Sunday, March 15, 2015
Occupying the Homeless
I remember, quite fondly, actually, the derision towards the Occupy movement. "Occupy a job" was a common dig along with predictions that the movement would never amount to anything.
Yet this story from the front page of newspaper illustrates several things. First, the Occupy movement has amounted to something: helping the homeless have a place to live. And they are doing it through a nonprofit umbrella which means donations, not government help.
Second, they are continuing their mission to reduce inequality by building these homes. That's something Jesus would be proud of, right? That whole helping the poor thing...mentioned more times than anything else in the Bible.
Third, they are doing it in Wisconsin, right in the back yard of Scott Walker. He has stated repeatedly that his policies will help middle class and poor families by freeing up the private sector. Where are their 98 foot houses for the homeless? Where is the Tea Party version of this?
If this is the future of the Occupy movement, I say, "Well done, folks!"
Yet this story from the front page of newspaper illustrates several things. First, the Occupy movement has amounted to something: helping the homeless have a place to live. And they are doing it through a nonprofit umbrella which means donations, not government help.
Second, they are continuing their mission to reduce inequality by building these homes. That's something Jesus would be proud of, right? That whole helping the poor thing...mentioned more times than anything else in the Bible.
Third, they are doing it in Wisconsin, right in the back yard of Scott Walker. He has stated repeatedly that his policies will help middle class and poor families by freeing up the private sector. Where are their 98 foot houses for the homeless? Where is the Tea Party version of this?
If this is the future of the Occupy movement, I say, "Well done, folks!"
Will Scott Walker Survive The Primary?
Scott Walker seems to be the early favorite in the GOP field but, as this article notes, he may not survive the primary process. As with the 2012 election, Republicans will likely beat up on each other so much that they will end up handing many gifts to the Democrats. If Hillary is indeed the nominee, the field is going to be cleared for her with very little of this adolescent sniping.
Oh, and speaking of Hillary...looks like the latest fake scandal hasn't hurt Hillary at in the latest polls. She's still kicking everyone's ass.
Oh, and speaking of Hillary...looks like the latest fake scandal hasn't hurt Hillary at in the latest polls. She's still kicking everyone's ass.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Me Too, Mr. President
"I'm embarrassed for them," Obama told Vice. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah -- the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy -- and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our president, because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."
Me, too, Mr. President...me too:)
The Public's Reaction to the Gun Cult
Check out the video below from a recent Ann Arbor school board meeting.
I love it when clinically insane people like Joshua Wade get up in front of the general public:)
Sounds like Elena Chesney's daughter just torpedoed a substantial myth of the Gun Cult...out of the mouths of babes...
I love it when clinically insane people like Joshua Wade get up in front of the general public:)
Sounds like Elena Chesney's daughter just torpedoed a substantial myth of the Gun Cult...out of the mouths of babes...
Rules For Email Don't Apply To Congress
Well, I guess Congress doesn't have the same email rules that are currently being applied to Hillary Clinton. How convenient for GOP lawmakers who are critical of the likely Democratic nominee for president.
Congress makes its own rules, and has never subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked. There's also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after. That's in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch. Official emails there are supposed to be retained, though the controversy over Clinton's use of a personal email account while secretary of state has exposed vague and inconsistent requirements from one agency to another.
I hear the sound of crickets already:)
Oh, and yes, we are officially back to Benghazi again...
Congress makes its own rules, and has never subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked. There's also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after. That's in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch. Official emails there are supposed to be retained, though the controversy over Clinton's use of a personal email account while secretary of state has exposed vague and inconsistent requirements from one agency to another.
I hear the sound of crickets already:)
Oh, and yes, we are officially back to Benghazi again...
Friday, March 13, 2015
Confederate Memorial Day
Did you know that there are still states that celebrate Confederate Memorial Day? I happened to come across an article about it by chance.
Apparently it's getting less popular, since people are inconvenienced by local government office closings.
But apparently there are still some folks in Alabama and eight other states who want to celebrate the greatest treachery this country has ever known. And, not surprisingly, those states are now all represented by the Republican Party and the most fervent Tea Partyers.
Apparently it's getting less popular, since people are inconvenienced by local government office closings.
But apparently there are still some folks in Alabama and eight other states who want to celebrate the greatest treachery this country has ever known. And, not surprisingly, those states are now all represented by the Republican Party and the most fervent Tea Partyers.
The Labor Participation Myth
The Republican talking point about labor participation was recently torpedoed by Factcheck.org. Among the facts...
Sen. Lindsey Graham said the labor participation rate “is at an all-time low.” That’s not accurate. It was lower between 1948 and 1978.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blamed the shrinking participation rate on “the Obama economy,” but economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work.
More specifically...
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.
As usual, conservatives feel that they are entitled to their own facts:)
Sen. Lindsey Graham said the labor participation rate “is at an all-time low.” That’s not accurate. It was lower between 1948 and 1978.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blamed the shrinking participation rate on “the Obama economy,” but economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work.
More specifically...
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.
As usual, conservatives feel that they are entitled to their own facts:)
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Disturbing Parallels
TPM has a post up about the parallels between the segregationists that opposed the Civil Rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s and the Tea Partiers we see today. It's incredibly disturbing and nauseating. As the president noted...
[A]t the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse – everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.
Conservatives today have said all of these things about liberals and progressives. Indeed, the same people that were against federal government involvement in Alabama are blowing bowels all over our country about federal government involvement in health care and immigration.
Of course, these are the same people that think the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery.
[A]t the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse – everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.
Conservatives today have said all of these things about liberals and progressives. Indeed, the same people that were against federal government involvement in Alabama are blowing bowels all over our country about federal government involvement in health care and immigration.
Of course, these are the same people that think the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery.
Hillary Mental Meltdown Syndrome
Republicans have really become unhinged since the Hillary Clinton email kerfuffle began. Of course, they are like this with all of their opponents, especially the ones that have kicked their ass electorally (Bill, Barack). Now they want to see every single email she has ever sent which strikes me as odd for a number of reasons. Aren't they the party that prides themselves on the privacy of the individual? Their calls for all her emails runs counter to this tenet. It also shows their secret, authoritarian streak that they would like to keep hidden but somehow manages to always reveal itself.
Like the adolescent gossip that has to know what's going on all over the school, they REALLY want to know about every detail of Hillary's life. In more than a few ways, it strikes me as somewhat perverse. What they also don't realize is that their demands for all her emails, which grow more shrill by the minute, will eventually lead to demands for ALL THEIR EMAILS. I realize that some Senators like Lindsey Graham claim to never use email but I'm sure that many Republican Senators and Congressmen do use email.
So, does that mean we get to see their emails now too?:)
Like the adolescent gossip that has to know what's going on all over the school, they REALLY want to know about every detail of Hillary's life. In more than a few ways, it strikes me as somewhat perverse. What they also don't realize is that their demands for all her emails, which grow more shrill by the minute, will eventually lead to demands for ALL THEIR EMAILS. I realize that some Senators like Lindsey Graham claim to never use email but I'm sure that many Republican Senators and Congressmen do use email.
So, does that mean we get to see their emails now too?:)
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Have High Stock Prices Slowed Down the Economy?
Conservatives like Paul Ryan have been crying wolf about inflation in the general economy for years now, yet inflation has been essentially flat for the last two decades. A large part of the reason is that wages have been stagnant, declining in real terms during the Bush years. It's only now getting better, with companies like Walmart announcing minimum wage increases.
Yet there is something that has experienced wild Weimar levels of inflation that Republicans have been predicting: stock prices. The stock market more than doubled between 2009 and 2015.
The economy has been improving slowly since the recession, with the United States doing better than most countries. But world-wide the economy has been pretty lackluster, in part because governments -- especially in Europe -- drastically cut spending at a time when their economies needed a boost.
A big reason stock prices have gone up so much is stock buy backs. For example, just this week GM announced $5 billion in stock buybacks and $5 billion in dividends. Target, which just laid off 1,700 workers, announced that it will buy back $15 billion worth of stock over the next five years:
How do companies justify buy backs? They claim it will increase earnings per share, a metric that shareholders use to measure share values. Not by increasing earnings, but by reducing the number of shares. It's sheer sophistry. Instead of doing something concrete to make the company actually earn more money, they will spend billions just to make it look like they're earning more money.
But why do shareholders deserve more money? The overwhelming majority of them contribute absolutely nothing to a company's bottom line. They simply buy stock on the open market from other shareholders, who bought it from other shareholders, who bought it from other shareholders.
"Activist" investors like Carl Icahn have become the norm. They buy up stock in companies and squeeze the cash out of them like Gordon Gekko, with little care for the future of the company or its workers.
The vast majority of shareholders take no real risks, never contribute a single dime to the companies they own stock in, never do a lick of work to contribute to the company's success. They're just playing roulette on the stock market instead of in a casino.
But increasingly, shareholders are forcing corporate management to make foolish short-term decisions that take cash out of the company to pay off shareholders in dividends, and jack up the stock price by spending billions on stock buybacks.
So you gotta ask: how much are cynical economic manipulations like stock buybacks slowing the growth of the economy? Companies justify the buybacks by saying that demand for the their products is low, so there's no sense in spending money on expanding their business, so they consolidate their gains. But it all goes into the hands of shareholders.
But why demand is low? Because companies are laying people off and paying lower wages, and fewer people can afford to buy the products the companies make.
Instead of the vicious cycle of inflation that Republicans keep predicting, we're stuck in the virtueless cycle of wage deflation for the people who actually do all the work, and hyperinflation in stock prices that reward the leeches on Wall Street who caused the recession in the first place.
Yet there is something that has experienced wild Weimar levels of inflation that Republicans have been predicting: stock prices. The stock market more than doubled between 2009 and 2015.
The economy has been improving slowly since the recession, with the United States doing better than most countries. But world-wide the economy has been pretty lackluster, in part because governments -- especially in Europe -- drastically cut spending at a time when their economies needed a boost.
Companies are not sharing their profits with the people who actually do all the work.
But even though the fundamentals have been mediocre, corporate profits have been very high ever since the recession. How come? Partly because companies have been making fewer workers do more work for less money. Companies are not sharing their profits with the people who actually do all the work.A big reason stock prices have gone up so much is stock buy backs. For example, just this week GM announced $5 billion in stock buybacks and $5 billion in dividends. Target, which just laid off 1,700 workers, announced that it will buy back $15 billion worth of stock over the next five years:
As its new buyback effort kicks in, Target again joins the sizable number of American companies to rely on the financial maneuver, which has drawn criticism despite its uplifting effect on corporate results and stock values.You can give GM the benefit of the doubt, a reward for investors who bought company stock to help it recover after the federal government bailed it out. But Target's stock buyback is simple extortion: shareholders have vowed to destroy the company unless they get their pound of flesh.
Josh Mason, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute in New York who has written about the history of buybacks, said they first accelerated in the 1980s and even more in the last decade. This paralleled a shift in corporate thinking that managers should place shareholders’ interests above those of employees and customers, he said.
“It’s the natural effect of the shareholders’ revolution,” Mason said. “People who own stock want to see money in their pockets now.”
How do companies justify buy backs? They claim it will increase earnings per share, a metric that shareholders use to measure share values. Not by increasing earnings, but by reducing the number of shares. It's sheer sophistry. Instead of doing something concrete to make the company actually earn more money, they will spend billions just to make it look like they're earning more money.
Companies are spending billions placating activist investors instead of building for the future.
Target is not unique. Shareholders across the board have been demanding they be placated. Thus, companies are no longer investing money in their futures. Target's stock buybacks will only make it more difficult for the ailing company fix its problems. But why do shareholders deserve more money? The overwhelming majority of them contribute absolutely nothing to a company's bottom line. They simply buy stock on the open market from other shareholders, who bought it from other shareholders, who bought it from other shareholders.
"Activist" investors like Carl Icahn have become the norm. They buy up stock in companies and squeeze the cash out of them like Gordon Gekko, with little care for the future of the company or its workers.
The vast majority of shareholders take no real risks, never contribute a single dime to the companies they own stock in, never do a lick of work to contribute to the company's success. They're just playing roulette on the stock market instead of in a casino.
But increasingly, shareholders are forcing corporate management to make foolish short-term decisions that take cash out of the company to pay off shareholders in dividends, and jack up the stock price by spending billions on stock buybacks.
So you gotta ask: how much are cynical economic manipulations like stock buybacks slowing the growth of the economy? Companies justify the buybacks by saying that demand for the their products is low, so there's no sense in spending money on expanding their business, so they consolidate their gains. But it all goes into the hands of shareholders.
But why demand is low? Because companies are laying people off and paying lower wages, and fewer people can afford to buy the products the companies make.
Instead of the vicious cycle of inflation that Republicans keep predicting, we're stuck in the virtueless cycle of wage deflation for the people who actually do all the work, and hyperinflation in stock prices that reward the leeches on Wall Street who caused the recession in the first place.
Reaping What They Sow
When you help create an instransigent ideology, this is what you get.
Tea Party Divided by Export-Import Bank
“At the end of the meeting, there were a lot of angry Texans there,” said Mr. Schubert, who identifies himself as a Tea Party Republican. “We didn’t come there to talk the talking points. We were there to talk the complexities of international trade.”
Well, there's your first mistake. Complexities isn't something that the people YOU helped elect do. Their minds are very simple. Stomp your feet. Shout about the government. Act like an adolescent.
I feel no sympathy for these businessmen. What did they think was going to happen?
Tea Party Divided by Export-Import Bank
“At the end of the meeting, there were a lot of angry Texans there,” said Mr. Schubert, who identifies himself as a Tea Party Republican. “We didn’t come there to talk the talking points. We were there to talk the complexities of international trade.”
Well, there's your first mistake. Complexities isn't something that the people YOU helped elect do. Their minds are very simple. Stomp your feet. Shout about the government. Act like an adolescent.
I feel no sympathy for these businessmen. What did they think was going to happen?
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Adolescent Babies
When have the Democrats ever done anything like this?
GOP Tries to Undercut Nuclear Deal With Warning to Iran
Seriously, what a bunch of fucking adolescent babies!
Barack Obama must fail at everything he does regardless of the cost to the United States' standing in the world. Like the adolescent that wants to destroy the roof over his head and the table that feeds him, Republicans have honestly gone way over the line on this one. Imagine what would happen if Democrats did something like this. The right wing bubble would be screaming about treason and traitors!
Worse, the Republicans who signed this letter are completely failing (as usual) to think in a forward fashion. Iran is likely going to be a future ally in the region (see also: the real reason Bibi Netanyahu is blowing a bowel) because of the threat of ISIL. We are going to need Iran if we want to stop these guys. Don't they understand this?
Ah, right...understand...a word that is eternally absent from their vocabulary.
GOP Tries to Undercut Nuclear Deal With Warning to Iran
Seriously, what a bunch of fucking adolescent babies!
Barack Obama must fail at everything he does regardless of the cost to the United States' standing in the world. Like the adolescent that wants to destroy the roof over his head and the table that feeds him, Republicans have honestly gone way over the line on this one. Imagine what would happen if Democrats did something like this. The right wing bubble would be screaming about treason and traitors!
Worse, the Republicans who signed this letter are completely failing (as usual) to think in a forward fashion. Iran is likely going to be a future ally in the region (see also: the real reason Bibi Netanyahu is blowing a bowel) because of the threat of ISIL. We are going to need Iran if we want to stop these guys. Don't they understand this?
Ah, right...understand...a word that is eternally absent from their vocabulary.
Monday, March 09, 2015
Enjoying The Republican Reaction
I have to admit that I'm enjoying the Republican reaction to the Hillary email (see: Fake Scandal #389). As they usually do, they end up making things worse for themselves than for their intended target.
Lindsey Graham: I've never sent an email
Wow...way to go, dude!! You've managed to sound antiquated, completely out of touch, technologically illiterate and dishonest all at the same time...in many ways, an excellent summation of the Republican party today.
Even Republican media strategists like Rick Wilson aren't helping either.
After eagerly cheerleading Barack Obama for eight years, they stood ready to help break the ultimate glass ceiling and play their role as part of the uncritical chorus of Hillary Clinton’s coronation, first as the Democratic nominee then as President. It’s why they hate this story.
Complete straw man. Worse, if you read the whole piece, he ends up contradicting himself and offers no real solutions to our actual problems.
Why does the Right hate the media so much? Because they call them on their bullshit and have fat faces with their facts and stuff. The media loves this story about Hillary because they are operating under the false assumption that the rest of the country gives a shit. The only people that care are the media and right wing bloggers. Go ask a couple of average Americans if they even know about Hillary's email kerfuffle. They will probably respond with a query about what's being done about actual problems like climate change, immigration, wage stagnation or the institutional racism that is present in our criminal justice system.
The real scandal last week was the Justice Department's findings with Ferguson. If the presidential candidates were smart and wanted more votes, they'd be talking more about this. So far, the only one that is talking about it is Rand Paul. Smart guy...
Lindsey Graham: I've never sent an email
Wow...way to go, dude!! You've managed to sound antiquated, completely out of touch, technologically illiterate and dishonest all at the same time...in many ways, an excellent summation of the Republican party today.
Even Republican media strategists like Rick Wilson aren't helping either.
After eagerly cheerleading Barack Obama for eight years, they stood ready to help break the ultimate glass ceiling and play their role as part of the uncritical chorus of Hillary Clinton’s coronation, first as the Democratic nominee then as President. It’s why they hate this story.
Complete straw man. Worse, if you read the whole piece, he ends up contradicting himself and offers no real solutions to our actual problems.
Why does the Right hate the media so much? Because they call them on their bullshit and have fat faces with their facts and stuff. The media loves this story about Hillary because they are operating under the false assumption that the rest of the country gives a shit. The only people that care are the media and right wing bloggers. Go ask a couple of average Americans if they even know about Hillary's email kerfuffle. They will probably respond with a query about what's being done about actual problems like climate change, immigration, wage stagnation or the institutional racism that is present in our criminal justice system.
The real scandal last week was the Justice Department's findings with Ferguson. If the presidential candidates were smart and wanted more votes, they'd be talking more about this. So far, the only one that is talking about it is Rand Paul. Smart guy...
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)