My thoughts on Occupy Wall Street

I've heard a lot of different opinions on the Occupy Wall Street protests, some surprising, some not.  I've had mixed feelings about the movement myself (always in support, just questioning the realistic possibility of changing anything).

Off the bat, if you are anything less than "rich" (whatever your definition of that may be), and you're criticizing the protesters and this movement, why?  It's one thing to be skeptical of their effectiveness, or to even think they're kind of silly.  But to openly reject what they're doing is just backwards.

This Bill Maher quote always stuck with me, and I think it's relevant here: "The monied elite in America are dragging a bag filled with your future down the steps, and your reaction is 'Hold on there, that looks heavy! Let me give you a hand getting it into your trunk.'"

So here is my response to some of the criticism I've heard...

First, it's not about the literal 1%.  It's about the subgroup within that category that has systematically stacked the deck in their favor.  People like Karl Rove, the Koch bothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.  People who will fight tooth and nail to let 45,000 people die each year because they can't afford healthcare, as long as the profits of insurance companies and hospitals are in good shape.

Second, it's not just about Wall Street.  It is largely about Wall Street, since their greed is the proven cause of the recession and the horrible economic conditions that we're currently experiencing (although they're actually doing pretty well...did you see Bank of America's $6.2 Billion earnings in the last 3 months?).  But it's more than that.  It's the fact that our government has been bought and paid for by corporations and is policed by lobbyists to keep them in line.  It's about the constant fight to cut teachers and cops rather than closing tax loopholes for millionaires.

Third, I'm with you in thinking that just sleeping in a park probably won't upend the trend of inequality in this country.  But it can at least get people thinking and talking (and blogging), and I think that's where it all starts.  Too many people are complacent with the way things are going.  I think that people, especially on the left, feel so disengaged with the process and know that things are so corrupt that it's pointless to even worry about it.  The problems are too big to fix.

But how can that be true when the cause of the problem is such a tiny group of people, and the victims are the other "99%" of the population?  How have we allowed this to happen?  Maybe we're finally saying enough is enough.

The Occupy Wall Street movement took up 9% of the overall media coverage last week.  President Obama has talked about it.  It's been brought up in presidential primary debates.  Protests have sparked up all over the country and all over the world.  If nothing else, it's starting a larger conversation.

Rachel Maddow had this great segment last night.  It's just one small example of why people have valid reasons to be upset and actually try to do something about it (aside from just sitting at home complaining and writing blog posts...)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Somebody missed the memo

Someone needs to tell Michelle Bachmann that the Arab Spring is actually a good thing.  It's the uprising of oppressed people to overcome dictators and fight for their freedom. My guess is that she hears "Arab" and automatically thinks "bad", "scary" and "Obama".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By the way, she's also totally twisting the Isreal thing...

So then we agree...?

I have an uncontrollable need to find logic in things.  It's the way my brain works, the way I'm wired.  It's the reason I've ruined several of my friends' attempts to surprise me on special occasions.  I ask too many questions when things seem off.  I crave details and need to connect every dot.  I'm like an annoying 5 year old who won't stop asking "but why?". When things don't make sense, I can't let it go.

I've realized that this is exactly why I get so frustrated with politics.  Logic, seemingly, is optional.  Politicians, pundits and public figures can contradict themselves, ignore facts or leave gaps in reasoning without consequence.  If they only knew how many hours of sleep they've stolen from me, maybe they would be kind enough to stop.  I think my cats can even sense the stress it puts me through.

I'll admit this happens on both sides, but as you can probably guess, I see it MUCH more on the right than the left.  Just watch any of the debates.  They're "the party of life" except when it comes to executions (regardless of shoddy evidence).  They want small government, except when it comes to the military. They would never ever under any circumstances raise taxes (and that includes closing loopholes!), except for middle class taxes. They're mostly Christians, except they have no sympathy for the poor. (It's the only reason I have more respect for Ron Paul than most other candidates - as crazy as he is, at least he's consistent.)

The way I sort this out in my head is to tie it all back to their motivations.  Since there is always a clear line to corporate and personal profit, that's usually enough for me to just say "okay, the people promoting these ideas are mostly terrible human beings, liars and thieves, but at least the dots are connected."

They do at least attempt to come up with some logical cover stories, i'll give them that.  They're organized and have a fantastic PR team. They even created a whole theory of economics to try to make it sound like they're not ripping us off.

They claim we need to lower corporate tax rates and reduce regulations in order to reduce unemployment.  I'm no business school grad or anything (yes I am) but if I were running a company and sales were flat or down, lowering my taxes or softening the rules wouldn't make me hire more. Why would I bring in more people if I don't have work for them to do?  I would only hire more people if I have more customers...i.e. demand-side economics.  You know, what those hippy radical liberals (and Nobel prize winning economists) suggest.

But it's no matter, that's their story and they're sticking to it.  And because it sounds remotely logical to people with the critical thinking skills of a fourth-grader, half of the American public goes along with it.  (Except when you break it down for them, in which case they lean left.)

The only problem is, the politicians themselves sometimes forget their lines.  For example, Mitt Romney was on Morning Joe the other day, and said this (the video is too long to post, but if you want to see it go here, it starts around the 2:55 mark):

"Our president may be a nice guy, but our president doesn't have a clue when it comes to getting this economy going again...he doesn't understand how the private sector works...he thinks if you've got cash on your balance sheet, that means you're going to go hire people.  No, you hire people if you've got customers."

Isn't that exactly what I just said?  Isn't that the opposite of what he's supposed to be saying??  If a company won't hire just because they have enough money to do it, why put MORE cash in their pockets via lower taxes and less regulations?  If it's customers they want, wouldn't it make sense to keep money in those pockets?  The ones belonging to people who go out and spend it?  By, I don't know, cutting their taxes, hiring them to rebuild schools and roads, not firing them just because they're state/federal employees, not cutting off their unemployment benefits, welfare, medicare, social security, etc?  By, say, passing the American Jobs Act?

Apparently not, Mr. President.  Apparently you're the one who doesn't understand how to get this economy going again.

If anyone reading this has any explanation that can help me better understand what I'm missing here, I would honestly, sincerely love to hear it. I'm not saying that sarcastically, I just need to reconnect the dots.  It's past my bedtime.

Sorry for another long rant, I guess I should post more often so it doesn't build up and boil over...

This is a stickup!

The Republican party is holding the country hostage, and one way or another, some serious damage is about to be done.

Here's what's happening, in basic terms...I know this is really long, but hang in there, it's important.

The federal government has about $14.1 trillion in debt and we currently have a $14.3 trillion debt limit (ceiling).  Congress has to vote to raise the debt limit in order for us to borrow enough money to pay the bills.  No one really knows what will happen if we don't raise it because it's never happened before, but economists say that it will likely lead to another recession, increased interest rates, more job loss, etc.  A.k.a., we'd be f*cked.  Mind you the debt ceiling has been raised in the past (five times under Bush), no questions asked.

What's different this time is that there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans have the majority in the House of Representatives, so we need Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans are using this to their advantage by making ridiculous demands in exchange for their votes.

What politicians are focusing on right now (or so they say) is reducing the budget deficit, which will help bring down the debt over time.  Since early in Bush's presidency, and continuing into Obama's, the government has been spending more money than it brings in in taxes.  This is mostly due to:

• The wars (Bush)
• Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (Bush)
• The bank bailout (Bush)
• The stimulus package (Obama, but it was needed to clean up mess from Bush)
• And Social Security and Medicare costs which are rising because the baby boomers are getting old. 

So even though most of the deficit was Bush's fault, the Republicans are suddenly extremely concerned about it and are making it their top priority (although Mitch McConnell, one of the top Republicans, has said very clearly, multiple times, that the "single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president", so that's what this is really all about).

There are only two ways to reduce a budget deficit:

1. You can either cut spending on things that benefit the whole country (defense/national security, social security, medicare, medicaid, roads/bridges/railroads, education, environmental protection, food safety, medical research, etc.)
2. And/or you can raise revenue by raising taxes. 

Almost every economist agrees that we need to do both in order to actually reduce our deficit without seriously screwing people over who desperately need things like medicare, social security, food stamps, roads, NOT GETTING BOTULISM, etc.

Before you freak out about the idea of "higher taxes", Democrats are only suggesting we do this by getting rid of tax breaks for oil companies and closing loopholes for corporations and people making record-breaking profits (before you go feeling sorry for them, keep in mind that you and I each paid more in taxes last year than General Electric, literally).  The corporate tax rate is already at its lowest point in over 60 years. But still, Republicans say raising taxes will keep companies from hiring people and will increase unemployment ("Job-killing taxes!"), but it's simply not true.  They're already making record profits and still not hiring anyone.  Since 2009, 88% of income growth has gone to profits, while only 1% has gone to wages.

The Republicans absolutely refuse to raise taxes in any way, shape or form.  This might sound great on the surface, but the reason behind it is to reduce the size and scope of government.  Not only are they obviously trying to protect the tax breaks for the rich, but they also know that any money that is NOT going to the government will go to businesses which will result in even more profits for the rich. They're willing to sacrifice things like social security, medicare, roads/bridges, education, the environment, food safety, etc. in order to increase profits for the rich (i.e. themselves).  The rich have been getting richer, the poor getting poorer, for a long time, and they have no interest in reversing that trend.

So this is where we stand.  The two sides have been fighting over this for months.  The Democrats have continued to give in and agree to cuts, but the Republicans just throw tantrums and refuse to budge at all on taxes. 

The deadline to raise the debt ceiling is August 2.  If Republicans don't budge on taxes but continue to insist on big deficit reduction, then one of two things will happen.  Either...

1. We don't raise the debt ceiling and we end up with another recession and global economic crisis.

Or

2. To avoid that, Obama caves and is forced to cut spending on things that normal people really depend on in order to get by everyday.

I don't know about you, but "higher taxes" doesn't sound so bad anymore.

Bonus for Republicans...Obama will likely be blamed either way and it could cost him the 2012 election...remember what I said their "single most important" goal was?

What I don't understand is how the Republican establishment can convince roughly half of this country to vote against their own best interests.  If you make less than $250K/year, you have no business voting Republican.  And for those of you who do it anyway, I'm fascinated. Please, tell me why.

****************

And another thing!  If you're not bored to tears yet...

Many economists say that we shouldn't be focusing on the deficit right now at all since the economy is still so bad and unemployment is so high.  Debt and deficit sound really bad and scary, and they are, but they're not actually doing as much harm to us right now as the bad economy and unemployment.  In order to get people back to work and boost the economy, experts say that the government should actually increase spending. If we invest in things like infrastructure (roads/bridges) or clean energy, we could hire a ton of people. 

You might be thinking, that's great for construction workers, but what about white collar jobs?  Well if construction workers get jobs, they get paychecks. Then their wives go and spend that money at the mall, and Macy's starts doing better and decides to grow their marketing department.  Then they find an ad agency which now has to hire more people to work on that business, etc.  You see where I'm going with this.

Once again, Republicans' #1 goal is to get Obama out of office.  No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected when unemployment was over 8% and right now it's 9.2%.  The Republicans have no desire to bring down the unemployment rate, regardless of what they say.  They'll tell you that Obama tried this whole "government spending to get the economy going" thing (stimulus package in 2009) and it failed.  It actually didn't fail (things would have been much worse if it hadn't passed), but it didn't work as well as planned.  Part of the reason why is that it got so watered down by Republicans that it wasn't big enough to work.  It mostly consisted of tax breaks and aid for states, but very little for things like infrastructure that would create jobs. 

The 2012 election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats (as should every election if people actually paid attention).  But it won't be.  That's a really scary thought if you look at who's running on the Republican side. This blog post is already waaayyy to freaking long to get into that now, but if you want to know more about who could be the next president if Obama loses, just ask.

If you actually read this whole thing, get yourself a cookie, you deserve it!

There are bad ideas, then there's the Balanced Budget Amendment...

Before you get caught up in the Republicans sounding all responsible by touting a "Balanced Budget Amendment"...you should read Ezra Klein's Wonkbook post on the subject that points out what it really means:  The Worst Idea in Washington.

And this one: The Worst Idea in Washington, Part II
And Part III
And Part IV
And just in case you're still unsure, Part V.

Looking Ahead

When my grandparents were my age, women had just been given the right to vote.  How many people do you know today who would say they think women should still be turned away at the polls?

When my parents were my age, African Americans were "separate but equal." How many people do you know would say they think African Americans should still be forced to use separate bathrooms, eat at different restaurants or be denied admittance to whites-only schools?

Like it or not, homosexuals will be given all the same rights as heterosexuals within our lifetime.  This is the civil rights issue of our generation and before we know it, the legality of gay marriage will be a collective no-brainer in this country. What will you tell your kids and grandkids when they ask you what side of this fight you were on?

Mediscare

 Yesterday, Democrat Kathy Hochul won a special election in NY's 26th district to replace Chris Lee (the shirtless Craigslist guy) in the House of Representatives. What's interesting about that, is that the 26th district of NY almost ALWAYS votes Republican (even when it's Carl Paladino).

Here is the common Democratic explanation:

• Jane Corwin, who by all accounts should have had this one in the bag, lost because she said she would support Paul Ryan's budget plan to kill Medicare.

And here are some common Republican excuses: 

• It was a fluke and special elections are never indicative of what will happen in a general election.
• Tea Party candidate Jack Davis f*cked it up by taking votes away from the Republican, Jane Corwin (think Nadar in 2000).
• Jane Corwin lost because the evil Democrats used "scare tactics" to demonize the Ryan budget.

This is going to be a common spin in the budget debate - that Democrats are lying about the viability of Medicare and it's the Republicans who are trying to "save" it. 

Oh look, here's a perfect example!





Now who's using scare tactics?? This has "Death Panels" written aaallllll over it.  What scares me most about this this video is not that the Democrats are supposedly neglecting seniors.  It's that Paul Ryan can lie through his pearly-white teeth with such a straight face.  You would almost think he believes what he's saying!  Oscar, anyone? 

This is a classic case of the Republicans trying to push through a completely insane idea by simply pretending it's not insane and repeating themselves over, and over, and over, and over...and re-spinning the story again, and again, and again, until the general public becomes numb to it and finally just accepts it as normal.

It's kind of like giant sunglasses.  At first it was only crazy bag ladies...er, sorry, the Olsen twins and Nicole Richie...but then they started showing up in every magazine and in every store, until they became the new norm.  But seriously, are we really calling THIS normal??

Who's the boss?

Just a couple of examples of tails wagging dogs from this week...

Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill. (who is already on the record for supporting the Ryan "Kill Medicare" Budget) says Scott Brown "should be ashamed of himself" for playing politics and saying he would not support the Ryan plan.  He also says "Any Republican that doesn’t vote for this or doesn’t support this is purely being guided by political reasons."...guided by political reasons, as in doing something that will help get them re-elected, as in pleasing their constituencies, as in the taxpayers they were put there to represent and who pay their salaries...how is that bad?

Also, on Meet the Press this past Sunday, Paul Ryan made a comment that struck me as concerning (although doesn't seem to be worrying anyone else, so maybe it's just me) - "I don't consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be. Leaders change the polls." So it's perfectly okay for a U.S. Congressman to say out loud that he's ignoring what the American people want because they don't know what they want, that "leaders" are there to tell them what they want?


So I have to ask...Who do you work for again??

Thanks, but no thanks

They can't even agree on whether or not to congratulate the military on their accomplishment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/159375-house-wont-honor-seal-mission-with-a-resolution

Seriously?

Say Cheese

Be it sterotype or fact, I'm sure most would agree that there are fundamental differences between the "type" of person who identifies him or herself as a Republican, or a Democrat.  I won't speculate on what all of those those are right now (that will be another day), but I will just point this out:

Same poll, two sites:  Do you agree with Obama's decision not to release the pictures?

Fox News:

• Yes. We don't need to see a gruesome photo of a dead terrorist. - 34%
• No. We need to show the world that this madman is dead. - 55%
• Not sure. Some want proof, but it could incite violence and endanger Americans overseas. - 11%

MSNBC:

• Yes. The images could inflame and embolden our enemies, and no good purpose would be served by releasing them. - 66%
• No. We're mature enough to handle such images, and withholding them gives more fuel to conspiracy theorists. - 29%
• Maybe. I'd like to hear more about Obama's reasoning before I pass judgment. - 5%

Completely opposite results.


The wording of the options likely had an effect on the results, but is also very telling in and of itself (and I know that these are not technically partisan polls).  However, there seems to be something within the psyche of a Republican vs. that of a Democrat that would lead to these differences.

This is not an everyday political question - there is no "typical" Republican/Democratic answer to this question.  And yet there is still a clear split.

I heard Mark Levin on Fox News Radio today say that he wants to see the picture; that he "wants to revel in it" (and he said it like it was an issue of Hustler).  Do all Republicans feel the same way? Of course not.  Is it all tied in with Republicans' distrust of Obama? Maybe.  Or are most Republicans just fundamentally "show me the brains" type of people?

Conflict of interest?

Nah...

You've gotta be kidding me...Emergency Manager Law?

This is the first installment of "You've gotta be kidding me..." - I have a feeling that title is going to come up a lot.

(Don't worry, I have still been [painfully] watching my Fox News since my last post and more to come on that, but in a moment of weakness I broke down and read some real news...)

Anyone else following this Emergency Manager Law thing in Michigan? 

If so, please help me understand how, in a country where the one of the few things everyone can agree upon is how important democracy is, can this happen?

Here's the gist, at least as far as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong):  the Governor (Republican) passed a law that says that if he or his administration, or any company they may choose, deems a city to be in a state of  "financial emergency", they can appoint an "Emergency Manager" to come in and completely take over control of every aspect of that city's local government.  That includes, but is not limited to:

• suspending any or all elected officials (firing the people the town voted for)
• cancelling contracts
• stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights
• dissolving school districts and absorbing them into other districts
• dissolving entire towns
• or whatever else that person so chooses. 

And there is nothing anyone in that town can do.  Even if say the company who decided the town is in a state of financial emergency has conflicts of interest, and the new emergency manager happens to create new contracts to directly benefit that company.

Supporters of the law are painting a picture straight out of a comic book - the state government flying in to save the day, to keep the town from collapsing financially;  rescuing the residents from the imcompetance of their own stupid townie officials that they elected.

And as is par for the course, they're getting these types of laws passed by creating a sense of panic and taking advantage of peoples' fear.  Claiming that it's the only option and something must be done immediately or else the world will implode.

Wisconsin, among other states, is also considering adopting this law. 

This is just the latest example of the extreme right wing slowly but surely dismantling the country as we know it.

Thoughts?

Stepping Back

I was out with a friend last night and in our inebriated state, the topic of politics came up (don't ask me how). She mentioned that she doesn't really pay attention to it and doesn't really know much about Democrats and Republicans, but that her father is a Republican and what he says seems to make sense.

Hmm.  My friend and I are very similar, we come from similar backgrounds and have the same views on most social issues.  And yet when she heard what her father had to say, it sounded logical and reasonable. Of course my internal reaction was that he was probably just feeding her the party line about Republicans just wanting to keep taxes low and keep those dirty politicians out of our lives. That would make sense to me too.

But it made me think - why am I a liberal?  Was I simply influenced by someone who was feeding me the party line?  Have I ever really given both sides equal consideration to make an informed decision?  To be honest, probably not.

The way I look at it, there are four sides of the story: Democrats, Republicans, what each stands for in theory, and then in reality.

I've got the ideology part down for each side, and since my two favorite shows are Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher, I'm pretty clear on the seedy underbelly of the elephant.  But I can't honestly say that I've been open to hearing the Republicans' point of view about the dark side of my own party.  I'm well aware that there is corruption on both sides and the Democrats are far from perfect, but this is the area where I need some clarity.

So I'm going to do it.  I'm going to watch Fox News. I might even listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm going to listen with an open mind and seriously consider what they have to say.  I know that these may be the conservative extremes (just like Maddow and Maher), but they're also the ones that a lot of the party take their cues from, so I want to get inside the minds of the average Republican.

Stay tuned, this could get interesting...

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by!

I decided to start this blog because I needed an outlet for my frustrations with what I'm seeing in the news lately and didn't want to spew my opinions all over my friends' facebook news feeds.  I never was a news buff, I usually choose to watch crappy reality TV instead.  Lately though, Washington has been much more riveting.  And the more I watch, the more I want to look around to whoever is near me and say "Seriously?!  SERIOUSLY?!?"

I read these headlines and cannot believe how ridiculous our politicians are and how easily they get away with it.  I'm afraid of where the country is headed when I see people like Sarah Palin, someone who was a complete caricature of the right no less than two years ago, become the poster girl of the Republican "base".  The Tea Party, recently a small group of crazy super-conservatives, are now running the show. They're dragging the entire political spectrum so far to the right that the most staunch Republicans 30 years ago would look like Dennis Kucinich today.  When W starts looking like a moderate, I think it's time to stop, drop and roll back to reality.

Lastly, the disclaimer: If you're reading this, I assume it's by choice.  I'm not forcing my opinions on you, if you don't like what you read, then stop reading.  If you have an opinion on what I say, feel free to share as long as it's logical and constructive.  My intention is not to insult or offend anyone, although it's a risk I'm willing to take.  I think it's only fair considering how insulted and offended I am by most of what the Republican party stands for.

Cheers!