The PCTC Blog

To Reduce the Deficit, Increase Spending (Cue RW Head Explosions)

It’s amazing, isn’t it? For eight long years, Republicans simply didn’t care about the deficit. In mean, they were handed a huge surplus when they were “selected” and took over the government in 2001. Surpluses were predicted for at least the next ten years. First thing they did was cut revenues, and sink the country into deficit spending that hadn’t been seen since Bush 41 was in office. They simply didn’t give a shit. In fact, in 2002 Darth Cheney was asked about the deficit, and he said famously, “Deficits don’t matter.” That was at a time when they were crowing about how great the economy was.

There is absolutely no reason to run huge deficits while the economy is doing well. Yet, for most of the last 30 years, Republican Neocons have been in charge, and they have overseen an unmatched debt explosion, most of it during times when they were claiming that economy was going gangbusters. And now, after they wrecked the economy with their “Wild West” approach to financial regulation, and threw us into the worst recession in 75 years (by the way, the only thing that saved us was regulations put into place during the New Deal that they were unable to unravel), they have suddenly decided that deficits do matter, and they’re whining and crying about it incessantly.

And that’s fine. Pretty much all they do is whine and cry about everything anyway. I stopped listening to them a long time ago, except to correct the record. But there is one concept that I will simply not let pass without comment, because it’s one of those things that sounds logical, unless you think about it.

Cutting the Crap on Cutting the Deficit

If you’re an average American, you probably have a lot of debt right now. A mortgage, a car, a few credit cards, perhaps some hospital bills; who knows? Debt is a part of life these days, or at least his has been in recent decades.

Now, imagine, if you will, that you make $50,000 a year, and you’re suddenly hit with a debt of about $30,000. Those without insurance, or whose insurance company screwed them, know exactly what I mean.

You have two choices; you can either go into bankruptcy, or you can pay the debt. Most people will opt to pay the debt. But how would you do that?

Of course, you’re going to cut back on food a little, and maybe lower the thermostat, buy fewer clothes; maybe cut off the cable altogether. But how long do you think it’ll take you to pay off $30,000 in debt at that rate? If you can manage t0 save $500 a month, which would be extremely difficult for most people, it’ll still take at least 5 years, even if there is no interest accumulating. At $200 savings per month, which is more realistic, it could take a decade or more.

So, what do you do?

Updated Again!: Factchecking Factcheck.org: No Abortions With the Health Care Reform Bill

(Who knew? A friendly little reminder that a factcheck.org piece is mistaken, and it turns into something of a war? Come on, guys... we all make mistakes; it's okay...)

Look; I like Factcheck.org. They perform an essential public service, and they are usually right about the facts, even when I disagree with their conclusions. But I got one in my e-mail on Friday that is absolutely WRONG. You can go here to read the whole article, but here's a summary:

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?

Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.

August 21, 2009

Summary

Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

I urge everyone to go read the article in its entirety, and you'll note something missing in the analysis...

Jon Stewart Fries Paid Health Care Liar Betsy McCaughey

I told you all about lying sack, Betsy McCaughey a while ago on this very blog, and in my first appearance on the Nicole Sandler Show.

But what I want to know is, where is our press on this? Reporters should be chomping at the bit to expose these people. Why is it being left to blogs by admittedly non-professional journalists like me, and a COMEDIAN to put these people on notice and to clear the record?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Pseudo-Christians Using Jesus' Name to Lie About Health Care Reform

(The original deconstruction of the right wing lies about the health care system is still here. You just have to click on the link at the top right... or you can click here... )

I received this in my e-mail Sunday (of all days). I'm having problems with formatting, so I apologize in advance. Not only is it sacrilegious on some level, and should be seen as an affront to any actual Christian who claims a belief in the words of Jesus Christ, but it also shows once again the lack of an irony gene on the part of the right wing.

Seriously, how can you call yourself “The Pray in Jesus’ Name Project,” and then tell out right lies and swear to God on them? Think I’m exaggerating? Check out the signature at the end. And then be sure to read about the guy who signs this crap "in Jesus' name."

Oh, and by the way, look at what they include at the end of this thing. Faithful readers of this blog will recognize it right away.

My Comments are in dark blue and bold…

Cutting More "Objectively Standard" Lies About the Health Care Bill

(Note: The original "Deconstruction" is still here...)

Apparently, they haven't figured out we're onto them.  

What follows is from an e-mail sent by a reader. The original comes from a blog entitled "The Objective Standard." It's an Ayn Randian type blog that simply has a problem with the government doing anything in general, so it's somewhat different from a typical right wing rant. Although it's still plenty dishonest.First of all, the title of the blog is insane. I'm not sure they even understand what an "objective standard" is. Frankly, I'm not even sure such a thing is possible. Facts are objective; standards tend not to be.They may TRY to be objective, but the fact is, pretty much all standards are subjective at their heart. But check out the title of the article. He purports to tell his readers what HR 3200 actually says, but then proceeds to leave out huge sections of the bill, removes any context from the sections of the bill he cites, and then mischaracterizes what the bill says.

 

As usual, I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. Follow along with the bill itself. It's important that you know what's in it.

As usual, my comments are in red... By request, I darkened the color. Hope you like it.

Cutting the Health Care Crap: Betsy McCaughey

There is a name you will keep hearing throughout the health insurance reform debate; Betsy McCaughey (It's pronounced "McCoy," for those who only hear the name and wonder who's lying to them). You will hear from her and see her ad nauseum, because the right wing, especially the whacks at Fox News, love parading her before you like their prized bull at the county fair. And make no mistake, what you will hear is prized right wing bull.

 

The reason the far right fart machine likes McCaughey is because she's relatively nice to look at, she's actually quite intelligent, and she has a veneer of credibility, having served one term as Lieutenant Governor of New York. She has a significant background as a scholar. Unfortunately, being a scholar doesn't mean she's incapable of making stuff up. Make no mistake; when it comes to her opinions on health care policy, she's one hundred and ten percent behind the private health insurance companies, and most of what she says can't pass a sniff test. But why wouldn't she lie? She's paid to, as one of their lobbyists. But don't let her know you know this; she likes to pretend she's somehow looking out for "the people," and she tends to deny it. Yet, she never sues anyone who calls her out on it. I know, because I've done this before. 

Cutting the Crap on the Minimum Wage

Here's another lie we'd like to put to rest once and for all; the one about the minimum wage hurting small businesses.

The "conventional wisdom" seems to be going like this: small businesses are being hit hard by this minimum wage increase, especially during a recession, because they can't afford to pay more.

 

This is an absolute crock, even on the rare case when the minimum wage increases during a recession. In fact, it's even more of a crock during a recession.

 

Sure, many small businesses are hurting. But they're hurting because of a lack of customers, more than anything, not because wages are too high. If they have five employees working 40 hours per week, and all of them are making minimum wage, they're cheapskates in the first place. And the added cost to their business is about $32 per worker, including taxes, or $160 per week.If they can't handle that much of an increase, even during a recession, perhaps their business is doomed, anyway. And how good is it to the economy to have an abundance of small businesses that aren't making any money, anyway?

 

Of course, at the same time they're seeing an increase in expenses of about $32 per worker,  all of their competition is doing the same. So, they're not at a great disadvantage, compared with the competition, except competition that pays more and hires better workers.

 

But here's the part that minimum wage detractors forget. While that small business owner  has a small number of employees each getting a $28 raise, there are thousands of other people in the area who are also getting a raise. Each of them has and extra $25 or so per week to spend, which means more available money to be spent in small businesses. 

 

What's funny is, the same people who touted the Bush tax cuts as an economic stimulant.  They were also the ones who thought that giving the middle class a few hundred extra dollars would get the economy jamming again.

 

I'd like for these geniuses to explain how giving a few hundred extremely rich folks a few thousand dollars in tax savings, and giving middle class families $600 one time only stimulates the economy, but giving millions of consumers $100 more spending money per month is somehow detrimental.

 

Come on, guys…  let me in on this little secret…  in what way is giving more people more money to spend bad for the economy… I'd love to hear it...