tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34098999809396066142024-03-04T20:47:57.858-08:00A Bad MotivatorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-39045516441056496792021-12-17T07:46:00.007-08:002023-04-29T08:44:25.578-07:00What Really Happened to the Southern Vote<p> We have heard quite often over the last 20 years about the "Southern Strategy", a political plan hatched by the Republicans, as the story goes, to explain the Democrats loss of hegemony in the southern states. The narrative states that it was the Republican Party's use "dog whistle" language in the 1960s and onward that attracted Southern racist voters to the Republican party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).<br /><br />This explanation has an emotional value to the Democrats who remain members of the party that actually passed the Jim Crow laws, opposed the abolition of Slavery, and tried to stop school integration. Given the Democrat Party's history, it would seem like the first thing that should be toppled in a post-CRA America would be the Democratic Party, and yet...<br /><br />Democrat voters are told by their party that the Democrats are the anti-Racists and that it was because of this "Southern Strategy" that the party was robbed their racist voting block that they had depended on so heavily in Southern states for the entire history of the Party. As a Democrat they need to believe that to absolve themselves of the moral failures of their party throughout their party's history... and to explain why, in the cast off of all of that baggage of a bygone era, they couldn't manage to change their party name.<br /><br />A too-convenient-by-half skepticism of that narrative aside, there are a number of ways that the narrative just makes no sense.<br /><br />The first problem with the argument is that they target the wrong governmental bodies. Segregationist laws were all at the state level, passed by state legislatures and implemented by state and local authorities to protect state Democrat hegemony, so the canary in the coal mine for "Racist Southern Voter Migration" would be at the levels of Government that were the enforcers of state Democrat control, namely state houses and Governor seats.<br /><br />So CRA was passed in 1964... so when did the Democrats lose control of Governor seats? Well...</p><p>The Georgia Governor was dependably Democrat from 1872 to 2003.</p><p>Alabama had consecutive Democrat Governors from 1874 to 1987, and didn't have back to back Republican Governors until 2003.</p><p>Mississippi's Republican Governor elected in 1992 was the first in 118 years and there wasn't a back to back Republican elected until 2012.</p><p>Louisiana hasn't had back to back Republican Governors since 1877.</p><p>South Carolina's firs back to back Republican Governors was 1999, current Republican hold has been in effect since 2004.</p><p>North Carolina hasn't had back to back Republican Governors since 1874.<br /><br />OK, so the Democrats held control of Southern Governor seats for 30-40 years following the passage of CRA.. but surely the state houses, the hot bed of Segregationist power turned Republican, right? Well....<br /><br /></p><p>Georgia Democrats held the state House, Senate and Governor until 2002</p><p>Alabama Democrats held the state House and Senate until 2010</p><p>Louisiana.. also until 2010</p><p>South Carolina until 1994</p><p>North Carolina, other than a 4 year period from '95 to '98, also held state house and Senate until 2010</p><p>Florida was reliably Democrat until 1994..</p><p>Tennessee until 2004...<br /><br />So, at the very least I guess we can see why the narrative of the "Southern Strategy" has picked up speed over the last 20 years. As illogical as the explanation appears, the Democrats needed some way of explaining their loss of the South in the late 90s and early 2000s. But trying to argue that the switch slow burned through a the racist south can't really explain why so many of those racist Democrats, and Democrat voters remained Dmeocrat to the day they died.<br /><br />So what explains it? The switch happened for two primary and self-evident reasons. The first explanation covers half of the "Southern Strategy" argument, but not the half the Democrats need. The other is just plain demographics. I'll explain both in turn.<br /><br />To explain the demographic shift it is necessary to first understand the source of power of the pre-CRA southern Democratic Party. Lost in the simplistic explanation of pre-CRA South, an explanation that posits Segregation as the only political platform that really mattered, is that inside the Hegemonic Southern Democrat party there were as many ideological fissures separating party members as there were separating Northern Democrats and Republicans. Segregation and Jim Crow had become a last gasp of the "State Rights" argument that had been lost in the Civil war.<br /><br />As an aside, the Southern Democrat "State Rights" argument was always doomed to fail because the fights they chose to take on against Federal Power were not targeting Federal legislation directly, they challenged the founding principles of the nation. They posited the argument that the states.. really that any governmental body, can decide what natural rights are and that those rights are not inalienable. They weren't fighting federalism as much as they were fighting the whole concept of natural rights.</p><p>They lost in 1864, and then again, a century later in 1964.<br /><br />So, in pre-CRA South, the disparate factions of the Democratic Party came together on only one issue: Segregation.<br /><br />"Ah HAH!!" The modern Dmeocrat would say, "You see! Southern Politics was driven by racism!!"<br /><br />Well yes, self evidently. And following the passage of CRA the old Democrats continued to vote Democrat until the day they died. Why they oted that way is for another discussion, and likely my explanation would be more controversial than the argument I will make here. The why, therefore, we can skip. All that needs to be pointed out here is that the Southern voter that voted Democrat before the passage of CRA largely continued voting Democrat where it mattered for the rest of their life.<br /><br />So why did it turn Republican? Easy answer: Demographics, Demographics, Demographics.<br /><br />To understand the Demographics of the Southern turn we have to first understand general ideological shifts in voting behavior by generation. Specifically we will focus on the age old and time tested trend that every generation is most progressive in their politics in their late teens and 20s, and begin to shift conservative in their late 30s and 40s.<br /><br />My theory for why this happens is pretty simple, and follows the same path as movies, music and any number of other individual preferences. If you ask most people what their favorite band is, a 20 year old will usually name something contemporary while a 50 year old will name a band that was big when they were 20. We lock into a preference sociologically and psychologically at a point in time that we see ourselves as most vibrant, usually in our 20s at the bridge between teen naivete and optimism and middle aged realism.<br /><br />In short, we love change until it moves past us or, from a different perspective, we get old enough to see the folly.<br /><br />Consider this general, inescapable Demographic ideological shift in the context of the CRA. A child born after the passage of the CRA grew up in largely integrated schools, with largely shared integrated popular music and cinema with no concept that this had ever been different. That generation latched on to the progressive party of the 1970s (Democrats), and came into their 20s under Reagan, and reached middle age in the late 90s and 2000s.<br /><br />Southern Democrats no longer had the unifying taint of Segregation to hold the party together, and so the Southern Dmeocrat, whose parents had always voted Democrat, had started to bury their parents, and vote their interests, which were naturally more conservative, interests that were anchored in the politics of the 1980s, when Reagan was president.<br /><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-32706398364694620432021-02-22T13:01:00.000-08:002021-02-22T13:01:07.903-08:00Who Factchecks the Factcheckers?<div><span style="font-size: medium;">For the last 4 years Glenn Kessler has been running a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11" target="_blank">Lie Tracker</a> on President Donald Trump for the Washington Post. In those four years he has determined that Trump lied 30,573 times.. a number that he, and those pundits who use Glenn to support their narratives, claim to be unprecedented.<br /><br />The claim of unprecedented lying from Donald Trump is itself dubious given that Glenn Kessler has never run such a statistical project on previous administrations and has announce that, with the oncoming Biden administration, he will go back to not doing it again.<br /><br />One might want to point out that such comparative arguments without data is, itself, a lie... but that is just small potatoes. The real meaning of Glenn Kessler's lie tracker can be derived by actually reading it, an act that, you will discover, <i>nobody was ever meant to do</i>.<br /><br />I decided to do it because I'm mostly borded, but also because I'm seeing a lot of "lying-est president EVAR!" argumnets cropping up again as a response to claims that President Biden might have not told the truth. Someone pointed me at Glenn Kessler's work as proof and, unfortunately, I read it. I was so befuddled by the bizarre argumnets being used that I decided to restart this blog just to score Glenn Kessler's work.<br /><br />So, let's score Glenn Kessler's running tally of "fact checks" or Trump using his own database, and his own methodology. <br /><br />From the start I will point out that Kessler plays very loose with his definition of "lies". In the case of his Trump tally he counts any mistatement, difference of opinion, over statement or understatement as "lie".</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Moreover, when Trump makes a statement wherein the meaning of the claim is undefined, rather than attempt to get a clarification of the claim, Kessler simply substitutes his own definition to the claim and then determines that the claim is a lie. That is, in fact, a lie on the part of Kessler, <i>not Trump</i>.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">What Kessler does here is, itself, a lie by his own definition. It is misleading at best and, as we'll see as I walk through the 40-odd claims on his tracker page, very likely intentionally dishonest. That is abysmal behavior for anyone who claims to be a purveyor of facts. But don't trust me, look at Glenn Kessler's tracking page, read his explanations, then read mine. Critique my assessments if you want.. the simple fact that we can argue the validity of Kessler's assessment is just futher proof that Kessler is giving opinion, not facts.<br /><br />Then again, when he does give fact it seems to rare be on the actual substance of the quote he attributes to Trump. But enough preamble, let's get to it.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Away we go...</span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">1) “We also got tax cuts, the largest tax cut and reform in the history of our country, by far.” - Trump</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In this first "lie" we see what will become a habit on the part of Kessler to attempt to define the statement after the fact in terms that he finds best helps his case. <br /><br />In this case Kessler decides, for no stated reason, that Trump meant "largest tax cut compared to GDP" and then he goes on tpo state that by Kessler's criter it is not the largest. Whereas if you count the total tax dollars, or the total nmber of people who received a tax reduction, you may very well find that Trump's claim is true, but in this case Kessler's straw man is fabricated and misleading, so Kessler gets the points...</span><br /><br /><b>Kessler: 296<br />Trump: 0</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">2) “We just got seventy five million votes. And that's a record in the history of in the history of sitting presidents.” - Trump</span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: medium; text-indent: -9px;">Kessler's evaluation is just a flat redirection. Trump clearly qualified "sitting president", which was true, regardless of whether or not Biden received more votes, Biden wasn't the sitting president.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 312<br />Trump: 0</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">3) “One of the things we're very, very proud of is the selection of almost three hundred federal judges and three great Supreme Court justices.That's a very big number. That's a record-setting number.” - Trump</span><br /><br />Kessler's explanation here is a clear mischaracterization on the one hand, and a quibling over the term "nearly" and "selection"...<br /><br />Trump's "record setting" number was 3 Supreme Court justices in 4 years. That is true.<br /><br />Trump stated "slection" of nearly 300 judges, not the seating of those judges, and even counting only seated judgesKessler is down to hanging his hat on the meaning of "nearly"... thin gruel. <br /><b><br />Kessler: 396<br />Trump: 0<br /><br /></b><span style="font-size: 22px;">4) “Our first lady has been a woman of great grace and beauty and dignity. And so popular with the people, so popular with the people.” - Trump</span><br /><br />Honestly, I could hit Kessler for poll shopping here and do an analysis of the various polls which may or may not prove his point, but sure.. Trump said something nice about his wif that might not be true for a slim majority of people.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 396<br />Trump: 1</b></span></div><div style="text-indent: -9px;"><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">5) </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">“That's why [regulation cuts] we have such good, and have had such good, job numbers. The job numbers have been absolutely incredible.” -Trump</span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Here Kessler mixes up causation. Trump was speaking of the record employment before COVID, the shutdowns by states after COVID were not federal regulations, so in fact, Kessler would need to determine what unemployment would be today had unemploymnet not been so low at the start of COVID... but he didn't so...</span><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Kessler: 397</b><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Trump: 1</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">6) “When we started, had we not been hit by the pandemic, we would have had numbers that would never have been said already. Our [employment] numbers are the best ever. If you look at what happened until February a year ago, our numbers were at a level that nobody had ever seen before.” - Trump<br /></span><br />Kessler attempts here to substitute participation rate with unemployment, a switcheroo that any economist would tell you is utterly foolish. Participation rate is the number of working aged individuals versus total people enmployed or seeking employment. As such, participation rate will be low in an aging population since retirees, being voluntarily out of the work force, still count in participation rate even when they are happily retired.<br /><br />Moreover, Kessler makes the bixzarre hand-waving attemot to clainm that low unemployment before COVID was the consequence of "steady population growth" .... what....<br /><br />No, Glenn, there are any number of countries that would like to have a word with you on that stupid rationalization. <br /><br />It's so stupid I really want to give Glenn double demerits... but I'll stick to the plan.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 493<br />Trump: 1</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">7) “What we've done has been amazing by any standard. We rebuilt the United States military.” - Trump<br /></span><br />Kessler again attempts to define what Trump said in a way to create a lie where no lie exists. The truth is that the US military was growing under Trump even while Trump was spinning down foreign deployments.<br /><br />Kessler's lie here is the presumption that when a war spins down over seas that the US military shrinks. That might have been true back when our military was built on the draft in times of war, but not the case with an all volunteer army. The reason that the army shrinks today is an unwillingess of a given administration to replace losses due to retirement.<br /><br />In an all volunteer army the size of the military is entirely the discretion of the CiC.<br /><br />.. but then the numbers show the lie in Kessler's argument. Trump did largely shrunk US troop involvement overseas and the miltary grew, it didn't shrink.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 743<br />Trump: 1</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">8) “We took care of the vets, 91 percent approval rating.” - Trump</span><br /><br />Here there is a claim by Kessler that the 91 percent was a 2014 number, and that the number is now 82%. I give this one to Kessler.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><b>Kessler: 743<br />Trump: 58</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">9) “Our beautiful vets, they were very badly treated before we came along. And, as you know, we get them great service and we pick up the bill, and they can go out and they can see a doctor if they have to wait long periods of time.”</span><br /><br />Kessler calls this Trump's "most insidious lie" but it seems to be Kessler's most insidious tactic in this "fact check". Note that Kessler begins with the following:<br /><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #585852; font-family: FranklinITCProLight, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">Trump does not mention "VA Choice" but he is referring to the Veterans Access"</span></div></blockquote><p>.. Is he Glenn? Did you ask? Could he have been talking about the <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/30/veterans-win-trump-administrations-mission-act-reforms.html" target="_blank">MISSION Act</a>, a bill that he received a considerable amount of praise for? In fact, what Trump described in that statement is precisely what the MISSION Act was written to acocmplish, per Military.Com:<br /><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #292b2c; font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">"At its core, the MISSION Act reflects the president's vision that veterans need to be at the center of their health care decisions. If it's too long a drive to the VA, if wait times are too long, if we can't offer the services a veteran needs, or if it's simply in the best medical interest of a veteran to use non-VA services, they can now seek care in their community."</span></p></blockquote><p>You lied, Glenn.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 960<br />Trump: 58<br /><br /></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">10) “We got it so that we can sadly get rid of people that don't treat our vets properly. We had we didn't have any of those rights before when I came on.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">This statement is more of a muddle, and the kind of grey area that Kessler feels most comfortable in. The point of </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px;"> the</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act was specifically to grant the DVA more power to discipline VA workers that they didn't have before, and even Kessler has to concede that the rate of firing under Trump increased by a whopping 32%.. proving the intent of Trump's statement to be true, and unworthy of the designation as a "lie"...<br /><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><b>Kessler: 1,079<br />Trump: 58<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">11) “We also built the greatest economy in the history of the world…Powered by these policies, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world.” - Trump</span><br /><br />Here is yet another case where Kessler has taken a statement by Trump, decided what he thought it meant, and then cast judgement, again engineering the lie.<br /><br />Now, before I go to far on this, I should point out that the US economy has been the greatest economy on the planet for a very long time, and so long as it is growing it continues to be the greatest economy the world has ever seen. Even during the recession the US economy was the greatest in the world, but it wasn't as great as the economy in recent past. So Trump's statement, in that regards, is a "well duh", but that is because it is obviously true, not because it is a lie.<br /><br />That being said, when all of the economists that Kessler chooses to listen to claimed under Obama that the cap on 1st world economic growth is capped at 2%, Trump exceeded that in an economy that the Glenn Kesslers of the world had claimed were already recovered. <br /><br />So Trump's cheering the Trump era economic growth is not misplaced, and not a lie.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 1,572<br />Trump: 58</b></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">12) “All Americans were horrified by the assault on our capital. Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish as Americans. It can never be tolerated.” - Trump<br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">In this "fact check" Kessler inserts opion into a claim that it quite clearly true and tries to build a thought crime behind Trump's statements against the January 6th riot.<br /></span><br />But then alkso look what Kessler did here. Trump said "all Americans were horrified" and Kessler attempts to "debunk" this statement by making it about Trump and Trump alone.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 1,573<br />Trump: 58<br /></b><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">13) “Together with millions of hardworking patriots across this land, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country.” - Trump</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><br /><br />Sure, Trump bravado here to placate his base isn't actually true. But even with the statement set up on the T for Kessler he can't help but fudge with the "fact check", comparing the Trump movement to "the global Human Rights movement"... which doesn't stick within the clear qualifications of the statement.<br /><br />But the Trump statement is false.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 1,573<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">14) “Our agenda was not about right or left. It wasn't about Republican or Democrat, but about the good of a nation.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Kessler attempts to make this a lie by saying that Trump painted Dmeocrats as "evil"... then goes on to try and prove that by showing that Trump claimed that Democrat policies were not good for the country. So Kessler failed to show it was a lie, only that Trump felt Joe Boiden's polcies would be bad for the country.<br /><br />Not a lie, Glenn, an opinion.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 1,574<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">13) “We slashed more job killing regulations than any administration had ever done before.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Here Kessler goes back to his old methodology of determining what Trump meant and then attacking that. In this case Kessler has chones to read "job killing regulations" as "regulations" as a general term, and then tried to show the regulations didn't save jobs because... wait for it.. COVID.<br /><br />State regulations in the case of COVID killed jobs.. quite literally on purpose. THat isn't Trump administration regulations of regulation cutting, that is state. <br /><br />But really, Kessler takes a shot on his own goal at the very beginning of his explanation:<br /><br /></span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #585852; font-family: FranklinITCProLight, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">"There is no reliable metric on which to judge this claim — or to compare him to previous presidents"</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Huh.. well if there is no way for Glenn to determine the triuth of this statement then there is no way for Glenn to determine it is a lie. So we are left with Kessler establishing a lie from thin air... which is, at best, misleading, and by his own methodology, a lie.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 1,774<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">14) “We imposed historic and monumental tariffs on China….Billions and billions of dollars were pouring into the U.S.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">This one is a puzzler... in his explantion for why this is a lie Kessler closes with the following statement:<br /><br /></span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #585852; font-family: FranklinITCProLight, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">"Through Jan. 13, 2021, the Trump tariffs have garnered about $75 billion on products from China"</span></p></blockquote><p><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">So what Trump stated in the quote provided was 100% correct. Thanks, Glenn.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,022<br />Trump: 75 <br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">15) “NATO countries are now paying hundreds of billions of dollars more than when I arrived just a few years ago. It was very unfair. We were paying the cost for the world. Now the world is helping us.” - Trump</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">Again, Kessler shoots on his own goal in the closer:</span><br /><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #585852; font-family: FranklinITCProLight, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">"NATO estimates that European NATO and Canada will add $130 billion in cumulative defense spending through 2020, in 2015 dollars, as an increase over 2016 spending. NATO also estimates the cumulative figure will rise to $400 billion through 2024." </span></p></blockquote><p><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">So Trump's statement is true.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,158<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">16) “Perhaps most importantly of all, with nearly three trillion dollars, we fully rebuilt the American military, all made in the USA.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">For some reason Kessler decided that "rebuilding the military" meant equipment only. (Hint: It's not)<br /><br />But, interestingly, regarding equipment purchases, that 20% is actually a stand out. In general, equipment cost is about 10-15% of total cost with 85-90% of cost going to maintenance and personnel.. so 20% is high.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />But that is beside the point. Kessler doesn't even try to prove the Trump statement here is a lie, he just changes the subject.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,275<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">17) “The Abraham Accords opened the doors to a future of peace and harmony, not violence and bloodshed.” - Trump<br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler decides that "opens the door" is not something Trump said, and decided to evaluate the statemnt as if the Abraham accords were ending active wars between those states.<br /><br />This might be the most shameful of Kessler's "fact checks", and I think deep down he knows what an awful thing he did here... but mostly that is because I still hold out some hope that Glenn Kessler has a conscience.<br /><br />Shame on you, Glenn Kessler.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,311<br />Trump: 75<br /></b><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">18) “I am especially proud to be the first president in decades who has started no new wars.” - Trump</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br />In an attempt to make this a lie, Kessler points out that Jimmy Carter also didn't start any wars....<br /><br />Let's see.... 2020 ... minus 1980... carry the 1... <br /><br />Well gee, Glenn, that was <i>4 decades ago</i>. So it's true.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,312<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">19) “[We] renegotiated the one-sided South Korea deal.” -Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Kessler's gotcha here amounts to there was a South Korea deal and Trump renegotiated it.<br /><br /><i>In your face, Trump!</i><br /><b><br />Kessler: 2,328<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">20) “We replaced NAFTA with the groundbreaking USMCA — that’s Mexico and Canada — a deal that’s worked out very, very well.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Kessler decided that he'd rehash his South Korea trade argument here by calling this a lie because, while Trump says he replaced NAFTA with USMCA, what he really did was replace NAFTA with USMCA.<br /><br /><i>Got 'eem!</i><br /><b><br />Kessler: 2,486<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">21) “America outperformed other countries economically because of our incredible economy and the economy that we built.” - Trump</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br />Kessler again tried to fabricate a lie by deciding what Trump meant and then attacking it. He wants you to believe that China's economic growth, not its overall size, is the mark of heath when, in reality, such growth is a product of an China being a depressed economy recovery from being a 2nd World economy, rather than a matured 1st World economy like the US.<br /><br />What Glenn tries to do here is like claiming that a 90 year old man who malked half a mile, doubling his average walking distance, is healthier than a person who runs 6 miles a day because they didn't increase their distance.<br /><br />It's economically illiterate is what I'm getting at.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,515<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">22) “We also unlocked our energy resources and became the world's number one producer of oil and natural gas.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">When it comes to Presidents and the macro economy, or the energy economy, there should be a Hipocratic oath: "First, do no harm".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Look at the wrath a new Administration has reigned down on the energy sector, let's just say that, at worst, Trump was a better steward of US energy independence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Also, insofar as Trump did open public land for exploratoion, an executive order that Biden recinded, clearly Trump was telling the truth.</span><br /><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Kessler: 2,516</b><br /><b style="font-size: large;">Trump: 75</b><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">23)</span><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">“We passed nearly four trillion dollars in economic relief, saved or supported over 50 million jobs and slashed the unemployment rate in half.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler again ignores Trump's own qualifications in this statement "Saved <i>or supported</i>" and attempts to show that Trump didn't <i>save </i>50 million jobs<i>. </i>He then goes on to show that Trump's initiative saved 14 million jobs and never bothers to try and figure out how many jobs the initiative supported.<br /><br />That, Glenn Kessler, is misleading, and a lie by your own methodology.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,535</b><br /><b>Trump: 75</b></span><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">24) “[We] stood up to Big Pharma in so many ways, but especially in our effort to get favored nations clauses added, which will give us the lowest prescription drug prices anywhere in the world.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Kessler attempts to write off this claim by saying that the EO signed by Trump was "toothless" and would accomplish what he intended.<br /><br />It was so toothless that Biden, who raked in millions from Big Pharma during the elections, recinded that EO on his first day in office.<br /><br />.. why do you suppose that was, Glenn?<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,620<br />Trump: 75<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">25) “We passed VA choice.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Digging into the spreadsheet here shows Kessler played loose with what he was considered "VA Choice". Essentially if Trump ever said VA and "Choice" in the same sentence Kessler called it a lie.<br /><br />Even in his wrte up on the list he states that Trump meant the Mission Act. So it's not a lie, he signed an amendment to the VA Choice act... and Kessler makes that a lie.<br /><br />You all following along here? If Trump says he replaced a trade deal Kessler calls him a liar if the new trade deal contains elements of the previous trade deal, and if he amends a bill he is called a liar if he mentions the name of the bill.<br /><br />With Kessler it's "heads I when, tails you lose" for everything Trump says.<br /><br />Even assuming Trump calling the Mission Act VA Choice, it's not a lie unless Glenn can prove it's intentional. If Trump hadn't passed the Mission Act then Kessler might have a point...<br /><br />But he did, so he doesn't...<br /><br />But for fairness, I'll split this, and even hand Trump the remainder.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 2,728<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">27) “The American people pleaded with Washington to finally secure the nation's borders. I am pleased to say we answered that plea and achieved the most secure border in U.S. history.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />This "fact check" is just bizarre. Here Glenn tries to prove Trump is lying about boarder security by stating the record number of apprehensions at the Southern boarder during the Trump administration....<br /><br />.... I <br /><br />... but....<br /><br />Those statistics support Trump's claims, they don't disprove them.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,796<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">28) “We proudly leave the next administration with the strongest and most robust border security measures ever put into place. This includes historic agreements with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador...” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Kessler's argument here is that Trump didn't get everything he wanted with regards to boarder security, so it's a lie.<br /><br />It's not a lie.<br /><br />In fact, if you go read his explanation for this one you see that he actually shot his argument for #27 in the foot. But then that wasn't all that impactful since he already fed his argument in #27 through the wood chipper. All he had left to shoot was the foot.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,797<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">29) “...along with more than 450 miles of powerful new wall.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler's argument here was that Trump built onlky 450 miles of new wall, not 450 miles of new wall.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Busted!</i><br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,909</b><br /><b>Trump: 184</b><br /><br /><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">30) “The world respects us again. Please don't lose that respect.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler's argument here is a series of polls that show foreign people in various countries don't like the US.<br /><br />"Like" and "Respect" are two entirely different things. A marine in basic at Camp LeJeune may not <i>like</i> drill instructors, but they <i>respect</i> them.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 2,990<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">31) “Like all of you, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the calamity at the Capitol last week.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Glenn Kessler can't read minds, so any "fact check" of what someone else is thinking and feeling is a lie.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 2,991<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">32) “It's been tremendously successful, far beyond what anyone thought. We're stopping, in large numbers, the drugs coming into the country for many, many years and decades.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />In the same way that Kessler attempted to turn total apprehensions at the boarder into a proxy for Boarder security, he tries the opposite here, arguing that a decline in drug seizures at the boarder means more drugs are getting through.<br /><br />This is about as solid an bit of evidence you will ever find that Glenn Kessler is useless as a fact checker and an incompetent bufoon as a propagandist. He has used used the same argument twice, but drew different conclusions as it suited his goal.<br /><br />Again, I should award double points, but I'm fair...<br /><b><br />Kessler: 3,093<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">33) “There does seem to be a surge now because people are coming up. Some caravans are starting to form because they think there's going to be a lot in it for them.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Glenn Kessler calls this a lie because "there is no evidence of a surge"... the same Glenn Kessler who used the surge in arrests as proof Trump lied about boarder protection.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 3,094<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">34) “So if you read my speech -- and many people have done it, and I've seen it both in the papers and in the media, on television -- it's been analyzed, and people thought that what I said was totally appropriate....they've analyzed my speech and words and my final paragraph, my final sentence, and everybody, to the T, thought it was totally appropriate.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler barely tries here. Trump's statement is typical politician speak, and yes, people have determined it was appropriate. Not everyone deemed it appropriate, but it's not a lie.<br /><br />What Kessler does here is determine that HE didn't find it appropriate, as so therefor he'll count it as a lie.<br /><br />It's not a lie.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 3,094<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">35) “If you look at what other people have said -- politicians at a high level -- about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle, in various other -- other places, that was a real problem -- what they said.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler calls this a lie because Trump didn't name anyone specifically for supporting the riots of the past summer. I can show receipts if Glenn wants, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Ocassio-Cortez, etc. etc. along with Dmeocrat supporters in the media who spent time down playing those riots or even supporting them (Chris Cuomo famously asked where it said in the Constitution that protests must be peaceful...)<br /><br />If anyone needs receipts I'll provide them.<br /><br />Kessler is playing dumb here... or maybe he's just dumb, in which case this is a wash.<br /><br />Just kidding, Kessler is a liar.<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 3,095<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">36) “The impeachment hoax is a continuation of the greatest and most vicious witch hunt in the history of our country.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">The claim here is that even though it's all the same people, and all the same overstepping of Constitutional norms, that it's totally different.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">It's not.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 22px;">This is an opinion, not a lie.</span><br /><br /><b style="font-size: 22px;">Kessler: 3,096</b><br /><b style="font-size: 22px;">Trump: 184</b><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">37) </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">“In every region that we've built the wall, illegal crossings and drug smuggling have plummeted. Absolutely plummeted. In the Rio Grande Valley, crossings have dropped nearly 80 percent. In Yuma, Arizona, illegal entries have been slashed by 90 percent.” - Trump<br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Kessler gives Trump 1 lie for this for "cherry picking Data"... but Trump made a very specific claim here that Kessler tries to "disprove" by trying to prove something else.<br /><br />.. and he uses the same dubious claim that higher numbers of apprehensions and lower drug seizures both equate to a less secure boarder. There is no way to prove one of those claims without disproving the other.<br /></span><br />In other words, Glenn Kessler is being misleading.<br /><b style="font-size: x-large;"><br />Kessler: 3,097<br />Trump: 184<br /></b><br /><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; text-indent: -9px;">38) “Nationwide, ICE and Border Patrol have seized over 2 million pounds of fentanyl, heroin, meth, and other deadly narcotics, saving thousands and thousands of lives.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><br /><br />Kessler again tries to change the argument. Trump stated a quite clear statistic that ICE and Boarder Patrol seized over 2 million pounts of drugs and Kessler tries to disprove this by lining to the CBP database that shows boarder patrol ahas seized... over 2 million pounds of drugs.<br /><br />I mean seriously, this is right out of the link Glenn Kessler gave:<br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmKgflc7hZGO8J4eDq84TkEgt0Sa4HpF1ht-XhipZaVnXJCcAVQMftIAvFDVK0U0SwzChnN9GY4ax2el1ybNdAHFtO5Qy69A9Ue1-7LYyXTuKjc6bW2VM0FFeGmg4_OqfQ0d3ZpV_92yQ/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="647" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmKgflc7hZGO8J4eDq84TkEgt0Sa4HpF1ht-XhipZaVnXJCcAVQMftIAvFDVK0U0SwzChnN9GY4ax2el1ybNdAHFtO5Qy69A9Ue1-7LYyXTuKjc6bW2VM0FFeGmg4_OqfQ0d3ZpV_92yQ/w532-h278/image.png" width="532" /></a><br /><br /><br /></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />So Trump told the truth, buut Kessler determined Trump meant something else, and that something else was a lie.<br /><br />I'm seeing a trend....<br /><b><br />Kessler: 3,098<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">39) “We’ve arrested nearly 500,000 illegal aliens with criminal records, some with very serious criminal records of the type you don't want to know about, like murder.” - Trump</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">Here we have Kessler again deciding that Trump didn't mean what he said, and changed the argument.<br /><br />Trump gave no time frame to that statement, and would be read as over his entire 4 year term, and yet Kessler decides that Trump only meant 2020, and so decides that 103,000 arrests in 2020 is far fewer than Trump's claim of 500,000.<br /><br />So... let me do the work that Glenn Kessler dihonestly avoided, per the CBP page he linked to:<br /><br />2017: 143,479<br />2018: 158,581<br />2019: </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 18px;">143,000<br />2020: 103,603<br /><br />Total: 548,663...<br /><br />So Trump understated the number of arrests... so clearly Glenn had toi find some way of turning it into a lie.<br /><br />Kessler's lie.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 3,099<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">40) “We removed nearly 20,000 gang members from the United States, including 4,500 members of MS-13 -- probably the worst gang of them all.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />In this case Kessler provides no actual evidence to counter Trump's statement and passes a claim Trump stated regarding 3 years, rather than the full 4 years. So really Kessler is misleading again, claiming a lie when he doesn't actually have the data to back it up.<br /><b><br />Kessler: 3,100<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br /></b></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: 22px;">41) “Our most important reform was ending catch and release -- not easy to do; you're dealing with Congress; it's very, very difficult -- which is the functional equivalent of open borders, but even worse: It's catch and release them.” - Trump</span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />And finally this, where again Kessler fails to stick to the subject. The Trump adminsitration ended catch and release, this is true. Some jurisdictions have challenged catch and release and refuse to hand illegals over to ICE when they are caught.</span></span><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Georgia, serif; text-indent: -9px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why do they refuse? Because ICE will deport them rather than hand them a summons and release them with the hope they will return for a trial.<br /><br />So again, and finally, another lie by Glenn Kessler...<br /><br /><b>Kessler: 3,135<br />Trump: 184<br /><br /><br />Summary: </b>Glenn Kessler has so consistently flipped statements and built straw men in his pursuit of fact checking Donald Trump that it defies any attempt to excuse it as accidental. He is a paid liar.<br /><br />Of the 3,319 "lies" that Glenn Kessler documents on his Trump "Lie Tracker", a whopping 94.5% of those lies are by <i>Glenn Kessler</i>, not Trump.<br /><br />That would be about 11% sampling of the Glenn Kessler fact check cluster boink... enough to assume that of the 30,573 "lies" that Glenn Kessler attributes to Trump, a cool 28,878 of those lies were from Glenn Kessler, not Donald Trump.</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-49162495539598156252014-04-18T08:00:00.001-07:002021-01-27T07:50:52.074-08:00How Sharpton got his GigMany people are wondering how a person like Al Sharpton was
given the lead off to MSNBC's nightly programming, but it makes perfect
sense when you hear the whole story. Here is how it was told to me by someone in the know:<br />
<br />
Several Years ago Al Sharpton's limousine was on teh way back from a
Union rally in Western Maryland when the engine started having trouble.
The limousine was forced to pull off on to the back streets to find a
garage.<br />
<br />
Not long after getting off the main road the drive was hopelessly lost
and, eventually, the limousine was forced to stop as smoke began to
billow from the engine.<br />
<br />
The driver instructed Sharpton to stay put as he went to look for help.
Sharpton sat in his car playing Candy Crush his way. He would just sit
staring at the array of brightly colored candies on his screen trying
to see if he could come up with racist patterns. "Why are their so many
blues and so few yellows? Why is chocolate an obstacle!" he would
bellow and the begin meticulously destroying whichever candy was in the
majority. He could do this for hours.<br />
<br />
But not long after he had begun to uncover a conspiracy in the green
candies he heard something from the nearby woods. He peered into the
growing fog but could see nothing, writing it off to probably Some poor
homeless man, not really worth his time.<br />
<br />
But soon he heard the sound again, this time it was maybe two or three
somethings in the fog... maybe its some ecologists fighting the global
warming. Good for them, but not really worth his time.<br />
<br />
A third time he heard the noise, now it sounded like crowds of people.
Maybe, he thought, there was a rally going on. With this thought he
exited the limousine excitedly and carefully, alertly began to walk into
the woods in search of his audience.<br />
<br />
The deeper in the woods he traveled the more people he began to hear and
the more excited he got, but it was not long before Sharpton had
decided that he wasn't hearing a friendly crowd... he thought now that
he might have been approaching a tea bagger rally. Unfortunately he was
now too deep in the woods to be able to see the car through the fog, no
matter where he turned all he could see was fog. With this
realization Sharpton panicked and began running in a direction, any
direction, in order to escape his imagined foe.<br />
<br />
He quickly ran out of energy and had to stop, gasping for breath, no
clearer on where he was then he had been befo.. he stopped. Gazing
straight ahead of him he could make out the faintest light in the inky
blackness. With that his adrenaline kicked in and he began running
again. As he ran the light in the distance came in to focus. It
appeared to be a small shack. With his last energy Sharpton stumbled to
the shack and collapsed at the threshold and passed out.<br />
<br />
When he came to he found himself sitting in a chair in the shack, across
from him was what appeared to be an old woman . Sharpton found himself
at a loss for what to say because the old woman's face and exposed skin
were of indeterminate race.. could be white, oriental... jew or light
skin black. He couldn't be sure.<br />
<br />
"Welcome Al Sharpton" the lady rasped "I'm so glad you found me"<br />
<br />
"Who are you? Black?" was all he could think to say<br />
<br />
"My race is unimportant. What I have to offer you, is very important."<br />
<br />
He had to ponder this. Race unimportant? Obviously this is a crazy lad. Probably conservative. He proceeded with caution.<br />
<br />
"You are a white, tea bagger, Israel-loving papist... why should I trust you?" he said, measuring his words diplomatically.<br />
<br />
"Al, let me be honest, I'm a witch. I have been trapped in this hovel
for centuries. The fog outside this door was put there by powers
greater than mine to keep me here. Your stumbling run into my home has
been a great boon to me. I simply wish to reward you."<br />
<br />
"You're not Tea bagger?" he asked, intrigued<br />
<br />
"A what?"<br />
<br />
"... What do you think of Israel?"<br />
<br />
"I think Roman rule has been good for them."<br />
<br />
"The Pope?"<br />
<br />
"Not a fan"<br />
<br />
"What color are you?"<br />
<br />
"I can't even remember, my mind and body have long since been consumed in black magic"<br />
<br />
"Oh, <i>Black</i> Magic? I like the sound of that!" he said excitedly<br />
<br />
"Oh good, glad to hear it" the witch hissed through a gravely smile
"So.. your reward. For giving me a human trail that I can now track out
of this accursed wood I will grant you one wish. But only one."<br />
<br />
Sharpton pondered his choice. His lifelong goal was to be in front of
people, to get in their face, to root out racism everywhere it was and
wasn't. He was tired of the whistle stop tours, though. He wanted to
mass communicate!<br />
<br />
"I want a TV show" he said<br />
<br />
The Witch paused, smiling. "I will give you this.."<br />
<br />
"But wait, I'm not done with my wish! I want this show to be on a news
Network, I want creative control. Because But resist, we much… we must…
and we will much… about… that… be committed..."<br />
<br />
"Huh?" the Witch asked, puzzled.<br />
<br />
"GIVE ME MY GODDAM SHOW WITCH!" Sharpton clarified<br />
<br />
"Ah yes. Al Sharpton, you shall have your show...."<br />
<br />
"YES!"<br />
<br />
"You will have a prime time slot..."<br />
<br />
"Awe give it!"<br />
<br />
"On MSNBC"<br />
<br />
"... well... I guess that is OK"<br />
<br />
"Then with that, Al Sharpton, I must bid you adieu." the witch said as
Sharpton's eyes began to blur "When you wake up you will be back in
your limo, just as your driver arrives with a tow truck. Good luck to
you.... anchor man! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"<br />
<br />
Days later Al was contacted by MSNBC and the rest is history.<br />
<br />
Oh, and the witch also cursed Al so he is slowly turning into a Pez Dispenser.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-40183781343069505402014-03-12T08:27:00.000-07:002014-04-18T08:01:46.431-07:00My Big Idea: Healthcare Reform<span id="body0">As the PPACA groans and lurches forward towards collapse, many of it's supporters defend the bill with a simple, valid (albeit ignorant) question: Well, what would you offer in return?</span><br />
<br />
<span id="body0">Well, ignoring the long list of counter proposals offered before and after the passage of PPACA that already exist, I decided to think about this a bit myself and try and pull together some of the best of the existing counter proposals as well as a few big ideas of my own (which very well might also have been proposed before... there are a lot of counter proposals out there!) </span><br />
<span id="body0"></span><span id="body0"> </span><br />
<span id="body0"></span><span id="body0">My goal was to tackle the two big problems that PPACA was -- in theory -- designed to fix, but that in practice have proven unworkable or made things worse. Those two problems are: Affordability and coverage for those with per-existing conditions. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="body0">In general the balance has to be struck in creating such a plan that meets those two goals while not increasing cost to insurers and not opening the system to fraud. I think my 6 point proposal pretty well covers all of those bases. The critical piece of my plan that I separates in from the critically flawed PPACA is that it functions on incentives rather than mandates and tax penalties.</span><br />
<span id="body0"></span><span id="body0"> </span><br />
<span id="body0">Here are the bare bones of my proposal:<br /><br />1) End the
employer based insurance model. Make insurance a commodity that people
shop for on their own. Employers can choose to give employees a flat
pre-tax bonus for paying for insurance (this is mainly to accommodate
those who live pay check to paycheck and can't really wait for an annual
recoup of costs on their taxes)<br /><br />2) Open up interstate commerce
for health insurance. This will have limited effect, admittedly, since
each state will still regulate coverage levels in their own state, but
if states enter into coalitions to set minimum insurance levels in
common it will allow insurers to market insurance plans to larger pools
of customers.<br /><br />3) The Big Idea #1: Allow insurers to prorate
payouts based on the percentage of the previous year that a customer was
insured. Allow the insurer to enforce this for 3 months. The full
cost of expenses incurred in these three months would apply to the
plan's OOPM, however.<br /><br />4) The Big Idea #2: If a customer cancels
their plan in the first two years they will be required to pay back all
of the money paid out by the insurer on their behalf minus 85% of the
premium paid. So if a person incurs $10,000 in medical expenses and
pays $10,000 in premiums then the cancellation fee would be $1,500.<br /><br />5)
The Big Idea #3: Applicants who spent two or more years without
insurance prior to application must spend at least 1 year on a
healthcare plan purchased from the state high risk pool. This plan can
be a catastrophic coverage plan.<br /><br />6) The Big Idea #4: Allow an
unlimited roll-over of Healthcare Savings plans (HSP) in perpetuity,
with balances of such plans being transferable upon death to another
person at a 20% tax rate if transferred to that person's HSP, or at a
50% tax rate if withdrawn as cash. The tax penalty can be reduced at a
rate of 5% annually for every year the deceased paid into a high risk
insurance plan.<br /><br />The practical upshot of these 6 reforms is to
make insurance mobile, more competitive, and to incentivize healthy
middle and upper-middle class customers to invest in their state's high
risk pools for tax reasons all while giving the uninsured a pathway to
full coverage and providing systemic protections to insurers against people who
look to game the system.</span><br />
<br />
<span id="body0">I could just as easily add a seventh point that would include tort reform, but I think any such reform should stand on its own merits rather than be lumped in with a more universal reform. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-76776722743912248972012-08-03T08:53:00.001-07:002012-08-03T08:53:50.091-07:00Reid's Criminal ConspiracyHarry Reid, the featherweight politician and boxer has announced this week that he has a "source" that has proven that Romney has not paid taxes for a decade.<br />
<br />
I would like to float out there the fact that IRS tax filings are private and legally protected from disclosure by Federal Law. Not being a legal scholar I can not say whether Reid's third party recount of Romney's taxes constitutes a violation of those laws, or not, but if this "source" actually exists and is actually disclosing Romney's tax documents to Reid then that source is very likely in violation of federal law.<br />
<br />
Therefor, I demand that Harry Reid immediately disclose his source or be guilty of aiding in the violation of federal law. He is not a journalist so he can't claim any special protection. In fact, as a Senator he is tasked with upholding the letter of the law.<br />
<br />
So spill it, Mr. Reid.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-11377785998823698412012-07-24T07:43:00.001-07:002012-07-24T07:43:47.368-07:00A Tale of Two Statements<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">As
study in tone and message I have taken Romney's speech to Olympians and
substituted entrepreneurs and job creators... now tell me, had Obama
said the following would he have angered anyone?<br /> </span></span></h6>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">“Tonight we cheer the young business owners and job creators, who only
yesterday were children themselves,” Obama said. “As we watch them grow
their business, we affirm that our aspirations, and those of our
children and grandchildren, can become reality. We salute you job
creators – both because you dreamed and because you paid the price to
make your dreams real. You guys pushed yourself, drove yourself,
sacrificed, studied and came back time and again, winning and losing.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">“You business owners, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your
own power,” said Obama “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or
brothers, encouraged your hopes, mentors guided, communities built
infrastructure in order to promote business. All business owners stand
on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the
business owners, let’s also cheer the parents, mentors, and communities.
All right! [pumps fist].”</span></span></h6>
</blockquote>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> <br /> <br /> I think not.<br /> <br /> Now do the same exercise but substitute business owners with Olympians and imagine Romney saying this:<br /> <br /> </span></span></h6>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">
"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You
didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think,
well, it must be because I was just so talented. There are a lot of
talented people out there. It must be because I worked harder than
everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of
hardworking people out there.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> "If you were successful, somebody
along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere
in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American
system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in
roads and bridges. If you're an Olympian, you didn't build that.
Somebody else made that happen. The Olympic team didn't get built on its
own. Government funding created the collegiate athletics so that all
the Olympians could go to the Olympics."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"></span></span></blockquote>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> <br /> <br /> Would Romney have been excoriated for such a finger pointing and admonishing message to the Olympic hopefuls? <br /> <br /> You bet he would.</span></span></h6>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-1616657931246693622012-07-23T13:28:00.002-07:002012-07-23T13:28:39.258-07:002012 Presidential and Congressional predictions, Hot off the Presses!!!As a frequent doubter of Nate Silver's Five-Thirty-Eight statistics blog I have decided that what I should do is enter into a bit of a competition with Nate Silver regarding the 2012 election. Here is my predition:<br />
<br />
<b>Senate:</b> All candidates with a 5+% lead in the polls the Friday before the election will win, the rest will split.<br />
<br />
<b>Congress: </b> All candidates with a 5+% lead in the polls the Friday before the election will win, the rest will split.<br />
<br />
<b>President:</b> The candidate with a 5+% lead in the polls the Friday before the election will take that state, while the rest will split.<br />
<br />
Shew! That was tough! This is, in essence, where Nate Silver will fall on the Friday before the election, and both of us will be off by 1 or 2 seats/states on Wednesday the following week.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-40261464281454135092011-08-09T08:02:00.000-07:002011-08-09T11:50:41.335-07:00A Sense of ClotureI have been hearing for years now about how the Republicans have been obstructionists in the face of progress in Congress. There have been numerous reports in blogs and seemingly reputable news sources that the Republicans in the Senate have had a record number of filibusters since they became the minority party. The claims that "80% of the bills were filibustered", and the like, have been a constant drum beat by the left. But does it hold up to scrutiny?
<br />
<br />Well, no. Of course it doesn't. To begin with the civics challenged news media has made the very basic failure of equating cloture votes with filibusters. Cloture is a vote on a bill in which, with a super majority, the Senate agrees to cease debate on a bill and bring it to a vote. Filibusters are, in simple terms, a indefinite extension of debate following a failed vote on cloture. Cloture kills a filibuster.
<br />
<br />Following so far? Good. Well, cloture is not just to end a filibuster. Cloture is also enacted when there is such an overwhelming support for a bill that the mandatory debate time is pointless. In these cases there is a cloture vote just to shorten the debate on the floor even though there is no standing or serious threat of filibuster -- the opposition being far fewer than the 40 needed to break a cloture vote.
<br />
<br />So right off the bat there is a serious flaw in the Cloture=Filibuster argument. If votes for cloture were made with no looming threat of a filibuster, then those votes can't really be counted as filibusters. In fact, since a filibuster requires a FAILED cloture vote, we can only really count FAILED cloture votes as potential filibusters.
<br />
<br />But I decided to check the numbers myself and set the following ground rules for evaluating filibusters, filibuster threats, and non-filibuster cloture votes:
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters -</span> These are the bills that were successfully killed by an actual filibuster, or tabled to avoid the imminent threat of a filibuster. Regardless of the actual debate on a bill, any bill that fails cloture and is then tabled, will be considered a successful filibuster.
<br />
<br />This is giving the Democrat claim a lot of leeway, however, since technically there have been no actual filibusters in any of these Congressional sessions.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> Any cloture vote in which there are greater than 30 nay votes, but where the bill passed anyway. "Close, but no cigar".
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Clotures - </span>These would be any cloture vote in which 30 or fewer Senators voted against cloture, or bills in which cloture was withdrawn and the bill was voted on(no filibuster) . When the Nays fall so short that there was never a credible threat of an actual filibuster then these votes were simply to skip the needless debate in the face of overwhelming support.
<br />
<br />OK, with that ground work in place, lets look at the numbers for the 110th, 111th and 112th Congress. These are the Congresses in which the Republicans were supposed to be playing obstructionists. The numbers:
<br />
<br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm">110th Congress</a>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Total Cloture votes- </span>139
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters - </span>20 (14%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> 33 (24%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Cloture - </span>86 (62%)
<br />
<br />
<br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm">111th Congress</a>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Total Cloture votes- </span>136
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters - </span>11 (8%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> 40 (29%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Cloture - </span>85 (63%)
<br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm">
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">112th Congress (to date)</span></a>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Total Cloture votes- </span>25
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters - </span>0 (0%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> 8 (32%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Cloture - </span>17 (68%)
<br />
<br />And here are the total figures:
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Total Cloture votes- </span>300
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters - </span>31<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>(10%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> 81 (27%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Cloture - </span>188 (63%)
<br />
<br />
<br />So, in these two and a half congresses, by my very forgiving statistical method, we have 63% of the total cloture votes that were past in landslides, so no filibuster was even threatened. In fact, between the 110th congress and 111th congress we see a slight downturn in potential filibusters from 53 to 51, and the "successful" filibusters cut nearly in half. This is to be expected given the fat that the Senate was essentially filibuster proof for part of the 111th Congress.
<br />
<br />So how does this stand up to previous Senates? Well, let's do the same evaluation for the 109th Congress:
<br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/112.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></a>
<br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/109.htm">109th Congress</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br />Total Cloture votes- </span>68
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibusters - </span>11 (16%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Filibuster Threats -</span> 14 (21%)
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Non-Filibuster Cloture - </span>43 (63%)
<br />
<br />Well, that is interesting. The Non-Filibuster Cloture vote rates remained steady, and while the total cloture votes did double, the biggest change in that time was the number of successful "filibusters" by my admittedly stretched definition of the word. Well, obviously something is up. Total cloture going into the 110th congress shot way up in all categories, while their success rate fluctuated from 16% to 20% and down to 10%.. this is easily explained by the simple fact that a more evenly divided Senate is prone to more successful filibusters.
<br />
<br />But these statistics don't really play to the Democrats narrative. If it were the Republicans acting as the stalling party and obstructionists then we would expect to see a jump in the Filibuster and filibuster threat numbers (which we do) with no increase in the procedural non-filibuster cloture votes, which we don't. In this case what we see is that the 110th, 111th and 112th Senates just went cloture crazy across the board. There was no significant change in the AMOUNT of legislation introduced across the Congressional sessions, and certianly not a doubling.
<br />
<br />So, here is another interesting statistic to point us to the cause of the spike in cloture votes starting in the 110th Senate:
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">109th Senate, cloture requests by Senator:</span>
<br />Frist - 50
<br />McConnell - 12
<br />Bennett - 2
<br />Sessions - 1
<br />Reid - 1
<br />Domenici - 1
<br />Mikulski - 1
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">110th Senate, cloture requests by Senator:</span>
<br />Reid - 123
<br />McConnell - 12
<br />Whitehouse - 1
<br />Dodd - 1
<br />Casey - 1
<br />Bingaman - 1
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">111th Senate, cloture requests by Senator:
<br /></span>Reid<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>- 130<span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br /></span>McConnell - 2<span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br /></span>Dodd - 2
<br />Durbin - 2
<br />
<br />Huh, It would appear that Harry Reid is simply cloture happy. He is calling more cloture votes than any Senate leader in history, and getting roughly the same mix of results as previous Senate leaders.
<br />
<br />Finally, on the "80% of legislation in 2009 was filibustered" remark that I see so often thrown out in left wing articles. It is used as if it is so undeniable that there is no need to show the math. I have to do one last quick throttling of this lie that won't die.
<br />
<br />When these claims of filibuster -- that is the failed "cloture=filibuster" argument -- come up, the speakers are quick to point out that in the 111th Congress there were 136 "filibusters". Well, while that number is certainly higher than years past, does it equate to 80% of all legislation? No. It isn't even 80% of <span style="font-style: italic;">bills passed</span>:
<br />
<br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/yearlycomparison.pdf">Bills Passed: 1047</a>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cloture votes: </span>136
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ratio:</span> 12%
<br />
<br />.. and if you go by my accounting of actual filibusters and threats then only 5% of <span style="font-style: italic;">those</span> votes were actually in danger of a filibuster. I have no idea what kind of math they use to reach that 80%, and nobody seems all that interested in showing their work. So please, when you hear anyone spout this bit of nonsense out,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>ask them to show their work.<span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br />
<br />
<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-29928652494651940462011-08-09T08:01:00.001-07:002012-07-23T13:44:16.290-07:00The War on Economy<br />
It's about time. We as Americans have sat back and simply allowed the threat of prosperity to grow across this great land for far too long.
<br />
<br />
Where once we were a happy country of modest means, now we see people with more money than they need, flaunting it in our very faces! I'm sick of it! I would have thought that when a group of rich people built some sky scrapers in New York that this country would have said "Enough!"... but alas we have short memories. How we can see those buildings standing their every day and FORGET what kind of wanton prosperity raised them in the first place is beyond me...
<br />
<br />
Those rich people... they don't want to live in America.. OUR America. They have their own stores, their own restaurants, neighborhoods. What happened to the melting pot?
<br />
<br />
I used to fear that one day my children would grow up in a country where they would be tempted to become wealthy. I am so glad that we finally have an administration in place to make sure that wealth will be something my kids only read about in textbooks.
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-70648170122234092532011-07-13T19:53:00.001-07:002012-06-09T07:36:27.966-07:00Two and a Half Years in One Minute<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i>Pretty much how it happened...</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bolder !important;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: bolder !important;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></b></span></span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><span style="border-width: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b>Democrats:</b></span> We're here to fix the economy! Spend spend spend!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Ummm... your spending won't create jobs....<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> HITLER!! Yes it WILL!! Watch!!!<br />(.........)<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> It doesn't appear to be wor-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> SHUT UP HITLER!! Watch....<br />(.........)<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> See, the auto bailout still lead to bankru-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> SHHHH!!! It's not the stimulus fault! It's those evil corporations sending jobs and money overseas!!!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Well, but Chevrolet got a lot of money and they are still in bad shape..<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Nuh uh!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> They're not?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Nope... we sold them to Fiat.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> You wha-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> -SHHHHH!!! Watch something is happening....<br />(.........)<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Yeah, it's not working... and now we are 33% more in debt<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> Yeah, it appears there is something to the Republican argument... let's not spend so much...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> I really think you slack jawed yokels clinging to God and guns should give us some more time.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> Hmmmm.... Nope.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Hey thanks American people!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> You're only here because the other option is Ralph Nader.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Ah, check! Ok, then... well, first things first, lets stop spending so much<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> What just happened?! Is this because of the Palin Death panels? Because that was totally false.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Heh, yeah... funny though.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> Well, yeah, but really... it's about the debt. We're just not seeing a return on our great grand children's investment.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Well, we're living beyond our means... we should likely rethink how we're going to provide federal servic-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> -AGH!!! You are really going to kill all old folks!? Surely, American People, you hate them for this right?!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> ......<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> No look, I have some charts and graphs... if you look you will see that it's all Bush's fault...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> Yeah, that's why we voted for you.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> And we totally fixed shit, ya know?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> ......<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Anyway, Spending a shit ton didn't fix as much as we thought.... so let's tax someone, that always makes us feel better.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> So NOW you give a shit about deficits!?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> (whisper) not really... shhhhhhh...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> So anyway, the stimulus didn't work s-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> -What?! If the stimulus isn't working then explain how it is that Osama is dead!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Boom! Head shot.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> USA USA USA!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> UN UN UN... I mean USA USA USA!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Ok, but seriously, we need to cut the budget.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Nah... the great thing about huge defict budgets is they eventually cut themselves.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> .......<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> ........<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> HEY LOOK OVER THERE!! IT'S GADDAFI!!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Wha-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> QUIET YOU!! We have civilians to save!! BIEW BIEW<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> ... Ummm.. have we thought this thr...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> BIEW BIEW BIEW<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Ummm.. seriously, who are we protecting again?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> The peace loving free people of Libya!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> Yeah, US!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> And who are you?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> Democracy lovers, duh!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Wait... don't I recognize you from some wanted poste-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Stop talking crazy.. they love peace and democracy... and recoilless rifles...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> Hey, we're kinda pinned down guys... can you send some bigger guns?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Have no fear! We've called FRANCE!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> ....... well, anyway, until then I suppose we can take care of that black African problem we have. Auslanders aus, amiright?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> .. wait, you mean like Nazis?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> Yeah, you Americans... you were the ones that were Nazis, right?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Might as well have been with Bushitler!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> WHAT? NO! That was the Germans.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rebels:</b> Oh... well, all you infidels look alike.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> All us what?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> OOOPS! Connection lost... these darn NATO radios... always make you sound all staticy... and jihadist-y.. OH Hey, anyway... forget about Libya. We may actually really just hate Yemen...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> FINALLY! Maybe we can pressure the Yemeni goverment to...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> What? No, we hate the Yemeni Government...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> ... In favor of who?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Yemeni Rebels, silly....<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Yemeni Rebels:</b> ALAHU AKBARRRR!! WE NEED GUNS TO DEFEAT INFIDEL LOVING RUL-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Ah dang... lost connection again. But I could have sworn I heard something about loving in there... they're so cute.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> ........ ummm.. jobs?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> GEORGE BUSH!!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> That isn't an answer...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Of course it is silly.. it's the answer to everything...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> ......<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Or sometimes Dick Cheney. Dealers choice really.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> So yeah, about the jobs... Government spending isn't the way to go.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Totally agree with you there. We need to tax the rich.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Huh? How does that create jobs.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Well, we take money out of Corporate coffers.. and we spend it o-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> You waht? I thought you agreed with me that spending wasn't th-<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Seriously I thought you we kidding about wanting to kill all old and young people.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> What?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Seriously, watch this ad, it explains it pretty well (hits play)<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Video:</b> "In a world where one man... BUSH... wants all Republicans to eat old and young people, Democrats are the only power strong enough to-"<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Ok, that's it, you people are nuts...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> No wait, watch... there's a clever Venn Diagram that shows exactly how much "Republican" means "Hitler"... it's rather compelling. Both Republican AND Hitler are blue.. the similarity is uncanny.<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Fuck it, I'm done. Cut spending or we don't raise the debt ceiling<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> BUSHITLER CHENEY WITH GUNS TO HEADS TERRORISTS MOTHER COCKERS!!<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans:</b> Whatever...<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Democrats:</b> Pretty please?<br /><b style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bolder !important; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">American People:</b> .... So is Nader running?</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-90005644348865537102011-07-13T09:01:00.000-07:002021-01-27T07:41:48.301-08:00What can be learned from the debt ceiling debate...<span style="font-style: italic;">Don't trust the government.</span>
We are now into day 24,837 of the national debt crisis. It was sometime in mid 1943 when the American debt doubled, and we have been stressing about it ever since. In that time we have raised the debt ceiling countless times, and at least since the Carter years, rancorous debate and heavily partisan voting on the debt ceiling has been the rule rather than the exception.
We are not experiencing one of those exceptions.
But, there is something very valuable to be gleaned from this current debate that I don't think has been touched on yet, but needs attention. That is, in the political demagogic carnival show of the last months, the Democrats have essentially thrown out the semi-logical arguments that they have made for the need for a Government run retirement and health care program, and deficit spending to boot.
So let's address these arguments in turn:
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Argument 1) Market Driven Retirement accounts are inferior to Social Security because market accounts are subject to market volatility while Social Security is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States</span> -
Well, this is so easily proven a pointless distinction that I probably don't even need to point out the trouble with this argument. But I will make the point anyway.
According to the Democrats own demagoguery we as a nation are one debt ceiling vote away from defaulting on the US Debt... so, while the market may fluctuate, by their own argument, Social Security is a debt ceiling vote shy from going away.
This isn't really secure footing given that we are now holding this circus act at least once a year.
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Argument 2) Funding the US Budget with Medicare and Social Security funds is fiscally sound since the IOUs deposited in these accounts are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States - </span>
Well, this second point is even easier to dispel than the first. Again we see that when up against the annual debt ceiling vote, by the Democrats own insistence, the rationale for borrowing this money is shown to be comically false. What good are these IOUs without the affirmative debt ceiling vote? If we are going to default on our debt, and ruin the full faith and credit of the nation on this one vote, then how valuable is that IOU really?
Indeed, in an interview with 60 minutes President Obama claimed that he didn't know if the US would be able to pay Social Security and Medicare recipients as soon as August of this year... some three weeks from collapse. This is security, apparently. <br /><br /> This is what the President wants us to think.... and in thinking it we must ask the important question: then why should we trust Government with our security?
<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span> It should be clear by now how little "full faith and credit" really means in the age of huge deficits and debt. Efforts to cut spending are efforts to reinforce our nations faith and credit at home and abroad. Seeking ways to "increase revenue" and continue spending as usual is simply a continuance of the policy of cashing in on our nations waning faith and credit.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-86879477201024632712011-07-05T13:36:00.000-07:002021-01-27T07:50:09.756-08:00David Brooks: The Father of No-BrainersHere is a good example of why David Brooks can't be taken seriously, from his <span id="body0"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp" target="_blank">latest OP/ED</a> regarding the current fight in Congress over the debt ceiling.</span>:
<br /><b><br />If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. <br /></b><br /> By <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/republicans-reject-their-own-deficit-reduction-report/2011/05/19/AGTcR2rH_blog.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">previous attacks</a> (Klien, WaPo) on the Republicans it has been asserted that the talks broke down with the Republicans when they were offered a 83/17 split on cuts versus new taxes when the Republicans own study sought an 85/15 split.
So, if the Democrats are offering "$3 trillion in cuts" that would mean they are seeking more than $600 billion in new taxes. So it is a "few hundred million"... if "few" is defined as "over six hundred thousand".
<br /><br />Brooks is a liar who likes to make wildly inaccurate claims to support whatever subject he feels like flogging that day. He's a wordier Paul Krugman. That his Democrat readers gloss over these wholly inaccurate statements in an effort to give his statements gravitas is as damning of the reader as it is of Brooks. It stares you in the face, daring you to miss it... it is the very crux of his argument, and it's an utter falsehood.
But then he is also wrong in his panic over the debt, and again the answer is staring everyone in the face. <br /><br />The Democrats have agreed to cut $3 to $4 trillion.... lets assume that the $4 trillion is another lie by Brooks, but grant him that the $3 trillion is close to accurate.
So, what do we pay per year in servicing the US debt? Well, counting Social Security and Medicare IOUs that sits at about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Other_spending" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">$380 billion annually</a>... but the Social Security and Medicare isn't technically due right now, and we can't default on intergovernmental debt anyway, so we are looking at a mandatory debt payment of about $200 billion to keep from defaulting on our external debt.... and HEY, the Democrats have agreed to cut far more than that.... so we have found a way to service our debt for several more years AND save over a trillion in deficits at the same time.
<br /><br /> So picture this: Some benevolent alien race swoops into out Solar System, decides that we Americans are so awesome that they will pay off every penny of our debt... now imagine that in the wake of having that burden lifted, our Federal Government saw the error in their ways and cut $1.5 trillion from our national budget over the next 10 years...
Cutting that $3 trillion is the fiscal equivalent of that scenario, no need to raise taxes.
<i> CRISIS AVERTED.
Shew!
</i>Now, <i><span style="font-style: italic;">if </span></i>we could work it so that we cut that additional $1 trillion that Brooks is talking about, that would be enough to even cover increase in debt payments due to that economic recovery that we are supposed to be enjoying any day now.<i><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></i>Well, it would cover it <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401883172498352.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">with over $500 billion to spare in 2014</a> and $300 billion to spare in 2020.<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><div><br /></div><div>Since I have now found the US government an extra $200+ billion without raising taxes, I now have the authority to spend it (it's a rule, trust me!). I would like to spend $200 billion by increasing the NASA budget 2800%.<span style="font-style: italic;">.. </span>while cutting the NASA budget on green jobs and Muslim outreach.<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span> I would then like to issue a check to every US citizen in the amount of $1,500 annually in 2015, declining to about $300 in 2020 on the strict orders that the money must be spent.<span style="font-style: italic;">
</span>Wow, budget cuts, debt relief, and stimulus in one easy plan.
You're all welcome.<span style="font-style: italic;">
<br /><br /> (Update: The Brooks article has been updated to use the phrase "a few hundred billion" instead of "a few hundred million" ... now that the statement is closer to accurate, let the absurdity of the statement "a few hundred billion dollars" wash over you)</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-58351832291704074562011-06-28T11:35:00.000-07:002011-06-28T11:40:17.160-07:00Paul Rever Part 2<span id="body0">Well, as can be expected, with Bachmann rising to in the polls, the media feeding frenzy has begun.<br /><br />This week they attempt to maintain the "flake" story a little longer by catching Bachmann in misstatements.. and again they try to catch her in a candid, on-set gotcha regarding US history.<br /><br />But is she really that wrong?<br /><br />Here is the exchange that is getting press today between <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/06/john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father-michele-bachmann-says-yes.html" target="_blank">Bachmann and George Stephanopolous</a>:<br /><br /><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header"></div><blockquote><b>Stephanopoulos: </b>You have been making a lot of progress, also getting a lot of scrutiny. I am not going to get too deep into the "flake" flap from Sunday. But as you make progress in this campaign everything you say is going to get more scrutiny. And the Pulitzer Prize winning website, Politifact, has found that you have the worst record of making false statements of any of the leading contenders. And I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements. For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true. Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.<br /><div class="ubbcode-body"><br /><b>Bachmann:</b> Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.<br /><b><br />Stephanopoulos:</b> I agree with that…<br /><br /><b>Bachmann:</b> That’s what people want...they realize our government is taking away our freedom.<br /><br /><b>Stephanopoulos: </b>But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.<br /><b><br />Bachmann:</b> Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….<br /><br /><b>Stephanopoulos:</b> He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bachmann: </span>Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.<br /><b><br />Stephanopoulos:</b> Well let me move on to another one of your statements on the issue of jobs which is so central to this campaign. You said back in 2005 that taking away the minimum wage could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment. Where is the evidence for that? </div></blockquote><div class="ubbcode-body"></div></div><br /><br /><br />So, in this gotcha question George erroneously determines tat because Slavery didn't end until the Civil War that the Founding fathers did not work to abolish slavery.<br /><br />This only serves to make Stephanopolis look ignorant.<br /><br />But it goes on, and Bachmann argues her case using John QUINCY Adams as he evidence of the founding fathers who worked against slavery, when his father John Adams, or George Washington or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine (the last two helped found the first abolitionist movement in the US) would have been better examples.<br /><br />But then the media took her statements that John Quincy Adams from from the "Revolutionary era" to mean that she said that John Quincy Adams was in the Revolutionary war... which would technically be true, in a civilian sense.<br /><br />And hey, the Revere moment with Palin and this Bachmann moment intertwine since one of Revere's primary duties (and one of the few he accomplished) was to alert John Adams and his family that the British were on the March and that they were in danger... so being a target of the British troops in the Revolutionary war kinda makes you a part of it, doesn't it?<br /><br />Anyway, this is getting tiresome. Stephanopoulos, like those who chastised Palin, had the added advantage of having the opportunity to be prepared for the discussion in advance and they<i> still got it wrong</i>.<br /><br />More over, in the process of trying to catch Bachmann for her statement, Stephanopoulos goes so far as to roll out the same tired liberal "But the founding fathers had slaves!" bull crap that so completely simplifies the American Revolution as to make it unrecognizable and ignore the pleathora of evidence in the creation of the founding documents that opposition to slavery WAS one of the major drivers of the wording of these documents and for later amendments, and it was this wording that made it possible for Abraham Lincoln to declare slavery at odds with our nations founding principles and have constitutional grounds for his claim.<br /><br />In fact, Stephanoloulos is so backwards in his incrimination that he is at odds with Lincoln himself as seen in possibly THE most famous American speech of all time:<br /><br /><b>"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."</b><br /><br /><br />So Mr. Stephanopoulos, was Abraham Lincoln a flake?<br /><br />Let's not move on to the next question so quickly, there, champ.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-41157655978646557812009-03-24T07:54:00.000-07:002009-03-24T07:57:11.172-07:00Ok, fine Science Part 2Ok, seriously... we are way beyond the flying cars at this point. Somehow we have jumped over basic practical applications of known technology and into the realm of magic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13825">NASA Ghost Imaging allows a camera to take pictures of things it can't actually see.</a><br /><br />Somehow it "entangles" two photons, one that has actually bounced off the object, and one that is contacting the camera. This causes the photon that hits the camera to behave exactly as it it had been reflected from the object itself. And Ta Da!! An image is created.<br /><br />A point scored for science!!! <br /><br />Now, if an ESP believer person claims to be attuned with quantum entangled photons I will just have to say "Hey, why not! Good on ya!".<br /><br />It turns out I don't know <span style="font-style: italic;">anything.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-52477491136497409472009-03-13T11:48:00.001-07:002009-03-13T12:05:07.072-07:00A War of WordsI just wanted to put a thought to words concerning the ongoing debate about Obama's stimulus packages, health care, and condoms for Mexicans....<br /><br />I have a question for the Obama supporters that I need answered: Does Obama have an effect or not on the economy?<br /><br />If he does not, or if, as has been claimed for two months now, his effect is long term, then why the urgency in the bill passing? It would seem to me that long term decisions shouldn't be made in haste.<br /><br />"Oh, well..", I hear from the Obamanites "No president has THAT big of an effect on markets and the economy!"<br /><br />Ok, fine. Accepting that, then we have to assume<span style="font-style: italic;"> as stated </span>that the trillions in stimulus money and bailouts and TARPS is pointless?<br /><br />So which is it? If the trillions is a long term fix then there is no reason to ramrod it through the legislative branch. If it is short term emergency funding then it <span style="font-style: italic;">terrible</span> as it is addressing none of the primary troubles of the current economy, or doing so as a small fraction of the total spent.<br /><br />But that's Ok, because there are rumors about another stimulus package that may be needed because the first won't create as many jobs as thought. Which would assume that these ramrodded bills were so ill conceived that their long term effects are being downgraded before they are even implemented.<br /><br />Good thing we didn't think about them first!<br /><br />Speaking of which... what is the deal with the 2010 budget? $4 trillion dollars and they call it "responsible spending"? They plan on covering the cost of the budget through projected economic growth of 4% in 2010... uuh huh. Further, the upper 2% of the population will pay for it all... unless they are politicians, of course.<br /><br />So what happens if that 4% growth doesn't happen, Mr. President? I should hope that we would at least require Mexico to buy their own condoms...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-29872179953171303202009-03-05T11:30:00.000-08:002009-03-08T08:04:07.777-07:00Thoughts of the dayWell first I want to take today to say I'm sorry to Great Britain. The actions of our president were really, really uncalled for.<br /><br />For those that don't know this story (and most don't because only the British seem to care), Prime Minister Brown, much hated by his own people, took the time to fly happily to the United States to speak with like minded U.S. President Barak Obama about how best to take advantage of the current world financial crisis.<br /><br />So excited was the British PM that he took his historic duty of presenting a gift VERY seriously. After long deliberation he picked a beautiful pen holder for President Obama's desk. This wasn't just any pen holder though. It was hand crafted from the wood of a sunken anti-slave ship. The sister ship, as it turns out, of the anti-slave ship who's beams were used to construct Obama's desk.<br /><br />As gifts go, that is really pretty cool.<br /><br />President Obama, not wanting to be outdone, thought long and hard about the perfect gift for a British Prime Minister... there were so many options.. bust of Winston Churchill? No, he just returned one of those... hmmm...<br /><br />So the "Ready From Day One" president settled on: 25 DVDs, milk duds, popcorn and some coca cola.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/Just-wanted-Barack-Obamas-blockbuster-gift-25-DVDs-Brown-reaffirm-special-relationship.html">I wish I were kidding.</a><br /><br />Between this gaffe, and Obama's overture to Russia to help with the Iranian nuclear crisis --which amounted to a note passed in home room that said "<span style="font-weight: bold;">Will you be my date to Iranian Talks? Check one [yes] [no]</span>"-- it is getting hard to shake the image of Obama as a prepubescent boy.<br /><br />Ah well...<br /><br />Maybe we can solve the Iran crisis with a mix tape.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-2332914995292204722009-02-11T07:28:00.000-08:002021-01-27T08:00:19.248-08:00The Forty Million Pounds of Gorilla in the Room<div>Dear Science,<br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>I have tried, believe me I have tried, to love you and trust you. But things just aren't working out. <br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>Every time you convince me that you have a handle on things you eventually pull the rug out from under me. This latest news is the last straw. How am I ever supposed to defend you to the Sasquatch believers when I find out that somehow you missed 100,000 goddam gorillas for... like... ever.<br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>I mean, I guess I can argue that, even though we missed 100,000 goddam Gorillas living in the small country of Congo, when the discovery was made they were actually GORILLAS and not Sasquatches. But seriously, I'm arguing with some pretty unhinged people... I would rather not almost agree with their defense by using it myself.<br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>Seriously... 100,000 gorillas.<br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>I know I have held my tongue for a while. I tried to rationalize the discovery in my head for months... but I just can't do it anymore. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND GODDAM GORILLAS! <br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>At this point I have to just toss up my hands when the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch and Chupacabra believers tell me their theories and say "Why the hell not?"<br /><br /></div><div> </div>
<div>Sincerely,</div><div> </div>
<div>Me</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is all...</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3409899980939606614.post-50505983979380362062009-02-10T14:50:00.000-08:002021-01-27T07:57:24.617-08:0022 Simple Steps to Fiscal Insanity<span id="body0">1) Congress approved a loosening up of lending regulations so that banks can extend large amounts of credit to people with bad credit ratings(the sub-prime loans). For the most part the banking world took no notice.
Well, "took no notice" like a two legged cat sneaking up on a laser light.
<br /><br /> 2) Under tremendous pressure from grass roots organizations intent of giving the poorest Americans there piece the American dream the lending institutions agree to loan out cash, but do so primarily using ARM loans so that the final payout, on the books, is a nice large number... about 12% APR equivalent in many cases.
At this point it can only be assumed that the American dream is the dream of finally getting out of appartment living and moving up to living paycheck to paycheck in McMansions.
<br /><br /> 3) The banks then sold off the bad loans in tranches that they rated AAA because the APR was so high that even an 8% default rate would make money... and the defaulted homes could be spun around and sold for a profit anyway.
Money flowed into the market like beads of sweat from the forehead of an Ecstasy binging club dancer.
<br /><br /> 4) Fast forward a few years and and you get the housing boom. The boom was primarily brought on by the "no money down" sub-primes. People were given more money than they need to buy a house, and they paid way more than they should have just to outbid people for homes far more expensive than they could afford.
Some of it was driven by the "flipping" craze where $5,000 invested and a tube of Spackle was netting investors $4 million profit on a two room shack in Appalachia.
Between 2003 and 2006 the number of sub-primes on the books jumped from 6% to an astonishing 20%.
<br /><br />5) The music stopped once the first ARMs started rolling in. People couldn't pay these ARMs when they matured so they began defaulting. If they still had bad credit (and most of them did) there was no way out. No worries! The banks simply took control of the homes themselves. Now they owned expensive real estate that they could now flip! Full steam ahead!
Except all the idiots already had ARM loans at this point. The market was saturated with stupid.
Unfortunately the remaining people in the market didn't want to buy a burnt down crack den for $30 million anymore.. now that huge <span style="font-style: italic;">asset </span>on the bank's books was <span style="font-style: italic;">valueless</span>.
<br /><br />6) Finally the bulk of the first half of the ARMs came due almost at once in 2008. This caused a glut of housing on the market, and a reduction in value. The default rate grew beyond the expected limit, and suddenly the AAA bond ratings were exposed for the fraud they were.
There was no longer enough house value to cover the loan.... with or without excrement stained walls.
Boom.
To make matters worse, the banks, as a way to get even more cash for these bad loans, started selling loan insurance on these tranches to ANYONE who wanted them. So for every $1 billion in bad loans there was $2 billion or more in insurance floating on it.
It was like letting the whole country take out individual homeowner insurance policies on the homes in Southern California <span style="font-style: italic;">in burn zones while there are wildfires in progress</span>..
<br /><br />7) Absent any war chest the dumber banks started running out of cash to cover expenses, and failures started to eat away at the banking industry. Some banks had large enough war chests to weather the early storm, but to do so they had to also draw back on their lending. This began the market "freeze".
<br /><br />8) In comes Government to repair the damage caused by these critical failures of banking, policy and oversight. Their response was predictable... banks don't have any money? Give the banks money!!!
<br /><br /></span><div><span>9) TARP was born. The original plan made some sense. The Federal Government would purchase the bad debt from the banks at discount rates (as low as $0.10 on the dollar was floated around), this would result in filling the banks with some much needed working capital while still making it hurt enough to learn. In turn the Federal Government could collect on these mortgages, renegotiate some of the terms, and possibly even resell some down the road for a profit.
TARP was supposed to cost $700 billion, with a possibility of earning some of that money back in a decade.... so $700 billion, but probably less.
It almost made enough sense that the general public was behind it.
</span><span id="body0">And from the graves clawed the Zombie economy. Banking institutions that were not quite dead, and not quite living shambled about the market place picking sconces, art and marble tile for their new executive washrooms.</span>
<br /><span id="body0"><br />10) Well that didn't take long.... pretty soon the Auto Industry, Every lender on the planet and the porn industry stuck their hand out for some of the sweet sweet TARP cash. And most of them got it...
<br /><br />11) A few months into the distribution of TARP the banks that were supposed to be selling poison assets were holding the cash instead. But the majority of the money was funneled into war chests by the banking industry for two reasons: 1) They weren't obligated to loan the money they were given to loan out and 2) There was still that looming cloud of the <span style="font-style: italic;">other</span> half of the ARMs coming due in 2009 and 2010.
So angry was the old and new administration that they both took turns wagging their finger at banking industry CEOs and gave them a stern look. Oh, they would pay... they would pay alright. Their first punishment: Take More Government Money!!
The new party in power quickly struck a deal to hold half the funds from TARP so that the new administration could spend it more wisely.
<br /><br />12) Now the national economy had frozen business credit, frozen housing credit, and a full fledged recession on it's hands. The president then took decisive action by issuing a directive to the House speaker to take over the job of writing a <span style="font-style: italic;">new </span>omnibus bill to bail out everyone and everything.
It was rumored that the administration asked for the bill to stay under $800 billion, and in an amazing show of restraint they managed to get the bill done for just under<span style="font-style: italic;"> $850 billion</span>.
<br /><br />13) Well, that wouldn't do! The bill they presented, that was supposed to be a stimulus package for the American economy, was paying for everything from<span style="font-style: italic;"> cow insurance</span> to condoms for Mexicans<span style="font-style: italic;"> in Mexico</span>.
<br /><br />14) The opposition raised a royal stink over it and eventually a compromise was met. The bill was reduced to a svelte <span style="font-style: italic;">$819 billion.</span>
<br /><br />15) The country was then relieved as work began in earnest to free bank assets. It was clear that the market really needed the credit problem resolved so... wait, none of that happened. Who cares about frozen banks when there is <span style="font-style: italic;">$819 billion dollars </span>to allocate!?
Seeing the cabal for what it was the opposition party in congress put up a strong fight, and managed to rally the troops to a staggering 100% vote against the bill.
It passed 427-8. Damn majorities.....
The controlling party, in a stunningly brilliant tribute to Hippocrates, flew to an exclusive spa in Williamsburg VA to celebrate... possibly wearing togas.
<br /><br />16) Off to the Senate! Now in the Senate the opposition had a bit of steam to shoot down the bill. They had a citizenry that was opposed to the bailout 2 to 1.. though some would speculate as to whether people had partially come to their senses or were simply so confused that they thought they were getting a second shot at shooting down TARP... but no, this $819 billion was in addition to the $700 billion already allocated.
That's right... half the TARP was still unspent and Congress had already upped the bailout to $1.5 trillion dollars.
<br /></span><span id="body0"><br />17) Sanity seemed to trickle into the Senate as the chances for the Bail Out passing started to drop. The opposition party started to feel their oats and decided to make an effort at changing the bill ... somewhat.
They fought so darn hard that the bill was held to just under $900 billion dollars.
<br /><br /></span></div><div><span>18) At this point even the controlling party started to feel some guilt about the bill and, to show their good faith bi-partisanship, cuts were made!
After serious hand wringing by the Senate moderates (who weren't invited to the toga party) the $800 billion bail out was whittled down to <span style="font-style: italic;">$828 billion</span>. Shew!!
<br /><br /></span></div><div><span>19) Popular support for the bail out officially dropped bellow the previous presidents approval rating so the controlling party flew into action with hatchets and machetes to show the American people that they were serious about creating a lean bill. It was a fiscal blood bath.
Reports were that their diligent efforts had slashed the bill to a measly <span style="font-style: italic;">$780 billion</span>! That's almost as affordable as BOGO at Payless Shoe Source!
But popular support remained low.
Finally the President stepped up to the microphone.... </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>20) In his first official presidential press conference the President adeptly and fully answered all the questions he was asked ... about A-Rod. The public was left mostly with a theme of "I don't want to steal my Financial Einstein's thunder. He will Talk at length tomorrow and you will all be amazed at how much thought we put into this!" </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>21) The great day of enlightenment arrived to a resounding collapse in the stock market leaving many to wonder if GDP could possibly contract far enough to create black holes.
Flush with confidence in the fate of the American Economy the bail out was passed that afternoon for the low low price of $838 billion.
The $58 billion increase was apparently proactive inflation markup for the bill being passed. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>22) Super Smart Financial Einstein -- a man so smart that he is almost above the law-- still had to speak. The nation waited...
When it finally came his message was simple "Hey thanks for that $838 billion, <span style="font-style: italic;">I really</span> needed that. But what I am hear to talk about isn't the $838 billion... that is old news. I'm hear to talk about TARP1... well, no... actually TARP2... did I mention there would be a Tarp2? yeah, I'm going to need another $1 trillion dollars..."
The bailout, just in bills, now stands at $2.5 trillion dollars.....
That is 20% of the National debt added in a month if all bills pass.
Invest in gold plated canned goods.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0