Thursday, August 30, 2012

Man Child Republicon Paul Ryan Says that Rights are Conferred by God

Ron Paul, er, I mean, Paul Ryan, doesn't understand where rights come from, but his views are straight outta 1950s literature
Republicon man-child Paul Ryan said last night at the RNC that God gives rights, not governments. Of course, the Congress Man forgets about that whole inconvenient Bill of Rights thing, but who interprets god's will? You guessed it! Paul Ryan! This egomaniacal lifelong denizen of Capitol Hill epitomizes the neo-far right wing of the republican party. His budget, which unapologetically targets the poor and favors the wealthy is what we could expect under a Romney regime. He is the new "republitarian," a hybrid republican and libertarian who thinks that all government programs--including those that help the aging, the poor, and women--are bad. Strike that: he's for welfare, as long as its welfare for the wealthy. He co-sponsored a bill with the maniac Rep. Akin that rape should be pre-defined. Seriously. He wants to deny women basic reproductive rights, codified into law by four decades of Roe v. Wade. 


(read more about a man you do NOT want wandering the halls of the West Wing at http://www.groobiecat.com/)

And contrary to popular opinion, he's no fiscal conservative, he voted for all the debt-ballooning programs under Bush, which added ~$4 trillion to the national debt, while providing tax breaks to the aggrandizement of wealthy people like his prospective boss, RMoney. His plans for a voucher system would be an unmitigated disaster whereby people could "shop" for healthcare coverage with "vouchers." Of course, what good is shopping around with a voucher if you have a pre-existing condition--but hey, older folks RARELY have those, am I right? Ugh. And his political philosophy is straight from the playbook of Ayn Rand, the "me first and screw everyone else" icon of today's extreme moron right. The practical policy outcome of that philosophy is what we've seen in numbers over the past 10 years and is simple: channel more and more money into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Reduced federal spending and lower taxes is what Ryan promises, but that's what we have today. How's that working out for us?

He's a dangerous man who shouldn't be allowed to do much more than take a tour of the White House. And he sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to freakin' work there. You may not like everything Obama does; I know I don't. But if you have any proclivity toward helping those in need and protecting women's reproductive rights, then you need to vote to ensure that this idiot and his tea-puppet patron don't take abrogate those rights by taking over the policy reins of the country. VOTE.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Psychopathy of Mitt Romney

I wondered about Mitt. All those things he's said and done over the years. Tonsorially raping that gay kid's head in Cranbrook. Pretending to be a cop. Tying his dog to the roof of his car for a 12 hour road trip. He seems--odd. So, I did a little research.


This was posted over at http://www.facebook.com/classwarfareexists, and there were some comments that I thought were interesting. Here they are, followed by my response:

RPH:I am not sure exactly where Konrad is coming from but I kind of agree. That's the problem with personalising politics. It becomes a question of who is the nice guy and we then disregard all the shitty things Obama has done at the behest of Corporate America. I am quite ready to believe that there are more psychopaths and just plain nasty bastards among the Republicans- still you need to ask what has gone wrong with civic life in the US so that the right wing of the one political party (the property party) can be so dominated by psychopaths while its leftwing is dominated by cowardly windbags.

SB: I gotta say that while they certainly aren't wrong about Mitt, the field of politics rewards sociopathy and pretty much all successful politicians are sociopaths to one degree or another. It is the trait that allows them to succeed in an environment of manipulation, deceit and corruption. It is just that some of them are smarter and better at hiding it than other

Groobiecat: While you both make good points, in general, democrats are clearly more interested in the common weal. Obamacare is, as Bernie Sanders said, a step in the right direction. And who made it so that corporations would no longer be able to disqualify someone from healthcare coverage for typos on their applications or for pre-existing conditions? And who made it possible for millions of kids to now be covered? Who made it possible for kids under 26 to stay on their parents' healthcare plans? That wasn't a republican. And women's rights? No contest there. Ending Planned Parenthood funding and literally killing women as a result of denied breast cancer screenings? Yeah. Voting disenfranchisement--which party is heading up that little mass conspiracy? And a democrat did end the war that was started by a republican, and killed up to a million people--that's pol pot level stuff, and that's what we have under a republican president. Yes, I know, drones, Afghanistan, NDAA, Guantanamo. I get that, and basically agree. But those other issues? They're real. They're not nothin'. Democrats are imperfect, but it shakes out like this: Democrats are to Neurosis as Republicans are to Psychosis--especially with the hyper insane clown car of crazy that is now running the republican party.


Saturday, August 18, 2012

"Some of Ryan's most important ideas have been tried and proved failures...."

I would argue that it's more than just "some," but I'll go along with Joe Klein's description. Paul Ryan and the entire republican party believe in one thing: the lower the taxes, the better the chances for economic growth. But this is just simply not supported by the facts, as Klein explains:

"...some of Ryan's most important ideas have been tried and proved failures. Ryan has produced various plans, proposals and two actual federal budgets, and they all have one thing in common: they cut taxes drastically. In his 2011 budget, which he sent to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, he estimated that despite the drastic cut in rates, the revenue would remain the same as a percentage of gross domestic product. This is supply-side economics, the utterly uncorroborated theory that the less people pay in taxes, the more they'll produce. Ryan's mentor Jack Kemp sold Ronald Reagan on it in 1980. The result was such a huge hole in the federal deficit that in 1982, Reagan was forced to come back with one of the largest proportional tax increases in American history. Supply-side tax cuts didn't work for George W. Bush either. By contrast, Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. Who knew?"
Who knew? Anyone caring to take a look at the numbers, that's who. The thing of it is, anyone knew who actually looked at history can see that in spite of periods with the highest tax rates since WWII, GDP growth was, in fact, high, as well. See how well Dubya's record matches up? And his taxes were quite low by comparison. In fact, as a result of his tax cut policies, the first year that Obama took office--you remember, the middle of the worst recession in 80 years?--tax rates were the LOWEST in decades.

There are other factors, of course, but lower taxes doesn't equal growth--but it does lead to increased deficit spending and increases the national debt burden, because spending isn't offset by revenues from taxes. That's how this works, folks. And yes--shock!--it's true that the government has a role in the economy! That's so horrible! Of course, that's the case with every single advanced economy on the planet. Every. Single. One..

And if Ryan's plan is such a good one, where are the freakin' jobs? They are nowhere to be found. That's because, right now, we're actually living the republican vision. Low taxes. The lowest rate  We also know this because currently we have some of the lowest taxes in decades.  According to Chris Matthews 

But there is another source of federal revenues that receives less attention: corporate income taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal’s recent study of Congressional Budget Office numbers, corporations are paying an effective rate of 12.1%, the lowest in at least 40 years. So why are some of the biggest and most powerful entities in our society getting away with paying so little? 

Source: Wall Street Journal Online
And it's not just corporations who are paying low taxes, it's middle income Americans as well. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
Federal taxes on middle-income Americans are near historic lows,[1]according to the latest available data.  That’s true both for federal incometaxes and total federal taxes



Source: CBPP
So back to Paul Ryan...His vision--which is Mitt's vision, of course, unless it isn't, in which case, it could be again, because you never know--is more of the same, only worse. LOWER TAXES FURTHER STILL. And what will that do? Well, the fairy dust crowd thinks it will lead to a great economic recovery. That's their plan. More of the same--all because of the fear of socialism or marxism or whatever other historically inaccurate "ism" that they want to use to scare people with.

And it doesn't work. We're living it right and this sh*t just doesn't work. Well, wait, I take that back, it doesn't work if you're middle class, but it's works like a charm if your already rich. Oh, God yeah,  it works great! But if you're not, um, sorry, you're kinda screwed. According to the Washington Post's Wonkblog:

Under Ryan’s plan, the six tiers of tax rates would be simplified to two rates: 25 percent for higher earners and 10 percent for lower-earners. But the overall impact of the Ryan budget would still disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The top 20 percent would get a $13,907 tax cut in 2015, and the top 1 percent would get a whopping $155,808 tax break, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans would pay $159 more in taxes in 2015.
And it's well known that Romney's budget has already shown that the wealthiest would do even wealthiester under his budget, which those making less than 250 grand would actually pay higher taxes, because he closes loopholes that benefit the middle class.

But hey, at least it'll cut the deficit and bring down the national debt, right? Wrong. And you know who says so? Fox News. That's right, Fox News admits that Ryan isn't a small spender at all. Here's what they have to say about Ryan's budget:
"claims that Ryan is slashing spending don't quite square with the numbers. Those claims are convenient Washington shorthand for what Ryan's plan actually proposes -- which is to slow the rate of budget growth, but still allow the budget to grow.
Under the latest Ryan plan, the budget would grow from $3.6 trillion this year to $4.9 trillion in 2022. The only years in which spending would dip are 2013 and 2014"
Why someone would want Romney and Ryan to take a tour of the White House, let alone work there, is beyond me. But don't take my word for it. Just look a the numbers.




Saturday, August 11, 2012

Romney has Decided: It's Mini Mitt

It had to be done. And it had to be done by our pal Groobiecat Call. Paul Ryan is the face of the neocon rightists who refuse to ensure that the safety net isn't shredded on the alter of deficit reduction, and who refuse to ask the already extremely well off to share a couple more percentage points of wealth to help bolster the common weal. His is the friend of the most fortunate Americans, and an enemy to those who are not. He is, in short, a republican who he prefers to burden the already over-burdened. This says all you need to know about the kind of priorities we could expect under a Romney presidency. That. Must. Not. Happen.

Quote Source: The Washington Post's Dana Milbank

Congress controls the purse strings, as they say, but who is the holder of the man purse on Capitol Hill? Why, Paul Ryan. And what are his priorities? Oh, they're very very clear. Ryan's budget is notoriously anti-poor and vulnerable because it's a program gutter. And that's gutter in all senses of that word.

Who Needs more Fiber in their Diet? Why, the poor, of course.
According to Dana Milbank,

Ryan’s justification was straight out of Dickens. He wants to improve the moral fiber of the poor. There is, he told the audience at the conservative American Enterprise Institute later Tuesday, an “insidious moral tipping point, and I think the president is accelerating this.” Too many Americans, he said, are receiving more from the government than they pay in taxes. 
After recalling his family’s immigration from Ireland generations ago, and his belief in the virtue of people who “pull themselves up by the bootstraps,” Ryan warned that a generous safety net “lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, which drains them of their very will and incentive to make the most of their lives. It’s demeaning.”
Don't believe that? Perhaps you should confer with a higher power. The nuns on the bus tour this summer highlighted how Paul Ryan's budget went against the teachings of Jesus:

Led by Sister Simone Campbell, the "Nuns on the Bus" rejected the budget proposal of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which it called "immoral" and "unpatriotic." 
Ryan's budget "rejects church teaching about solidarity, inequality, the choice for the poor, and the common good. That's wrong," said Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby. 
Nuns on the Bus claims that the Ryan budget would raise taxes on low-income families while cutting taxes for millionaires and corporations, push families into poverty, and kick 8 million people off of food stamps.
Here's Sister Campbell on MSNBC, explaining in her own words, why the Ryan budget is immoral.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Taxes and Romney: How the Rich get Richer--at the National Level


Ten years of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have increased the divide between the haves and have nots in the country--the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poor. In fact, according to Bloomberg, based on US Census data:
Since 1980, about 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation’s richest households. That means the wealthiest 5,934 households last year enjoyed an additional $650 billion -- about $109 million apiece -- beyond what they would have had if the economic pie had been divided as it was in 1980, according to Census Bureau data.


A Romney president would change all that right? Wrong. Of course he's offering more of the same. Romney's tax plan came under intense fire, as you may know, because the Brookings and Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center indicated that people like Romney would get their taxes lowered while middle and lower income people would face tax increases. As the report states:
“It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers Even if tax breaks are eliminated 
in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion [a year] from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that.

What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year."

source: www.democraticundergrond.com
Ezra Klein, the super sharp, interdisciplinary, all-in-one political wonk who works for Bloomberg, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, and occasionally sits in for Rachel Maddow, explained that this wasn't a partisan study, but that the Romney camp framed that that way regardless (shocking, I know!): 
The Romney campaign offered two responses to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis, one more misleading than the other. 
First, the campaign called the analysis “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That jab refers to Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who served in a staff role on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. But the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased simply isn’t credible -- a point underscored by the fact that the Romney campaign referred to the group’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary campaign.
Then the Romney campaign said, “The study ignores the positive benefits to economic growth from both the corporate tax plan and the deficit reduction called for in the Romney plan.” There’s a reason the study ignores those “positive benefits”: Romney has called for a revenue-neutral corporate tax plan that brings the rate down from 35 percent to 25 percent while also promising to balance the budget. He has not said how he will achieve either goal. Until he does, those positive benefits -- if they exist -- are impossible to calculate. 
Basically, Romney is offering the same policies that Bush offered, and that clearly don't work: lower taxes for the wealthiest and low spending--both of which are proven do not improve the economy