That depends. If someone deliberately, grossly, and unapologetically tries to mislead you, is he a liar?
Essentially all politicians, and most people, will lie and mislead at least to some extent. Most, when caught, will apologize and correct. For example, in a Wall Street Journal article trying to pooh-pooh forces under Obama's command killing bin Laden in a gutsy, on-the-ground raid, Karl Rove quoted Bill Clinton as saying "I would have done the same." What Clinton actually said was "I hope I would have done the same," which completely changes the meaning. When this was pointed out, the Wall Street Journal printed a retraction and corrected the piece on their web site. You see, the Wall Street Journal believes in telling the truth.
Romney, apparently, does not. I will limit myself to two examples.
1. In one of the Republican debates, Newt Gingrich complained about a misleading attack ad directed against him. Romney defended himself by saying he hadn't seen it, suggesting that the ad must have been from a SuperPac not under his control. Later in the debate, the moderator revealed that the ad ended with Romney saying he approved it -- the ad was from the Romney campaign after all! It is possible that the campaign put the endorsement on without Romney's knowledge, but Romney did not apologize, did not correct, did not investigate, and no one at the campaign was punished for misrepresenting the boss.
2. In Romney's very first TV ad there is a segment where you hear Obama's voice saying various things. The last bit goes "If we talk about the economy, we lose." This seemed odd to me because Obama talks about the economy all the time. It turns out Obama said that in 2008 and was he quoting the John McCain campaign when the rapidly declining economy was a huge minus for Republicans. When this was pointed out Romney said (I'm paraphrasing) "We hit him, and we're going to keep hitting him!" In other words, grossly, deliberately and unapologetically misleading you is a good thing and he intends to keep doing it.
You can win elections without the truth, but you can't govern America well without it. Remember that this November, and remember how Romney is treating you now.
Thanks to Rachel Maddow for pointing out the Karl Rove angle and for spreading this meme far and wide.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Romney: A Very Capable Big Money Corporate Guy
Willard (Mitt) Romney looks like he will be the Republican candidate for President. Who is he? A lot of things, but at his core he seems to me to be a very competent big-money corporate guy. Let's take these one at a time, although in a different order.
Big money. Romney was born to a very wealthy family. All his life there has been money, big money, all around him and in his pockets.
Very capable. Romney has been able to take his money, his talents, and the connections and advantages big money gave him and create a very large fortune, somewhere around $200 million. While it is easy to make money when you've got money, Romney has gone far beyond this in his acquisition of great wealth. Romney also did an excellent job of running the Utah winter olympics and a decent job of running Massachusetts as governor -- including implementing near-universal health care. Romneycare was so successful that Obamacare mimics its key features: an individual mandate and health exchanges, although at the national level these will not kick in for another year or two.
Corporate. Romney's business experience doesn't come from making things, or servicing things, or building things; it comes from manipulating corporations. His firm bought corporations, usually with money borrowed against the firm's assets, extracted as much profit as they could, and sent them on their way. Some prospered, some failed, but Romney almost always made money either way (see 'Very Capable').
So here's the question of the year: do you want a very capable, big money, corporate guy to be President?
Big money. Romney was born to a very wealthy family. All his life there has been money, big money, all around him and in his pockets.
Very capable. Romney has been able to take his money, his talents, and the connections and advantages big money gave him and create a very large fortune, somewhere around $200 million. While it is easy to make money when you've got money, Romney has gone far beyond this in his acquisition of great wealth. Romney also did an excellent job of running the Utah winter olympics and a decent job of running Massachusetts as governor -- including implementing near-universal health care. Romneycare was so successful that Obamacare mimics its key features: an individual mandate and health exchanges, although at the national level these will not kick in for another year or two.
Corporate. Romney's business experience doesn't come from making things, or servicing things, or building things; it comes from manipulating corporations. His firm bought corporations, usually with money borrowed against the firm's assets, extracted as much profit as they could, and sent them on their way. Some prospered, some failed, but Romney almost always made money either way (see 'Very Capable').
So here's the question of the year: do you want a very capable, big money, corporate guy to be President?
Sunday, November 6, 2011
How Do You Judge Economic Performance?
What is the right way to judge someone's economic performance? Consider the following scenarios:
A new CEO takes control of a company which is laying off workers, whose sales and profitability is dropping and whose stock price is way down. Three years later they are hiring slowly, sales and profitability are growing slowly, and the stock price has increased 50%. Is the CEO doing a good job because things are much better? Or is he doing a lousy job because the company is still worse off than a few years before the CEO took over?
A new governor takes over a U.S. state. The state is losing jobs fast, GDP is dropping, and the deficit is high. Three years later jobs are growing slowly and GDP is up 2-3%/year, but the deficit is still high. Is the governor doing a good job because things are much better? Or is he doing a lousy job because the state still isn't doing as well as a few years before the governor took over?
A new president takes over. The country is losing 750,000 jobs per month, GDP is dropping fast, the Dow is at 8,000, and the deficit is very high. There is a real possibility of complete financial collapse. Three years later the economy is adding 100,000-200,000 jobs a month, GDP is up 2-3% a year, and the Dow is around 12,000 but the deficit is still very high. The financial industry is now very profitable and in no immediate danger of collapse. Is the president doing a good job because things are much better? Or a lousy job because the country isn't doing as well as a few years before he took over?
Of course, there is such a president. His last name is Obama.
A new CEO takes control of a company which is laying off workers, whose sales and profitability is dropping and whose stock price is way down. Three years later they are hiring slowly, sales and profitability are growing slowly, and the stock price has increased 50%. Is the CEO doing a good job because things are much better? Or is he doing a lousy job because the company is still worse off than a few years before the CEO took over?
A new governor takes over a U.S. state. The state is losing jobs fast, GDP is dropping, and the deficit is high. Three years later jobs are growing slowly and GDP is up 2-3%/year, but the deficit is still high. Is the governor doing a good job because things are much better? Or is he doing a lousy job because the state still isn't doing as well as a few years before the governor took over?
A new president takes over. The country is losing 750,000 jobs per month, GDP is dropping fast, the Dow is at 8,000, and the deficit is very high. There is a real possibility of complete financial collapse. Three years later the economy is adding 100,000-200,000 jobs a month, GDP is up 2-3% a year, and the Dow is around 12,000 but the deficit is still very high. The financial industry is now very profitable and in no immediate danger of collapse. Is the president doing a good job because things are much better? Or a lousy job because the country isn't doing as well as a few years before he took over?
Of course, there is such a president. His last name is Obama.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Taxes are Theft -- Not!!!!
Many conservatives believe that taxes are theft, particularly progressive taxes on the wealthy, because taxes are taken by force. They feel that if someone earned a lot of money that money is theirs and the government has no business taking it. This makes sense, until you realize that nobody ever got rich alone. No one. Ever.
To see this, consider an entrepreneur who has a great idea, builds a factory, produces the product, sells it all over the world and makes billions. They created the wealth, right? It's theirs, right? Why should the government get a piece?
Well, our entrepreneur used the roads to deliver product to his customers, and we all paid for the roads.
Our entrepreneur was protected from theft, vandalism, and fire by police and fire fighters that we all paid for.
Our entrepreneur need educated staff, and most of the staff hired were educated in public schools we all paid for.
Our entrepreneur undoubtedly used the internet for advertising, organizing, etc. The research that led to the internet was paid for by everyone.
This could go on for a long time, but you get the idea.
Our entrepreneur did great work and deserves a big chunk of money, but that product would never have succeeded without the infrastructure and services we all paid for. That's why it is moral and just to require our entrepreneur to pay taxes so the next entrepreneur will have roads, police protection, an educated workforce, and the other infrastructure and services we all pay for.
Thanks to Elizabeth Warren for articulating this line of reasoning.
To see this, consider an entrepreneur who has a great idea, builds a factory, produces the product, sells it all over the world and makes billions. They created the wealth, right? It's theirs, right? Why should the government get a piece?
Well, our entrepreneur used the roads to deliver product to his customers, and we all paid for the roads.
Our entrepreneur was protected from theft, vandalism, and fire by police and fire fighters that we all paid for.
Our entrepreneur need educated staff, and most of the staff hired were educated in public schools we all paid for.
Our entrepreneur undoubtedly used the internet for advertising, organizing, etc. The research that led to the internet was paid for by everyone.
This could go on for a long time, but you get the idea.
Our entrepreneur did great work and deserves a big chunk of money, but that product would never have succeeded without the infrastructure and services we all paid for. That's why it is moral and just to require our entrepreneur to pay taxes so the next entrepreneur will have roads, police protection, an educated workforce, and the other infrastructure and services we all pay for.
Thanks to Elizabeth Warren for articulating this line of reasoning.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Class Warfare!!!!
President Obama had the gall to ask Americans earning over $1 million a year to pay the same tax rate as the middle class!!! Rep. Paul Fryem' immediately called it what it is: class warfare. Soon, bodies will be bleeding in the street! Imagine the horrible effects of hedge fund managers and Wall Street tycoons paying the same tax rate as firemen, engineers, and -- gasp -- teachers!!! Soon heart rending stories like these will fill the newspapers:
-- I. M. Rich was forced to sell his French castle today, a victim of class warfare. He's left with only a Chateau in France, ten mansions in the states, and a few odds and ends in Italy. "My wife will be devastated," Mr. Rich said, pushing through tears, "we spent several days there only five years ago."
-- Hedge fund manager Dewey Cheetem, now paying the same tax rate as his gardener and secretary, was forced to let go of one of his three Rolls Royces -- but managed to keep the rest of his 20 luxury automobiles, thank goodness. "Obama is a heartless ogre," Mr. Cheetum exclaimed, "the red one was my favorite, but it had to go."
-- Thousands of families, struggling to get by on barely seven figure incomes, are cutting back. One wealthy wife was observed wearing the same $20,000 gown to two completely different events!! People have shifted from private jets to the ghastly grime of mere first class. The horror!!
Not content with these body blows to the poor, defenseless, fabulously wealthy, Obama is also going after the 3.9% tax break the richest (and therefor best) Americans have enjoyed for the last decade. While we need the revenue to balance the budget, there is a better way. A tax of only 50% on the income of the poorest half of all Americans would generate the same revenue.
It's important to remember that the Ottoman Empire did not tax the rich at all! All taxes were payed by the peasants and shop keepers. America has a $15 trillion debt to pay off, wouldn't it be better if the rich were exempt from the onerous burden of paying a share of this debt, wouldn't it be better if the 'little people' took responsibility?
-- I. M. Rich was forced to sell his French castle today, a victim of class warfare. He's left with only a Chateau in France, ten mansions in the states, and a few odds and ends in Italy. "My wife will be devastated," Mr. Rich said, pushing through tears, "we spent several days there only five years ago."
-- Hedge fund manager Dewey Cheetem, now paying the same tax rate as his gardener and secretary, was forced to let go of one of his three Rolls Royces -- but managed to keep the rest of his 20 luxury automobiles, thank goodness. "Obama is a heartless ogre," Mr. Cheetum exclaimed, "the red one was my favorite, but it had to go."
-- Thousands of families, struggling to get by on barely seven figure incomes, are cutting back. One wealthy wife was observed wearing the same $20,000 gown to two completely different events!! People have shifted from private jets to the ghastly grime of mere first class. The horror!!
Not content with these body blows to the poor, defenseless, fabulously wealthy, Obama is also going after the 3.9% tax break the richest (and therefor best) Americans have enjoyed for the last decade. While we need the revenue to balance the budget, there is a better way. A tax of only 50% on the income of the poorest half of all Americans would generate the same revenue.
It's important to remember that the Ottoman Empire did not tax the rich at all! All taxes were payed by the peasants and shop keepers. America has a $15 trillion debt to pay off, wouldn't it be better if the rich were exempt from the onerous burden of paying a share of this debt, wouldn't it be better if the 'little people' took responsibility?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Obama Waxes Osama
You are reading this because I've seen the Right try to pretend Obama, along with the SEALs, doesn't deserve the bulk of the credit for killing Osama bin Laden. They claim 'Bush era policies' should get the credit. However, it's no accident Obama did in two years what Bush failed to do in seven. Consider:
1. For most of his time in office, Bush focused attention and resources on Iraq, where bin Laden wasn't. For example, Bush publicly expressed disinterest in Osama as early as 2002 and disbanded the CIA bin Laden unit in 2005.
2. Since taking office, Obama has focused attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden was. For example, he tripled US troops in Afghanistan and vastly increased drone strikes in Pakistan.
3. Shortly after the inauguration, Obama ordered the CIA to make killing bin Laden their absolute number one, top priority in the war on al Qaeda.
4. As a result, they found Osama, President Barack Hussein Obama ordered forces under his command to kill him, and they did.
1. For most of his time in office, Bush focused attention and resources on Iraq, where bin Laden wasn't. For example, Bush publicly expressed disinterest in Osama as early as 2002 and disbanded the CIA bin Laden unit in 2005.
2. Since taking office, Obama has focused attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden was. For example, he tripled US troops in Afghanistan and vastly increased drone strikes in Pakistan.
3. Shortly after the inauguration, Obama ordered the CIA to make killing bin Laden their absolute number one, top priority in the war on al Qaeda.
4. As a result, they found Osama, President Barack Hussein Obama ordered forces under his command to kill him, and they did.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
It's Time for a No-Fly Zone in Libya
It has taken me quite some time, but I now believe that we should enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, ideally as part of a NATO or UN operation, but speed is probably more important than allies.
The huge wave of non-violent pro-freedom and democracy protests sweeping the Arab world is potentially a major strategic victory for America. First, the protesters may succeed in establishing democracies in many, if not most, Arab countries, a big plus for the U.S. Second, the protesters have handed al Qaeda a strategic defeat. After all, 15 years of violence never toppled a single corrupt Arab government, and non-violent protest took out two in a few months.
Unfortunately, there is a way to defeat large popular non-violent uprisings: massive deadly force. In Egypt public and (no doubt) private pressure from America helped prevent this, but we have no such influence in Libya and Gaddafi has taken this approach with a vengeance. If Gaddafi succeeds in crushing the protesters, other Arab dictators will know exactly how to stay in power. If Gaddafi falls, Arab dictators will have little choice but to bow to the aspirations of their people.
The question, of course, is how to help the protesters. The answer, of course, is to listen to them. They are quite clear on one point: they don't want boots on the ground. British special forces inserted into Libya were arrested by the protestors and sent home. On the other hand, voices within the protest movement are increasingly of one mind: take Gaddafi's air force out of the equation.
This is something we can do, and we are probably preparing. Aircraft carriers have been sent to the region. Reconnoissance planes are flying off the coast. Warships are gathering for potential 'humanitarian missions.' Allies are being consulted. NATO is meeting. UN resolutions are being drafted. Unfortunately, international consensus takes time and speed is of the essence.
In the last few days the government has driven protesters from two cities. Gaddafi's firepower is beginning to overwhelm the opposition. Establishing a no-fly zone is an act of war, which is always risky, but taking down Gaddafi's air force will certainly help, a lot, and with a bit of luck putting America's unmatched firepower in the service of the protest could trigger a government collapse. With a third corrupt Arab dictatorship down, the winds of freedom and democracy could well sweep the Arab world with little additional effort from, but lots of benefit to, America and the rest of the world.
What you can do: go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact or call 202-456-1111 and make your voice heard.
The huge wave of non-violent pro-freedom and democracy protests sweeping the Arab world is potentially a major strategic victory for America. First, the protesters may succeed in establishing democracies in many, if not most, Arab countries, a big plus for the U.S. Second, the protesters have handed al Qaeda a strategic defeat. After all, 15 years of violence never toppled a single corrupt Arab government, and non-violent protest took out two in a few months.
Unfortunately, there is a way to defeat large popular non-violent uprisings: massive deadly force. In Egypt public and (no doubt) private pressure from America helped prevent this, but we have no such influence in Libya and Gaddafi has taken this approach with a vengeance. If Gaddafi succeeds in crushing the protesters, other Arab dictators will know exactly how to stay in power. If Gaddafi falls, Arab dictators will have little choice but to bow to the aspirations of their people.
The question, of course, is how to help the protesters. The answer, of course, is to listen to them. They are quite clear on one point: they don't want boots on the ground. British special forces inserted into Libya were arrested by the protestors and sent home. On the other hand, voices within the protest movement are increasingly of one mind: take Gaddafi's air force out of the equation.
This is something we can do, and we are probably preparing. Aircraft carriers have been sent to the region. Reconnoissance planes are flying off the coast. Warships are gathering for potential 'humanitarian missions.' Allies are being consulted. NATO is meeting. UN resolutions are being drafted. Unfortunately, international consensus takes time and speed is of the essence.
In the last few days the government has driven protesters from two cities. Gaddafi's firepower is beginning to overwhelm the opposition. Establishing a no-fly zone is an act of war, which is always risky, but taking down Gaddafi's air force will certainly help, a lot, and with a bit of luck putting America's unmatched firepower in the service of the protest could trigger a government collapse. With a third corrupt Arab dictatorship down, the winds of freedom and democracy could well sweep the Arab world with little additional effort from, but lots of benefit to, America and the rest of the world.
What you can do: go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact or call 202-456-1111 and make your voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)