USA Land Use Map 1970 – Romney and Ryan Are Running On A Secret Plan They Might Tell America About Somedayn

Land Use map of the USA 1970

From the legend at the top right:

tan – cropland
yellow – brazing and pasture, public land and private
green – forest and woodland, excludes special use land
red – special uses – urban and other built up areas, parks and special facilities
gray – other land – desert, swamp, marsh, sand dunes, and tundra

Notice how little land is set aside for parks east of the Mississippi. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t come along early enough to save the east from poor land management.

Panoramic view of West Palm Beach, North Palm Beach and Lake Worth, Florida. Published by W. K. Pleuthner in 1915. This is the kind of display map one would have found in places like city hall or a tourist office. While still a nice area to visit, also another example of land developers trumping thoughtful city planning.

Just in case anyone is not had enough coverage of the VP debates ( they were stilling talking about them on the Today Show this morning), The Real Paul Ryan Is Bad for America

There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas, and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again.

Setting aside the conservative spin on laughing and smiles, and ignoring the substance (How The Media Used Biden’s Smile To Deflect From Ryan’s Dishonesty)  America got a close look at one of the Young Guns, the allegedly brainy conservatives who is supposed to be the future of the conservative movement.

The Young Guns shared some overlapping goals with the amateurs of the tea party, especially an abhorrence of taxes. But there is no mistaking them for grassroots rubes; all three are career politicians and longtime allies of the hedge-fund managers, bankers, and other corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. For all they talk about private enterprise, Cantor, Ryan, and McCarthy all went on the public payroll in their twenties, and have cashed government or political paychecks all their working lives.

You cannot be a conservative without being the Lex Luthor of hypocrisy, so no surprise there. Despite that well entrenched myth of conservatives being for small government, they have always believed, betrayed by their actual behavior, that government and the plutocracy should piggy back off each other. From Paul Ryan to Sarah Palin to Michele Bachmann to George W. Bush we’ve seen conservatives who take every advantage of government programs, subsidies and special favors to get the inside track to money and power not available to the average American. Republicans see government as their own personal Politburo. That is one of the reasons for the resentment against Obama. Only the Politburo elite should rule. Democrats will not crack down on the uppity working class Americans demanding their fair share of the nation’s output. Great cartoon here illustrating the point, Ryan at the Trough.

Not all of the media, but much of it has set expectations about the way things are supposed to be. They would have probably been fine with a Biden win done the way they thought it should have been done, but it was done on Biden’s terms. If the talking heads on the TeeVee would like to try a little experiment they could try putting the performance out of mind and just read the transcript. The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh

The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney’s 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC’s Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well – (chuckles) –

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn’t have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the –

“We want to have bipartisan agreements?” This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, “That’d be a first for a Republican congress.” Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.

I’m convinced Raddatz wouldn’t have pounced on Ryan if he hadn’t trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we’ve all been living, Mars? It’s one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn’t followed politics that much and doesn’t know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you’re doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan’s court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look – look at what Mitt – look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is here’s our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent – we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation –

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz’s yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – “Lower taxes by 20 percent” – and then they’ll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

No Democrat could get away with that answer. Have you heard any commentary – from the broadcast media in particular mention this very specific point and how large an issue it is that the Republican presidential ticket is doing what amounts to faking its way through a job interview. Do you know how to use Excel? Well you know I’m kinda familiar with spread sheets, my roommate used to use them so I’m sure I’ll pick it up easy enough if you hire me. Democrats could not get away with, not because of conservatives so much as left of center pundits at The Nation, or the ones that get aggregated at Common Dreams, Paul Krugman at the NYT, and on and on would call them out on it. When conservatives lie and deceive, conservatives cheer on the new reality, while the press might say that Democrats disagree. Josh Barro gets into the nebulous nature of the Romney-Ryan plan, or stretch they made at lunch on the back of a napkin – The Final Word on Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

Mitt Romney’s campaign says I’m full of it. I said Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can’t simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies — six! — that “have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan,” and so I should stop whining.  Let’s take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as “analyses,” since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I’m not hating — I blog for a living — but I don’t generally describe my posts as “studies.”

The Tax Policy Center has done a study, an actual reality based analysis. Romney has had some friends he used to hang out with behind the caddy shack say that his plan looks really cool dude. Acknowledging that politics and political races are not all about being rational and factual, I still do not understand why Romney is polling over 20%. Romney and Ryan are no more than the high school brats running for student council promising free cupcakes if elected. What bozo brained human could take him seriously. Biden was not faking any laughs, it is genuinely difficult for a reasonably mature and informed adult to consider voting these conservative clowns dog walkers much less the nation’s executives. Mitt and Tagg Romney Are Not Capitalists, They’re Looters and Plutocrats

What Tagg lacked in experience in the world of high finance, he made up for with a vast network of political connections forged through his father, who seeded the firm with $10 million and was the featured speaker at its first investor conference in January of 2010. Romney also reportedly gave strategic advice to the company, which secured prominent campaign donors as some of its first investors.

Unlike most private equity firms dedicated to analyzing and buying companies, Solamere specializes in something else: billing itself as a “fund of funds” with “unparalleled networks,” it provides investors with “unique access” to an elite set of other private equity firms and hedge funds. Sun Capital Partners, the fund founded by Leder, is one of at least thirteen Romney-linked firms in Solamere’s network, according to a prospectus circulated among potential investors and uncovered by The Boston Globe last year. Solamere also has an investment relationship with Bain Capital, the pioneering fund founded by Mitt Romney.

Solamere, a firm predicated on its founders’ relationship with Romney, presents a channel for powerful investors to influence the White House if he wins.

 

Wait a minute, how could this be. Conservatives, legend has it, build things, utterly and completely on their own. Conservatives would never belong to a network of crony capitalists. Conservatives would never take the icing and most of the cake produced at the bottom of the pyramid by people who do actual work. Government is evil so they would never use government to enhance their power, income and build walls through which only the elite may enter.

Republicans are a threat to American workers, grandparents and national security

Black and White Cloudy Night New York wallpaper

 

Five Practical Reasons Not To Vote Republican. Politics are practical for some of us. For many it is a form of endless hysteria, a set of dangerous myths wrapped in red, white and blue, the rantings of a drug addicted lunatic on radio, false indignation, urban myths, character assassination or resentment over pennies instead of resentment over hard scramble lives that don not need to be that way. So appeals to practicality seem out of place, a soft spoken plea in an era where we actually have very wealthy people complaining about how difficult times are for them. Apparently some may be ready to fire all their employees or move out.

1. Economic Darwinism — Republicans want the Poor to Pay

Paul Ryan’s proposed budget would take about a half-trillion dollars a year from programs that support the poor.

[  ]…The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), another vital program that serves 50 million “food insecure” Americans, would be cut by $16 billion under the House version of the Farm Bill. The average recipient currently gets $4.30 a day for food.

Republicans also voted to end the Child Tax Credit, and favor a tax plan that would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Almost from day one of the Wall Street meltdown conservatives have used the recession to declare war on the working poor. Only about 2% of Americans are chronically poor. The rest are near destitute for a while, get some kind of job and stop getting assistance. So those at the bottom of the economic ladder do pay their way the vast majority of their life times. If our free market system was perfect we would not need much of a safety net for the poor, but its not perfect. While the tea smokers complained about bailing out Wall Street you sure don’t here any conservative running for office this election cycle talk about how when they are elected they’re going to go after the people who siphoned off $15 trillion dollars or more of the nation’s wealth and are still living in their McMansions despite their bad decisions. In ConWorld workers have to be punished for being workers, while the wealthy are rewarded simply for being wealthy.

2. Payroll Tax — Republicans want the Middle Class to Pay

Encouraged by the steady Republican demand for lower corporate tax rates, big business has effected a stunning shift in taxpaying responsibility over the years, from corporate income tax to worker payroll tax. For every dollar of payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it’s 22 cents.

It’s gotten worse in recent years, as corporations decided to drastically cut their tax rates after the start of the recession. After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, they’ve paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes.

Republicans claim that almost half of Americans don’t pay taxes. But when payroll and state and local taxes are considered, middle-income Americans pay at about the same rate as the highest earners. Only about 17% of households paid no federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009. And average workers get little help from people who make most of the money. Because of the $110,000 cutoff for payroll tax deductions, the richest 10% of Americans save $150 billion a year in taxes.

3. Job Shrinkage — Republicans want Young People to Pay

The jobs that exist for young Americans are paying much less than just a few years ago. During and after the recession, according to the National Employment Law Project, low-wage jobs ($7.69 to $13.83 per hour) dropped by 21 percent, and then grew back at a 58 percent rate. Mid-wage jobs ($13.84 to $21.13 per hour) dropped by 60 percent and grew back at a 22 percent rate. In other words, the median wage is falling fast.

Unemployment for workers under 25 stands at 16.4 percent, twice the national average. Half of recent college graduates are jobless or underemployed.

Yet Republicans killed a jobs bill that was supported by two-thirds of the public.

An academic study of employment data over 64 years found that an average of two million jobs per year were created under Democratic presidents, compared to one million under Republican presidents. Similar results were reported by the Bloomberg Government Barometer.

4. Retirement Planning — Republicans want the Seniors to Pay

There’s a common misconception in our country that most seniors are financially secure. Actually, Census data reveals that elderly people experience greater inequality than any other population group, with the poorest one-fifth receiving just 5.5% of the group’s total resources, while the wealthiest one-fifth receives 46%.

The senior wealth gap is further evidenced by data during the great 30-year surge in inequality. The average over-60 wealth was five times greater than the median in 1995, as would be expected with a small percentage of ultra-high-net-worth individuals and a great majority of low-wealth people. Further confirmation comes from 2004 Harvard data that shows rising inequality within all age groups, including the elderly. Indeed, an MIT study found that about 46% of U.S. senior citizens have less than $10,000 in financial assets when they die.

For the vast majority of seniors, Social Security has been life-sustaining, accounting for 55% of their annual income. Because of this successful and popular program, the senior poverty rate has dropped from 50% to 10%, and due to life-long contributions from working Americans the program has a $2.7 trillion surplus while contributing nothing to the deficit. Yet Republicans want to undo it.

5. Public Fire Sale — Republicans want Society to Pay

The common good is threatened by the Republican disdain for public resources. Drilling and mining and pipeline construction continues on public lands, and the House of Representatives has voted over 100 times since 2011 to subsidize the oil and gas industry while weakening environmental, public health, and safety requirements. The “land grab” is pitting corporate muscle against citizens’ rights.

Sadly, most of America envisions a new era of energy independence that increases our world-leading consumption of energy while depending on a proliferation of dirty technologies to extract it. Threats of methane emissions, water pollution, and earthquake activity don’t deter the fossil fuel enthusiasts.

It gets worse. Republicans are eager to sell public land. Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” proposes to sell millions of acres of “unneeded federal land” and billions of dollars worth of federal assets. His running mate Mitt Romney admits that he doesn’t know “what the purpose is” of public lands.

That brings us to the heart of the reasons not to vote Republican. Their reckless belief in the free market, and their dependency on corporatization and privatization to run the country, means that middle-class Americans keep paying for the fabulously wealthy people at the top who think they deserve everything they’ve taken from society.

There are some things which can be privatized, but for others the costs far outweigh the benefits – 5 Curses of Privatization That Will Be Haunting Us For a Long Time. Essential public needs are fast becoming the newest products on the market — with the benefits only going to those who buy them. At least in comment sections on the internet the conservative trolls have either never worked for a corporation or their meds are too strong. Corporations are monolithic monsters in many ways. The corporate culture of America is mired in inefficiencies, greed and inept management. I know because I live  and work in the real world. Like everyone else I have to deal with people like telecoms, internet service providers and utility companies among other industries as a customer. Sometimes things go smoothly, but there are also the nightmares of customer service. You hand over national parks to these people and think that some magic will occur that will make corporations better stewards of America’s natural heritage? Step away from the kool-aid. Corporate executives frequently make it to the top, not because they are great at what they do, but because they were the best manipulators, ass kissers or had the right connections.

Memo to Joe Biden about debate with Ryan

Emphasize these points: Ryan’s budget turns Medicare into vouchers. It includes the same $716 billion of savings Romney last week accused the President of cutting out of Medicare – but instead of getting it from providers he gets it from the elderly.

It turns Medicaid over to cash-starved states, with even less federal contribution. This will hurt the poor as well as middle-class elderly in nursing homes.

Over 60 percent of its savings come out of programs for lower-income Americans – like Pell grants and food stamps.

Yet it gives huge tax cuts to the top 1 percent – some $4.7 trillion over the next decade. (This is the same top 1 percent, you might add, who have reaped 93 percent of the gains from the recovery, whose stock portfolios have regained everything they lost and more, and who are now taking home a larger share of total income than at any time in the last eighty years and paying the lowest taxes than at any time since before World War II.)

As a result it doesn’t reduce the federal debt at all. In fact, it worsens it.

On top of all this, Ryan is on record – as is Romney – for wanting to repeal both ObamaCare (taking coverage away from 30 million Americans) and the Dodd-Frank law (thereby giving cover to Wall Street).

Your challenge will be get this across firmly and clearly, with an appropriate degree of indignation – on a medium that rewards style over substance, glibness over detail, and optimistic happy talk over grim reality.

My suggestion: Be cheerfully aggressive. Take Ryan on directly and sharply but do so with a smile. Force him to take responsibility for the regressiveness of his budget and the radicalism of his ideology.

Prepare your closing carefully (unlike the President seemed to have done last week), and tell America the unvarnished truth: Romney and Ryan plan to do a reverse Robin Hood at a time in our nation’s history when the rich have never had it so good while the rest haven’t been as economically insecure since the Great Depression.

Ryan, like Romney, is determined to defend every penny of people who are completely disconnected from the context of how they made their money. Conservatives are willfully blind to all the complexities of a modern economy. They have a Ayn Rand cartoon character view of how capital is created. They’re the saints of wealth at the top of the mountain who got their all on their own. And to make Barack Obama or any Democrat the demon determined to drag them down is laughable. Increasing taxes to what they were under the Clinton administration is no where near the end of prosperity or capitalism. The only reason that morons like Ryan get elected is that sadly, many voters are even dumber or more gullible them he is.

This is not some hot off the presses story that is going to change many minds, but just another tell-tale part of the Romney trail. How when it comes down to the choice between the values he says he has and money, Mitt always goes with the cash. Mitt Romney Lined His Pockets Pimping Big Tobacco In Russia

Which brings me back to my original question: Is there a moral question involved when profits depend on promoting a product clearly proven to cause health problems and which is banned from one’s own religion?

It’s not an easy question to me. If Romney were not Mormon, he would still have to wrestle with whether it was a good idea to introduce products into an emerging market which only harmed people. There’s no question now that tobacco does harm and there was no question then. So even without the Mormon ban on tobacco, how is pimping tobacco products in Russia a moral and right thing to do?

One last bit. It seems that House Republicans lead by the sleazy Darrell Issa (R), in their unhinged zeal to pin blame for the embassy attack in Libya, may have exposed the CIA to some blow back, Letting us in on a secret

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

…The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.

Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd.

The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi.

Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.

Republicans are a threat to grandpa and national security. That is not news, they been like this for years and have no plans to change.

Forest Boardwalk wallpaper – Mitt Romney, Our Mr. Doublethink

green, relaxing, nature

Forest Boardwalk wallpaper

 

I’d say do not worry about the polls, except that it is always best for any campaign to run like they are a point or two behind. Nate Silver shows that Romney’s prospects have improved, but the presidential race in general has not become the blow-out that conservatives are touting,  A Great Poll for Romney, in Perspective

In both cases, the numbers looked more like pre-debate data than the stronger numbers that Mr. Romney has been receiving since then. On average between the Democratic convention and the debate, the Rasmussen poll showed Mr. Obama with a 0.7-point lead (the Rasmussen poll is Republican-leaning relative to the consensus), while the Gallup poll had Mr. Obama ahead by an average of 3.4 points.

A third national tracking poll, an online tracking poll published by the RAND Corporation, showed essentially no change from Sunday. All of this seemed to be consistent with a story in which Mr. Romney’s debate bounce was receding some. (A fourth tracking poll, from Ipsos, had not been published as of the time we ran our forecast on Monday.)

The swing state polls published on Monday might best be described as being OK for Mr. Obama. He led in polls of Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and in two polls of Michigan. In all cases, Mr. Obama’s lead was small. However, this particular group of pollsters had shown reasonably unfavorable numbers for Mr. Obama in the same states before. Three of the polls actually moved toward Mr. Obama from the numbers that the same polling firms had published before the debates.

[  ]…But were it not for the Pew poll, our forecast would have been unchanged from Monday, with Mr. Romney’s chances holding at 21.6 percent.

Romney’s unfavorables are still way above President Obamas. People just do not like Romney and they do not like him because he cannot overcome the trust issue. When does Romney stand on the issue that means the most to you – well just about everywhere. Name the stance and he has taken it. he is back to being indistinguishable from Obama on Middle-East policy – Which way is Romney’s foreign policy wind sock blowing today, Romney Endorses Middle East Peace Process He Mocked. Though give him a day or two and he’ll have another policy. Paul Ryan is not doing Romney any favors. Ryan was supposed to be the know-it all-wonk. Once the curtain was pulled back it seems that Ryan is all PowerPoint and no substance – unless you think gutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for millionaires is substance. When facts fail them, as they usually do, Cons like Ryan have relied on something approximating charm. Well we had the 60 Minutes interview in which Ryan would not explain the substance of his economic polices because all the yahoos watching could not possibly understand and now, Paul Ryan Gets Testy And Ends Interview. Running for the Vice President of the USA, Ryan and his hired hack explained that the reporter ran over the allotted time. Which is always a good reason for a conservative to throw a temper tantrum.

While I was looking through my notes for something else I came across what Republicans think of Mitt Romney. 10 Things Mitt Romney’s Republicans Said About Primary Opponents Said About Bain

Romney has placed his record at Bain at the center of his campaign. In April for example, Romney said, “You might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true…And after 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery!” (Multiple independent fact checkers have concluded that Romney’s claims on job creation at Bain are simply false.)

On Monday, President Obama took Romney at his word and noted that the former Massachusetts governor’s record at Bain Capital is “not a distraction” but “what this campaign is going to be about.” Romney’s Republican primary opponents agreed, and in the last six months offered criticism of his tenure at Bain that make Obama’s remarks sound tame by comparison.

Here are the top 10 comments about Bain from Romney’s Republican rivals:

1. “The idea that you’ve got private equity companies that come in and take companies apart so they can make profits and have people lose their jobs, that’s not what the Republican Party’s about.” — Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/12/12]

2. “The Bain model is to go in at a very low price, borrow an immense amount of money, pay Bain an immense amount of money and leave. I’ll let you decide if that’s really good capitalism. I think that’s exploitation.” — Newt Gingrich [New York Times, 1/17/12]

3. “Instead of trying to work with them to try to find a way to keep the jobs and to get them back on their feet, it’s all about how much money can we make, how quick can we make it, and then get out of town and find the next carcass to feed upon” — Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]

4. “We find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job.” — Newt Gingrich [Globe and Mail, 1/9/12]

5. “Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed” — Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/9/12]

6) “He claims he created 100,000 jobs. The Washington Post, two days ago, reported in their fact check column that he gets three Pinocchios. Now, a Pinocchio is what you get from The Post if you’re not telling the truth.” — Newt Gingrich [1/13/12, NBC News]

7. “There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business, and I happen to think that’s indefensible” — Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]

8. “If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years, then I would be glad to then listen to him” — Newt Gingrich [Mediaite, 12/14/11]

9. “If you’re a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it.” — Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/8/12]

10. “They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton” — Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]

When I or another progressive observer notes Romney’s vision of the USA and our ideals, we see someone who sees America and life as something to exploit, to loot, to make an essay dollar. It also seems that in their saner moments Republicans see Romney in much the same way. I like money and free markets, Romney likes picking the bones of the vulnerable. I, like most Americans like and work to have a certain level of material comfort. Romney sees himself as entitled royalty. He craves money in the thoughtless crazed way that addicts crave drugs; it doesn’t matter who gets hurt as long as Romney and the other sugar daddies in the GOP get their fix. Most Americans balance their need and desire for material goods with other values, Romney and the Republicans who think like him – the vast majority of the conservative movement – esteem money above all other values. Except apparently during presidential primaries.

The Great Recession should have been a jolt to the national conscience. A hand full of people who posses historic levels of wealth crashed the economy. They came out of that disaster unscathed. Having left most of the world in economic turmoil, what lesson did Romney, Ryan and conservatives learn. That in order to right the economic ship sacrifices must be made. No, not the people who have every material comfort money can buy. Romney, Ryan and the conservative movement have convinced the media certainly and much of the public that those who caused the worse economic collapse in over eighty years should not have to step up and do the right and moral think for the nation and the people. No, the people must sacrifice their meager safety net with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Cuts to education, infrastructure and scientific research. The people who applauded Mitt Romney “performance” at the first debate were not applauding Mitt Romney, they were applauding a dangerous, regressive and reality denying mindset. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” George Orwell, 1984. We seem to have a political movement that thinks first about what is best for them regardless of the consequences and has nothing but contempt for the ideals of the United States. That have turned reality upside down and inside out. The conservative concept of patriotism is exactly the opposite. They can and do warp it in the flag and of course they accuse anyone who disagrees of being anti-American because that is exactly what the enemies of real freedom, real peace and real idealism would do. “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell, 1984

Can Magic Solve Real Problems, Mitt Romney Seems to Think So

Proto-fascist Tucker Carlson To Journalists: Pay Attention To Me Or You’re “Contemptible” and Biased

At what point does Romney Pay for his Vicious Assault on Facts and our Intelligence?. Maybe never. Between the broadcast media in particular who is uncomfortable with calling a lie a lie, and the Americans who actually want to be lied to, conservatives get a pass on their utter lack of ethics.

Romney’s Major Reversal On Foreign Aid

 

The Real Mitt Romney is Blind To The Massive Failures of His Recycled Agenda

 

Blue City Blur wallpaper

Romney has been running for president for about 12 years or so. During that time he has struggled to define himself. he has confused the whole process by reinvented himself multiple times, shifting back and forth between what passes for a moderate and panderer extraordinaire to the radical right. There are probably several reasons for a grown adult having such momentous problems of self discovery. The number one reason seems to be that what Mitt is, the essential Mitt is ultimately a shallow individual. His business career is what defines him. He mastered the art of the leveraged buyout – a modern-day form of theft via spreadsheet. Minimal effort, maximum profits. From the insular bunker of his office he ruined lives and claimed he was an unappreciated knight in shining armor. He claimed he did it all on his own as he benefited from government subsidies and loopholes in the law that allowed him to make a profit regardless of how badly he and Bain screwed up. The essential Romney is a cold calculating machine wearing blinders to issues of morality, community and simple good citizenship. From the outside it looks as though he asked himself what a patriot would do and done the opposite. Does that remind you of anyone, say George W. Bush. To say that Romney is like Bush is so obvious it is like commenting the sky is blue. Much of what Romney promises to bring to his role as King Mitt of Amerika is a replay of Bush ( same foreign policy team, much of the same economic advisers or carbon copies). Until they feel another craving for historical revisionism and decide that Bush was an unappreciated angel, for now the Right has generally decided that the Bush-Cheney era was an apparition ( during six of those years conservatives like Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) controlled all three branches of government). When they look back on those years and the decisions that were made – like not paying for anything they put on the national credit card, they see a failure of personalities. They still believe that we can use tax cuts and deregulation to pave the way to the promised land of gold-plated toothbrushes and pixie dust pudding. Conservatives do not believe, and certainly Mitt Romney does not believe that Bush-Cheney failed because of conservative policies. Romney, Ryan and the conservative movement will never blame conservative orthodoxy. Conservatism is never wrong, never has to correct course. Unless upping the dosage of the same failed medicine is considered a correction. Certainly from Nixon to Reagan to Bush 43 and all the conservative federal officials in between, conservatism has been one massive institutional failure. Never mind that says the conservative psyche, some personnel changes will right the ship. So if Mitt Romney comes out in a debate, sprouts wings and flies, well that makes for an interesting performance, but what about substance. Why is he allowed to put some fresh paint on the rotten zombie of conservatism and call it a winning strategy for governing. And why is so much of the media calling this morbid rehash of failure the revival. At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes. Romney, like Bush thinks deceit is a contest and is determined to be among the champions. Facts Matter and Mitt Romney Didn’t Deliver. Some of the media actually did its job, “CNBC Fact Check: “Romney again tonight did not say specifically how he would pay for his proposed across the board tax cut.” As some other observers have already noted, performance, appearances always play a role in debates, but that does not mean that trying for an Oscar in mendacity and shameless hubris should win any accolades, The First Debate: Mitt Romney’s Five Biggest Lies. Not the entire public obviously, but much of the public and how they take measure of what is best for the nation is bewildering. They’ll test a watch to see if its real gold, they’ll send a badly cooked meal back and they’ll insist on a written warranty for their new car, yet so many of these same people will not raise one finger of objection to being victimized by another unctuous miscreant.

Truthers. Birthers. We’re going to need a name for the latest conspiracy-mongers: on job statistics

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers
— @jack_welch via Twitterrific

Jack Welch’s secretary says the former chairman and CEO of General Electric is in meetings for the rest of the day and unavailable to discuss his Tweets.
In regards to today’s Jobs report—I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here…
http://t.co/…
— @AllenWest via web

I don’t think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect.
— @conncarroll via web

The extremely bad news is that I don’t believe a word of the unemployment rate. Sad. The numbers are too illogical and don’t make sense.
— @stevelemois via TweetDeck

Ezra Klein gets it exactly right:

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000. […]

Mitt Romney of course –  who had one of the worse records ever as a job creator while governor, said they he could do better. We need more jobs and better paying jobs as corporate America continues to bring in massive wealth, but the voices from the tin foil chamber just can’t stick to being sane. US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

Old School House Autumn wallpaper – The proposition that there are anti-capitalist Democrats is as much a myth as unicorns

Old School House Autumn wallpaper

 

Hannity and Carlson hype a 2007 Obama video and prove they’re having an ethnic nervous breakdown

I’m promoting a book that says we need to give most white people the benefit of the doubt: Most of us aren’t in revolt against multiracial America, or the president who heralded its arrival before many were ready.

But sadly, some white people are just that crazy, and Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are their Pied Pipers, leading them off a cliff.

Tuesday night they hyped a 2007 Barack Obama speech to a group of black ministers at Hampton University in Virginia, and they engaged in the most rancid racial fear-mongering I’ve seen in a long time. Hannity hailed the speech as “a glimpse into the mind of the real Barack Obama,” and he tried out his own black preacher voice for special effect. Carlson insisted Obama was preaching racial division to his black audience and sputtered, “This is not a dog whistle, this is a dog siren!”

He would know.

Mainly, their complaint came down to: How dare a black president (or at the time, presidential candidate) talk to a black audience about black poverty and suffering! And the legacy of slavery, and the endurance of racism! Has he no shame?

If we’re going to talk about dog whistles and coded language than let’s talk about the fact that Carlson and his fellow racist ran this same video with the same hype five years ago – RERUN: Fox, Carlson, Drudge Attacked Obama’s Hampton Speech Five Years Ago. Let’s talk about Matt Drudge’s  history of race baiting. Let’s talk about these same conservatives talking about a cadence change in then Senator Obama’s Hampton speech that supposedly he never uses. It is remarkable that it is Obama’s speech that they find offensive and not the dismal failure of a Republican administration to respond to an emergency. It is a scandal that these conservatives without the ethics of a pile cockroach dung find that speech more offensive than police gunning down New Orleans citizens in the street – 5 Ex-Officers Sentenced in Post-Katrina Shootings. America owes Carlson, Drudge, Hannity and Fox some gratitude for reminding everyone in the United States that conservatives have a difficult to impossible time distinguishing morality from immorality. The recent not very subtle racist dog whistle has not stopped with that reprehensible squad of Republican media icons,  Paul Ryan Fears the 30 Percent

Mitt Romney, in his infamous secretly recorded remarks, divided the American electorate into the lazy-entitled-non-taxpaying 47 percent who support President Obama, and everybody else. Ryan Grim has a speech by Paul Ryan using a different (and, from the right-wing perspective, more hopeful) division of 70-30:

“Seventy percent of Americans want the American dream. They believe in the American idea. Only 30 percent want their welfare state,” Ryan said. “Before too long, we could become a society where the net majority of Americans are takers, not makers.”

Romney’s 47 percent mashed together the proportion of Americans not owing federal income taxes with the proportion of Obama voters. Where does Ryan’s 30 percent come from?

The figure seems to have been concocted by Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks made the 70-30 case in The Battle, published two years ago, a book I reviewed. Like Romney’s 47 percent riff, the 70-30 argument is an attempt to apply to the Obama years an Ayn Rand–inspired analysis dividing society into virtuous makers and parasitic takers.

And this is from  Jonathan Chait’s review of The Battle,

In his general approach, Brooks is a prototypical member of the modern Republican elite. His ideology is rooted centrally in the class war, a struggle between what he calls “the makers” and “the takers.” He inhabits an imaginary world in which the former are being hounded nearly to extinction by the latter. “At some point,” he sorrowfully predicts, “the rich (as defined by the 30 percent) will pay all the income taxes in America. For the 30 percent coalition, this is fair and just.”

Brooks’s portrait of a world in which the rich are ruthlessly exploited in the name of absolute equality is long on hysterical rhetoric and very short on data. What little data Brooks presents is almost invariably wrong. “In America,” he declares, “the top 5 percent of earners bring in 37 percent of the income but pay 60 percent of the taxes.” This is false. The top 5 percent of income earners pay 38.5 percent of all taxes. And a system where the richest 5 percent earn 37 percent of the income and pay 38.5 percent of the taxes is not, I would submit, a draconian left-wing imposition.

Where does Brooks get this wildly wrong figure? The number he cites describes the share of federal income taxes paid for by the richest 5 percent. But the American tax system is a mix of regressive and progressive taxes. State and local taxes, as well as federal payroll taxes, tend to levy higher rates on the poor and middle class than on the rich. The income tax, which is steeply progressive, helps to tilt the balance of the burden back in the other direction. When conservatives portray the tax code as unfair to the rich, they usually cite just the income-tax burden, calculating that their audience will fail to notice that “income taxes” do not mean taxes as a whole. Brooks uses the term “taxes” when he means “income taxes.” He has fallen for his own ruse.

Brooks further claims that the oppression of the rich is getting worse. “From 1986 to 2006,” he complains, “the proportion of taxes that the top 1 percent of income earners paid grew from 26 percent to 40 percent.” A footnote points to a table compiled by the Tax Policy Center. I do not doubt the accuracy of the figure. But why are the very rich paying a higher share of the tax burden?

If you consult two other lines in the same Tax Policy Center table, you can see that the conclusion is the opposite of the one that Brooks draws. From 1986 to 2006, the highest-earning 1 percent of taxpayers went from collecting 11 percent of national income to collecting 22 percent of national income. Meanwhile, their average tax rate dropped from 33 percent to 23 percent. So: their tax rate fell sharply, but their share of income rose even more sharply, and the net result is that they have paid a higher share of the tax burden. This is Brooks’s evidence that the system has gotten too redistributive!

Conservatives from this cultish obsession with the idea that we should all be grateful for the leveraged buyout specialist like Bain/Romney, the vastly over compensated bankers and hedge fund managers because they create the value that we’ll call the Gross Domestic Product – the total value of the goods and services produced by the nation. The worship of the financial elite is tunnel vision at best. At the Romney and too big to fail banks level, sure money makes money, but where does the source of that money emanate – from someone framing a house, from someone building a car, from someone baking a cake, from someone discovering a new vaccine, from someone producing something of value. Without those people – the conservatives who see themselves as the god-like saviors and dispensers of the nation’s wealth have nothing. There have been big banks and high finance crooks for centuries, and credit does play a big role in a successful modern economy. Though we did not always have people who exploit and loot the system – like Bain – and then claim they performed an essential service to the country. The proposition that there are anti-capitalist Democrats is as much a myth as unicorns. Conservatives believe that myth the way they believe the earth is only a few hundred years old, that the Trail of Tears was to bring Christianity to American Indians and that real rape cannot result in pregnancy. From the first line on capitalism at Wikipedia, “Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.” Sounds good. There might be some elected Democrat out there in some small town that does not believe in that system and that it is a basically sound idea in general. Brooks like every other conservatives misses a basic fact about government and the Great Recession – all the bail-outs were started by Republicans – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake, Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson ,  President Bush and VP Cheney. Paul Ryan voted for TARP and the automaker bail-outs. Even before the recession Bush 43 tried to jump start the economy with his own stimulus. When the savings and loans went belly up in the 1980s Saint Ronnie did not just go all Marxist and bail them out, he seized control of them. In the world of conservatives like Brooks and the hucksters at AEI all Republican farts smell like sweet roses, all Democratic farts smell like Marx. In ConWorld all economic problems can be solved with federal income tax cuts for the well off and deregulation. Neither of those things has ever proven to be effective at boosting the economy. About those offshore investments…

In some ways, Mitt Romney is a walking, talking self-refutation of his own economic agenda. The Republican presidential candidate believes if Washington uses tax policy to put more money in the hands of the very wealthy, those “job creators” will pump those gains right back into the Americans economy, benefiting everyone else as the capital trickles down.

Romney, meanwhile, is extremely wealthy, has benefited greatly from tax breaks, and sent much of his money overseas. It would appear Romney’s wallet has debunked Romney’s economic agenda.

So Romney asked himself what to do with all the money he saves paying a ridiculously low 13% tax rate. He did not answer himself with hire more Americans, invest millions in American jobs or infrastructure, his answer was move money to offshore accounts. Yet we’re to believe that when Romney gives the wealthy and multinational corporations yet another tax cut, they will not give the same answers to themselves that Romney did. In ConWorld there are rivers of crocodile tears because the terrible Democrats are keeping them from making money. Just in this morning, Taxes and Regulations Are Hurting Economic Recovery? Bank Profits Rebound To 2006 Levels, But Bankers Still Complain About Regulations

In the last four quarters, the six largest Wall Street banks have made $63 billion, the most they’ve made since 2006. Despite having pushed the nation to the brink of economic collapse, and after receiving billions of taxpayer dollars, the banks are back to where they were when the housing bubble inflating.

However, according to Bloomberg News, a return to sky-high profits isn’t enough for the banking industry, which reacted to the numbers by whining about regulation and “a backlash against bankers“:

Those billions of dollars in profits aren’t enough, according to interviews with more than a dozen bank executives and analysts. The lowest leverage in a decade, return on equity at a third of 2006 levels, higher capital requirements, shares trading below book value, declining bonuses, job cuts, the European sovereign-debt crisis and a backlash against bankers have damped the joys of profit, they said.

These six banks — Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — “will have combined profits of $9.9 billion in the third quarter, $17.4 billion in the last three months of the year and $75.8 billion in 2013? according to estimates. “When the banks say, ‘We’re doing very well but not getting a return on our capital,’ it’s completely incomprehensible, and it’s angering to the average American,” said Michael Greenberger, a former regulator who now teaches at the University of Maryland’s law school.

That is not capitalism – it is a lot of things – exploitation, pigs at the trough, greed run amok, stealing from the economic output of the average American. We cannot and should not try to make everything absolutely equal and fair, that brings its own injustice, but clearly the pendulum of economic justice has swung way too far in favor of the insatiable pigs.

Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin is not an outlier in the G.O.P.

Tuesday morning, on a tip from American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal PAC that conducts opposition research on Republicans, I clipped and posted videos for Slate’s Double X blog demonstrating some of the paranoid flights of fancy and routine misogyny that have peppered Todd Akin’s speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Akin, who is challenging Democrat Claire McCaskill for her Missouri Senate seat, became infamous after he said that, based on no science whatsoever, pregnancies rarely happen in the case of “legitimate rape.” That remark was hardly out of character; he is indeed every inch the misogynist and denier of reality that his comment suggests.

The videos prove that Akin is wholly the product of the movement conservatism that controls the Republican Party. While he may be a bit freer of tongue than many Republicans, his basic premises don’t differ from theirs: Feminism is evil. Reality can be denied if it conflicts with ideology. Conservatives are the real victims of this shifting, politically correct America, not the various groups of people they oppress and demonize.

Despite a few conservative pundits speaking out against Akins’ initial remarks about rape, the base and the Republican big bucks machine has rallied to his side.

Forest Waterfall wallpaper – What We Have Learned From Romney, Ryan and The Elite

Forest Waterfall wallpaper

 

Except for E.J. Dionne and Ezra Klein, WaPo seems hardly worth a visit anymore, so I was surprised to see this great piece of satire by Steven Pearlstein, I am a job creator: A manifesto for the entitled

I am the misunderstood superhero of American capitalism, single-handedly creating wealth and prosperity despite all the obstacles put in my way by employees, government and the media.

…I am entitled to a healthy and well-educated workforce, a modern and efficient transportation system and protection for my person and property, just as I am entitled to demonize the government workers who provide them.

I am entitled to complain bitterly about taxes that are always too high, even when they are at record lows.

I am entitled to a judicial system that efficiently enforces contracts and legal obligations on customers, suppliers and employees but does not afford them the same right in return.

…I am entitled to provide political support to radical, uncompromising politicians and then complain about how dysfunctional Washington has become.

…I am entitled to load companies up with debt in order to pay myself and investors big dividends — and then blame any bankruptcy on over-compensated workers.

I am entitled to contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, loans and even bailouts from government, even as I complain about job-killing government budget deficits.

Things we learned from Romney and conservatives

I skipped around a bit, the rest is at the link. Steven  could have just as well entitled it the Romney-Ryan World View or This is The Bubble of The Conservative Mind.

Maybe some day after scientists crack the fusion issue and we have all the cheap clean energy of our dreams they can plot the calculus  of Republican shrillness as a function of their desperation, Top Romney Adviser Criticizes Obama For Not Killing Bin Laden Fast Enough

Sununu said that Obama was “timid,” could have gone after the terrorist mastermind sooner, and attributed the successful operation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The president is trying to take credit for following the strategy and the tactics put into place by George W. Bush. At some point the president is going to have to explain why he was timid on the first two or three opportunities that we had. Thank goodness Hillary Clinton was there was to convince him to do the right thing. […] His trying to take credit for having been decisive belies the fact that he wasn’t decisive until pressed by others.

But former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, described Obama’s decision to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden “gutsy,” saying that “people don’t realize” what a tough call it was and not everyone would have made the same call. Vice President Biden and Gates both advised Obama against taking the course he chose on the bin Laden raid, noting that “There wasn’t any direct evidence that he was there. It was all circumstantial.”

As TPro also notes Romney has said “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Though conservatives certainly thought it was worth what will likely total $3 trillion dollars to invade a country that had no connections to 9-11 and no WMD. While most of the conservatives I know are more moderate they would never go back to a restaurant that served them a bad steak and order steak again. Yet they will continue the same disastrous foreign policies over and  over again. Lead by the same tin-foil wrapped thinking, guided by a nationalistic view of American exceptionalism that spends lives and money as though they hold little value.

CNN Paints Misleading Picture Of Ryan Medicare Plan

CNN’s Sanjay Gupta claimed that the proposed changes to Medicare that Congressman Paul Ryan has offered would allow seniors to choose between “a voucher” system and “traditional Medicare,” while keeping the system affordable. In fact, experts say the Ryan plan would threaten Medicare’s long-term viability and potentially would increase seniors’ medical costs by thousands of dollars.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has looked at the Ryan plan, as has The Brookings Institute. The Ryan plan guts Medicare. CNN should be up to date on the facts – if those matter anymore to modern broadcast journalists or infotainers. When you gut Medicare for most Americans, it also guts a good part of Social Security because seniors without a lot of retirement resources would be forced to dip into Social Security to pay for the new Ryan expenses. Conservatives are of course calling Ryan CBS interview a hack job, it is the only, and as usual lame excuse they have. That was Ryan on the screen with an opportunity to sell himself and Romney as the wiz kids with the answers. It was like watching a raccoon frozen, caught trying to put the lid back on the trashcan, The Paul Ryan Legend Dissipates 

Wallace is trying to do something that Ryan is not used to: ask him how the numbers in his plan add up. The Romney tax plan is premised on a mathematical impossibility. It promises to reduce tax rates by 20 percent and cover the lost revenue by eliminating tax deductions, exempting tax breaks for investment income. Even making a series of assumptions ranging from friendly to impossibly friendly, it can’t add up. The lost revenue from the tax rate cuts on income over $250,000 exceeds the available revenue from eliminating deductions. Even Republican attempts to disprove this finding have inadvertently confirmed it.

Ryan PowerPoint has mostly had the kind of scrutiny that conservatives voters give conservative candidates  – they hang on every word with the unquestioning idolatry which has become a hallmark of the conservative movement. Now someone asks a simple questions about facts that he has laid out in PowerPoint to Republican voters numerous times and suddenly he cannot give even a snapshot of his plan or Romneys’.

And nobody has ever asked him. Because Ryan’s role in the budget discourse was not to be questioned, but to question others. If he was asked to comment, it was to express his sadness over Obama’s alleged unwillingness to enact the bipartisan debt plans that Ryan in fact killed.

Ryan is still an extremely skilled bullshitter — vastly better at it than Romney. But he’s actually seeing, for the first time, questions that attempt to pry information out of him, rather than the batting practice lobs to which he’s accustomed. He’s going to emerge from the race with his legend punctured.

As much as Ryan is being exposed for the clown he is, it’s a pretty safe bet he’ll be back in 2016 as a viable presidential candidate.

Mitt Romney: Free Speech Is for Billionaires, Not School-Teachers

What does a plutocracy look like? How about a leveraged buy-out artist who used his family connections – and gamed the tax code – to amass a $378 million fortune , and whose campaign is almost entirely financed by deep-pocketed conservative sugar-daddies, saying that while money equals Constitutionally protected free speech for his own donors, there should be limits on political spending by teachers making $75,000 per year.

That’s exactly what transpired on Tuesday at an education forum in New York. According to CBS, Romney said that “we simply can’t have” elected officials who may receive contributions from teachers’ unions negotiating with them. “I think it’s a mistake,” Romney said. “I think we have to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns.” CBS adds: “He suggested that money should somehow be diverted or cut off,” but — as is typical with Romney — “he did not offer details.”

One would be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of rank hypocrisy.

Another entry for Steven’s next list of what the entitled think about the little people. Romney, the Koch brothers, BofA, whatever corporation has the right to spend more on lobbyists who have direct meetings with House and Senate staff, than they do on taxes, and teachers should not be able to negotiate with any elected official conservatives deem unfit to do so. I guess that inside the bubble of the noise machine this kind of rhetorical nonsense from themselves and other Republicans makes sense, not so much for non-kool-aid drinkers.

I only have so much time and so I post about my priorities. For those who would like to catch up on some good posts on the whole drone intra Democratic/liberal debate –  Droning on About Drones. Boo makes a fact based point that cannot be repeated enough – the U.S. military is not going around, under Obama’s direction, indiscriminately killing innocent Muslim villagers. Though one can get that impression from reading certain liberal bloggers. Ideals are great but there really is such a thing as real life day-to-day politics in which, yes, I’m sorry to break it to some people, you have to choose between what absolutely sucks and the less than perfect. There is that old saying to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Some bloggers don’t need to read that yet again, they need to really think about it. This is also a good post in that regard,  Dear Freddie: Politics Doesn’t just happen once every four years. Politics happens every day.