When I heard about the introduction of a resolution to formally disapprove of the actions of Joe Wilson (R-SC, where SC could mean "Still Confederate" instead of South Carolina for all I know), I expected the motion to pass pretty easily.

When I saw the final tally, however, I became a bit annoyed.  Actually, very annoyed.

179 voted against it...including 12 Democrats.

I suppose I can understand the principle that we need to "get over it" and not waste our time, but if the time IS taken to vote on it, can't you at least vote with common sense?

Am I missing something here?  He did something incredibly stupid, something that I would think most people would agree with.  Not only did he do something stupid, but as Keith Olbermann said recently in a Special Comment, he was just plain wrong--if he read the damn bill, he'd know that undocumented aliens don't qualify for government subsidies for health insurance.  If Wilson gets away with this, who knows what people will shout in the chamber next?

Hey, Republicans, it's not about partisan politics; in fact, one could make the point that it's even more partisan for them (minus the 7 who do have common sense and manners) to vote against it.  It was wrong to do what he did; end of conversation.  I'm sorry, but that display of ignorance was the equivalent of 5-year old teemunney throwing a fit in Toys'R'Us because my parents wouldn't buy me the toy I wanted.  And I got reprimanded for that, trust me.  Oftentimes with spankings.

Maybe Joe Wilson could use a spanking.  By his opponent next year in Congressional elections.  Or while dressed in bondage.  With a prostitute.  Maybe David Vitter can join him.

But all joking aside, I don't get it.  What reason would you have to vote against the resolution?

Well, they've had good ideas before.  The "death panel" that got the far-right in a ruckus was actually a Republican.

I enjoyed Obama's speech last night--it was the most specific and direct he has been to the American people in awhile.  However, a lot of people (myself included) have concerns about the cost.  I think a public option is a good idea, but I also think that the minority party has done little to spur actual debate on this.  Well, except for shouting "You lie!" during a Presidental address.

I do have a question that needs answering, though:  Why is Obama against (or at least not really for) interstate competition--that is, being able to buy insurance outside your home state?

Obama said himself in his speech last night that in 34 of the 50 U.S. states, 75% of the health insurance market is dominated by five or fewer states; in Alabama, 90% is controlled by just ONE company!  We have a monopoly, or darn near one, in every state--couldn't dropping this regulation help?  Why wouldn't it?  I hate to say this--but I actually think the Republicans have a good idea!  Now, if only they could articulate that idea instead of shouting "government takeover", "socialism", etc., on the teevee and radio machines.

I want something done with our healthcare system, and I agree with almost everything Obama touched on last night.  And while I have absolutely effin' had it with the right wing's tactics--and I'm sure most of you have too--you have to ask, isn't there a cheaper way to do this?  And what reasons could there be against interstate competition?  I tried googling a few things but came up with nothing.

Comments and civil debate are appreciated.

 

"During my service in the United States Senate, I have often been called a Liberal, and it usually was not meant as a compliment. But I remember what my brother said about liberalism shortly before he was elected president. He said: 'If by a Liberal, they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind... Someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions... Someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties...Someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and the suspicion that grips us... If that is what they mean by a Liberal... Then I am proud to say I am a Liberal.'"

-Senator Edward M. Kennedy, from remarks given at Harvard after receiving an honorary degree in 2008

If there's one thing conservatives have won over the past 30 years, it has been the war of words.  The term "liberal" has a negative connotation in our country now, and the right has done wonders scaring Americans with short phrases: "socialized medicine", "cut and run", "death panel", the list goes on.

I saw the video clip of the above quote last night on the news, and I immediately swelled with pride.  I may not know just how much Senator Kennedy impacted our country--his time in the Senate more than doubles my time on Earth--but it was nice to see someone on our side show some pride in the political label affixed to him.  More often than not, if someone on the street were to ask me where I am on the political spectrum, I'd give some wishy-washy answer about how I'm open to all political views and that I was sick of the Bush administration, blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.

Well from now on, to hell with that.  I'm a liberal and proud of it.  And I'm not going to use the word "progressive" (although that may be a valid term) to hide behind it.  And here's why:

1) I am a liberal because I believe in a tax system based on ability to pay, not one that unfairly burdens the poor and middle class.

2) I am a liberal because I believe all Americans should have quality, affordable healthcare--and this includes having at least public option...if not a single-payer system.

3) I am a liberal because I believe in strength through peace moreso than peace through strength.

4) I am a liberal because I believe that relinquishing civil liberties for increased national security will cause the loss of both.

5) I am a liberal because I believe every person that is willing to work should have a job.

6) I am a liberal because I think the free market has great potential--however, government regulation is needed to ensure fair competition and consumer protection.

7) I am a liberal because I believe consumer spending is the main driver of our economy, and during a recession or depression government intervention to keep spending up should always be an option.

8) I am a liberal because I believe in deficit-neutral or surplus-inducing budgets.  The only exception would be #7, which applies now.

9) I am a liberal because I believe science and reason can greatly improve the quality of life for all of us.

10) I am a liberal because I believe in the separation of church and state.

11) I am a liberal because I believe all children should have access to quality education, and I want America to lead the world in creativity and achievement once again.

12) I am a liberal because I support a woman's right to choose, access to contraception and other preventive services, and equal pay for equal work.

13) I am a liberal because I believe in tolerance, whether it be different faiths, races/ethnicities, or sexual orientations.

14) I am a liberal because I want clean energy and an end to our dependence on fossil fuels now instead of kicking the can further down the road.

15) I am a liberal because I believe in human rights, and that a nation that tortures is one that loses its moral authority in the world.

I could write more, but I'm done here.  Feel free to comment with your reasons.

By now, you're probably heard about the newest estimates on the federal deficits and debt.  While this year's deficit will be smaller (though still huge, if you ask me) than expected, the national debt between 2010-2019 will increase another $7-9 trillion, with a T, dollars.  That's about an additional $30,000 per person.

Now don't get me wrong.  I still do have faith in President Obama, largely because I have no faith in conservatism.  I just hope Obama knows what the hell he's doing.  And sure, the deficit may be decreasing by year after 2009, but this is just a daunting amount of money that somehow needs to be paid back.

There are two schools of thought (maybe more, if you have more ideas please comment) on deficit reduction:

1) Raise taxes, preferably on the rich, which is what the left wants to do.

2) Lower taxes on the rich and hope the tax cuts pay for themselves.  Or pray that Supply-Side Jesus saves us all (the link courtesy of Bwak from a comment on an earlier post).

Let's take a look at option number two, why it doesn't work, and why the hell people still think it will work now.  This article breaks down four main factors that show economic growth--real income increases, real GDP increases, real wage increases, and real unemployment rate decreases, and shows that there's basically no correlation.  The Heritage Foundation has other nifty charts--except that in most of them they conveniently leave out information.  For example, real income may have been lower in 1994 than 1989, but yeah, just go ahead and ignore the increases afterwards and the fact that unemployment was at 4.2% when Clinton left office.  And they cite statistics from the 1920s to prove that Reaganomics works, also conveniently forgetting what happened afterward.

A recent op-ed by Paul Krugman calls these ideas "zombie" ideas--instead of wanting brains, these people want their country back--whatever the hell that means.  These people rail against healthcare reform, socialism, whatever-they-make-up-isms, without really having any ideas of their own.  As a result, we have with the healthcare--or for the sake of semantics, health insurance--debate, as Rachel Maddow puts it, "people who want reform versus people who don't even want this conversation to happen".

And that about sums it up.  If health insurance reform succeeds, that's it.  Supply-Side Jesus can't save you and conservatives will be sent to Keynesian hell (or our form of heaven, at least).

So this puts Obama between a Barack and a hard place.  The only way we can really get the deficit back on track is to raise taxes, but of course that's socialism or something.  I guess Eisenhower, a Republican, was a "socialist" too and was evil for maintaining a strong middle class.  Just keep widening the income gap; that's the way we do it in real America.

On the whole, I'm a moderate liberal--probably more conservative than the average TPMer.  I try to understand all sides of the argument and watch FOX News when I can stomach it.  I'm not a fan of pure socialism, but how the hell else can we reduce the deficit other than jacking up the top income tax rates?  I'm not necessarily for it, but I'm not against it either because a) I'm far from rich, and b) as discussed, Reaganomics doesn't work.  And my reason for shyness on the issue is probably the same reason why Democrats can't get united behind health insurance reform: because socialism is evil and un-American, and to stand for anything left of center in this country will get you kicked out of office.  That is, unless you take your stance on the issue, stay there no matter how irrational some may think it to be, and can articulate your vision in less than 140 characters.  Which reminds me--when you think about it, it's been 40 years since the Democratic Party actually stood for something:

"The Democratic Party has not been burdened by a unified ideology, or even vision, for quite some time. The last major legislative victories by a Democratic president occurred during the mid-1960s during the Johnson administration. Even the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency, the most successful Democratic administration in at least a generation, were products of good management and small scale legislative changes, not sweeping reform or major new programs."

I want to spur some discussion on the issue--namely, how we can pay this money back, how we can ensure the GOP doesn't get the upper hand on this issue (and thus regain control and make it worse, if that's even possible), and how Obama can frame the debate on this issue--and even on health insurance even though that wasn't the main topic of my post--for a 5-year old to understand.  Though the debate is making a turn-around, it's clear that Hitler mustaches and cries of socialism resonate much better than actually explaining something.

 

Wow, it's been awhile.  I've visited the site now and then and it's good to still see posts from other regulars.  And sorry about the incomplete post earlier--I'm at work and multitasking :-)

But as the title says, I'm back.  And I'm pissed.  There will likely be adult language in this post, so tell the kids to go read something else for the next few minutes.  I have a list of people or entities that I'm ticked off with, and I'm sure a lot of you feel the same way.  So, here we go....

1) Progressives (this includes myself)

Man, we got fooled didn't we.  There's a reason why I stopped posting on TPM, and I thought it was because I was busy finishing up college and getting ready to start my new job and all.  But it wasn't that.

I thought we had it in the bag.  I thought we'd be living in a completely different world where all of our work has been done and it's up to our elected officials to carry out what we voted for.  Except I forgot that our elected officials are owned by lobbyists.  I stopped donating money to the campaign, stopped blogging, stopped learning more about the complex issues that our country faces, and stopped talking to others about what I believed in.  I guess you can say I had "election burnout" or something, but it was really just too much comfort.  I'm also annoyed that it took crazy town hall madness of such magnitude to get me excited again and to be able to articulate what health care reform means to me to others.

I also now live in Kansas, which I also used as an excuse not to care, because...well, hell, I'm a progressive in Kansas.  But as I'll talk about later, this isn't a reason to just fiddle while people are trying to burn Rome.

2) The media

Oh, dear God, don't even get me started on this.  I mean, seriously.  If the media is SO in the tank for Obama, then why the hell are people like this getting significant airtime? 

Worst of all, what annoys me is the oversimplification of the health care debate.  But I should have known this--after all, the least favorite activity of Americans is thinking.  Does the media want you to be scared of death panels?  Some time could actually be spent explaining how dumb Sarah Palin's quote was, but instead, they give Chuck Grassley as much, if not more legitimacy than Palin after he says essentially the same thing!  What the hell is going on?!?

And by giving so much airtime to the birthers and, now, the "deathers", the mainstream media is actually giving these people legitimacy.  We know Obama is a U.S. citizen.  It's a fact.  Stop giving airtime to those who see otherwise.  I liked the coverage for a day or two just because I thought it was so damn funny.  But thanks to the MSM, these people actually have traction now.

Another thing I thought of last Friday, when Obama's physician was on Bill Maher's show:  where the fuck are the doctors on this issue?  No, not you, Dr. Nancy or Dr. Sanjay Gupta, REAL doctors.  The ones who want to truly help people but can't because insurance companies tell them not to.  The ones who spend as much time on the phone fighting with said companies as they do in the office helping patients.  They want reform too, right?

3) Republicans in Congress

Okay, I know you guys don't want to do anything about health care reform, but can you at least tell the wingnuts on your side to calm down?  I mean, I thought I was mad when I was 9 years old and didn't get a Nintendo 64 for Christmas (I got one for my birthday 2 months later, but I digress).  But seriously, you guys are the ones perpetuating fear.  To be honest, I'm not that pissed at the town hall protestors  They've lost their country for a whole 6 months!  Gosh, not having a Republican in the White House must suck!

But by telling your constituents that the time for peaceful town halls is "over", by joking about "lynching" the opposition at these meetings, and by dismissing the quesitons asked of you as bullshit, you're fanning the flames at best and calling for an all-out tyranny at worst.  It's a great strategy though: take an already-ignorant base and make them scared of government taking over Medicare!  The GOP was able to take over during the Bush years with fear, and I suppose you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

4) Democrats in Congress

Why the fuck are you still trying to be bipartisan?!?  Don't you get it!?  Okay, let me type in capital letters for you: REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO FAIL.  THEY WILL NOT WORK WITH YOU.  EVER.  Why else would Johnny Isakson not acknowledge his role in, um, not establishing a "death panel" in the bill?  And why would Grassley continue to stir up false rumors?  And why would Roy Blunt basically bank on the Democrats screwing up before he and the rest of the GOP even think about offering alternative ideas?  You can't reason with stupid, alright?  Hasn't anyone told you that some of the worst bills in recent history were "bipartisan" bills?  Like FISA?  Or No Child Left Behind?  If you don't do it right this time, voters will find someone else who will--or even worse, think they'll find someone who will in a Republican come midterm elections.

5) Barack Obama

Yes, you, Mr. President.  You have some explaining to do.

I elected you to lead, and you're not really doing that right now.  The town hall yesterday was a bit better, but your press conference a couple of weeks ago was abysmal.  Remember what I said about how Americans don't like to think?  Well, simplify it!  And importantly, explain even to those who do have insurance just how important reform is.  I'm in favor of what's being proposed, but seeing that I have health insurance, I could just not give a crap about the 48 million people without insurance.  Even now on occasion, I still have trouble wrapping my head around the logic of spending money now to save later--yes, I know it's an "investment", but when it hasn't been properly articulated as such, people start believing simple sound bytes like "death to granny".

And I thought we were getting rid of deals with lobbyists?  Don't tell me that you're being pragmatic or that the need to get this done now trumps your campaign principles.  I heard that with the pork in the stimulus bill and at that time I said "ok, fine".  I heard this when you wanted to delay trials for Gitmo detainees and wait until the end of the year to close the prison, and I said, "ok fine, just do it when you get around to it".  But you've been in office for 6 months sir, and clearly you're not living up to what I or the 70 million others who voted for you hoped.  Don't get me wrong--I'm still glad I voted for you, and as an African-American I take pride in your election to the highest office in the land every single day--but this has got to stop. 

Get back on message.  Explain what you want to the American people, and explain specifically what you want in the bill.  It's not helping your cause when there's 6 different bills out there, all of which have different things, which allows people to make stuff up even more easily.

Now that I'm done ranting, let's do something about this.

During the campaign, I didn't do a great deal--I donated money, made phone calls when I could, and talked to my undecided friends whenever I could.  Up until recently, I did none of those things.

For the past week at work, I've been reading every single article on health care that I could--from liberal and conservative viewpoints.  Needless to say, I still don't understand half of it, but you have to be well-informed to have a solid viewpoint and stick with it.  Do what the right-wingers don't want you to do--LEARN something, dammit.

I feel like there's not much else to do at this point besides go to a town hall meeting or make some phone calls.  I want to do more, but I think this is a start.  Health care reform still is possible, and time isn't out yet.  We got Obama into office and a lot of people thought that was impossible.  Let's prove the right wing wrong.  Again.

 

Yeah, I'm confused by this too.

In most of my posts, I'm either really worried about something or amazed at the ignorance of others.  Today, I bring you Tammy Bruce, who must be at least a sophomore in the Ann Coulter School of Bigotry.  I knew Bruce was kinda nuts, but clearly she's aced Coulter's introductory classes.

Now that we have a President of African-American descent, you will hear more and more from the right wing that racism in America is effectively over: no need for minority scholarships or affirmative action, no history behind the current gap in wealth between whites and blacks, and all barriers are broken since whites and blacks work together in harmony from 9-5 Monday-Friday.  I mean, the fact that people still mostly stick with their own race on weekends doesn't matter that much, right?

Enter Bruce, who apparently doesn't get what talking "like a white girl" means in Michelle Obama's eyes, but then accuses her of talking in a "weird accent" later (which as a black person, even I can barely detect and don't really think what she said is weird).  Apparently, teaching young black kids (likely black anyway) a lesson is trashy and patronizing:

Man, oh, man. That's who he's married to, what does that tell you? This is what we've got -- you know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a, is a thing that is color blind, it can cross all eco -- ecosocionomic kind of categories, you can work on Wall Street or work at the Wal-Mart. Trash are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy.

Eco-socionomic categories, huh?  With that vocabulary, Ms. Bruce, I'm surprised you're that high on the eco-socionomic ladder.

I'm pissed about this because I was, and still am to some, that black guy who "talks like a white boy".  This happened to me as early as kindergarten, and it took me until high school to really get over it.  Back then I didn't quite get it, but of course I do now. Nonetheless, it was frustrating.  In the eyes of young blacks even in my generation, smart does not equal cool.  In fact, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and underachievement may just be "keeping it real".  After all, "white" society expects nothing of you, so why bother trying to join it?  And if you didn't graduate from high school, you'd likely be proud of your daughter if she was making C's but still graduating (emphasis mine):

Students from all backgrounds told the Mercury News that their parents value education and expect good grades. Many get rewards, such as a dinner out or iTunes cards, for good performance. They're punished - no text messaging, restricted computer access or grounding - for bad grades.

But families' definition of "good grades" varies. It means "higher than a C," said Victoria Mendoza, a Latina and an eighth-grader at West San Jose's Monroe Middle School who nonetheless gets mostly A's.

Thoa said her parents expect A-pluses, although she said she doesn't meet that standard. "I have to bring it down a notch to be real," said Thoa [a Vietnamese girl], who has a 3.6 GPA and is taking two advanced-placement classes this year.

My parents expected a lot from me early on, but backed off and seemed okay with me even when I had a rocky semester or two in college (this included C's and D's).  At the time I never understood why my folks were still relatively pleased, but this may be why: my dad has a GED and my mom never finished high school.

Hell, even after going to boarding school and college with mostly white kids, I've learned that even some whites were surprised by my demeanor.  One guy I know was shocked that I like The Beatles.  I mean, I'm sorry that I like more music than just Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre.  Geez.  I also recall getting into a heated debate about affirmative action with a white kid freshman year that ended with him essentially saying that I didn't deserve my admission. 

The fact is that a lot of things that fuel the achievement gap are psychological and/or deeply rooted in complex issues.  I don't intend to go through everything in this post, but have a peep at this study that evaluated the performace of two groups of blacks on the same test (about midway through the linked page):

The researchers told half the students that the test did not assess ability, but that the research was aimed at "understanding the psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems." The others were told that the test was a valid measure of academic ability and capacity. African-American students who were told that the test was a true measure of ability scored significantly lower than the white students. The other African-American students' scores were equal to the white students'. Whites performed the same in both situations.

When you're a kid, you want to be respected by your peers.  And when you don't have parents to teach you what is truly important in life, you go to drastic measures to get that respect.  Gangs and participation in violent activities are ways in which 16-year olds with no guidance earn this respect.  And warranted or not, the white man gets the blame for the continuation of the vicious cycle. 

Of course, Tammy Bruce doesn't get this.  Neither do Rush Limbaugh or the rest of the far-right smear machine.  And quite frankly, they don't want to understand the complexities of our society.  What Bruce likely does understand is the power that words have in pushing an agenda.  She uses an example of our first lady helping the current achievement gap and addressing matters that have likely gone unnoticed since April 4, 1968 and turns it into an example of cultural elitism.  While this may not intentionally be race-baiting, I have to ask how she got the word "trash" out of this...I mean, seriously?  This is beyond absurd to me.

It took 40 years after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s death for some to realize that not everything is peachy in America.  A lot of people woke up and smelled the coffee during last year's campaign.  However, there are some that will make Rip Van Winkle's 20-year snooze session seem like a power nap.

TPMGary had a post earlier that reassured me a bit about the budget for next year and the massive deficits we'll soon have, but I gotta say that I'm still worried.  A lot.  I still feel a bit hypocritical for complaining about Bush's deficits, even though we are at least spending somewhat more wisely.

But seriously, 1.75 TRILLION dollars?  How can Obama be so sure that he can cut this deficit in half without raising taxes on the middle class?  How much can he save in cutting unnecessary programs/defense spending?  And how much of this debt am I going to have to pay back in the future?  I understand that this is something that we inherited, but I feel like the scale could easily tip for the worse.  And inflation could go up if the Fed winds up printing too much money.

Don't get me wrong though--I'm still supporting Obama all the way with this.  It's been awhile since we've had a president this ambitious.  For the first time in decades, we're going to tackle all of our problems at once, from healthcare to education to our relationships with other nations. 

I think I'm just scared, that's all.  And the Republican Party is scared because they know that they are done for at least the next ten years if Obama's plan works, so they go all around on the media spreading this fear (which some like me are probably buying).  And the magnitude of our problems is probably scaring us too--causing us to not want to solve them and stick to that old "tax cuts stimulate the economy" idea.

What our country is doing now is sorta like what everyone goes through in life--you have to work hard to reap the rewards.  A couple of years ago, I was really struggling in college.  I thought about changing my major, but I realized that I just didn't want to challenge myself.  I became happy with just being average.  I, like Wall Street, went out on weekends and got drunk only to deal with a hangover (usually in the form of a test the next week that I probably didn't study for).  After retaking some classes to boost my GPA and deciding to stick it out with my major, I'm graduating in 3 months and I have a job lined up despite the current economic turmoil.  Had I continued my old habits, things wouldn't be so peachy now. 

What we're doing seems quite scary--but no matter which way I look at the issue and no matter how apprehensive I am about what could happen--I feel like this is the right thing to do.

I really don't know what the point of this post is.  But even though I just came up with an analogy for what our nation must do, I guess you can still give me an e-hug and tell me everything's gonna work out.

So in about 10 minutes, President Obama will be giving his address before Congress.  I don't want to exhaust the likely over-asked "What should he talk about?" question, but there is one thing I'd like to hear some opinions about.

You've probably heard Bill Clinton's remark that Obama should sound more "hopeful"--though he did praise Obama for not "coming in and giving us a bunch of happy talk".  I agree with this, but most right-wingers are going berzerk because Obama seems too pessimistic.  And I admit myself to rolling my eyes now every time he says this is "the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression".  Apparently, FOX News and other conservative talking heads are buying into the Phil Gramm theory--that this is a "mental" recession and that talking ourselves out of it (along with the typical GOP solution of tax cuts for the wealthy) will do the trick.

But didn't we try this before?  Isn't this why it took so long for Bush to actually do something? And don't Americans want honesty, which is why Obama and more congressional Democrats got elected?

The same can be said of Eric Holder's recent comments on race:

Eric Holder, who showed precious little bravery in standing up to Clinton on a pardon for the scoundrel Marc Rich, is wrong. We have just inaugurated a black president who installed a black attorney general.

Right, so racism's completly gone and black people and white people are literally dancing in the streets.

I guess the point of this post is to ask--what happened to honesty?  It's refreshing to have a President tell us what's really going on and isn't using gimmicks to make things (such as the deficit) seem better than they are.  It's great that the topic of race relations is back in the arena--maybe we can make some progress rather than hiding behind the actual problem.  Maybe if people actually know the facts, we as Americans can recognize all our problems and make this country better...right?

I'm sure the President will have many words of optimism for us all tonight.  But I'm tired of the mainstream media and politicians feeding me Prozac so I can bounce around without a care.  I'd like to spend the next 4 years off my metaphorical meds--maybe then I can know the truth.

OK, so the Bush tax cuts might not be considered "spending"; it's more of a money giveaway to the wealthy that helped get us where we are now.  But if the GOP is so annoyed by the size of the stimulus package, they clearly must have selective memory.

The total cost of the stimulus bill is in the $800-$900 trillion dollar range right now.  Big number, sure.  I don't need anyone to show me how big it is, Senator Thune.

But what about the total cost of the Bush tax cuts?  Try twice the amount of the stimulus bill.  And the total cost if (for some reason) they were extended through 2018?  Try $4.4 trillion.

A lot of you may already know these numbers, but I figured I'd put some things in perspective--namely, the fact that it took a dumb idea worth twice the size of the stimulus package to screw up our economy.

If the Republicans want to criticize others for wasting money, maybe they should look in the mirror.

I don't expect this post to get read very much, but I have to rant.

Why is it that every time Obama does one tiny thing we don't like, we have to go in a frenzy and demand our campaign contributions back?  Have we not learned anything from the campaign?  Well, I learned something: trust the guy.  It seems to me that he knows what he's doing, so I'll give him a chance if he does something that may not sit well with me from the beginning.

Maybe I'm only saying this because I haven't achieved political geek-like status like most TPMers.  Besides, I'm just a 21-year old snot-nosed college kid, so I haven't lived through as much history as most of you (or know as much in general).  However, dealing with a nation in financial crisis requires seeing things from all viewpoints, even those with which you most vehemently disagree with.  It's not like he's actually going to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely because he's keeping Robert Gates at Secretary of Defense, and he's not going to send the economy spiraling further because Lawrence Summers is part of his economic team.  This may not seem like change to you, but last time I checked, there hasn't been much listening to opponents over the past eight years in the White House.  He will be the President; therefore, he's the one that sets the agenda and I'm pretty sure it will be from as far away from Bush's policies as reasonably possible.

We all hate FISA, but I'm sure Barack did what he did was best in compromising and I'm sure he'll fix what's wrong with it as President.  Many of you thought he was nuts for going on The O'Reilly Factor (and thought I was nuts for suggesting he go on the show).  And a lot of you probably didn't like his VP pick, his lack of anger on the campaign trail, his decision to not attack McCain the same way that McCain attacked him, his poor choice of tie during his DNC speech...I could go on with the nit-picky criticisms given to Obama during the campaign.  Hell, I admit to it myself--and if you can honestly say you have trusted the President-elect's decisions every step of the way up to now, then I'm volunteering to replace Alan Colmes.  Let me know if you think of something more painful to go through than sitting alongside Hannity. 

So before you scream that there are Clinton people on his staff, consider that this is still a change from the past eight years and that this guy is (gasp) still inexperienced and it would help to have people who have been in the White House before.  Before you complain that Obama isn't doing anything progressive yet, let him get sworn in first at least.  Before you complain that Rahm Emanuel isn't a liberal,  take a look at ratings that imply that he's more liberal than you think (of course, they're ratings which don't mean everything).  And before you start whining about Obama not being liberal enough, consider what are (or should be) left-wing ideals: helping the middle class and spending on infrastructure and green jobs.  I think he will  govern pragmatically, but I also don't think he will give in to the center-right meme that's been played ad nauseam in the media.

I won't blog as much as I did during the summer since this was really just something to do to pass the time, but I'm going to try to post only when I have something meaningful to say.  I've written some good posts in the past, but some have just been dumb.

I'm also not going to act like I know more than the guy I voted for. I'm sure some of what is seen on the blogs is earnest discussion and not of the "OMG WTF IS HE DOING" category, but I felt the need to calm everybody down and let the man do his job.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Probably Keith's shortest "Worst Persons" segment ever. And probably his most spot-on one ever, too.

Ever since the Democratic primaries, we have heard constant babbling about how many blacks are voting for Barack Obama and how they are voting for him solely on race.  Some of this talk has bubbled up again, probably in an attempt to undermine what would be a historic event, assuming Obama gets elected.  If McCain gets elected, it will be historic also; the first female VP and the lowest average voter IQ in any presidential election ever.  But I digress.

Many conservative commentators and blogs have used this argument to try and combat recent events that have not worked in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket.  You know, things like a white girl faking an attack on her, Colin Powell's recent endorsement, and oh, the fact that white supremacists are not happy about the fact that someone not white may soon be leading their country.  In sum, when someone white is accused of racism, someone has to go, "BUT THEY'RE RACIST TOO!"  with the implication at times being "if they're racist, why can't we be?"  Bill O'Reilly is another who has recently lashed out at Powell's betrayal, complete with comparisons of racism at McCain/Palin events to the Daily Kos (again):

Now this is from me to you, General Powell. I respect you, but they don't come more hateful than the Daily Kos. And they support your guy, and your guy lent them his statue. The door swings both ways, general.

If you're truly upset about personal attacks, check out NBC News, the pro-Obama network. It doesn't get nastier than those people. So I'm not buying any of this.

General Powell, in my opinion, endorsed Obama because the senator has been respectful to him and sought his advice quietly, while some Republicans have not been respectful of General Powell. So it's payback time. That is what's really going on here. No spin.

And it's perfectly legitimate for Sean Hannity, who is on your network, to question Obama's drug usage.  Bill, your network is so full of spin that it should be a cycle on my washing machine.

I may be jumping the gun when I say this, but as an African-American, I can't help but interpret the last part of the above blockquote into what O'Reilly really thinks is going on in Powell's head: "Well, them white folks don't like me because I'm critical of their policies, so let me support my brother and we take the man down together".  Bill, I know your job is to downplay every bad thing that happens to McCain, but this is nuts.  I've even heard Limbaugh and others say that he should be "grateful" for what the Republican party has done for him. Right, so Powell's service to the Reagan and Bush 41administrations is now meaningless to him?  We all know Powell's not a total ideologue; he's actually kinda liberal on some issues.  I guess I should be grateful for Bush's cutting of my Pell Grant too (at least he realized this mistake and increased it the year after cutting it, but I digress...again

Alfred Liggins wrote a column over at CNN, and he does make a few good points.  The fact is that blacks on the whole have lower median incomes and care more about Democratic issues: the economy, getting a middle-class tax cut, affordable health care, etc.  Oh, and for those who think it's all about race...it's because he's a Democrat.  Here's how blacks voted in recent elections:

2004: Kerry 88%, Bush 11%

2000: Gore 90%, Bush 9%

1996: Clinton 84%, Dole 12%

1992: Clinton 83%, Bush 10%, Perot 7%

1988: Dukakis 89%, Bush 11%

1984: Mondale 91%, Reagan 9%

Yeah, you get the idea.  Compare this to the 2006 Maryland Senate race, where conservative Michael Steele managed only 25% of the black vote.  Damn those racist black people for voting against the black candidate!

It'd also be hard for some blacks to vote for someone who opposed making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday.  But while that is an egregious blunder on McCain, that's the least of the black electorate's worries this year.  The black guy holding the umbrella over McCain's head isn't exactly the best imagery, though...

In the end, the right-wing that wants to bring down Obama has decided to leave their history textbook at home and pretend that everything is 50-50.  Granted, Obama did have one minor slip-up, even though what he said is not very far from the truth.  In fact, he clearly saw the attacks we've seen this month well ahead of time.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here at TPM, but stuff like this aggravates me and doesn't do much to improve race relations in our country.  Instead of trying to understand African-Americans in our country, conservative whites believe that history has nothing to do with our nation's current state of affairs.  Blacks may be a bit bitter also, but their "racism" (which isn't 100% evident in polling) is justifiable.  But words cannot describe how amazing to see my mother care about politics for the first time in years; to go into my barber shop and see the TV on CNN rather than BET; to see black America feel that they are truly a part of the political process again.  There's a reason why involvement in activism and politics among blacks has been down since April 4, 1968--the rest of the country decided to move on and expected blacks to do the same.  Having another MLK-like figure to pick up the pieces then would've be nice, but figures like him only come around once in a generation. 

Still today, even as Obama's rise to stardom may hit a peak in 7 days, some blacks feel let down.  This is why Hillary had the black vote for so long--blacks didn't really want to get their hopes up only to be let down again.  I wasn't sold on Obama myself until a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses.  Of course, I am disappointed that it took a black guy to run for African-Americans to get involved.  However, whites should keep in mind that he's only half-black:

    

"The Republicans have an ex-prisoner whose running mate is a heat-packing mama of five with a knocked-up teenage baby mama!  And that's the white option?! White folks, have you lost your damn minds?"

I have to admit, if we want to play stereotypes here, President Bush has been the gangsta of the world over the past 8 years--complete with drive-by shootings of soverign nations, taking care of his crew with tax cuts for the rich, and making sure we stay uneducated so we don't figure out what's really going on.

If Obama does somehow lose, I hope black America maintains its sanity (I intend to write a post later about how race relations will be after an Obama victory and/or McCain victory).  If he does win, it will truly be a huge step in overcoming our nation's original sin.  We have seen a lot in the past few weeks, but I'm glad everyone truly got to see the true state of our nation.  It is also shameful that some on the right wing has used arguments about the black vote, claimed double-standards as an excuse for their failed Atwater-like tactics, and have totally undermined what Barack Obama has accomplished.

I guess when you want to move forward two steps, you sometimes have to take a step back.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm still up.  Meh.

I am in no way advocating complacence in the waning days of the 2008 campaign, but take a look at where the race is now...

...and where Bush and Kerry stood exactly four years ago.  And there were two fewer days left that year since the election was on November 2nd.

Like the rabbit-cat dude said in an earlier post...LANDSLIDE.

Sorry if this is a double post..I never selected a category, so I think that means nobody could see it.

Now, I don't know about you, but if your entire foreign policy is based on scaring America because your opponent will meet with dictators without preconditions, wouldn't you damn well be sure to know just what a precondition is?

You can only blame the "liberal" media for so long, conservatives.  Just admit that your guy and gal are done.

One tactic of the McCain/Palin ticket lately has been to try to use the words "Obama" and "socialist" in the same sentence as much as possible.  I have to give it to their campaign--at least they're creative fear-mongers.  Too bad they have very few new policy ideas.

I subjected myself to the pain of watching Fox News one day, and saw Hannity and Rove up in flames over the fact that 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, but are getting a tax cut.  I thought that a) the 40% to likely be an exaggeration, and it probably is, and b) if so, this is odd...why is this the case, and why do these Americans deserve a tax cut?  Now, this wasn't anything that would make me change my vote at all, but I always want to be knowledgeable when debating with conservatives.

So I did what any American would do, which is find out for myself what's going on here.  McCain and Palin are relying on not just fear of Obama to get them a victory, but on the fact that people will take them at their word and not cut through the bull.

So, first thing's first: the idea is that people will think that this 40% bloc of people aren't paying any taxes at all.  If that's the case, then who is this FICA guy and why is he taking my money?  And why isn't all of it going to where it should be going?

How much does the payroll tax amount to? Well, last year the standard income tax brought in $1.17 trillion, while the payroll tax brought in $873.4 billion.

Technically, payroll tax receipts are supposed to be reserved for paying for Social Security and Medicare, which is what allows some people to claim it is not an income tax. However, in practice that distinction was abandoned long ago. For decades now, the payroll tax has been bringing in a lot more revenue than needed for Social Security, and the excess has been siphoned off for general fund use like any other government money.

Last year alone, $190 billion in payroll tax receipts was diverted to general fund use, paying for everything from Iraq to the salaries of park rangers.

OK, so some of the money that should be going towards my Social Security is actually going towards a mindless war.  And that $190 billion figure is sure to go up. In essence, the lack of fiscal responsibility may be as big of a reason for the social security problem as the imminent retirement of baby-boomers.  You may think you're not paying income taxes, but some of that money is siphoned off for things that only income taxes should pay for.

Furthermore, people forget about the regressive nature of the FICA tax.  If someone of a lower income, say below $102,000 (the 2008 wage base) pays income taxes and someone over $102,000 does not pay income taxes, it's possible to have a lower income and pay more taxes overall.  Now, the output from social security may be progressive, but if you have more money to invest in the stock market or put into a 401k, then that cancels out Social Security's progressive nature.

These facts notwithstanding, McCain and Palin have offered up another word in the fear-the-black-man lexicon: "welfare".  This instills in the mind of a right-winger that they truly are getting "handouts" and in effect are not paying taxes (if not flat-out getting free money).  But there are other taxes, many of which are not progressive:

I know, I know: how could there be any sort of tax other than the (federal) income tax? I have heard that in distant lands there are strange, exotic taxes, like the "sales tax", the "property tax", "state and local income taxes", the "capital gains tax", "use taxes", "permit fees", other fees, the "severance tax", the "occupational privilege tax", the "estate tax", the "gift tax", the "federal excise tax", and even the fantastically named "generation skipping transfer tax". But surely we have no such outlandish customs here! We who live in a country that has only one sort of tax, the federal income tax, can only stare in wonder at those benighted countries where people actually pay taxes whenever they buy a shovel or realize capital gains.

Oh, and let's not forget the 2/3 of corporations that apparently don't pay taxes at all.  But that's not welfare, that's part of the whole "supply side" thing.  Even Laffer might be laughing somewhere right now.

I even looked on Obama's website, and he does avoid calling it an "income tax cut", but a tax cut nonetheless.  And while he is raising income taxes on those who make over $250k a year to cover it, at least he has a way of covering it.  It is not a "welfare handout", but an overall reduction in the tax burden of middle-class families.  We're already putting FICA and income taxes into one big pot and drawing from it--we probably shouldn't do that, but I think we should look at the entire tax burden one faces when talking about tax policy.  The tax code is ridiculously complex, and while it should be simplified, it's ridiculous to take advantage of those who don't understand it for cheap political points like McCain and Palin have.

The right-wing's way of campaiging since the Reagan years has been to not show how good their plan is, but convince you that the Democrats' way of doing things will make things worse, so just give us another chance and we'll get it right.  We've been scared into the idea that we have to give the rich a tax cut or else we won't have a job.  We've been bamboozled into thinking that we can get more revenues from Reagan-esque policies, but if memory serves me correctly, the national debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Bush 43.  Obama certainly is convincing and articulate, but things have just gotten so bad with these policies that enough Americans want to (gasp) try something different.  The third time may be the  charm, but I'm not sticking to old sayings when the future of our nation is at stake.