February 26, 2012

Best political cartoon in history. Yes, I said history. Romney, his dog, his auto-bailout opposition

February 16, 2012

Cal Thomas offers apology to Rachel Maddow and she accepts. They will do lunch

The apology seems pretty heartfelt and genuine.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2012/02/rachel-maddow-and-my-lesson-civility/275906

When one writes about moral convictions, it's probably a good idea consistently to live up to them. That way people can still disagree with your convictions, but they have a difficult time accusing you of hypocrisy.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, I failed to live up to one of my highest principles.
.
.
.
The next morning I felt bad about it, so I called Maddow to apologize. It wasn't one of those meaningless "if I've offended anyone ..." apologies; it was heartfelt. I had embarrassed myself and was a bad example to those who read my column and expect better from me.

Maddow could not have been more gracious. She immediately accepted my apology. On her show, she said publicly, "I completely believe his apology. I completely accept his apology." To be forgiven by one you have wronged is a blessing, it's even cleansing.
.
.
.
I have many liberal friends acquired over the years. They are impossible to avoid in the media, but I don't wish to avoid them. They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth.
--------------------------------------------------------

I have had several conversations with Cal Thomas in the green room at Fox. I can say that he has always been nice to me and seemed like a nice person in general. Obviously, there are positions he holds that are completely unacceptable to me, but that is another story.

February 12, 2012

Incredibly heartwarming video from the people of Tohoku area Japan for the help with the earthquake

Incredibly heartwarming video of thanks from the victims of the 3/11 earthquake in Tohoku area Japan to the people of the countries that helped them. Must be seen, I couldn't watch it dry eyed.

February 11, 2012

Hey Santorum - You know that garbage you have been saying about women shouldn't serve in combat?

Rick - I'd like you to meet someone. Meet Israeli Platoon Commander Racheli Levantal. I think she might want to talk with you. I recommend you be contrite and not make any sudden movements.

February 7, 2012

Freeper Heads Exploding over Prop 8 ban reversal at 9th Circuit

Cry me a river, Freepers! Justice and Equality won this time, and it will be that way at the SCOTUS too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843518/posts

To: massgopguy
The decline continues.



7 posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:17:13 PM by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SmithL; wagglebee
what a shock, NOT

Now would they also say 4 wives for muslims or 9 wives for mormons on religious grounds be unconstitutional too?

Nah did not think so.

Just because they go to their elitist parties and meet their cross dressing and homo friends does not mean what they do and how they act and what they ask for is normal or constitutional

Anyone on our side saying no big deal tot he queer agenda needs to get their head out of where the sun does not shine, this is not about just marriage



8 posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:17:41 PM by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: SmithL
No big surprise here.
Our Senate Legislature in Washington State just approved QUEER marriage. Now it goes to the House and the governor said she would sign it. They said we have until June to get 130,000 signatures for an initiative to get in on the ballot for the people to vote on, but now with the 9th saying it is unconstitutional to not permit QUE ER marriage, what good would voting on it do us?

I am sick in my heart what is happening to our country.


11 posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:19:34 PM by Spunky ("Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 6, 2012

A new game for all DUers! Guess the day FR's Jim Rob will remove negative Romney references from FR!

OK, here is how to play. There are 274 days left from now until election day. The game is to guess how many days will be left by the time Jim Robinson of Free Republic removes the anti-Romney rhetoric from the top of the discussion forum over there.

Here is what it says as of now:
----------------------------------
Welcome to Free Republic, America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives!

Newt's Position on Activist Judges, Rebalancing the Judiciary, Restoring Freedom!

Romney's positions: Abortion, gay rights, gun control, liberal judges, mandated socialist/fascist healthcare (RomneyCare)!
----------------------------------

I'm guessing that as Romney becomes the apparent nominee, JimRob will take down the part about Romney.

I will start off the game by saying that it will be gone on day 200 to go, or 74 days from now.

Any other takers?

February 2, 2012

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the Myth of Reagan's Success with Supply Side Economics

Originally posted at Democrats for Progress, http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/02/02/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-and-the-myth-of-reagans-success-with-supply-side-economics/#more-7492

TRANSCRIPT:
----------------------------------
Charles: My name is Charles Howard.

This is my third in a series of videos with Steve Leser from Democrats for Progress.

Today, we are going to discuss supply side economics and the two frontrunners for the Republican nomination. Steve, what impact does Ronald Reagan play in the economic beliefs and proposals of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney?

Steve: Hi, Charles, and thanks for interviewing me.

It has been 32 years since Ronald Reagan took office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. His economic policies and the perception that they were successful have dominated American economic policy ever since.

Newt Gingrich is touting his involvement in the implementation of Reagan’s supply side economics as part of the reason people should vote for him. Mitt Romney also refers to Reagan’s economics as the underpinnings of his economics proposals.I think it makes sense at this point to look at whether Reagan and his supply side economics were as successful as we’ve been led to believe.

The cornerstone of his [Reagan's] policies and supply side economics is the implementation of lower taxes in general, but particularly important is a lower tax rate for the top income bracket.

When Ronald Reagan took over in January of 1981, those earning the highest income paid 70 percent of the topmost portion of their income in taxes. Over the course of his administration, he lowered that rate to 50 percent and then to 28 percent.

Since Reagan left office, the top tax rate has oscillated between 28 percent and 35 percent, where it now stands. That seven-percent variation is insignificant in comparison to the rates between 1945 and 1980 which ranged between 70 and 94 percent.

I think it is fair to say – and a lot of people across the political spectrum are going to howl at this – that Reaganomics, at least as far as tax policy goes, remains in place today even under President Obama.

Charles: I have two questions at this point, but let’s take them one at a time.

First, I remember the way things were in the late 70s and early 80s. Things were really bad. Inflation was high, oil prices were high, unemployment was high. The way it seems is that Reagan took office, lowered taxes and things got better. Is that not the case?

Steve: That is such an important question.

There is a Latin phrase that applies here, and it is: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This phrase describes a logical fallacy wherein someone suggests that because something occurred before something else, it necessarily caused the second thing to happen.

For instance, I am walking outside and I drop a penny and then a minute later it starts to rain. If someone were to conclude that my dropping the penny caused it to rain, I think we would all agree that would be a ridiculous suggestion of causation.

There is a similar situation with the economic recovery of the mid-1980s and the policies of the Reagan administration. Here are the facts.

In 1973, the first of two 1970s era energy crises exploded on the world scene with OPEC instituting an embargo against the US and its allies in retaliation for US support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. At the start of the embargo, the price for a barrel of oil was around $20 a barrel in 2008 dollars.

By the way, for all of the prices I am going to discuss, I am going to use what the equivalent of the prices would be in 2008 dollars so it is easier for us to understand the effect of what happened.

The price of a barrel of oil promptly doubled and then some as a result of the embargo to nearly $45 a barrel. The effects of that first crisis on oil and gas prices hadn’t ended by 1979 when a second crisis ensued from Iran’s Shah coming to the US for medical treatment and the hostage crisis that occurred when our embassy personnel in Tehran were taken hostage.

At that time, the price of a barrel of oil shot up to $100 a barrel in 2008 prices. The price of a gallon of gas went up to an equivalent of $4 a gallon. The hostage crisis ended in 1981 the day that Reagan was inaugurated, and almost immediately the price of a barrel of oil and of a gallon of gas began to drop.

By 1984, the price of a barrel of oil had come down from the equivalent of $100 to $60 a barrel and the price of a gallon of gas had gone back down from the equivalent of $4 a gallon down to $2.80 a gallon

Now we all know what the effect of a massive increase or decrease in the price of gas and oil does to the economy. In economic terms, a huge increase or decrease in the price of oil and gas is known as a supply shock.

Supply shocks cause major shifts in the direction of the economy.

It is no coincidence that the economic recovery for which Reagan is credited follows the decrease in the price of oil almost exactly. Here are a couple of graphs that emphasize the point.

Here is a graph of oil prices from 1960 to 2010. The orange line is the line that shows the prices in their 2008 equivalents. You can see that prices take off in 1973 and spike again in 1979 and then start to decline sharply in 1981. They are significantly lower by 1984 and continue lower and stabilize in 1986.

Here is a graph of gross national product from 1979 to 1988 from tradingeconomics.com. You can see that the turnaround in the economy occurs in the 1983-1984 time frame and continues through the rest of Reagan’s Presidency.

I’m not saying Reagan deserves no credit for the turnaround; what I am saying though is that it was not his economic policies that improved the economy. What credit he deserves, he deserves for his foreign policies that produced somewhat of a cooling off of the situation in the Middle East and a resulting moderation in the price of oil and gas.

Reaganomics and supply side economics did not cause the recovery in the 1980s; a reduction in the prices of oil and gas did.

Charles: So the Reagan economic policies did not cause the recovery of the 1980s.

My second question – remember I had two questions – my second question is: over time, has the record validated those policies? Are we better off as a country as a result of Reaganomics and supply side economics?

Steve: We’re clearly not better off as a result of supply side economics. Well, let me back up slightly. If you are in the top five percent of wealth and income, you are better off. One would expect that because the lower taxes were aimed mostly at people in that bracket.

The problem is that the rest of the 95 percent of the country has done either worse or barely broke even after the change. Here is a graph that emphasizes the point, from afferentinput.blogspot.com. Suppose starting in 1979, we distribute $100 among 100 people as it would be distributed according to the distribution of wealth in the country then and since.

The people in the top one percent have about $8.75, the bottom 50 percent all have less than a dollar and everyone else is somewhere under $3.

By the end of Reagan’s two terms in office, no one else outside of the one percent showed much growth in wealth at all. The top one percent, however, had increased their holdings from $8.75 out of the $100 to $13. That is nearly a 50-percent increase in wealth. That trend continued.

By 2006, the top one percent had over $18 and virtually no one else increased in wealth at all.

Then we have to consider that Reagan instituted large spending increases for defense and cut revenue by cutting taxes. This resulted in the genesis of the modern practice of massive federal deficit spending. It has been difficult for anyone to balance the budget after that.

The only President who has balanced the budget is President Clinton, and he was aided a little bit by the dotcom bubble. The reason why it is difficult to balance the budget is that it’s difficult to cut any programs and even more difficult to raise taxes. Republicans scream and shout the moment you even hint that you are thinking about it.

If you start with a budget deficit in a household or business or government and you cannot cut outlays and you cannot increase income, its not hard to figure out what the result will be.

We cannot have an honest budgetary discussion in this country because Republicans are obsessed with an economic dogma that doesn’t work and never will.

Charles: My final question, and I think I know where we are going.

If supply side economics didn’t cause the recovery in the 1980s and hasn’t been a good thing for the country since then, where does that leave Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who are proposing more tax cuts as if they are the best solution going forward for the country?

Steve: It means that Gingrich and Romney, and anyone else who would implement supply side policies, are doomed to failure and would make the lives of everyone in the country except for the top 1 percent worse than they would be if their changes hadn’t been made.

As I said earlier, the tax structure has been steadily at supply side levels since the 1980s. We’re already there and the results are not good. Supply side fanatics would tell you that no matter what problem we have, the solution is more tax cuts. It’s a circular argument. If you don’t get the results you wanted, the reason was that you didn’t cut taxes enough. If you want better results, cut taxes more.

I want to say directly to everyone who sees this video: trust your own eyes. The general trend of the economy over the last 32 years is directly attributable to supply side economics. If you like what you see when you visualize the last 32 years, by all means, continue supporting politicians who intend to implement supply side economics. If you don’t, and I am betting most of you don’t, make sure you support politicians proposing other economic policies.

Don’t elect Republicans, who want to blindly follow a failed economic model.

Elect Democrats.
-----------------------------------
Originally posted at Democrats for Progress, http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/02/02/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-and-the-myth-of-reagans-success-with-supply-side-economics/#more-7492

February 1, 2012

Can we not offer these kids a safe haven?

I spent some time reading these two threads here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11373988

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11373873

The second thread got me thinking, can't we have an organization that provides places to live for these kids? If I had known that kid in the second link, he could have stayed in my second room. I live in NYC, he would have had a ball. I am sure there are other people, maybe some here in this group at DU that would take kids in who are in situations like these.

Is there no organization that tries to match kids who need places to stay with available homes and apartments?