Oh, Look The Lying Liars -

at the Heritage Foundation have a new Chief Liar Economist.

I've seen Steven Moore on television many times.

To be polite, the man is a buffoon.

He has now left the WSJ to become Chief Economist at the Heritage foundation, well known bastion of shameless liars.

Though it's possible that Moore actually believes the anti-arithmetical nonsense he spouts - which would make him less of a liar, and Moore of an idiot.

Still More on Christie

Brought to you by two Bosses.

Question of the Day

Is it over the top to consider bridgegate an act of domestic terrorism?

More on Christie

There is almost no doubt at this time that the Bridge closure was politically motivated pay-back to screw with the lives of Democrats.  But the whole Mayor of Fort Lee theory involves levels of stupidity that strain credence.

Rachel Maddow has another theory that almost seems compelling.  Here it is in a 17 minute video from last night's broadcast.

Shallow Stupid - The Bully is a Dupe

He makes excuses, says he didn't know
About that bridge thing when no one could go.
"I worked the cones." See - it's all just for show.
That's why the Bully is a Dupe.

It wasn't Christie, no - it was his staff
Now they've resigned both the riff and the raff
They jammed up Fort Lee, and just for a laugh.
That's why the Bully is a Dupe.

He loves to spew a lot of hot air
He doesn''t care
Traffic is broke
He says it's OK

He hates Fort Lee; and he don't give a whoop.
That's why the Bully is a Dupe.

To the tune of -




Source

Howler [Quote] of the day, with Derp

This is simply magnificent.

The saving grace for the conservatives on this front is that they, by virtue of being conservative, at least have an understanding into how human nature actually operates.

--  Eric Ericson

Really - could it ever get any better?  Well maybe.  There is so much more here.  Go read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it.

Or, if you are of a more delicate constitution, you could simply read the last two paragraphs of Josh Barro's response to E.E.'s would be smack-down of Barro.

This is a strategic problem for Republicans for several reasons. One is that the party’s reliance on a resentment-based appeal has caused its policy apparatus to atrophy. Erickson is not alone among conservatives in thinking that “academic and technocratic” approaches are best left to pointy-headed liberals. Another is that people like Erickson are a declining share of the electorate.
 
Basically, Erickson is derpy. And Erickson has big appeal to conservatives because lots of them are derpy. But the country is getting less derpy, and in time the Republican party will have to get less derpy, too. That’s my project, and I don’t expect Erickson to like it.

 

[Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/erick-erickson-shows-the-worst-in-gop-2013-6#ixzz2VFn8NnIl]

This is the Republican party tearing itself apart, and it can't come to fruition soon enough.  Vacuous know-nothings like Ericson on the one hand [who evidently does not realize that Obamacare is a conservative plan put forth 20 years ago by the Heritage Foundation - hence its many flaws] and younger, less radicalized thinkers like Barro.  I haven't paid much attention to Barro, so I don't know what kind of a thinker he is. 

But what kind of thinker would remain aligned to the Republican party of 2013, when there is a much more rational conservative party available.  Is the fact that they call themselves "Democrats" really that off-putting?

H/T to Delong.

Big Illegal Alien Tax Derp

A friend sent me the link to this vid.  It's so full of po' white angst and big scary numbers.




My comment:

Without condoning any kind of tax fraud or other crime, I have to say I'm a lot less troubled about this money going to [what I assume to be] poor people in whatever country than I am about the even greater number of billions of dollars handed LEGALLY as tax rebates to filthy-rich, resource-polluting trans-national mega-corporations in the petroleum industry, and the huge number of other highly profitable corporations that pay little tax, or none at all - in part because of off-shore tax havens.

In all seriousness, 4.2 billion is a big scary number, but if you look at the problems that ought to be addressed by the U.S. in priority order, this probably wouldn't make the top 100.

And I have to suspect that the pasty-faced, oh-so-patriotic southern Indiana news hawks who put this together are more than a little bit influenced by the brownish skin of those who benefit from this situation.  Sorry, that's just ugly reality.   Meanwhile, too-big-to-fail lily-white bankers on Wall Street are robbing us blind every day.

When's the last time you saw a 6 minute news report video on that subject?
.

Another Ridiculous Facebook Thingie

Am I being over-imaginative in seeing a racist subtext in this

image of  BLACK SMOKE coming from THE WHITE HOUSE?

WTH?!? Friday, Ridiculous Facebook Thingie Edition

This is just too rich

The wonderfully hilarious thing about this is THAT THERE IS NO BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE!   And - even better - in the Old Testament, a man could have multiple wives.

And isn't the point of the New Testament that it rendered the Old Testament obsolete?  Isn't that changing the laws of God?

But if you think not, then well -- as for those immutable laws - spend a little time with Leviticus and tell me how you feel about that.

Meanwhile, marriage is between one man, one woman, plus possibly her sister, and for sure his brother's widow, should such an opportunity arise.
 
Conservatives have no sense of irony, but I am forever wedded to mine.

Quote of the Day

In comments to this must-read Johnathon Chait article * on the thoroughly despicable Jeff Sessions, reader HATCHAX  offers this gem.  No extra charge for the quote within the quote.

Reminds of when I worked for the DSCC when Howell Heflin was retiring & Sessions was running for his seat: his staff told me Sen. Heflin was proud to keep Sessions off the federal bench because "At the risk of offending every rock in the world, that boy's dumber than one." After Sessions' eleciton, I heard Heflin say something along the lines he wasn't too upset Jeff Sessions replaced him, for after all, being a judge was one thing but intelligence was not something the Senate had in any abundance.

That is some high quality snark.

Now go read the Chait article.

Really.

H/T to Scott Lemieux at LGM

* UPDATE: 6/25/17:  Sadly, this is now a dead link.  It looks like DeLong preserved the article content, but, as near as I can tell, the original comment stream is now lost.

You Can Fool Most of the People Most of the Time

At least on certain issues.

I'm not inherently a great pessimist, but with few exceptions each passing month for over a decade now has seen my optimism whither, at least a little.  So I can't help but see the manure-colored lining in this otherwise rosy, fluffy cloud.

Steve Benen reports that according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on domestic issues, sometimes by large margins.  Here is a graph.  (As always, click to embiggen.)

 

Graph 1   Who Do You Trust?

But the causes of my pessimism are four-fold.  First, as Benen goes on to note, the same polling reveals that in the popular mind "Republicans have an advantage on the (sic) reducing the deficit, 'controlling' government spending, and national defense."  Well, there's three reasons for pessimism right there.  A) Reducing the deficit is an issue of exactly zero urgency, and attacking it now will certainly cause economic hardship, especially for those at the bottom. Further, Republicans have been huge debt increasers for decades, while Dems have not.  B) We absolutely do not have a spending problem.  We absolutely do have a revenue problem, as graph 2 plainly indicates.  I think the Republicans have become convinced of their own lies.

Graph 2   Federal Gov Current Recpts by GDP

C) From FDR through LBJ to BHO, Dems have been every bit as war-mongerish as their Rep counterparts; BHO has continued his predecessors war initiatives almost seamlessly;  and 9/11 happened on W's watch.  This just makes me want to cry.

But I have a bigger list.  Second, a look a graph 1 reveals some disturbing details.  A)  Joe BeerCan must not connect "Looking out for the middle class," Medicare," "Health Care," "Medicare,' or "Social Security" with "Economy" or the results for those categories would line up better.  B) Considering Paul Ryan and the never-ending series of Republican contrived cliffs, scoring Dems only marginally better than Repubs on the economy is, all by itself, cause for despair.  C) As is the close call on taxes.

Third, and I've already alluded to this, there is almost no daylight between the two parties on foreign policy issues.  Still I have to give a slight nod to the Dems, based on practicality, because: John Bolton.

And last, though I firmly believe to the bottom of my heart that the Dems are superior on absolutely every issue, problem and question that might rise, they still aren't that damned good.  Case in point: the new head of the Michigan Democratic party is a venture capitalist.  As Bill Maher sagely put it, while the Democrats have moved to the right, the Republicans have moved to the insane asylum.  They demonstrate this anew, almost every single day. 

The lessons of history and even a casual observation of the current failures of European austerity show that progressive policies are the clear and present necessity.  But even if we had strong Dem majorities, we still have Reaganite B. Hoover Obama in the White House, and a genuine progressive movement in congress the exact size and shape of Bernie Sanders. 

As one of my college professors put it long ago:  Booze is the only answer.

Dos Amigos: Fil y Buster

Harry Reid learns the hard way what happens when you make a gentlemen's agreement with unprincipled lying repugnant thugs.

But, in his defense, who could ever have seen this coming?

Republicans, All Wrong, All the Time, Part 34 -- Thus Spake The Rube

For the hundredth time the foreign-born Muslim commie Nazi extends an olive branch across the aisle, and for the hundredth time it's dashed to the floor, stomped on and set ablaze - along with the latest spokes-liars trousers.   It became a conflagration that the infamous water-stop could not staunch.

Early in Marco Rubio's alleged rebuttal to B. Hoover Obama's latest exercise in political theater it became painfully obvious that his pants were on fire.  This was even before it became obvious that his diatribe was utterly incoherent.  Steve Benen explaines.

By any sensible measure, Rubio's entire pitch was incoherent gibberish. He thinks President Obama is hostile to free enterprise and wants to increase the deficit, neither of which makes any sense. Rubio thinks the housing crisis was caused by big government, which is simply idiotic. Rubio celebrates his family's history of dependence on government social programs like student loans and Medicare, while articulating a policy agenda that guts government social programs like student loans and Medicare.

Forget ideology, subjectivity, and areas of opinion -- the fact is Marco Rubio's speech was filled with a series of claims with no meaningful connection to reality. The senator even thinks combating the climate crisis means asking government to "control the weather," which is just genuinely dumb.

Part way through I started taking notes, and discovered an unappetizing platter of rewarmed left-overs [or more accurately: right-overs] of Romney's failed presidential campaign, where lying and incoherence were the norm.  It was deja vu all over again. Viz:

Obama's obsession with raising taxes
Solyndra [God help us - I am not making this up]
We should open Federal lands to energy exploration
Grow Energy industry [but not renewables]
Lower Corp tax rate
Incentivise school districts
Schools of choice
Solve the debt problem [As if BHO ignored it - or, more importantly - as if it were a real problem]
Obama created the debt with excessive spending  [my personal favorite]
Need a balanced budget amendment  [the ignorance - it burns, too]
Obama's in favor of leaving Medicare just the way it is [though he clearly stated otherwise]
He also wants to unconstitutionally undermine 2nd amendment rights
The President's devastating cuts to our military [Seriously -- WTH?!?]
Moral breakdown in society - need more faith
Economic liberty

That's what I was able to capture as Rubio's litany of [mostly] decades old Republican clap-trap spewed forth almost faster than I could record it.

One of the MSNBC commentators pointed out that this nonsense wasn't directed to the American public, who I hope are beginning to see through the smoke screen, but to the hard-core right-wing base.  As such, it's Rubio's first gambit in his run for the 2016 presidential nomination.

I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or drink myself into a stupor.

ALL IN!

Is it just me, or is this book title now an unfortunate double entendre?

UPDATE:  This takes it to a whole new - and unfortunately, much lower - level.

H/T to nanute. 

Source

Hoisted from the Archives (and the OTHER 47%)

Four years ago today, on my Tumbler blog that was never read by anyone, I posted what I am about to repost here today.  Though this is in a way a continuation of the anti-Sarah Palin rant that got me blogging in the first place, you can almost just plug in Paul Ryan and not lose much continuity.

Except  for the title, of course.

The Perils of ‘Populist Chic’

In my idle moments I wonder what is to become of the Republican party?  I think the political process needs differing points of view, brought together by right-minded, clear thinkers.  On a good day, from this clash of ideas can come balance and something approaching the truth.

But that is for later.  For now, the country has gone so far off track, we need united resolve to get back on course.  I believe Obama has the skills and character to make a serious attempt, and he’ll need the cooperation of both houses of Congress.  For now, at least, the Democratic sweep is the best thing that could have happened in this election.

Meanwhile, the Republican party needs a long walk in the wilderness, to search for its soul.  It cannot be with the hijacking Bushite neocons, who have violated every legitimate conservative principle.  If it is with the religious right, then God help us all.  One of our country’s founding principles was the avoidance of theocracy.

Sadly, though, Sarah Palin remains the darling of the Republican party - as unbelievable as it seems after their defeat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/07/poll-64-percent-of-republ_n_142284.html

She represents not only theocracy, but a particularly vapid and dangerous brand of anti-intellectual populism.  The same kind of populism displayed by Hitler.

Here is an article about the intellectual decline of the Republican party.

Notable quote:
There was a time when conservative intellectuals raised the level of American public debate and helped to keep it sober. Those days are gone. As for political judgment, the promotion of Sarah Palin as a possible world leader speaks for itself. The Republican Party and the political right will survive, but the conservative intellectual tradition is already dead. And all of us, even liberals like myself, are poorer for it.

This is the final paragraph, and the first clue I had that the writer wasn’t a conservative.

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html?mod=article-outset-box#articleTabs%3Darticle

The comments tab accompanying the article will take you into the dark cave where the Palin fans lurk.  Their unabashed love for Palin, and forthright contempt for Obama are astounding.  These people display the worst of partisanship - the idea that one of ours is right and good, always; and one of theirs is wrong and bad, always.

Good luck, Barack.  This is 47% of the country you will soon be governing.

Well, what happened is that the Rethugs sold themselves figuratively to the insane Tea Party and literally to Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers.  It came pretty close to working.  But I firmly believe that the Rethugs were done in by their own over-each.  I'm astounded by how close the vote count was in my beloved Ohio.  It could be that a back-lash to Romney's flat-ass idiotic anti-Chrysler last minute campaign ads energized Ohio Dems, and that voter suppression energized them in both OH and FLA, where people stood in line to vote past 2:00 a.m. Wednesday.  [It's obvious that this is part of the Rethug's make-it-hard-to-vote strategy.]

About 11:00 p.m. Tuesday, when it was all over except the wailing, gnashing of teeth and a two hour wait for the Romney to concede, I posted this on my FB page.

I want to thank the Republican party for all their voter suppression and intimidation efforts, mid-game rule changes, war on women, nomination of bat shit crazy tea-party candidates, inexplicably stupid campaigning in the closing moments, and unidentified billionaire super-pac funding, without which the lethargic Democratic party would never have mobilized enough to re-elect President Obama.

The lesson of 2010, re-emphasized here, is that if we show up, we win, and if we don't the Rethugs win.  It's that simple.  We outnumber them, but - with their hot buttons, dog-whistles and fear-mongering, they have a highly motivated base composed of angry white men, religious fanatics, racists, the stupid, the insane, the ignorant, and the easily swayed, who will come out and vote for them in force. The utter dependability of these cadres gave the Rethugs the luxury of not having to think in any sensible way about policy or the actual practice of governance.  And that has been their demise.  Amid all the post election finger-pointing and recrimination, the Rethugs have not been able to realize that their vacuous policies of trickle down rich-coddling, anti-science war on information, war on women, and contempt for half the country are not a recipe for success.  And they are not going to get it, because their world view rests squarely on denial of reality.

What I was hoping for back in '08 was that the Republican Party would get its groove back and become the sane and responsible party that it had not been since at least the time of Nixon.  That was a forlorn hope then, and remains so now.  For the good of sane conservatives - if such there be - the nation, and indeed the world, the Rethug party must be destroyed.

And this will be no loss.  Genuine conservatism is now well represented within the Democratic party.  There is a huge vacuum on the political left.  But our system simply cannot accommodate more than two parties.   For it to manifest itself, the Rethugs have to disappear.

Tomorrow will not be too soon.

Freeloaders

I have to believe that Republican voters are largely motivated by a hatred of taxation and a contempt for those who they consider to be freeloaders on those tax dollars.

So it is more than a little bit ironic that Republican strongholds are leaches sucking money out of the Democratic States, where, coincidentally, people are more urban and well educated.

"There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization)."

 In this map, red states are net recipients of federal spending, blue states are net donors.

In this map, red represents republican and blue democrtic electoral votes in the 2008 presidential election.

Pretty amazing.

NFL Republicanism

I've long felt that the NFL is the most Republican organization on the face of the earth.  It's an old rich white guy's play ground, and as close to medievalism as we have - until the next Republican Presidency.

The NFL lockout of the officials simply confirmed what we should already have known.  The owners don't give a hirsute rodent's hindquarters about player safety, the integrity of the game, or getting anything right.  They wanted to engage in union busting, simply because they can.

Or so they thought.  In my jaundiced opinion, the regular NFL refs are TEH SUXXOR.  But that doesn't mean things couldn't get a whole lot worse.  And they did when they brought in cast-offs from the lingerie league.

But there are limits -- if you're a big enough ass hole to go look for them.

My Lovely Wife pegged this on Monday night when the Packers got shafted by a cluster-phung of bad calls culminating in the now infamous toucherception.

Picture found on Facebook

This was beyond even what Wisconsin Rethugs like Scott Walker could stomach.

I find that irony to be quite tasty.

It all comes down to who's ox is being gored.  Everyone in WI (and even some in MI) loves them some Packers - even those inclined to break unions and roll us back to the dark ages.

That's what the LW figured out, right on the spot.

It was all over when Green Bay got the shaft.

You do NOT mess with the Packers!

Latty Kudlow is an Idiot

And not even an especially useful one.

From PK:

"Larry Kudlow:

I have long believed that stock markets are the best barometer of the health, wealth and security of a nation. And today’s stock market message is an unmistakable vote of confidence for the president.

Indeed:

Oh, wait. Kudlow wrote that 5 years ago, about he-who-must-not-be-named."

 Much hilarity ensues.

A Quick Look at Federal Spending

Over at Plain Blog, an anonymous wing nut made this off-topic comment.

Now, yes, Bill Clinton and his 2000 federal spending level of 18% of GDP doesn't put him on the fringe, which makes it surprising that you lefties are celebrating him, even as you hysterically condemn anybody who resists the Left's current massive spending levels, which are nearly 50% greater than Clinton's and are spending the nation into debt obvlivion.

This once again raises the regressive canard that Obama has been a profligate and fiscally irresponsible spender.

Let's have a look.

Here is a graph of current expenditures that took place in the years of the current century.

First observation is that anon's math isn't very good.  Current expenditures are roughly 100% greater than when Clinton left office, not a mere 50%.

Second observation is that the vast majority of that increase - from about $1900 billion to about $3200 billion - took place under the previous administration.

Third observation is that the bulk of the Obama increase occurred during the recession - as it should - from a bit under $3200 billion to a bit under $3600 billion.  Since then it's crept up to about $3800 billion, and has recently flat-lined.

A more subtle point is that spending, like many time series data sets, increases exponentially over time, following population growth.  So, saying that a value at time B is some percentage greater than the value at time A communicates essentially zero information.  Context matters.

Let's look at expenditures in terms of year over year increase.

Yep, there was a big increase in 2009 and 2010, as social safety net programs kicked in.

Since then, expenditure growth fell precipitously and now has actually gone negative.  The last time that happened was in the Eisenhower administration.  Clearly, Obama has not been profligate.  Would it be an exaggeration to say he's been miserly?

Bill Clinton did a great job of exposing Republican lies in his speech at the Democratic convention last night.  But really, it's easy.  All you have to do to refute a regressive is have a quick look at facts and data.

Cross posted at Angry Bear.

Akin For a Fight

There is little for me to add to the flap about what Missouri senate candidate Todd Akin said about rape and pregnancy.  Here's Eric Loomis.  

The deeper issue - and I've heard this mentioned by a few people - is the nature of Akin's mistake.   What he got wrong politically was not in what he said, but in where and when he said it.

The sad truth is that Akin's thinking - not just about rape, but about all of the medieval misogyny that lies at its core - is close to main-stream thinking in a large portion of the Rethug constituency.

It's not just the rich elite economic preferences of the Rethugs that are taking us back to the 12th century.  It's a whole complex of elitist politico-social concepts that go hand-in-hand with the religious dominance so fiercely desired by the American Taliban.

My fear is that Missouri will elect this dinosaur - knowing full well how he thinks and what he represents.   I may well live to see the concept of the Divine Right of Corporations become a social norm.