Former Reddites And Indies Leap Onto Democratic Party

As I noted at All Things Democrat, I think there are a host of reasons so many former Republicans and thirdies/Indies have joined new voters flooding into the blue party, among them:

* excitement with the Dem candidates
* Bush - GOP scandals backlash
* that up to 80% of Americans feel the Bushies killed the economy and feel the country in all respects is headed 110 MPH in the wrong direction
* a desire to belong to the only party where they can even dream someone will listen to them
* absolute terror (and not of rogue bombers)
* fear for their children in Bush’s economy and Bush’s wars, given how John McCain praises his efforts

Alas, it will be up to the Dem Party leadership, itself not a single camp, to keep them through November and beyond. Feet to the fire, people; feet to the fire.

Ouch - Super Duper Recession Tuesday, Too

Wall Street is seeing one of its worst days thanks to fresh evidence the recession is DEEPENING.

The Loss of John Edwards Is The Loss of a Voice For Regular Americans

Yesterday was a very bad day for Americans who are not wealthy, don't own mega corporations, who don't have health care or job security or big political connections.

I won't pretend that I'm not bitter, sad, and very angry that Democratic presidential nominee candidate John Edwards suspended his campaign yesterday. I thought he and his wife, Elizabeth, and many fine Americans of all economic backgrounds, waged a brave and brilliant campaign that focused on something almost NO ONE else in this campaign, short of Dennis Kucinich who dropped out last week: the rising majority of Americans suffering at the bankrupting of America by Republican rule and Democrat-capitulation.

We ALL lost, regardless of your party or preferred candidate, when we let the media and the Republican party turn this race only into an Obama-Clinton slugfest, and let Edwards get pushed ever back and finally out of contention. Unlike most - virtually ALL - presidential candidates since I became eligible to vote in 1980, I really believe Edwards meant just about everything he said. And that Elizabeth, with incurable cancer, insisted he run AND participated with him, impressed the hell out of me.

As much as I can't imagine voting for ANYONE but a Democrat in November, I do not feel either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton speak for the majority of Americans. I think they, at another time, would be viewed as somewhat moderate Republicans. But, as I've said, if Republicans won't elect moderate Republicans to office, why the hell should the Democrats. All I can do is hope that we hold their feet to the fire if one of them wins Election 2008 and that they are just sounding "conservative" and ever so careful during the race, while they show less concern for millionaires and billionaires and corporations once they get to the Oval Office.

As The Republicans Regurgitate Everything Reagan...

Sorry, I got felled by hand problems the last few days BUT... I'm even more distressed to listen to the Republicans debate at California's Ronald Reagan Library in the last GOP debate before Super Tuesday next week invoke in every other word the name of Ronnie Raygun - the man who said "fuck the poor; if you aren't a millionaire, I don't want to hear from you" - in every other breath.

The LAST time Ronald Reagan had a salient thought was back in the 1950s when, as a Democrat, he headed the Screen Actors Guild and tried to mediate the damage being done by horrible hatemongerers like Joe McCarthy tried to force everyone in government and Hollywood to name fellow workers and friends as "reds", even when it was not true. After that, he got involved with Nancy Davis, an even less talented actress (but oh so rich and from old California Republican money) than First Lady - not that Ronnie was a good actor), became a Republican and, like too many in the GOP, disconnected his brain. By the time he reached the White House, he was already well into the grips of Alzheimer's Disease - it's a huge lie that the effects came after he left office; Alzheimer's does NOT work like that.

So if you aren't afraid YET that the Republicans want to return to the "glory" days of the Reaganomics 80s, you damned well should be. Anyone who didn't make it rich in the 1980s had a damned hard time... and the people who puppeteered Reagan made sure of that!

European Pessimism Over U.S. Economic Outlook Just Proves They "Get It" When Bush Just Makes It Much Worse

Perhaps Bill O'Reilly can declare war on France again while Bush, our brain trust, changes the name of French fries again. Won't matter though: Europeans are RIGHT.

So what do the Europeans know that Bush doesn't? (Besides American and world history, how to speak English, that tax cuts to billionaires don't cure everything, etc.)

Just as about every intelligent voice in the U.S. already says, Europe knows that Bush's latest round of tax cuts for the wealthiest, which did nothing to spur the economy after 9-11 and beyond, Bush wants will NOT do anything to stop the Bush economy's record-breaking race to yet crippling economic recession. European economic pessimism today, in fact, is hurting investors and futures markets, to name but a few. At the same time, Fed chief Ben Bernanke is expected to cut interest rates yet again which sounds great until you listen to a number of other analysts that predict unchecked inflation and other issues arising from the Bush Administration always-does-the-wrong-thing handling of the economy will bring far more DIRE times rather than relief.

Consider, too, that Bush's latest horrible plan comes right on the heels of introducing "owner foreclosure help" that would allow Countrywide (the nation's largest mortgage bank) to keep from filing bankruptcy and give its buyer (Bank of America), a quarter billion in additional tax write-offs every year for a long time while (magically) doing just about NOTHING for middle class (and lesser) homeowners about to lose their homes.

As Bush has said a number of times, he doesn't understand poor people.

Or:

* smart people
* reasonable people
* people who tell the truth (Bush has never been in the same zip code with the truth in his life)
* people who really ARE patriotic vs. just his lackeys

The list could go on forever, y'know.

Name Your Best Films/Documentaries/Books of 2007?

(And yes, if you have WORSTies, you can cite those, too.)

While Time Magazine and CNN and all the usual suspects rush to TELL US what films, books, and yes, even scandals were the best and worst of 2007, we're all thinking people here who don't need to be told what we can reason for ourselves.

With this in mind, what films/documentaries and books did YOU find to be the best of 2007?

Some of my big favorite books (and they would go on a big favorites list that spans more than just this year, btw) also happened to find their way onto my Christmas wish list, and I've already devoured two. These are:

* "Touch and Go" - Studs Terkel's excellent memoirs (he's a national treasure!)
* "The Omnivore's Dilemma" - Michael Pollan, an excellent follow-up to his mind-opening botany book that discusses how Americans really ARE what we eat
* "Deep Economy" - a must-read by Bill McKibben, a Vermont neighbor, that gives us a real eye-opener of an understanding of how the economy, much of which escapes our attention, drives our lives and politics and the future of this planet

But I can't fail to note the late, forever great Kurt Vonnegut's last book that I literally inhaled, "A Man Without A Country".

As for films and documentaries, I would rank "An Unreasonable Man" (about Ralph Nader), Michael Moore's "Sicko", and "The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" among a slew of excellent works that I saw this year.

What about your favorites?

RIP: The American Dollar (Or Why You May Be Able to Use Your Paycheck to Wipe Your Butt RSN)

Well, the ruination of the economy and the labor market the Bush-Cheney Administration worked very hard to bring about in record time between the December day they stole the election from Al Gore in 2000 and the first 100 days of them "presuming" office in January 2001, and continued throughout their absolute monarchy is almost complete.

We've already seen - for the first time - economists in many other lands besides our own say the American dollar is increasingly useless and is shunned compared to many other emerging players like China and yes, even Iran and the Euro. Also a firstie: the Canadian dollar has become (significantly) more valuable than its U.S. counterpart, a phenomenon many said would never happen. We've seen the middle class grow poor and more home foreclosures in this country than at any time since the stock market crash and resulting economic phenom known as "The Great Depression" began in 1929. [As Bush would say, look at the good side: at least poverty is up and those we owe money TO are making huge additional money in obscene charges for debt).

Now, many are saying flat out that the dollar's days are numbered, which means ours as an economic superpower also are numbered. I can't help but think that it's all too apt to say that the buck stops with Bush and Cheney, because it quite literally may, even before they leave office on January 20th, 2009.

Here's one example of the dollar's funeral dirge submitted by Reader Sharon (whose typing is only slightly better than her marksmanship).

Think About Next Thanksgiving

When we approach Thanksgiving 2008, we _should_ already know who won the 2008 presidential race (but it's hard to exclude the possibility the Bushies will pull either a 2000 vote cheat/a 2001 "Rudy tells NY he must stay mayor after 9-11"/a Musharraf end-run around democratic vote this last month).

I suspect certain things will be true by then and while I'll tender some here, please keep in mind that what I predict does NOT mean what I necessarily want to have happen AND that I'd like to see what your predictions are for this time next year.

Mine:

* I don't think it's a given that the Democratic candidate WILL win the 2008 presidential race as much as some would like to believe it is; in fact, because we've allowed "fair election" policies to languish rather than get enacted, we've made it more likely there will be incredible shenanigans pulled in 2008

* IF a Dem wins, it will be Hillary - a choice that many Dems and Republicans will not embrace; if it's Hillary, we have ourselves to blame

* If a GOPeeuponus wins, it will be Rudy Giuliani, and that will be a disaster for the world as well as just us

* Before the 2008 race, we will be in a fight with Iran - whether it's full blown war which I expect it to be or not, it's still wrong

* A fight with Iran will make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem like child's play; it will further bankrupt us financially and militarily and will ensure that those who want to hurt us have more free rein to do so because our resources will be committed in Iran

* Iran's Ahmadinejad was RIGHT about one thing this week: the American dollar is worth almost nothing; the longer the current GOP policies prevail, the worse our dollar will get and more and more and more Americans will suffer

* ALL of the bad inherent here CAN be changed if WE get involved and give as much passion and energy to changing events as we do to carping about what is wrong; NOTE this: it's critical - we can affect a change but only if we DO something more than complain and blog and slog

What say you?

From Surplus To Deeper In Debt Than EVER: The Bush Economy

Well, Bush managed to push us $9 trillion in debt (and some economic forecasters say this is nowhere near how much we owe since much is still hidden from accounting eyes).

Remember the surplus Bill Clinton left us with?

No?

Ah, that’s because of the 7 years of Bush who can veto health care for kids but demands tax breaks for Dick Cheney and friends.

Oh, and you likely owe at least $32K grand per person in your household for the “war that will pay for itself, guaranteed! cakewalk” called Iraq”.

Sorry, no checks. Only blood and sweat and your hopes and dreams are tender we accept, please.

What A Surprise: Mortgage Companies Are Padding Fees On Struggling Homeowners

I note that this Times article about how mortgage companies are playing fast and loose by tacking on extra fees and pretending to lose (to the point of destroying more than a half million dollars in checks to pay mortgages) payments. Countrywide, my former lender, is noted here and indicates it makes about $300 million a year just in late fees.

Ah, if you haven't heard, people in other countries are rushing their dollars over here to buy up foreclosed properties (including many homes and defunct subdivisions-in-the-building) what with the American dollar taking a hit all over the place. Even Canada is here buying up things since, for the first time ever, the Canadian dollar is worth a good chunk more than its U.S. counterpart.

Putting A Face On The American Home Foreclosure Crisis

As some of you kindly noticed, I've been absent a great deal lately (although I believe the situation is now corrected... especially once my DSL begins to work). Although I really hate airing dirty laundry in public, I feel obligated to tell you a bit of why I've been missing, since it ties directly into a very serious situation here in America: a record of primary home foreclosures that now EXCEEDS that of the Great Depression that began in 1929.

I am one of 1.6 million home mostly middle class home owners whose home was foreclosed upon. Obviously, my financial problems were a big part of it; like many, my principal income post September 11th nose-dived and (also a sad norm with foreclosures and bankruptcies) a catastrophic illness in 2003 left me unable to work the 20 hours a day, 7 days a week I had for many years. By 2005, every effort I engaged in to secure my home went boom.

Though financial advisors always say to contact your mortgage company, lay out the case, and work with them to find a solution, my mortgage holder - the largest in the U.S. - never returned my calls. In fact, in the 7 years I had a mortgage with them, I never managed to speak to one single human being. When I tried to sell the home (tough in a bad market), the mortgage holder fought that, too, going to court to prevent me from doing so.

Sadly, my case is becoming the norm. Millions and millions of homes have been taken back since Bush took office (the "ownership" society he talked about really only meant the banks owning us), and though 1.6 million have been lost this year alone, some figures cite that at least 20 million other home owners are in serious danger of bankruptcy/foreclosure in the next year. Millions more are at risk of losing homes within the next two years. (More than half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. have as their initial factor medical bills - but, of course, universal health care isn't needed by anyone except Congress for themselves. ::cough::choke::

This crisis does NOT just affect the home owners. Mortgage companies have no reason these days to work with home owners because the federal government gives them a wonderful out: all the laws are written to their favor AND the Federal National Mortage Association (aka Fannie Mae) comes in and buys these foreclosed homes with our tax dollars to save the mortgage holders. Since homes aren't selling, this is only going to worsen... and get much worse if we continue to have someone like Bush (aka Giuliani, Thompson, etc.) in the White House and running Congress.

Massachusetts is talking about trying to intercede to provide some kind of bridge between distressed home owners and their mortgage holders to try to help people stay in their homes and save tax dollars being lost to "help" mortgage companies when it's American families who need the assistance.

I'm not asking for sympathy here, but to help put a face on this crisis. So many of my friends have been totally perplexed how someone like me, hardworking and frugal, could be caught. The answer is, this can happen to anyone. And does.

Much Better: Arrest Impeach Supporters Rather Than Indict A Lying, Thieving President

It's amazing, really.

A president who stole two elections, lied us into countless wars (the one in Iraq and the ridiculous one he labeled "War on Terror" are but two), violates the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention on a daily and egregious basis, has made our country far less safe (and our risk from terrorists seems almost microscopic compared with our grave and present risks from the Bush-Cheney minions who are themselves terrorists), has killed the American dollar (still in freefall throughout the world) along with countless soldiers, civilians, and so-called enemy detainees, goes scot-free.

But cops arrest a 74-year-old man for selling Impeach Bush buttons at a Maryland farmer's market. Cindy Sheehan and nearly four dozen other Americans have also been arrested this week for impeachment efforts.

Feel any safer? I don't.

Bill O'Reilly & John McCain: These Two Minds DO NOT Work Better Than One

So we can't have immigrants here because they're not "us" and because these immigrants, aided by the evil empire of The New York Times, want to destroy the white Christian male power structure? This nonsense is straight out of the late 30s and 40s.

From Cernig's Newshog (And The Newshoggers):

Bill O'Reilly and John McCain agree about what's really behind rightwing resistance to any immigration bill at all. Fear.

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

I may be an immigrant but I also fit the WASP profile (other than being non-Christian). However, since the entrenched "white, Christian, male power structure" is made up of asshats like O'Reilly and McCain I figure breaking it down would be a damn good idea - and isn't going to happen anytime soon no matter how many immigrants who don't fit their phenotype come to America. It's rampant, paranoid xenophobia, that's all.

Is it too late to deport these two men?

And where the hell did McCain pull the "strong economy" nonsense from? Out of Bill O's ass?

From the AP:

Economic growth skidded to a near halt in the first quarter, with the worst showing in more than four years raising concerns about how long the country's sluggish spell will last.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product increased by just a 0.6 percent pace in the January-through-March period, much weaker than estimated a month ago. Government statisticians slashed by more than half their first estimate of a 1.3 percent growth rate for the quarter.

The economy has been quite bad for a long time except for very specific sectors (like the big cheeses at the military industrial complex corps). Yet again and again, Bush and his ilk insist everything is wonderful so pay no attention to the national debt.

As for low unemployment, this is tragically laughable. Sure, people can find jobs: for minimum wage. And then they need to work 2-3 of them full-time just with the hope of feeding and sheltering their families.

Are We Having A Fantastic Friday The 13th?

I mean, there is very little to get in the way of our enjoyment of this religion-free holiday, unless you count pesky little points like:

• Bush and the Pentagon are soooo desperate for warm bodies to stand in harm's way in Iraq that they're wondering how much hardware would be needed to resurrect dead soldiers and return them to active duty
• Similarly, they're so desperate for soldiers in Iraq that they're forcing U.S. soldiers with traumatic brain injury, lost limbs, acute psychiatric symptoms, and other illnesses that require constant followup medical care back out on enemy lines
• Most of the rest of the world, and some of the smarter voices here, believe the U.S. is in for a financial meltdown that will make the dustbowl days of the '29-mid-30s Great Depression seem like a Paris Hilton birthday party
• Thanks to Bush, America probably should have filed for bankruptcy at least five years ago
• No one at the Department of (In)Justice - or the White House, for that matter - knows how to tell the truth
• When, after weeks of delay because the Iraqi Parliament would not show up for work in Baghdad's Green Zone in part because it was so dangerous, a big blast at the Parliament building claims the lives of both parliamentarians, guards, and support staff
• George Bush and John McCain and Dick Cheney insist on portraying Iraq as "Club Med" when it's more like Hub Dead
• If we arrested, tried, and found the entire Bush Administration guilty of crimes of treason against the United States tomorrow, it's still going to take decades to simply begin to resurrect our nation from the damage we've done, and perhaps a century or more before the U.S.'s once strong standing will return

I could go on... but if I did, I'd probably have to shoot myself. ::sigh::

Damn. It's nights like this I wish I liked alcohol. But this is an inopportune time to express what a cheap drunk I am.

Paul Krugman: "Emerging Republican Minority"

Here's the latest (this morning) New York Times' Op/Ed column by the one, the only, Paul Krugman:

Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.

But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.

Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.

Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.

But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.

For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.

Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.

And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.

The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year.

Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.

And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.

So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority.

Read the rest here.

Paul Krugman: "The Big Meltdown"

While a House reprehensible from Texas (naturally), on the chamber floor, blamed this week's nasty stock market crash as the fault of the Democrats, Dr. Krugman sees a bigger picture at work here. Read it all at Rozius, or content yourself with this whopping sniplet:

The great market meltdown of 2007 began exactly a year ago, with a 9 percent fall in the Shanghai market, followed by a 416-point slide in the Dow. But as in the previous global financial crisis, which began with the devaluation of Thailand’s currency in the summer of 1997, it took many months before people realized how far the damage would spread.

At the start, all sorts of implausible explanations were offered for the drop in U.S. stock prices. It was, some said, the fault of Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, as if his statement of the obvious — that the housing slump could possibly cause a recession — had been news to anyone. One Republican congressman blamed Representative John Murtha, claiming that his efforts to stop the “surge” in Iraq had somehow unnerved the markets.

Even blaming events in Shanghai for what happened in New York was foolish on its face, except to the extent that the slump in China — whose stock markets had a combined valuation of only about 5 percent of the U.S. markets’ valuation — served as a wake-up call for investors.

The truth is that efforts to pin the stock decline on any particular piece of news are a waste of time.

Wise analysts remember the classic study that Robert Shiller of Yale carried out during the market crash of Oct. 19, 1987. His conclusion? “No news story or rumor appearing on the 19th or over the preceding weekend was responsible.” In 2007, as in 1987, investors rushed for the exits not because of external events, but because they saw other investors doing the same.

What made the market so vulnerable to panic? It wasn’t so much a matter of irrational exuberance — although there was plenty of that, too — as it was a matter of irrational complacency.

After the bursting of the technology bubble of the 1990s failed to produce a global disaster, investors began to act as if nothing bad would ever happen again. Risk premiums — the extra return people demand when lending money to less than totally reliable borrowers — dwindled away.

For example, in the early years of the decade, high-yield corporate bonds (formerly known as junk bonds) were able to attract buyers only by offering interest rates eight to 10 percentage points higher than U.S. government bonds. By early 2007, that margin was down to little more than two percentage points.

For a while, growing complacency became a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the what-me-worry attitude spread, it became easier for questionable borrowers to roll over their debts, so default rates went down. Also, falling interest rates on risky bonds meant higher prices for those bonds, so those who owned such bonds experienced big capital gains, leading even more investors to conclude that risk was a thing of the past.

Sooner or later, however, reality was bound to intrude. By early 2007, the collapse of the U.S. housing boom had brought with it widespread defaults on subprime mortgages — loans to home buyers who fail to meet the strictest lending standards. Lenders insisted that this was an isolated problem, which wouldn’t spread to the rest of the market or to the real economy. But it did.

For a couple of months after the shock of Feb. 27, markets oscillated wildly, soaring on bits of apparent good news, then plunging again. But by late spring, it was clear that the self-reinforcing cycle of complacency had given way to a self-reinforcing cycle of anxiety.

There was still one big unknown: had large market players, hedge funds in particular, taken on so much leverage — borrowing to buy risky assets — that the falling prices of those assets would set off a chain reaction of defaults and bankruptcies? Now, as we survey the financial wreckage of a global recession, we know the answer.

In retrospect, the complacency of investors on the eve of the crisis seems puzzling. Why didn’t they see the risks?

Read the rest here.