HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 04:25 PM
Number of posts: 6,436

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

There is a continuing meme being promulgated by the GOP and echoed by all the Corp media toadies

... that the recovery, which is slower than it needed to be, is the fault of President Obama's policies. The Corporate media toadies pretend the REpublicans have not been waging a war of obstruction against everything that President Obama and the Democrats have been trying to do. The whole point of this war is to keep Obama from being successful at cleaning up the Republican mess of the TRICKLE DOWN - DEREGULATION disaster and to cause voters to be fed up with Obama and vote in the Corporate Lobbyists. I want to fight that effort.

I have written the following summary of the major battles of the Republican War on Obama. I have posted this or versions of it on several media cites. My desire is to see this War on Obama being brought up on sites - other than professed democratic-progressive ones.

I am asking that those who feel 'up to it' please use any or all parts of the following summary to comment all over the internet but especially on media sites and any sites where you'll get a lot of eye-balls. If you have other ideas that you think are better than the following, then please write them and post them. But post something about the Republican War on Obama which is studiously not reported on M$M.

thank you.


Governor Romney's campaign is built on a scaffold of Big Lies. But the most basic, and egregious, Big Lie of all is the proposition that the rather listless recovery to the worst economic catastrophe this country has seen since the Great Depression, the Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster (aka: Phil Gramms marvelous adventure), has been the fault of the President's policies. This ignores the Repubicans' War on Obama and the reason Ornstein and Mann called the Republican party an "insurgent outlier in American politics" (more on that to come).

On the day of Barack Obama's innauguration, leading members of the Republican party, met and decided they would engage in a campaign of obstruction of everything Obama would try to do. Mitch McConnell famously declared that the top priority of the Republican party was to see that Barack Obama was a one term president. To that end, the Republicans set records for filibustering legislation. They have fought everything Obama tried to do to produce a recovery from the economic disaster they created. They even voted against a deficit reduction commission (in 2009, before Bowles-Simpson) THEY PROPOSED - BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTED IT! (see "Why Washington is tied up in Knots" - Time http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1966451,00.html and "Do not ask what good we do." Robert Draper).


President Obama's first legislative act to repair and rebuild the economy from the Great Recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was filibustered by the Republicans such that Obama had to agree to downsize the stimulus by converting 38% of it to tax cuts in order to win two Republican votes to get the bill passed. At the outset of a depression, people worried about whether they would have a job in six months will not spend a tax cut, but will save it our use it to pay down their debt. Either way, that portion of the ARRA converted to tax cuts would not be stimulative to the economy. The Republicans knew this. That’s why they demanded a large portion of the stimulus be converted to tax cuts. This resulted in the original stimulus being smaller than it should have been (without the conversion of 38% of the stimulus to tax cuts the stimulus would have been 61% LARGER (1/(1-.38) = 1.61).


In the Budget Battle of 2011 the Republicans threatened to force a closure of the Government if the Democrats didn't agree to cuts to domestic programs. In the Debt Ceiling extension battle, the Republicans threatened to force a U.S. default on its debt if Obama didn't agree to significant cuts in Government programs - in that same fiscal year. These domestic spending cuts lead to states laying off policemen, fireman, teachers and other public servants - adding to the number of already unemployed. The Wall Street Journal published an article which pointed out that if it weren't for cuts to Government domestic programs, the unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower than it was at mid-year 2012 ("Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%", WSJ, May 8, 2012).

The threat of a default on the U.S. debt lead Standard and Poor's to the extraordinary step - never before taken - of downgrading the United States Credit rating. (Standard and Poors cited among the causes for the unprecedented step “political brinksmanship” and public policymaking being “less stable…less predictable”:


“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy."


United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+'
Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative, Standard and Poor’s, 05-Aug-2011]
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563


The Republican party’s threats of Government default and Government closure have so concerned businesses that they have held off hiring full-time permanent workers, keeping the unemployment rate elevated and restraining the recovery. Businesses have been sitting on a five trillion dollar hoard of cash and have refrained from hiring back more people. Businesses do not want to hire full-time permanent people, only to lay them off in six months. Not knowing how far the Republicans might go to kill the recovery, businesses rather than hiring more people, have been making more use of over-time and contract labor ("The $5 Trillion Stash: U.S. Corporations' Money Hoard Is Bigger Than the GDP of Germany",The Atlantic, July 18, 2012; “Cash-Hoarding Companies Neither Spend Nor Lend, Fouling Economy Further”, Huffington Post, July 12, 2012).

Any appraisal of the success of President Obama’s economic policies that leaves out the fact that these policies prevented the economy from collapsing even further and reaching an unemployment rate of perhaps 11%, or higher, is incomplete and invalid. The Congressional Budget Office report concluded that President Obama’s economic policies, in fact did just that (“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From October 2009 Through December 2009", CBO, February 23, 2010 and “CBO: Unemployment would have topped 11% without stimulus”, USA Today, 2010-02-23).

The Republican filibustered and prevented President Obama’s American Jobs Act from being passed. Moody’s Analytics concluded this bill would have raised the GDP 2%, increased employment by about 2 million jobs and lowered the unemployment rate about 1% (Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan, Moody's Analytics, Sept 9, 2011). So, a decrease of the unemployment rate of 1% prevented by the Republicans and an increase in the unemployment rate of 1% caused by Republican demands for more domestic spending cuts to preclude a Government Default and Government shutdown had a significant negative impact on the recovery. The total impact of these acts of legislative sabotage is an unemployment rate that is 2% points higher than it would have been had Obama been able to more fully realize his policies of stimulating the economy out of this Republican Trickle Down Deregulation disaster. The cited efforts to sabotage the stimulus notwithstanding, the CBO has concluded that the unemployment rate without the ARRA, would be 3% points higher than it is now.

Now, I would be remiss, if I did not inform you of some sources of information for you to gain a better understanding of what has been going on in Washington the past several years. One is the book by Thomas Mann (The Brookings Institution) and Norman Ornstein (the American Enterprise Institute (note: a conservative group)) entitled: "It's Even Worse than It Looks" wherein they detail the machinations, over the last few years, of the Republican Party which they call an "insurgent outlier". These two scholars of the political scene also wrote an oped in the Washington Post entitled: "Let's just say it: the Republicans are the Problem". Here's an excerpt from that piece(emphasis my own):


"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges."


Any suggestion that the recovery from the worst economic catastrophe this country has seen since the Great Depression, the Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster, is due to President Obama's policies, is pure Republican Crock-of-%#@&$ propaganda. The Republlicans in their War on Obama have succeeded in preventing the President from fully realizing his policies with the livelihoods of millions of Americans becoming the collateral damage in that war.


p.s. many cites limit you comments to some number of characters (for many it's 2,000 characters). I had to split this comment (above) into blocks and labeled them "part 1", "part 2"...so readers would be able to follow the broken up comment. I used a Word file to do the segmenting and character counting.

Politifact says Obama statement re Romney's equating Trump to a small business gets a 'false' rating

Auditing the Fact-checkers for legitimacey (of their rationalization of their judgements)

Are the people at Politifact playing dumb? Well, they're really stretching credulity with this one.

What I DO know they are doing, as they have in the past, is trying to find ways to judge statements by Demcrats as 'false' or 'questionable' so as to keep the balance (between Obama & the Democrats versus Romney and Republicans) from going too embarassingly hard against Romney and the Republicans. Thus, they have to come up with very questionable or outright fraudulent judgements against Obama and other Democrats.

In the review linked to below they say Obama gets a "false" for saying: "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."

They go into a long discussion of technical definitions of what is a small business, going by number of employees or revenues. Then they say at the end of all this, Obama gets a 'false' because:

"Obama said that 'under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business.' But any tax cuts Trump would get from Romney would have nothing to do with whether he’s a small business or not. We rate Obama’s claim False."



THAT WAS OBAMA'S POINT! ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T 'GET' THAT? Obama is saying that Romney's definition of a small business is so loose as to include someone like Trump or super wealthy Hedge-fund managers. [font size="+1"] And Obama's point is that this is fucking ridiculous[/font].

Politifact's Louis Jacobson also adds to his supposedly clinical analysis of the statement being examined that:

"The Obama campaign has often tried to remind voters of Romney's relationship with Trump, who has been the most prominent person to question where Obama was born. In TV ads, the Obama campaign has frequently shown a photo of Romney in front of a Trump jet. But was Obama correct when he said that "under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business"?"

[font size="+1"] ... is this part of your appraisal of the relevant facts Mr. Jacobson??[/font]


On this judgement call Politifact and Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact Senior Writer (really??), get a [font color="red"]FAIL[/font]


Barack Obama Says: "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."

did Rmoney set a record in the debate: 27 lies in 38 minutes of prattling.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes

Romney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers.


October 4, 2012 |

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs” . Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.
<more>


... also: Romney consummate shape-shifter

Romney has assumed as many positions as a double-jointed streetwalker.

I really can't remember when I have seen anybody change positions with such alacrity or assert the opposite of a position he formerly propounded with such utter tranquility ("Pre-existing conditions?? my plan covers that!" ...Obama thought bubble: "Say WHAAAAT???!!!".
<more>




10 Most Shameless Romney Debate Lies -- Debunked


October 4, 2012

The verdict is in: Mitt Romney handily won last night’s debate, and did what he needed to do to have a fighting chance at winning the election. But what he didn’t do, predictably, was tell the truth.

Romney’s debate performance was chock full of lies, recalling his running mate’s address to the GOP convention, which was also chock full of lies. Hopefully, just as Ryan’s address was dissected and debunked by some media outlets, Romney’s claims are as well, so the debate can move to substantive issues instead of stylistic ones.

Here are ten of Romney’s fact-challenged claims from last night:
<more>

Romney, consummate shape-shifter (he's shifty alright)

Romney has assumed as many positions as a double-jointed streetwalker.

I really can't remember when I have seen anybody change positions with such alacrity or assert the opposite of a position he formerly propounded with such utter tranquility ("Pre-existing conditions?? my plan covers that!" ...Obama thought bubble: "Say WHAAAAT???!!!".

Shapeshifting out of your stated positions may throw a debate opponenet off balance for a bit, but voters will sooner or later wonder if such a 'player' is on the level at all and punish him for it -- unless of course, the voters subconsciously think they deserve to be abused.


PolitiFact's guide to Mitt Romney's flip-flops (could not find a Politifact guide to Barack Obama flip-flops)


[DIV class="excerpt" style="width:460px"][font size=="+1" ]"STOP ME WHEN YOU'VE HEARD SOMETHING YOU LIKE"[/FONT]




Romney lied about Health Care cost increases being driven by the ACA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-in-denver-on-oct-3-running-transcript/2012/10/03/24d6eb6e-0d91-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_print.html
Romney: "If the president’s reelected, Obamacare will be fully installed. ... You’re going to see health premiums go up by some $2,500 per family"


The two largest insurers in Connecticut recently submitted for very large rate increases. But the ACA was a tiny part of the causes for the increases.....

(emphasis my own)

Rising Health Costs, Not Obamacare, Are Increasing Insurance Rates In Connecticut

Filings from Connecticut’s two largest health insurers, which both applied for double-digit rate increases this year, show that the insurance companies are not driving up their prices because Obamacare is leading them to do so. Rather, the rate increases are due to increasingly expensive health costs that are unaffected by the implementation of the health care law:

But the overwhelming reason for the rate increase requests is rising medical costs, the filings by Anthem, Aetna and ConnectiCare say. The companies say this is mainly because providers are raising their prices and patients are getting more care.

“People are accessing more services and hospitals, doctors and labs are charging us more,” Aetna spokeswoman Susan Millerick said.

The costs associated with the Affordable Care Act account for only a tiny fraction of the requested increases — less than 1 percent. These amounts cover the costs of the preventative women’s care benefits and the changes in cost sharing, said Paul Lombardo, the actuary for the state Insurance Department who reviews the rate increase requests.


While health care spending did rise at double the rate of inflation in 2010, a report by the Health Care Cost Institute confirms Connecticut’s findings and concludes the rising prices are due to the health costs that crept up during the recession. In fact, Obamacare will help address this very issue. The health care reform law represents part of the solution — not the problem, as Republicans claim — as it seeks to help make health insurance more affordable by reforming payment models, reducing payments to hospitals, and prioritizing quality of care.

Romney's debate performance is not surprising - since such a setting rewards bald faced liars.

Romney saying:

1) "my plan covers pre-existing conditions" (yeah, as of that moment) ..and...

2) "I don't have a $5 Trillion tax cut"... after the Tax Policy Center's analysis clearly established that a 20% cut in tax rates and repealing the estate tax entirely, along with a list of other changes, would produce a loss of revenues of $456 billion by 2015 - which over 10 years (this is usually the time frame discussed by policy wonks in making their estimates) gets you to a rounded figure of $5 trillion.


ON THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF BASE-BROADENING INCOME TAX REFORM (of the Romney tax plan)

This plan would extend the 2001-03 tax cuts,

reduce individual income tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate taxation of investment income of most taxpayers (including individuals earning less than $100,000, and married couples earning less than $200,000), eliminate the estate tax, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the high-income taxes enacted in 2010’s health-reform legislation.1 We estimate that these components would reduce revenues by $456 billion in 2015 relative to a current policy baseline.2 According to statements by Governor Romney and his advisors, the remainder of the plan will include policies to offset this revenue loss, although there are no details on how that would be achieved.


I think this kinda 'threw' Obama, who is a classy, reserved guy, and who no doubt thought but, balked at saying: "Don't give me that shit! Those are fucking facts!!"

Once the fact checking begins, a clearer picture will emerge as to who did better in the first debate. But the only problem is, I admitt, a significant fraction (or, should I say 'faction') of the population seems to place little importance on the facts in these matters.



debate transcript

..."FACTS?....FACTS??...WEEEEE DON'T NEEEED NO STINKING FACTS!!!"....Mitt Rmoney(?)






Romney claim Obamacare will "kill jobs" another RBL (Romney Big Lie) CBO says mimimal impact on jobs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-obamacare-jobs_n_1937929.html?ref=topbar


Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney repeated charges that President Barack Obama's health care law will kill jobs -- a claim at odds with Congressional Budget Office projections and the effects of Romney's own health care law in Massachusetts.

"I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the -- at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs," Romney said.

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, FactCheck.org noted in June. According to the nonpartisan agency's estimates, health care reform will reduce the workforce by 0.5 percent. That's mostly because people would choose to retire early or work fewer hours, FactCheck.org reported.

If the national experience under Obamacare mirrors what happened in Massachusetts under Romney's similar health care law, job losses won't be a major issue. Employment trends in Massachusetts since Romneycare took effect have mirrored national trends, concluded a report issued by the Urban Institute in June. "The evidence from Massachusetts would suggest that national health reform does not imply job loss and stymied economic growth," said the report.
<more>

of course, Rmoney doesn't want to consider how big increases in health care costs to people - WITHOUT THE ACA in place - would impact sales of all companies. People spending a significantly greater amount of their income on health care will be spending much less for everything else. .... Huh, RMoney .... what the fuck about THAT!? Let's see you bullshit your way out of that one!

Actually, if ACA wasn't there and Health care costs kept going up like they have been the last decade, the impact on jobs due to depressed sales, on every sector BUT health care would be far greater than the cost of the ACA to employers.

Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures - Darrell Issa leads charge

Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures

[font size="+1" color="gray"]Hearing comes as a new poll says voters still trust Obama over Romney on foreign policy.[/font]


[font size="+1"]Darrell Issa, Grand Inquisitor, has questions for Sec. Clinton[/font]


Republican lawmakers called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday to answer their questions on security shortcomings in Libya, also scheduling an emergency House Oversight and Government Reform hearing next week to discuss the administration's failures, even though Congress is not in session.

Two Republicans, California Rep. Darrell Issa and Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, have charged that the consulate in Benghazi faced multiple security threats prior to the September attacks, but that the Obama administration failed to appropriately respond.
<more>


Darrell Issa catching a nap in his office..


Gregory Beclowns Himself With Awful Performance Moderating Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown Debate

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/david-gregory-beclowns-himself-awful-performance-moderating-elizabeth-warren-scott

October 2, 2012 Monday night’s Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown debate turned out to be memorable. Not so much because of what the candidates said, but because of the bad reviews of the debate moderater, David Gregory. The NBC “Meet the Press” host used the badgering style of that show on both candidates, inserting himself heatedly into a hectic discussion that seemed to center on media talking points and playing “gotcha” rather than substantive issues. Viewers were neither amused nor informed.

Gregory got off to a bad start, opening the evening with a question about Warren’s supposed Native American heritage, which was exactly the same question that opened the first debate. The utterly unenlightening discussion went on for a full ten minutes.

As he lobbed patronizing, irrelevant questions at both candidates, Twitter erupted into fury on both sides of the political aisle.

<more>

Gregory thinks if he talks real[font size="+1"] loud[/font], he will fool people so they won't know he is an air-head, .... and a dick.


Five Obscene Reasons the Rich Keep Getting Richer as Middle Class declines

http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-obscene-reasons-why-richest-americans-grow-richer-middle-class-declines?page=0%2C0&akid=9471.263688.Tt44KS&rd=1&src=newsletter719318&t=3




The super-rich have learned a new lesson: it is far better to take than to make.


If you want to see what’s wrong with America take a good look at the nauseating list of the 400 richest Americans – the Forbes 400 . While the economy struggled to create jobs, it was another banner year for the super-rich. They increased their collective wealth by a whopping $200 billion, which is more than enough to provide every student in the country with free higher education.

Meanwhile, the median middle-class family – the one smack in the middle of the income distribution -- saw its net worth (assets minus liabilities) drop from $102,844 in 2005 to $66,740 in 2010 according to the U.S. Census Bureau . So while the richest 400 Americans increased their wealth by 54 percent since 2005, the median middle-class family saw its wealth decline by 35 percent. Welcome to the new American math.

It’s not easy to wrap our arms around so much financial fat. The numbers involved are truly mind-boggling. Here’s more new math:

• The richest 400 Americans have as much combined wealth as 25.5 million middle-income Americans. 400 = 25.5 million!

• The average wealthy member of the Forbes 400 is 63,000 times as rich as the average middle-class family. One = 63,000!

• It would take the median middle-class family 82,411 years to earn an amount equal to the wealth of the average person on the rich list. That’s the very definition of financial obscenity.
<more>
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Next »