Posts

Ever wonder where all the money went?

You silly sap, letting your invested retirement sit and fluctuate at the whim of the market while others profit from the mechanics of the trading system, sapping all possible gain.

What do I mean by the mechanics of the system?

I mean, for example, minor discrepancies between reported market value of the same stock or commodity by different brokers.  These are not real differences, merely numerical equivalents of differences in different softwares' reporting 2 or 3 significant digits.

For example, one system might report that shares of Company X is valued at $21.03 /share.  Another reports $21.031/share.  Buy low ($21.03), sell high ($21.031).  Repeat millions of times = profit.

Imagine a piece of software that can enact trades in microseconds, taking advantage of differences that exist because reporting systems fail to update simultaneously.

Now, read this story about a software engineer who has been arrested by the FBI.  He was not arrested because profiting from numerical discrepancies is a crime.  Instead, he is being charged with stealing the software that allows parasitic profiting from Goldman-Sachs. The fact that they don't even see this software gimmick as criminal is sad.

The moral decline in our collective approach to the markets is such that anything leading to profit goes.  As a liberal, my concern is that of the wage-earner.  People's work is their lives.  It's their time on this planet.  What they do with it is all they have control over.  They should be paid a decent wage.  Theft is profit, but theft is illegal.

Now, someone who is clever enough to parasitize the market is clever, no doubt.  But they should not be allowed to profit on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, sucking the market of momentum, effectively shutting down incentive to trade.

Such software is counter to the intent and spirit of laws that exist to protect investors and companies from devaluation.

Let's put an end to this NOW.  Here are some options:

- One uniform, all-encompassing broker system;
- New federal laws that make profiting from the mechanics of the market illegal
- New federal laws that require trading systems to honor a 60-second delay between transactions involving the same stock or commodity.

Take your pick.  All I know is that as long as I know that people can suck profit systematically from the market due to reporting discrepancies, my confidence in the market will remain at an all-time low.

The United States has come a long way with government-imposed changes in our norms.  Consider the civil rights victories of the last century; blacks used to be mob-lynched; black used to be forced to use alternative transport, restrooms, and restaurants; blacks used to be forced to use different schools; blacks used to not be able to vote.

What we have with the health insurance option debate is the right warping Obama's words, taking his benign discussions way the hell out of context, making people think that Obama wants to redistribute the white man's health to blacks.

Watch this comparison of a propagandized version of an interview with Obama on radio station WBEZ and the real deal.

Please also consider the slander and libel of the misrepresentation of this doctor's recommendations when his words were taken out of context.

The fear you hear in the people's voices at town halls was put there by Drudge, and Rush, and Hannity.  They are taking a good person's views and warping them into things he never said.

They've done this with health care.  Watch them do it with every single domestic and social agenda that the Democrats put forward.  Get Real predicts that this won't be the last race-baiting we see, by a long shot.

The right is always using fear to inspire followers to follow them.  The sheep on the right should be angry at their leaders for putting that baseless fear in their hearts.

For all the race-baiting that's going on, readers should be aware of and keep in mind the public manipulation by the insurance companies as well.

There is a lot of, well, discussion about the pending Health Care Reform Bill.

Here's what you're not being told:

(1) It's not a Health Care Reform Bill. 

Truth: It's a Health Care INSURANCE Reform Bill.  It is NOT a Gov't take over of all of health care services for everyone.  So any discussion on the merits of Gov't-run health care is non-sequitur.

(2) The Gov't Health Care Insurance Program will not lead to rationing of health care.

Truth: The purpose of the bill is to put an end to current rationing done by insurance companies.  Currently, insurance companies deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, for example. 

Don't fall for the GOP shell game. They are providing half-truths, keeping their constituents ignorant and inciting anger.  How profoundly wrong.  For example,  some say that seniors will be left out because there will be cuts to Medicare.  The cuts to $500 billion cuts that would occur to Medicare exist because many people who benefit from Medicare would no longer need that coverage; they would have Gov't Health Care Insurance.

(3) The Gov't Health Care Insurance Program will be deficit neutral.

Truth:  If Obama keeps his word, he won't sign any bill that is not deficit neutral in ten years.

We can argue about the projections; my belief is that a healthy population is a more productive population.

(4) The Gov't Health Care Insurance Program  is not redistribution of wealth from the have's to the have-nots.
I can understand why those who deeply resent the idea of free health care to anyone who does not work because it feels like re-distribution of money from the tax earners to the poor.  What those folks ignore is that all of our health care insurance premiums are HUGE compared to what they would be for the following reasons:

- the poor tend to use the more expensive emergency room option for minor illnesses;
- current health insurance is a shell game.  For example, take a large-ticket item that is supposed to"paid for' in part by the co-pay.  The insurance company often comes to the patient to see how much the patient can pay. 

What if you can't pay?

Who pays the difference?

You guessed it.  You and I.  Via Medicaid and higher premiums.

So, who do you trust to make decisions about what coverage is right for you?   The profit-driven insurance company who might deny expensive items (and this happens all the time), or the profit-neutral government?

Note that medical doctors are not coming out in droves against the Health Care Insurance Reform.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong of Rush and Beck to put such fear into their constituents hearts by misleading them, leaving them so badly misinformed.

Let's drop the shouting matches, and let's start learning the fact about things before we show up and start yelling. 

Let's Get Real.

Today I was listening to Hannity as he laughably tried to defend the anti-health care reform Town Hall operation of the GOP as grass roots, and as he tried to give credit for the unfolding of the highly vocal town hall meeting disrupters to "community organizers".  A caller had (correctly) outlined how the plan was organized by the GOP.  The word for this type of sham grassroots operation is Astroturfing.  This is when a political party flies in operatives to a particular location to cause a clamor, masquerading as ordinary citizens.

A past example of Astroturfing is the "spontaneous" disruption of ballot-counting in Miami in 2000 in a fiasco known as the Brooks Brothers Riot.

Check out this picture of the 'riot' of people clamoring to get in.  Ballot counting was disrupted.  These are political operatives of well-known right wingers.  Some were rewarded with positions in the Bush administration.

Now, what's laughable about Hannity's defense of the right-fringers* who show up out of the blue at Town Hall meetings and prevent rational discussion of health care reform is that the day before I was listening to Limbaugh.

"Show up, disrupt, get loud, blah, blah, blah" Limbaugh encouraged listeners.  This type of talk is also known as inciting a riot.   Rush may well be guilty of a crime.

What's not so funny is that they so blatantly call for an Astroturf disruption - and feed their operatives sound bites  - and fill their heads with disinformation.

Doubt me?

This is not the first time.  Rush in his own words called himself the Commander-in-Chief of "Operation Chaos" in Denver for the Democratic National Convention.

These guys just don't how to lose well.

It's no wonder that the GOP Propaganda Radio (i.e., Right-Wing Radio Nutjobs) are at risk of losing their federal classification as entertainment.  These right-wing radio nutjobs are nothing but pitchmen - so their shows are nothing more than advertisement.

Get Real, Rush.   Regardless of where you stand on health care reform, these tactics are beyond the pale.

*Right-fringers: a term coined in this and for this article..

Hold on your seats, people.  This is going to be rough for some of you.

Am I biased against neocon nutjobs who want to rule the world?  Yes, guilty as charged.  Do I have a problem with the use of preemptive war based on - (oops!) "Evidence".  Sure.

Am I 100% always going to back and support a liberal politician, or even President, just because they are Democrat?

No.

Cronyism is the practice of appointing people to positions of power based on their association with you, not based on their ability to do a good job.  It really stunk to high heaven that Bush appointed people out of returned political favors and not the best person for the job to important posts such as, let's see, the Director of FEMA.  Such practices leads to ineffective government at best; in the case of Katrina, it put tens of millions of us at high risk and lead to unnecessary suffering and death in the US.

Now, it may surprise some GR readers that I listen, albeit carefully, to conservative talk radio.  Most of the time I listen for entertainment, as they spout and froth and foam and try to fling poo and see what sticks.  See, what these guys do is they all pick a topic for the day (GOP talking points), they talk and talk and talk and talk about the issue in the most inane ways.  They are testing sound bites all day long.  They have their flung-poo-stick-o-meter out there testing to see what crap they fling appears to play well.  If it plays well with one yapping nutjob, they amplify and repeat the same message.  By 5:00, Hannity is all riled up and the sound bites are pretty well honed.  By the late evening, that hate-monger Savage has worked himself up into such a frenzy, pulling his hair out screaming like a madman over the issue that he seems hell bent on inspiring violent revolution, or at least a good old-fashioned assassination attempt.

Back to Cronyism. 

Now, I won't do this much, but I want you read this web page at Glenn Beck's site where he questions the competency of Mr. Van Jones, the president's pick for "Green Czar".  Beck took most of his material from a piece in the New Yorker.

Now, I don't have a problem with Mr. Jones' message that we should weatherize federal buildings.  Heck, I think the Obama team got that idea from me!!! (Not kidding).  It puts people here, in the US, to work, and it reduces the cost of running government buildings.

I DO have a potential problem with the appointment.  Not because Mr. Jones is black.   It's because he does not appear to have a technical background that prepares him to do the job well.  I may be wrong.  He's written a book on Green Jobs.  But from what Beck had to say about him, he's more along the lines of a political radicalist then a green guy, or even an economics guy.

But (GASP), it's also because when he speaks to black audiences he says that he thinks the green jobs should go to them.  Specifically to them. Implying not to others.

On its own, that statement sounds almost ok, like 'hey, we're doing something good for the inner city'!!!

Which is fine.  But...

If the greening of buildings is disproportionately biased toward those parts of the city that happen to be inhabited by African Americans, with those jobs going exclusively to African Americans, we have an an obvious problem.

Just like, if, as Glenn Beck has said, Obama's healthcare reform is designed to disproportionately advantage minorities, we have a problem.

Heresy for a liberal? 

We'll see.

Now, if providing coverage for everyone happens to disproportionately advantage minorities, that's fine.  It probably also disproportionately advantage to poor white rural folks, as well. Which is fine.  And it probably provides less advantage to white-collar minorities.  And white-collar blacks. Fine, fine, fine.  They don't need it.  They have insurance.

But if, as Beck claims, the programs were specifically designed to enforce a far-left liberal ideal of social justice, somehow tied to slave reparations, this would be wrong, wrong, wrong under any president, white, black, or purple.

Now, I know that Bush and Cheney et al. made billions (or more) for their friends.  They get to do it.  Why not Obama?

They don't.  It was wrong for them, too.  People know that I loathe Cheney for being an executive in Halliburton, plotting the Iraq war contract profits even before Bush was chosen by the PNAC to be their boy in the house. 

But people, people. See, I don't see color.  I know that blacks in America have been pushed down, hard.  Over and over and over.  But I also know that in this country, especially in the inner cities, blacks push down blacks hard, too.  It's a crime to be smart. There is stigma attached to "acting white".

We will not get over the plain and simple issue of each person has equal rights and equal opportunity with the establishment of programs that are designed specifically to benefit any one "population" in America over another.

It defeats its own purpose, because we are one population.

With equal rights.

And equal opportunity.

So I'm glad healthcare reform appears to be on hold.  I'm not afraid to say why.  I can only say that if a white President wanted a program that was designed to disproportionately benefited whites, I'd be all over it, and the first to cry foul.

So, I hope Beck is wrong.  And I hope Mr. Jones is more qualified than we know.  I'd be glad to see green jobs in the inner city.  But we need them in rural white areas, too.  And in Chinatowns.  And in East LA. 

I don't want to get stuck in the quagmire of 'it's impossible for a minority to be racist".  Ok?  That's not the issue here.  Bias is bias is bias is bias, regardless of the color of the skin of the person who holds and speaks that bias. 

C'mon, Obama! Let's at least demonstrate what it's like to be fair-minded, aware of our biases, and show the right how to act against those biases.

Sarah Palin, using an old, tired page torn from the playbook from the far right GOP, sounded the opening volleys of her campaign for the 2012 Republican Primary, which included a strong message for the US media and for "starlets" in Hollywood.

Without specifying whatsoever what the hell she meant, or who in the media was at fault, or what misleading statements were behind her comments, she stated "“So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, quit making things up,”

She called out unnamed individuals in "Hollywood" for using  “starlets” who rail against gun rights, specifically “anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood,” Palin said advocacy groups “use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.”

By this she meant Ashley Judd, who used her stature to help inform people about aerial hunting of wolves in the Arctic.

Palin, hoping to educate the misinfomed, offered such individuals this message: “By the way, Hollywood needs to know: We eat therefore we hunt."

Um, Get Real, Sarah.  First, aerial hunting of wolves is not a guns rights issue.  Nice try.  Well, ok, not so nice try.  Second, and I think more to the point, we don't eat wolves.  Well, most people don't.  You might.  I'm sure THAT would help you with dog-loving voters all across America.

She even aimed her fire at an undefined group who she deemed insufficiently patriotic.

Some in this group, Palin said, “seem to just be hell-bent on maybe tearing down our nation, perpetuating some pessimism and suggesting American apologetics.”

Palin appears to be ignorant of the fact that the current President of the United States has in fact apologized to much of the world for the errors of the last Republican administration. No 'suggestions' necessary.  And appropriately so, according to the many people who voted for Obama based on his foreign policy plans, which were vastly superior to your PNAC orders.

According to some who listened to the speech, Palin sounded like a shrill, spurned woman having a hissy fit who was bent on score-settling.

Palin is clearly seeking to provoke headlines.

Ok, now that that's over, Get Real suggests that the press  do Palin a solid and refuse to cover anymore of her amateurish antics and hissy fits.

They don't help her one bit.

Run, Sarah, run!

-GR

Six months have gone by since Obama was sworn in.  In that time, the GOP has squabbled within their ranks over who qualifies as a genuine Republican.  They have stood in the way of much-needed progress in the critical areas of economic reform and job creation.  By shutting down the program for retrofitting federal buildings for energy efficiency, the GOP guaranteed higher cost of doing government business, and further delaying the inevitable renewable energy revolution.  They have proven that they are more willing to politicize important issues such as health care reform.

When was the last time you heard an earnest, coherent alternative plan from the GOP to counter Obama's proposals?  Obama has even reached across the isle for input searching for areas of consensus.

Enter, again, the far right to screw things up.

William Kristol has today put the call out for GOPers to obfuscate, delay, stall, block, while at the same time keep up appearances of being productive.  To FAKE it. What?  Why?

Well, it appears that William Kristol, one of the architects of the far-right's equally brilliant plan to invade Iraq at all costs, feels the need to justify the actions of an otherwise apparently rogue South Carolinian Republican Senator,  Jim DeMint. Speaking on health care reform, DeMint showed his true colors:

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo,” DeMint told the group, according to the Politico’s Ben Smith. “It will break him.”

President Obama recognized the opportunity to expose the real agenda of the Party of No Ideas and made mince meat of Sen. DeMint.

"Think about that,” Obama said of DeMint’s remarks. “This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. And we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care, not this time, not now.” Obama vowed to fight against “the politics of the moment.”

Let's go back to 1994, and back to William Kristol, who basically called our the GOP hounds against health care reform then.  It was clear in his message then, and today, that the exercise in demonstrating the appearance of political power (which is severely lacking) is more important to the far-right Kristol than the implications of such politicking on policy.  His ploy appeared to work then.  But all of our eyes have been opened wide.  Remember what happened the last time a GOP member listened to William Kristol and the rest of the far-right?

No big surprise here for those of us with our eyes open.  The blatant, raw preference for no-ism over progress of any kind is precisely the kind of errant politicking that has weakened the GOP.  Rush lost it when he said he hoped Obama would fail.  Cheney lost it when he tried to kick out the moderates.  Whether health care reform flies or not, this is pure posturing by the far-right.  William Kristol felt the support for health care reform among the Democrats last week begin to decrease based on fiscal projections, and his call for rallying the GOP troops is really a call to take credit for the inevitable.

Get Real, Mr. Kristol.  You fail to understand the new politics of the 21st century.  Your ploys and tactics are tired and worn out.  They fail to inspire.  They lead to GOP Presidents making fools of themselves by invading other countries without warrant, and they have lead to Mr. DeMint looking like a stick in the mud, a representative of the Party of No Ideas.  If only you hadn't pushed so hard for pre-emptive war in the Middle East, doing so much damage to the GOP that they will not likely recover again for decades to come.  Maybe then someone might listen to your advice.  Someone other than the GOP News Outlets, that is.

Here is a message to GOP candidates: Get Real.  If you play with this type of dangerous politics, and continue to gloat over increasing job losses, with no effort on your part to bring to this Democratic Congress and to this Democratic President real alternatives that you think will genuinely work, your local constituents will continue to lose their jobs, continue to struggle with sick family members with no health care insurance, continue to see the price of everything they seek to purchase grow further and further out of reach.  And you won't be able to run against Obama.  You'll be running against candidates who report that you have done nothing.

It's really, truly time to put partisanship aside, and for every candidate to take action and make a real impact that will improve the economic situation in the US.   This does not mean rubber-stamping every one of Obama's initiatives.  It does mean making progress.  Progress is made by proposing genuine alternatives that are likely to work.  Or modifying a standing proposal.  The only people who care about who gets credit for bills that work are the people who will vote for you.  Sponsor bills.  Get moving.   Don't listen to the talking points from the far right of your party; that kind of politics is the exact wrong kind to practice in this climate.  Your party is broken and suffers from a great sickness.  Their messages are colored by the terrible advice from the far-right that has ruined this country.

Give yourself a book of work that is greater than "I stopped Obama".  Something to take back home that says "I did this for you.  We made it happen.  It's not perfect, but it's much better than nothing.  And it was made better than nothing because I put my individual creative effort into it.  Even when others in the GOP were sticks in the mud.  To make things work takes creativity and compromise".

Heck, I might even vote for a Republican that talked like that. 

An important factor that appears to be providing a deep and abiding undercurrent in national politics in the US is the effect of the election of a black American to the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

Let's look at this closely, because an analysis of the futility of the fear-mongering by the right exposes a pattern of the most cynical political strategy behind the right-wing's apparent past successes.

Let's go back in time to Nixon Atwater presidential candidacy strategy of “split the country in half and take the bigger half”.  Pat Buchanan is credited with this.  The story goes that this was Buchanan's reply to Nixon's question on which side of the Vietnam issue he should adopt.  On a given, individual issue, this can be considered equivalent to voting your constituency's voice.  The other side of that is voting your conscience.

Fast-forward to Newt Gingrich's conservative revolution.  What was that?  That was the GOP's attempt to take majority control of the Congress for the first time in forty years with a promise of ten bills designed to reform the government with fiscal responsibility, getting tough on crime, welfare reform, tax relief to the middle class tied to married folks, re-assertion of the sovereignty of the US military (no UN control), job creation, and term limits.

Issue after issue, Gingrich and his cronies promoted GOP candidates with a standard list of talking points on issues that polled among conservatives and moderates - this is important - AND MODERATES - as highly important.  Moreover, the specific position the GOP took as a party issue after issue reflected the majority voice.   Individual candidates were told to emphasize issues in their local stumping that played well with their constituency, and to downplay issues where the GOP differed from local sensibilities.

The actual success of the GOP Contract with America turned out to be questionable, and, because Clinton played ball on the fiscal and social program reforms (welfare to work), Clinton seized the majority of the credit.   The same people behind the Contract with America were the most vehement in their seething, unhidden disdain for Clinton during the Lewinsky scandals.  In spite of their efforts, Clinton's approval ratings continued to climb in his last two years in office, paradoxically reaching its zenith at 73% AFTER impeachment.

Enter Karl Rove.  Rove used a stealth campaign tactic based ultimately on Buchanan's "divide the country, and take the bigger half", combined them with the "tell them what they want to hear locally".  This gave Bush II a fighting chance at beating Al Gore.  The absolute absense of the role of the role of individual morality led to congressional candidate literally without any apparent need to think, or formulate their own opinions, about issues that mattered.  The radio talk show arm of the GOP, including of course Limbaugh, Hannity and others, would beat away at finding sound bites that could catch on, softening the listening conservative audience to the more respectable and apparently rational representation of the same issues coming from their candidates regurgitation of party-line talking points.

Few understand that Rove and the GOP strategists sliced and diced the US on hundreds of issues, trying to find the bigger half on issue after issue.  This strategy, however, had two undesirable and little-recognized effects.  First, it took the "soul" out of the individual candidate's election or re-election bids.   Candidates were found to vote party-line with the Bush White House, with no initiative, no creativity, no representation of the local constitutency's voice.    GOP candidates were observed representing the White House, and therefore they tied their fate completely to Bush's popularity, which was a mirror image of Clinton's.  Bush's approval jumped to its all-time high after Sept 11 attacks, but the general trend was a downward spiral.  Bush ended his Presidency at about 33% approval rating.  In January 2004, 89% of the GOP electorate gave Bush an approval rating  This means that the same people who now say that Bush was "not a conservative" touted him as an ideal leader for their party.

Enter the 2006 mid-term elections, which saw the transfer of power back to the Democrats.  Bush tried to blame his low approval rating on the outcome of these elections, but the opposite was true: by 2006, the War in Iraq was seen by most Americans as a mistake, and, as their GOP's congressional candidates' fates were tied to the party line, they were helpless to speak for themselves.

Now, if we look at the cultural firsts that happened in this time frame, we can see the disintegration of the ability of the far right to whip the party into frenzy over issues that historically divided.  The first of these was the ascension of a woman to the Speaker of the House post.  A woman is two heartbeats away from becoming President of the US.  This tells women in every party that the power ceiling can be breached.  It also makes Pelosi a natural target for criticism from the far-right.  A bunch of balding white guys impuning the moral integrity of a mom who achieved such high status does not sit well with the majority of Americans.

The second cultural first of course was the election of a black American to the Office of the President.  What was important in this outcome was that the world did not stop; people went about their days, going to work, raising their children, in spite of this outcome considered so unacceptable by the far right.   The far right was put into its proper place as a minority viewpoint on the issue of race.  Which leaves them weak and unable to lead.  The in fighting between the far-right talk show hosts and the former right-wing party leaders is symptomatic of a deep fracturing of the GOP in which it's every elected candidate for themselves.  All politics are local.  Therefore GOP candidates should be turning to the local constituency, and they are learning, on issue after issue, that the country cannot be divided neatly along past issues like abortion, gun control, and other fear-issues, mostly because, to a person, we are focused on trying to make our own lives work, manage our credit, keep or find jobs, feed and house our families.  These are issues that unite across cultural divides.

Now we see the far right, and the GOP talk show hosts, hammering and hammering away at the six month point with blame for Obama for not miraculously turning the tide of the business cycle, for not creating millions of jobs in six months.  They cannot necessarily criticize Obama for not immediately undoing Bush's legislation, or reverse course on every economic policy, for they supported these policies and enacted the legislation.  So all they have left is what Obama has done so far.  And they have overplayed their hand, and peaked too early.   Obama wisely is holding back on spending the bulk of the stimulus package for a number of reasons, including (1) he wants to see where it is most effectively applied, and most needed, and (2) he can survive another six months of unwarranted criticism because the facts don't bear out the assertion.  He is in a marathon, and the far right think he's in a sprint.  They far right is trying (and failing) to seize the banner of economics, as if the idea to have a recovery was theirs, portraying Obama as a person who wants the US to fail, spreading rumors about his supposed personal Islamic past, questioning his allegiance to the US.

Six months from now, after the recovery has really taken root, and is obvious to even the most jaded right-winger, these issues will be seen as derisive, irresponsible dabblings in hate.  So let them continue to try to divide; only Obama is positioned to bring those split apart on issues together.  The crazies have even so far as to say that their last best chance right now is an attack on the US by bin Laden.  The fact that they would exploit such an event to their party's benefit should disgust all voting Americans.

The main thesis of this analysis is that due to their practice of 'divide and conquer', the far right is seen by the US public as an external threat to a recovery.   Statements like "I don't care about that issue, I don't have time to care about that issue, I have a mortgage payment to make" are more likely from moderates than "I need to do x and y before Obama takes it all away from me".   The far right is too far out of touch with the new culturally reformed America, and cannot relate in a real and meaningful to their supposed constituency.  They are, therefore, no longer legitimate leaders in their own party.  Never, ever would we want to see such a thing, but Get Real asserts that even an attack on the US would bring people together right now because Obama would ask the people of the US to work together.  He has no hidden agenda for a war on Iraq to fulfill.  And, unlike Bush and Cheney, he has no big-money interests expecting him to assert US foreign policy to the benefit of war-contract companies.

So, to sum up, the more the far right attempts to divide, the more isolated they become.  Obama has time now, in the next six months to a year, to oversee a recovery.   And the good news is that it's overdue.  There is a backlog of hiring; small businesses right now are reluctant to hire into new positions due to uncertainty over their future contribution to their employee's health care.  Obama should drop health care for a year if it does not pass this time around, and give the economy a year to rebound, facilitated by investments that lead to new jobs now and that in the long-term lower the cost of doing business in the US, such as creating a national renewable energy grid with locally optimized blends of electricity from wind, geothermal, solar, tidal, and other sources.  Making all federal buildings more energy efficient would put local contractors to work now for insulating air returns, installing high-efficiency heating and cooling units, etc.   Obama needs to make repeated trips to Detroit and underscore the changes in the auto industry as progressive and, important, enabled by but not mandated by the US government.

Obama should turn the argument around on his avowed critics and ask them what their plans would be, and take their input seriously if they have material plans to stimulate the economy, and ask them to tone down the pointless rhetoric and do everything they can do to stimulate the economy.  The far right is now rendered impotent in fanning the flames of past culture wars.  The GOP appears to be the "Party of No", and if they keep alienating blacks, women, Hispanics, and moderate conservatives, they will enjoy being the or one of the minority parties in the US congress for a long, long time as the "Party of No One".

According to the right-wing radio nutjob propaganda, Obama has quadrupled the deficit in 6 mos.  Or doubled it.  Or increased it by 10-fold.

Well, friends, it's time to GET REAL.

In this NYT article, David Leonhardt reviews an in-depth analysis of the source of the deficit. Here's the breakdown, for all of you conservatives running around saying that "Obama" increased the deficit (tripled, tenfold, whatever statistic the right-wing radio nutjobs are pounding into your heads.

Contributing Source/Percent
Business Cycle: 37%
Bush legislation: 33%
Obama's extension of Bush policies: 20%
Obama's stimulus bill: 7%
Obama's agenda: 3%

From the article: "The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas. "

In other words, Bush did such a crappy job as President that he set the economy, and the government, on a spiral that has great downward momentum.  I call that downward momentum "Bush's Gift to Obama".   In such a situation, success is measured by how much you slow the free fall.  Think about it in terms of an aircraft.  Bush was the pilot, he put it into a steep nose dive,.  There is the angle of descent, and velocity.  The plane will be safer, and crash less devastating, if Obama can change the steepness of the angle, and slow the plane.  It's still descending, but a good pilot would be able to do both.

So the next time one of your conservative friends regurgitates the right-wing radio nut job talking points trying to lay the deficit surge on Obama, you tell them to Get Real.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

(Thanks Brian for sharing this news article!!!)

Ok, Ellie and Snowy, I'll try!  Here goes:

Yes, the right-wing radio nutjobs spout out claims that Obama is "Socialist" because he wants to provide (gasp!) health care for all Americans...  yet you can bet Rush Limbaugh and all the other crazies will be the first to complain if they don't get their SOCIAL security checks...

Look, everyone.  Socialism is not achieved by government taxing people and then implementing FUNDING programs that benefit everyone.

Socialism is achieved by governments ACTUALLY RUNNING the hospitals.

If Obama were socialist, he'd be telling us the the US Federal Gov't was going to take over the hospitals with government doctors and government nurses and government administrators.

He's not saying that.  So he's not a socialist.

He's saying that there are people in the US without ANY HEALTH CARE and that the US, of all places on earth, should be able to provide health care to every person.  He's saying that with some form of Universal health care, we can have a healthier population.  Which means more productive workers, and kick-start to our economy.

Now, I confess, I am not decided about Universal Health Care.  But it's a good touch stone for the debate on whether Obama is a socialist.

Put simply, a Socialist Government runs things for you.  For everyone.  For the common good.  The collective interest is foremost, but first, before the interest of the individual.

In a Democratic Republic Government, such as ours, the government sometimes nudges the economy, or businesses, or people, in the direction that seems needed.  With incentives, ideally, with funding, if it seems to make sense.  We use the process of democracy to replace leaders who no longer seem to make sense.

Now that we know the difference between  a SOCIALIST government and a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC in which the government can facilitate directions in the economy and in the health care with strategic investment and spending, could we PLEASE drop the meaningless rhetoric and vacuous claims of fascism and socialism and communism?

Any level-headed conservative knows the difference between socialism and social programs.

We have had social programs before, like Pell Grants for qualified college students; federal guarantee of student loans; oh, and let's not forget that SOCIALIST program called the Department of Defense (GASP!!!  WE ALL SHARE THE BENEFIT FROM A COMMON (= communal) DEFENSE??? HEAVENS!!!); or how about that SOCIALIST Department of Homeland Security!!!  OH MY!!!

Oh Wait!! DON'T WE ALSO ALL SHARE A COMMON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?  AND A COMMON SENATE?  AND A COMMON CONGRESS???

Wait, here I discovered a link to a comprehensive listing of government agencies IN EVERY STATE!!!

EACH OF THESE AGENCIES EXIST FOR THE COMMON GOOD!!!!

OMG, WHEN DID THE US BECOME A FASCIST COMMUNIST STATE???  THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT IS PROOF THAT OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!!!

Under the conservative ideal, we would all provide all of our own individual needs, right?  No regulation.  No street signs.  No street lights.  Everyone does their own surgery on themselves, like REAL MEN. who saw their own arms off with a swiss army knife after being trapped for 10 minutes.  Now THERE is a RIGHTEOUS dude.

Cause we don't want ANY OF OUR MONEY TO GO TO HELP ANYONE ELSE. EVER.  FOR ANYTHING. I'M A DUPE IF ANYONE USES MY MONEY TO HELP ANYONE ELSE.  Cause I can't see how it helps me.

I mean, it's MY MONEY.  I earned it.

WAIT... WHO PRINTED THIS MONEY??? THE US COMMON DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY????  OMG I CAN'T ESCAPE!!! A COMMON CURRENCY FOR ALL 50 STATES???

AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

I'm moving to Montana.  Just me and the big sky.  And some cows.  Grazing. On Federal Lands.   FOR FREE.. PAID FOR BY OTHER TAXPAYERS.. OH GEEZ I guess I better just admit that I want government.  Something.  But not too much.  Just a little.  And anyone who wants more government than me, is EVIL.  PURE EVIL SCUM WHO MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Or they should move to Canada.  Or Cuba.  Whatever, they are not real Americans anyway because they want more government than I do.

They want my guns.  Yes, I mean the ones that fire safely because the US Government imposes quality control regulations so they don't blow up in my face.  OMG WHEN WILL THE NIGHTMARE END???

Ok, ok,  At least I can vote for republicans next time.  Party line.  In this voting booth.  Paid for by MY TAXES.  But you can't vote in MY BOOTH.  In fact, I'd rather build my own voting booth, thank you.  And you should build your own, too. It's the American way.  Mine will only have buttons for republicans.

Well, whatever SOCIALISM is, I hate it, because I don't understand it.  And I hate things I don't understand.  They are intrinsically a threat, because I don't understand it.  And I kill anything that I don't understand.  I need simple, straightforward things like sticks, and rocks.  Those, I get.  I throw them at things I don't understand.  They hurt when they hit people.  That, I understand.  Pain.  I like that.  Yeah. He-he.