Subscribe to a daily email of new posts!
Subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed!
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- SNL: Palin 2012 presidential disaster movie | Raw Story
- In Which We Again Profess Our Love for, and Support of, Queen Sarah, Our Next President
- Colbert Reviews ‘Going Rogue’: A ‘Steaming Pile Of Sh*t’ | TPM LiveWire
- 98000reasons.org: Merlyna Adams on Vimeo
- Last Word: Les Paul – Video Library – The New York Times
-
Recent Comments
shayna on Sweethearts?? Nah! Sofia on Twilight, Continued davis on Laffs and Surprises; Out of My… nikolaykotev on Out of My Mind for 15 August… davis on Starting the Week (Briefly) Ou… Tags
1929 Redux America-Haters American Justice Art Beloved Leader Big Media cartoon Comics! Corporatism Corporatism On The March Culture Direct Action! Election2008 End Of Freedom Enemies of the State Fight for freedom History Hoobama Humor Liars Meltdown! Mendacity Micro$oft music video National Insecurity New technology O Our America-Hating leaders Our Wacky World President McCain President Palin quote of the day satire Stolen elections The Failure Of Our Leaders The Irrelevance of Big Media Journalism The Twilight Of American Civilization The Water-Carriers thought of the day thoughts Unbridled Greed! Veep Sarah Video War on Freedom Wingnuttery-
Blog Stats
- 48,222 hits
Categories
Daily Archives: October 4th, 2008
One of the great shiboleths — well, utter lies, actually — is that the Republicans are Israel’s true friends.
This is a lie, completely belied by, you know, history.
The Suez debacle in 56: GOP.
Crippling Israel’s ability to defend itself in 1973: Tricky Dick and Henry the K.
The support of the Dems for Israel has been constant and without the GOP trade-off of strengthening Israel’s enemies in exchange for strengthening Israel, which is to say, the support isn’t balanced so much as canceled out.
The wingnuts support Israel’s existence because it’s needed to bring about the endtimes, which is to say Israel’s destruction as well as that of all Jews. The GOP really just supports its Likud stooges (e.g. the Lebanon debacle in 2007).
So this warms my heart:
A blast from my past….
Not that the there’s much truth that would actually help….
This is classic smearing.
Republicans claim Obama “voted 94 times for higher taxes.” But their count is inflated and misleading.SummaryThe McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:
- Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
- Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have loweredtaxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
- Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on thosemaking more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
- The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
- The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.
It’s true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.
AnalysisIn a June 9 press release, Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain’s campaign said that “during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes.” The same day, the RNC, which researched Obama’s votes and is the original source of the claim, issued its ownrelease, saying “Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes” and that he had voted “For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session.” A few days later, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and other campaign staffers repeated the charge, which was quoted in various news stories. We suspect we’ll be hearing this figure a lot more as the campaign wears on. If this type of claim sounds familiar, it’s because George W. Bush’s campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for “higher taxes” a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes.
Higher Than My Taxes Are Now?
By our count, about a quarter of these votes for “higher taxes” – 23 to be exact –are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have been “higher” only compared to the cuts being proposed.The RNC admits as much in its documentation on the 94 votes, faulting Obama for voting nine times against lowering the capital gains tax rate, seven times against implementing tax incentives for small businesses, six times against lowering the estate tax and three times against repealing a more than decade-old increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, among other votes. The RNC counts these as votes “for higher taxes” even though Obama voted to keep taxes right where they were.
Win Some, Lose Some
Seven votes on the RNC’s list were votes Obama cast for measures that called for lowering certain taxes broadly and would have paid for the cuts by raising taxes on high-income individuals or corporations. The RNC didn’t give Obama credit for voting for the lower taxes, of course.Two votes were in favor of a “windfall profit tax” on oil companies and handing out the revenue in the form of rebate checks or nonrefundable tax credits to the public. Another favored giving tax benefits to areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and extending several other tax relief provisions, all of it financed by closing corporate and individual “loopholes” and extending Superfund taxes on corporations, used to pay for toxic waste cleanups. Obama also voted for a refundable tax credit for farmers, paid for by closing a loophole that gives a foreign income tax credit to oil companies. Yet another of these pieces of legislation, an amendment to the 2007 energy bill, would have extended and expanded all kinds of renewable energy tax credits and covered the cost by increasing taxes on oil companies. All of the measures were rejected.
Raising Taxes? Or Wages?
Along the same lines, two of the items the RNC calls votes “against tax incentives for small businesses” were actually votes against Republican counter-measures to Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage. While Democrats were voting for a measure to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, for example, Republicans offered a substitute that would have held the increase to $6.25 and thrown in a bundle of tax breaks for small businesses as well. Because Obama favored the higher wage package over the Republican alternative, the GOP and McCain count his vote against the GOP alternative as one for “higher taxes.”Higher Taxes for Whom? And for What?
Several of Obama’s votes did indeed favor raising taxes above current levels. But in most cases these increases would have fallen on upper-income individuals or on corporations. And in many cases, the legislation in question called for increasing taxes in order to fund popular programs, a fact not mentioned by the Republican opposition researchers. One such amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd to a 2006 bill, for example, proposed the creation of a “veterans hospital improvement fund,” financed by increasing the capital gains and dividend tax rates on those earning $1 million a year or more. An amendment to a 2009 budget resolution called for restoring the income tax rate on million-dollar-a-year incomes to pre-2001 levels to fund children’s education efforts, such as Head Start and school nutrition programs. Amendments to a 2007 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 83) aimed to set aside $5 billion for emergency responders’ communication equipment or funds for port security, both of which said they would be offset by “closing tax loopholes.” Others called for increasing funding for a low-income home energy assistance program orrestoring cuts slated for vocational education and student loan programs, paid for by closing “corporate tax loopholes.”What do you call a vote to raise taxes on couples earning more than $1 million a year in order to set up a fund to help children in poverty? We counted it, along with all of the other votes mentioned in the last paragraph, as a vote to increase taxes. But it was, of course, more than that.
Double, Triple and Quadruple Counting
The 94-vote list includes 17 votes that applied to only seven separate measures, effectively padding the GOP’s list by 10. Two or three votes on the same measure are not uncommon in the Senate. The most egregious example is a series of four votes on amendment No. 4189 to a Senate budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) in March of this year. First, the Senate voted on the amendment (vote #45), and it was rejected. Then, it voted on a motion to table a motion to reconsider vote #45 (that’s vote #46), and then voted on the actual motion to reconsider vote #45 (we’re up to vote #47 now). And finally, the Senate voted on the same amendment again (vote #48). It was still rejected.The RNC counts these as four separate votes for “higher taxes.”
Non-Binding Votes
Worth noting is that most of the votes on the RNC’s list could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes. Of the total, 53 votes were on amendments to budget resolutions or the resolutions themselves. Budget resolutions merely set targets for tax-writing and appropriations committees and don’t alter the tax code directly. Another four votes were on motions to instruct House-Senate conferees, which aren’t binding either, and are seldom followed.We agree that many of Obama’s votes on these budget measures were clear statements of approval for increased taxes. But those 57 non-binding votes wouldn’t have raised anybody’s taxes.
The Final Tally
Cataloging some of these votes isn’t cut-and-dried, and the exercise underscores how easily a campaign can spin the opponent’s record. In the end, we listed votes on 54 measures under the “for higher taxes” category (and another seven votes in favor of lowering some taxes and increasing others); but even if the RNC used that figure in its claim, we’d have plenty to say about it. As we mentioned, most of those were measures to tax the rich or corporations; many aimed to fund government programs; and most didn’t actually raise taxes in and of themselves.The standard we use is fairly generous to the GOP. Twelve votes by Obama in the RNC’s list favored extending tax cuts that were slated to expire. We counted those as votes for increasing taxes, since taxpayers would see their rates increase as a result of failing to pass the legislation. Many Democrats argue that such a vote would not raise taxes above what current law provides, and therefore should not be counted as a vote for a tax increase. However, taxpayers aren’t privy to such philosophical legislative discussions and would indeed see their taxes increase if the cuts aren’t extended.
As opposed to any sort of significant news outlet: Faux News makes love to Sarah.
Here’s a great example of what we could easily call a “local currency” – that doesn’t involve any of the bloody, anti-corporate revolution that detractors of this idea seem to think will attend any such effort.A great, tiny organic cafe in my town, Comfort, decided to expand to a second, larger location last year. The owner, John Halko, has been renovating the new space for a year, and – thanks to the credit crisis – has been unable to raise the cash required to finish and finally open. With currency unavailable from traditional, centralized money-lending banks, Halko has turned instead to his community – to us – for support.
Granted, this is a small town. Pretty much everybody goes to Comfort – the only restaurant of its kind on the small strip – and we all have a stake in its success. Any extension of Comfort would bring more activity, vitality, and commerce to a tiny downtown (commercially devastated in the 1970s by the chain stores and strip malls of automobile-friendly Central Avenue).
So Halko’s idea is to sell VIP cards. For every dollar a customer spends on a card, they receive the equivalent of $1.20 worth of credit at either restaurant. If I buy a thousand dollar card, I get twelve hundred dollars worth of food: a 20% rate of return on the investment of dollars. Halko gets the cash infusion he needs to build the new restaurant – and since he’s paying for it in 20% tab adjustments, it just comes out of profits. He gets the money a lot cheaper than if he were borrowing it from the bank, paying back in cash over time. Meanwhile, customers get more food for less money.
But wait, there’s more: the entire scheme refocuses a community’s energy and cash on itself. Because our money goes further at our own restaurant than a restaurant somewhere else, we are biased towards eating locally. Since we have a stake in the success (and the non-failure) of the restaurant in whose food we have invested, we’ll also be more likely to promote it to our friends. And since we have already spent a big chunk of money on Comfort’s food, we’re more likely go get food there than dish out more cash for a meal somewhere else.
When it gets really interesting is when other businesses begin to accept Comfort’s VIP card and dollars for their services as well. But even in its current, limited incarnation, it’s easy to see how the math of an extremely simple alternative currency works, why its existence gets cheaper money into the hands of people who need it, and how it circumvents centralized control over commerce.
Admittedly, this isn’t a Boingworthy phenomenon in itself. It’s simply not “scalable” the way Internet and tech things are. It’s a local activity. But it can be modeled by other communities, and the Internet is a great way to share these experiments in social hacking, measure their results, and mutate them further.
So, I’ve been quiet thus far, but I figure it’s about time I went moose hunting. So let me start off nice and big for ya, in case there’s any doubt as to where I stand. Sarah Palin is a stupid, self important, ignorant bitch who I wouldn’t put in charge of wiping her own ass. And it’s not just that she’s dumb – which she is – it’s that she’s willfully ignorant of the facts and yet absolutely dead-bang certain that she’s right about her opinions. It’s more of this “governing from the gut” bullshit that we’ve been Chimping along with for the past eight years. I don’t know why it’s a taboo to say someone is too dumb to be President. Hell, most people don’t have the kind of mental sharpness necessary. That’s why it’s so important to pick the right person out of an entire country of potential leaders. But Sarah Palin? She’s not even worth considering. She’s fucking dumb, okay?
And since we’re talking about things you can’t talk about, let’s talk about her pregnant teenage daughter! Here’s now this works. Bristol being pregnant, deciding to keep the baby, and having her little shotgun wedding? I don’t give a rat’s ass. It doesn’t affect my life in the slightest. But it damn well is fair political game, and I’ll tell you why. Sarah Palin supports abstinence only education in spite of the fact that it demonstratably doesn’t work. Don’t believe me? Why not ask the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association. Go ahead and Wiki it. I’ll wait.
The reason that Bristol’s pregnancy is fair game is that her mother is telling America, in the face of any scientific data on the subject, how best to prevent teenage pregnancy. Yet the method she supports didn’t even work on her own daughter. Does that mean people should be making fun of Bristol? No, actually. I kind of feel bad for the girl. It must be rough having such a stupid, arrogant git for a mother.
And she is arrogant, make no mistake. Hell, it’s arrogant enough for her to assume that she could be the Vice President without even knowing what the job entails. But here’s a more specific story that should snap-freeze the hairs on your neck. When she became mayor of Wasilla, she spent around $50,000 of taxpayer money redecorating her office. Which is pretty obnoxious on its own, but isn’t even the bad part of the story. When she was confronted with the radical idea that The People might not give a shit whether she liked the pattern on the drapes, she responded with the sort of self important authoritarianism that makes Dick Cheney soak his own trousers. “I’m the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t.”
To hell with the Vice Presidency, she didn’t even understand the responsibilities and limitations of her job as mayor. Her attitude, at any given moment, is that she’s in charge and she’ll do whatever she damn well pleases until someone forces her to stop. I’m sure she sees that as just some red-tape-cutting common sense. And you know what? If you’re in charge of your local PTA meeting, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Wittle away some of the pointless procedure and get things done. Fine. But the Vice President and, I shudder to even think it, the President of the United States can’t just ignore the Constitution whenever it suits them. No matter what the past eight years suggest.
So before I get to her debate performance, I’d like to do a bit of a run down. A list, if you will, of the things we’ve learned about Sarah Palin from her very limited, groomed, handled private interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.
- Sarah Palin isn’t sure what the Bush Doctrine is. She couldn’t even take a wild guess. Everyone who heard her ask “In what respect, Charlie?” knew it, no matter what sort of semantics argument you want to get into over what different meanings that phrase has encompassed.
- Sarah Palin doesn’t know that Freddie Mac and Fannie May weren’t being funded by the federal government before their collapse.
- Sarah Palin thinks that the $700 billion bailout has something to do with health care costs.
- Sarah Palin can only name one Supreme Court case – Roe v. Wade. She couldn’t even conjure up Dred Scott, which even Bush was able to do in the second debate with John Kerry. Speaking of Bush, she couldn’t think of Bush v. Gore. Or Brown v. Board of Education. Or Hustler v. Falwell. Or FCC v. Pacifica (Carlin’s seven words). Or, and this is most stunning of all, Exxon v. Baker – concerning the Exxon Valdez. A case which rendered a ruling during her time as Governer of Alaska, and about which she made public statements in protest of the decision.
- Sarah Palin either could not or would not name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads. She couldn’t think of one. Not the New York Times, the Daily News, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune. Not Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Reports. Hell, she couldn’t even think of a local paper in Alaska. Sarah Palin, by the way, has a degree in Journalism. No shit.
- Sarah Palin cannot name a single instance of John McCain favoring regulation of industry, despite being more than willing to lie right into the camera and say that McCain has been championing regulation for twenty-six years.
There’s probably more, but I could be here all night. The point is, she doesn’t know shit about shit. She has opinions – uninformed ones – and she’s sticking to them come hell or high water. I pity the poor bastards that had to prep her for tonight’s debate with Joe Biden. And while I wasn’t taken with her performance, I will give them credit. They made an organized mess out of a disorganized disaster. So there’s that.
The truth is that Palin didn’t answer any questions she didn’t want to tonight, and she said she’d do exactly that at the start of the debate. She had a hand full of index cards and a brain full of buzz words, and it was her job to say them all in front of the camera. Actually, it was her job to say them while looking at Joe Biden for five seconds, then looking at the camera for five seconds, and then looking back at Biden to start over again. It was like she was on a timer. One of the many things she’d probably been coached on after the whole flap about McCain not looking Obama in the eyes.
I choose to leave you (at 4:30 in the morning) with the following flow chart. Doubtless, it will grow prettier and more robust over time.
Link.



