US Treasury, Citibank, Merrill-Lynch and other financial desperados need another hand-out from Abdullah’s stash. Abdullah, in turn, gets this financial juice by pumping it out of our pockets at nearly $100 a barrel for his crude.

Bush needs the Saudis to charge us big bucks for oil. The Saudis can’t lend the US Treasury and Citibank hundreds of billions of US dollars unless they first get these US dollars from the US. The high price of oil is, in effect, a tax levied by Bush but collected by the oil industry and the Gulf kingdoms to fund our multi-trillion dollar governmental and private debt-load.

The US Treasury is not alone in its frightening dependency on Arabian loot. America’s private financial institutions are also begging for foreign treasure. Yesterday, King Abdullah’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, already the top individual owner of Citibank, joined the Kuwait government’s Investment Authority and others to mainline a $12.5 billion injection of capital into the New York bank. Also this week, the Abu Dhabi government and the Saudi Olayan Group are taking a $6.6 billion chunk of Merrill-Lynch. It’s no mere coincidence that Bush is in Abdullah’s tent when the money-changers made the deal just outside it.

Bush is there to assure Abdullah that, unlike Dubai’s ports purchase debacle, there will be no political impediment to the Saudi’s buying up Citibank nor the isle of Manhattan.

So what? I mean, for the average American about to lose their job and their bungalow it doesn’t matter a twit whether it’s Sheik bin Alwaleed who owns Citibank or Sheik Sanford Weill, Citi’s past Chairman.

It’s the price paid to buy back our money from abroad that’s killing us. Despite the Koranic prohibition on charging interest, the Gulf princes demand their pound of flesh, exacting a 7% payment from Citibank and 9% from Merrill. That hefty interest bill then pushes adjustable rate mortgages into the stratosphere and pushes manufacturing into China by making borrowing and energy costs impossible to overcome. Forget the cost of health care: General Motors’ interest burden quintupled in just two years.

As the great economist Paddy Chayefsky wrote in the film The Network:

“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. … It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity…. There are no nations, there are no peoples. There is only one vast and immense, interwoven, multi-national dominion of petro-dollars. … There is no America. There is no ‘democracy.’ The world is a business, one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work.”

In 2005, the US consumer paid Arab and OPEC nations a quarter trillion dollars ($252 billion) for oil - and the USA received back 100% of it - and then some ($311 billion) via Gulf nations’ investment in US Treasury bills and purchases of US businesses and property. Bush’s trip to Abdullah’s tent is all about this vast business of keeping this petro-dollar treadmill spinning.

The Bush Administration, rather than tax Americans to cover our deficits or make the banks suffer the consequences of their predatory lending practices, is allowing the Saudis to charge us big time at the pump with the understanding they will lend it all back to us - so the party never has to stop.

It has been reported that the President’s Secret Service men traveling with him seemed embarrassed by the eye-popping loads of diamond and gold gifts which they have to carry back for President Bush. They need not feel they have taken too much from their hosts: Bush has assured Abdullah that the King can suck it back out through our gas tanks.

***********

Greg Palast is the author of The Network: The World as a Company Town, in the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse.
19 Comments
Don Jan 18, 2008 12:28 pm
817 Views
One year from this Sunday, George W. Bush must leave office. You may have noticed that suddenly the little putz is in a big hurry. Although it may be hard for you to believe, Bush thinks he still has "contributions" to make. Below is a brief bit about one of them, the REAL ID. If you're interested, you can do more research about the REAL ID on the web.

Although the writer of this piece doesn't mention it, all REAL ID driver's licenses will have RFID (radio frequency identification) chips implanted in them. So at any time and in any place, from thousands of miles away, the government can instantly locate and track you. And God knows what else.

That's right. Bush and his successors in government will keep tabs on their subjects (that's us) the same way companies like FedEx and UPS keep tabs on their packages. Seems dehumanizing, doesn't it? You better know this is far less the end of it than it is just the start. No matter how much control we allow these people to get over us, it won't ever be enough to suit them.

Makes you proud to be an American, huh?
-------------------------------------------------
What’s Behind the REAL ID Act?

from the PLRC Blog

Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff rated a nationally syndicated article January 16th to plug the REAL ID Act which Bush signed into law on 11 May 2005. The Act mandates standardized state driver’s licenses as the official piece of identification effective 31 December 2009. After that date, non-compliant licenses, or identification cards for non-drivers, will not be valid ID for boarding commercial aircraft, admission to nuclear power plants, or for entry into any other federal or federally-regulated facility. To obtain one of these licenses a person must present proof of identity, verification of Social Security status, proof of residency, and proof of citizenship or legal-alien status. The license or ID card must contain at least four pieces of biometric identification that are machine-readable by all states and the federal government.

Chertoff uses a form of propaganda called “implied truths” in his article. He asks three rhetorical questions: “Should banks cash checks from people who cannot prove who they are? Should parents hire babysitters they know nothing about? Should airlines let passengers on board without validating their identity?”

Of course we all know the answer to those questions but Chertoff doesn’t say the present documents aren’t adequate. Instead he implies inadequacy with another rhetorical question – “But are [the present] documents necessarily reliable?” – and then asks us to consider several facts:

Fact: All except one of the 9/11 hijackers carried government ID that helped them board planes and remain in the country illegally. Anyone who has seriously studied the events leading up to 9/11 knows it was the officials who are supposed to examine the IDs that goofed – all the way from a traffic cop issuing a citation to the lack of communication between the CIA and FBI.

Fact: Last year immigration and customs officials charged hundreds of illegal workers with identification document fraud. Sounds like they are doing what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Chertoff doesn’t show how the REAL ID Act will prevent document fraud except for a requirement to make licenses harder to counterfeit. Such efforts haven’t prevented counterfeiting of US currency.

Fact: In 2005, “identity theft cost American households $64 billion, and 28 percent of those incidents likely required a driver’s license to perpetrate.” (emphasis added) Millions of drivers’ licenses are stolen annually and the REAL ID Act will help identity theft by consolidating all the pertinent information. There is nothing in the Act requiring encryption, and that has never proved effective anyway.

The REAL ID Act is actually an end run around Congress. Following 9/11, the Bush administration tried to create a National ID Card. Congress wouldn’t go for that because of privacy concerns and the implications of a police state. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security, contained a rider prohibiting such a card. To get around that prohibition, the Bush administration proposed legislation requiring the states to standardize their primary identification document. Although each state will have its own database, those databases will be interactive among all states and the federal government. With today’s computer technology, the entire lot can be accessed with a single query.

All of this came together as the REAL ID Act. It was slipped through Congress without debate as an attachment to war-funding authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq. By the end of 2009 we will, in effect, have a National ID Card for the USA.

Bob Aldridge,

16 January 2007
11 Comments
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 23 24 25

To link to this blog (jeffpilot) use [blog jeffpilot] in your messages.
58 M
Guidelines
November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
 
2
  		3
  		4
1
5
1
6
  		7
1
8
 
9
  		10
  		11
  		12
  		13
  		14
1
15
 
16
  		17
  		18
  		19
1
20
  		21
1
22
 
23
  		24
  		25
  		26
  		27
  		28
  		29
 
30
  		           

Recent Visitors
VisitorAgeSexDate
Chicka2006 60F12/3
arabella5959F12/2
SunSet222 62F12/1
LiberalArts63F11/30
Poetdancer_ 49F11/28
mtman4u 69M11/25
RickySpin01 58M11/24
bigmig52 56M11/22
DrsVandB76/76C11/20
Roxy194662F11/20
Most Recent Comments by Others
PostPosterPost Date
GOP faithful like Palin, Romney, Huckabee for 2012Poetdancer_Nov 28 6:58 am
Texas grand jury indicts V.P. Cheney and ex A.G. Alberto GonzalesPoetdancer_Nov 20 9:49 pm
Stuff George W. Bush should regret but probably doesn'tPoetdancer_Nov 20 9:33 pm
Finally, an elected president...howjeffpilotNov 14 6:49 am
Breaking news: Palin once greeted McCain staffers dressed only in a towelbigmig52Nov 7 5:55 pm
McCain headed to defeat that marks the end of the Republican erajeffpilotNov 5 12:34 pm
Palin a "Whack Job," top McCain advisor saysjeffpilotNov 4 11:47 am
Banks hoarding bailout money, buying smaller banksCatlady1943Oct 30 10:49 am
Republicans: please read here what General Powell said about Barack Obamachomsky88Oct 26 2:15 pm
Breaking news: Will the next Joe the Plumber be YOU?ThunderBirdWomanOct 23 11:17 pm
R. F. Kennedy Jr. & Greg Palast: the GOP has already stolen the 2008 electionjeffpilotOct 22 11:22 am