Tuesday, October 30, 2012
2012 Campaign:
Paul Krugman: Pointing Toward Prosperity?
"...Mr. Romney’s 'plan' is a sham. It’s a list of things he claims will happen, with no description of the policies he would follow to make those things happen. 'We will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget,' he declares, but he refuses to specify which tax loopholes he would close to offset his $5 trillion in tax cuts. Actually, if describing what you want to see happen without providing any specific policies to get us there constitutes a 'plan,' I can easily come up with a one-point plan that trumps Mr. Romney any day. Here it is: Every American will have a good job with good wages. Also, a blissfully happy marriage. And a pony. So Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic recovery through magic, inspiring business confidence through his personal awesomeness... ...you should never forget the broader policy context. Mr. Obama may not have an exciting economic plan, but, if he is re-elected, he will get to implement a health reform that is the biggest improvement in America’s safety net since Medicare. Mr. Romney doesn’t have an economic plan at all, but he is determined not just to repeal Obamacare but to impose savage cuts in Medicaid. So never mind all those bullet points. Think instead about the 45 million Americans who either will or won’t receive essential health care, depending on who wins on Nov. 6."
It's amazing that so many poor people can be convinced to vote against their own long-term interests. Having anti-government propaganda like FoxNews & rabid Right Wing talk radio clearly affects the political direction of this country. The notion of being frustrated with Obama & being 'willing to try anything' is bound to disappoint many a poor voter expecting a better future. As if Obamacare that provides coverage to 45 million poor Americans is something bad for poor people? Wait...excuse me? Un-regulated gambling & cheating by investment banks caused the 2008 financial crisis, yet faith in a market with even less regulation, and a promise to 'help people' by removing the social safety net is what Romney/Ryan are selling, apparently effectively. It will be too late when they realize that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Food Stamps actually represent government solutions to social problems the so-called free market has no interest in solving.
Raw Story: Working class voters: Why America’s poor are willing to vote Republican
Paul Krugman: Pointing Toward Prosperity?
"...Mr. Romney’s 'plan' is a sham. It’s a list of things he claims will happen, with no description of the policies he would follow to make those things happen. 'We will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget,' he declares, but he refuses to specify which tax loopholes he would close to offset his $5 trillion in tax cuts. Actually, if describing what you want to see happen without providing any specific policies to get us there constitutes a 'plan,' I can easily come up with a one-point plan that trumps Mr. Romney any day. Here it is: Every American will have a good job with good wages. Also, a blissfully happy marriage. And a pony. So Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic recovery through magic, inspiring business confidence through his personal awesomeness... ...you should never forget the broader policy context. Mr. Obama may not have an exciting economic plan, but, if he is re-elected, he will get to implement a health reform that is the biggest improvement in America’s safety net since Medicare. Mr. Romney doesn’t have an economic plan at all, but he is determined not just to repeal Obamacare but to impose savage cuts in Medicaid. So never mind all those bullet points. Think instead about the 45 million Americans who either will or won’t receive essential health care, depending on who wins on Nov. 6."
It's amazing that so many poor people can be convinced to vote against their own long-term interests. Having anti-government propaganda like FoxNews & rabid Right Wing talk radio clearly affects the political direction of this country. The notion of being frustrated with Obama & being 'willing to try anything' is bound to disappoint many a poor voter expecting a better future. As if Obamacare that provides coverage to 45 million poor Americans is something bad for poor people? Wait...excuse me? Un-regulated gambling & cheating by investment banks caused the 2008 financial crisis, yet faith in a market with even less regulation, and a promise to 'help people' by removing the social safety net is what Romney/Ryan are selling, apparently effectively. It will be too late when they realize that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Food Stamps actually represent government solutions to social problems the so-called free market has no interest in solving.
Raw Story: Working class voters: Why America’s poor are willing to vote Republican
Saturday, October 20, 2012
2012 Campaign:
Paul Krugman: Snow Job On Jobs
"...Mr. Romney, who started as a business consultant and then moved into the heady world of private equity, insists on portraying himself as a plucky small businessman. I am not making this up. In Tuesday’s debate, he declared, 'I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business.' In his speech at the Republican convention, he declared, 'When I was 37, I helped start a small company.' Ahem. It’s true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn’t every plucky little start-up have access to that kind of financing? But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would create 12 million jobs over the next four years. Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however, those studies did no such thing. Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn’t proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs in the next few years — but these were predicted gains under current policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not as a consequence of the Romney plan. Finally, a third study examined the effects of the Romney tax plan and argued (implausibly, but that’s another issue) that it would lead to a large increase in the number of Americans who want to work. But how does that help cure a situation in which there are already millions more Americans seeking work than there are jobs available? It’s irrelevant to Mr. Romney’s claims. So when the campaign says that these three studies support its claims about jobs, it is, to use the technical term, lying — just as it is when it says that six independent studies support its claims about taxes (they don’t). What do Mr. Romney’s economic advisers actually believe? As best as I can tell, they’re placing their faith in the confidence fairy, in the belief that their candidate’s victory would inspire an employment boom without the need for any real change in policy. In fact, in his infamous Boca Raton '47 percent' remarks, Mr. Romney himself asserted that he would give a big boost to the economy simply by being elected, 'without actually doing anything.' And what about the overwhelming evidence that our weak economy isn’t about confidence, it’s about the hangover from a terrible financial crisis? Never mind. To summarize, then, the true Romney plan is to create an economic boom through the sheer power of Mr. Romney’s personal awesomeness. But the campaign doesn’t dare say that, for fear that voters would (rightly) consider it ridiculous. So what we’re getting instead is an attempt to brazen it out with nakedly false claims. There’s no jobs plan; just a plan for a snow job on the American people."
Salom.com - The Washington Post’s embarrassing Ryan defense
"In the Washington Post 'Reliable Source' blog yesterday morning, the authors make the point (Political photo ops: From Reagan to Paul Ryan, the game every candidate plays) that Paul Ryan’s photo op at a soup kitchen last weekend was nothing more then par for the course. In their minds, the Ryan campaign manipulating its way into a charity’s kitchen after the meal was over and washing already clean dishes was hardly different from images of Clinton jogging, or Bush clearing brush on his Texas ranch, or Obama shooting hoops, or Reagan sitting on a horse. Well, I can understand the media wanting to absolve itself of responsibility in enabling the Ryan photo op and distributing the pictures, as we detailed last week, but in this case (pardon the pun), these comparisons don’t wash... ...The thing is — and here’s where Ryan’s judgement and Ryan’s performance went so wrong — in a photo op, there is a clear understanding between the politician and the photographer, the photo editor, the publisher and, ultimately, the citizen that the image is theater — and that, in the production of that theater or impressionistic bit of character fiction, basic reality wasn’t tampered with and no animals were harmed. Why the soup kitchen case is so egregious, on the other hand, is because Ryan fully and willfully expected the audience consuming the imagery to believe that a homeless dinner was going on or, at least, an official cleanup of that dinner was in progress, signifying that Ryan was — in contrast to sitting on a horse or running laps around the White House — actually participating in a public, humanitarian ritual. In contrast to Reagan and the rest, this was not theater, it was Ryan manipulating our trust in the underlying reality of the situation in a not just personal and private, but a 'civic deception,'..."
Marketing vs. Privacy:
Ed Bott: The Do Not Track standard has crossed into crazy territory
"...If you oppose online tracking, you’re un-American and you hate democracy. Also, the fact that big corporations can collect and collate personal data about you without your permission is a cornerstone of civil society, you communist. Also, jobs. Did I mention that the [Direct Marketing Assoc.] is also one of the prime movers behind the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA)? They'd prefer to regulate themselves, thank you very much... ...The advertising side wants the standard to be rendered meaningless, the tech guys throw up their hands and say they have lost any energy to go on with a 'pathetic' process. And privacy advocates are completely marginalized..."
Paul Krugman: Snow Job On Jobs
"...Mr. Romney, who started as a business consultant and then moved into the heady world of private equity, insists on portraying himself as a plucky small businessman. I am not making this up. In Tuesday’s debate, he declared, 'I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business.' In his speech at the Republican convention, he declared, 'When I was 37, I helped start a small company.' Ahem. It’s true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn’t every plucky little start-up have access to that kind of financing? But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would create 12 million jobs over the next four years. Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however, those studies did no such thing. Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn’t proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs in the next few years — but these were predicted gains under current policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not as a consequence of the Romney plan. Finally, a third study examined the effects of the Romney tax plan and argued (implausibly, but that’s another issue) that it would lead to a large increase in the number of Americans who want to work. But how does that help cure a situation in which there are already millions more Americans seeking work than there are jobs available? It’s irrelevant to Mr. Romney’s claims. So when the campaign says that these three studies support its claims about jobs, it is, to use the technical term, lying — just as it is when it says that six independent studies support its claims about taxes (they don’t). What do Mr. Romney’s economic advisers actually believe? As best as I can tell, they’re placing their faith in the confidence fairy, in the belief that their candidate’s victory would inspire an employment boom without the need for any real change in policy. In fact, in his infamous Boca Raton '47 percent' remarks, Mr. Romney himself asserted that he would give a big boost to the economy simply by being elected, 'without actually doing anything.' And what about the overwhelming evidence that our weak economy isn’t about confidence, it’s about the hangover from a terrible financial crisis? Never mind. To summarize, then, the true Romney plan is to create an economic boom through the sheer power of Mr. Romney’s personal awesomeness. But the campaign doesn’t dare say that, for fear that voters would (rightly) consider it ridiculous. So what we’re getting instead is an attempt to brazen it out with nakedly false claims. There’s no jobs plan; just a plan for a snow job on the American people."
Salom.com - The Washington Post’s embarrassing Ryan defense
"In the Washington Post 'Reliable Source' blog yesterday morning, the authors make the point (Political photo ops: From Reagan to Paul Ryan, the game every candidate plays) that Paul Ryan’s photo op at a soup kitchen last weekend was nothing more then par for the course. In their minds, the Ryan campaign manipulating its way into a charity’s kitchen after the meal was over and washing already clean dishes was hardly different from images of Clinton jogging, or Bush clearing brush on his Texas ranch, or Obama shooting hoops, or Reagan sitting on a horse. Well, I can understand the media wanting to absolve itself of responsibility in enabling the Ryan photo op and distributing the pictures, as we detailed last week, but in this case (pardon the pun), these comparisons don’t wash... ...The thing is — and here’s where Ryan’s judgement and Ryan’s performance went so wrong — in a photo op, there is a clear understanding between the politician and the photographer, the photo editor, the publisher and, ultimately, the citizen that the image is theater — and that, in the production of that theater or impressionistic bit of character fiction, basic reality wasn’t tampered with and no animals were harmed. Why the soup kitchen case is so egregious, on the other hand, is because Ryan fully and willfully expected the audience consuming the imagery to believe that a homeless dinner was going on or, at least, an official cleanup of that dinner was in progress, signifying that Ryan was — in contrast to sitting on a horse or running laps around the White House — actually participating in a public, humanitarian ritual. In contrast to Reagan and the rest, this was not theater, it was Ryan manipulating our trust in the underlying reality of the situation in a not just personal and private, but a 'civic deception,'..."
Marketing vs. Privacy:
Ed Bott: The Do Not Track standard has crossed into crazy territory
"...If you oppose online tracking, you’re un-American and you hate democracy. Also, the fact that big corporations can collect and collate personal data about you without your permission is a cornerstone of civil society, you communist. Also, jobs. Did I mention that the [Direct Marketing Assoc.] is also one of the prime movers behind the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA)? They'd prefer to regulate themselves, thank you very much... ...The advertising side wants the standard to be rendered meaningless, the tech guys throw up their hands and say they have lost any energy to go on with a 'pathetic' process. And privacy advocates are completely marginalized..."
Sunday, October 07, 2012
2012 Campaign:
Igor Volsky: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes
"Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths.."
Paul Krugman: Romney’s Sick Joke
"'No. 1,' declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, 'pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.' No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate. Was Mr. Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half. Yes, President Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election. So, about that sick joke: What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job)..."
The Myth Of The Rugged Individual Who Doesn't Need Or Use Government:
The GOP has done a great job obfuscating the necessity & role of government in citizens' lives. Makes one wonder who's actually driving their agenda...
Suzanne Mettler: Our Hidden Government Benefits
"...a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they wanted smaller government and fewer services. Tea Party activists, the most vocal citizens of our time, powerfully amplify those demands. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have at some point relied on government programs — and valued them — even though they often fail to recognize that government is the source of the assistance. A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had 'ever used a government social program,' 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four..."
Igor Volsky: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes
"Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths.."
Paul Krugman: Romney’s Sick Joke
"'No. 1,' declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, 'pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.' No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate. Was Mr. Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half. Yes, President Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election. So, about that sick joke: What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job)..."
The Myth Of The Rugged Individual Who Doesn't Need Or Use Government:
The GOP has done a great job obfuscating the necessity & role of government in citizens' lives. Makes one wonder who's actually driving their agenda...
Suzanne Mettler: Our Hidden Government Benefits
"...a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they wanted smaller government and fewer services. Tea Party activists, the most vocal citizens of our time, powerfully amplify those demands. Yet the reality is that the vast majority of Americans have at some point relied on government programs — and valued them — even though they often fail to recognize that government is the source of the assistance. A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had 'ever used a government social program,' 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four..."
Thursday, October 04, 2012
2012 Campaign:
FactCheck.org: Dubious Denver Debate Declarations
"We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
Romney again promised to 'not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans' and also to 'lower taxes on middle-income families,' but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have 'gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.' That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is 'going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.' Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the 'rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.' Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have 'seen their income come down by $4,300.' That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
Obama again touted his '$4 trillion' deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said 'up to' 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are 'out of work' when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed. And he again said Obama 'cut' $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow..."
FactCheck.org: Dubious Denver Debate Declarations
"We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
Romney again promised to 'not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans' and also to 'lower taxes on middle-income families,' but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have 'gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.' That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is 'going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.' Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the 'rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.' Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have 'seen their income come down by $4,300.' That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
Obama again touted his '$4 trillion' deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said 'up to' 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are 'out of work' when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed. And he again said Obama 'cut' $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow..."
