Like most debates, once the issue is chiseled down to the facts and the deeper moral implications, conservatives lose. Having a female conservative take up where Limbaugh left off is not going to change any of the facts. It is also not going to change the element of misogyny and the highly personalized nature of the smear, CNN’s Dana Loesch And The Bullying Campaign Against Sandra Fluke
Amid the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke, CNN contributor Dana Loesch has aggressively pursued the right-wing campaign to bully the Georgetown law student. After announcing that she would call Fluke “whatever I want,” Loesch has called Fluke a “nympho” and used her radio show and posts at Big Journalism to claim that Fluke “embarrass[ed] herself and her sex by … discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges.”
Here again either Loesch did not hear or read what M’s Fluke actually said or has made the conscious decision to be malevolent and dishonest.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. [Fluke testimony]
According to Wikipedia Dana Loesch is currently married and has two children. Only two. That seems odd for a 34 year old woman. Biologically she is capable of having far more than two children. One suspects that she and/or her husband use some kind of contraception. Thus the conservative equation, not mine, is that Loesch must be a person of lose morals. The pill equals uncontrollable “sexual urges” according to Loesch. Loesch also make the false claim that people everywhere are being forced to pay for Fluke and her friends contraceptives. No one is paying for anyone’s contraception. That are or should be part of Fluke’s insurance benefits, which she and her friends pay for. If the insurance company provides them for free, once again no one is paying for them. the insurance company saves money by not having to pay for the medical consequences – like an ovarian cyst – for not having the contraceptives. So even in just pure capitalistic terms, contraceptives are a win for health insurance companies. I would say shame on Loesch, but she not only has no moral sensibility on which I can prevail, she is well aware that she makes more money pandering to mouth breathing conservative Neanderthals than being factual.
CBS’s Mark Knoller Falsely Claims Debt Has Increased More Under Obama Than Bush. Knoller is not an unpaid blogger. He is a journalist who gets paid to present facts. Just as doctors are bound by a higher set of ethics than the average person, so are journalists. It would have taken him all of five minutes to prove his do a little research and prove his math wrong.
In 2001, the national debt Bush inherited was around $5.7T, give or take. Some of that debt in 2001 has to be attributed to Clinton, just as some of the debt in 2009 when Obama took office has to be attributed to Bush. When W. left office in 2009, the debt was nearly $11T. That’s an increase of 89 percent.
Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.
And what’s behind that increase? Historically low taxes and historically low revenues — and the worst financial crash since the 1930s. There’s been no “binge” in spending, as Knoller wants you to believe.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats have been the second most fiscally conservative administration in modern history. The Big Dog, Bill Clinton edged out Obama just slightly. There is no Obama spending spree
Michael Linden, the director of tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, broke down the numbers. He looked back five years to January 2007. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the federal government would run a surplus of $170 billion in 2012.
But then something happened. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the CBO had changed its tune and was projecting a deficit of $264 billion in 2012. What intervened was the Great Recession, brought on by Wall Street’s recklessness and years of free-market “regulators” looking the other way.
Spending also increased in 2007 and 2008 primarily for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that Bush refused to pay for. All told, Linden finds that 35 percent of the differential between the CBO’s 2007 estimates and the reality of 2012 was caused by events that preceded Obama’s term. ( Let’s not lay all the blame on Bush. Conservatives controlled Congress for six of Bush’s 8 years in office and they never paid for their spending.)
The rest of the story — fully 48 percent of the differential — is one of sharply reduced revenues. When Obama moved into the White House in January 2009, the CBO was projecting 2012 revenues at $3.1 trillion. Now the CBO says this year’s revenues will be just $2.5 trillion, a loss of nearly $600 billion. Yes, the prolonged economic troubles are part of the equation, but approximately $335 billion is due to the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Of what remains, only 9 percent is attributable to higher-than-expected nondefense spending. Linden says most of that is recession-related, including the last of the stimulus dollars and extra demands on federal unemployment benefits.
What this proves is that Obama’s new domestic spending is not driving up the country’s deficit. Blame the wars and lack of revenues, policies written in stone before Obama took office. Had the Bush tax cuts never gone into effect, the national debt would be about $3 trillion lower than the $15 trillion that it is now.
Conservatives versus liberals. Imagine how much better the liberal side would be if the stimulus had been larger and conservative governors had not gone on a firing binge.
Conservatives could have sharply reduced the deficit, but as those of us not high on the kool-aid remember, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Boehner (R-OH) held the country hostage to keep the Bush tax cuts rather than reduce the deficit. Conservatives have one major fiscal policy goal – to disassemble the safety net. The bigger they can make the deficit, the bigger club they have to knock any spending. Since we live in a country where a sizable minority of the populace has declared allegiance to the virtues of urban myths, bizarre logic and venality, conservatives make bank robbers look like model citizens by comparison. Conservatives have and will continue to steal the value produced by labor – the middle-class and working poor – and redistribute it to billionaires. In the dark warped recesses of the conservative mind, this daily theft is what passes for capitalism. As a fan of capitalism this gives me another reason to have less than great respect for conservatives. They are doing more to give it a bad name than Stalin or Mao in their wildest dreams.
Also! One of Mitt Romney’s top economic advisors, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush and Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw, posted a GREAT joke on his blog yesterday [content note for racism and ageism]: “Budget Cuts: The Immigration Department will start deporting seniors (instead of illegals) in order to lower Social Security and Medicare costs. Older people are easier to catch and less likely to remember how to get home.” (emphasis mine)
It is a joke or what passes for humor in conservative circles. I’ve seem much worse. Though this is an opportunity to see how the psyche of the conservative movement works. The best goals, the goals that an lightened nation of Jeffersonian ideals should strive towards is not jobs for everyone, not health care for everyone, not income security in your retirement years. No, what we should work toward is making sure that some of the wealthiest people who have ever been on this planet not have to pay a few percent more in taxes. Anyone who subtracts even a few pennies from that tremendous mountain of unearned wealth should be caught in a net and cast out of the country.
Uninsured states are significantly more religious, based on the percentage of state residents who say that religion plays an important role in their everyday life. The correlation between the two is .51.
Politics and ideology factor in as well. Conservative states (based both on the percentage of state residents who identify as conservatives (.58) and the percentage of who voted for McCain in 2008 (.60) have a higher percentage of uninsured citizens. Economics also comes into play. There is a positive correlation between the percent of a population that is uninsured and the poverty rate (.58). Blue-collar and working class states also boast a higher level of uninsured (.40).
So much for that old sociological canard that given choices people will vote in favor of their own rational self interests. there is nothing wrong with having faith in and of itself. It is the way that some people twist faith to believe in wrong and force that wrong on others. Americans that study U.S. history should be familiar with the phenomena of twisting religion into something dark and extreme. The Salem Witch Trials were conducted over by some very righteous judges, 21 people were executed. Another three died in custody.
Mitt Romney can’t be held accountable for his extreme right-wing views, at least according to his campaign’s senior adviser, who said the candidate should be given a “reset button” on any positions he’s taken during the primary campaign if he wins the nominations and faces off against President Obama in the fall.
This doesn’t matter to me, but conservatives might not be thrilled.
We learned last week that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R), at a town-hall meeting in his Florida district, questions the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate. Yesterday, he made matters much worse.
At the town-hall meeting, it seemed at least plausible to me that the far-right Republican was simply humoring a strange constituent. Stearns didn’t bring up the “birther” garbage, but instead lent it credence in his public remarks, which was certainly irresponsible and offensive, but at least left open the possibility that Stearns doesn’t seriously believe this nonsense.
Alas, the congressman meant what he said.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), a top member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Tuesday said he’s not yet convinced that President Obama’s birth certificate is legitimate.
“I am, shall we say, looking at all the evidence,” Stearns told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday.
Anyone seen Stearn’s birth certificate? Didn’t think so. You know why. He is a secret plant from a terrorist organization planted here years ago to undermine the Constitution and pervert the real meaning of patriotism. That is the absolute truth or will be while I weigh all the evidence.
I got this picture off the Twitter thingy from @lisaling