Showing posts with label bad government no cookie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad government no cookie. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

I am struggling to think of a 'freeze' related pun that hasn't been done to death at this point

Last week seemed promising on the economic front. Not in the sense that the economic numbers looked any better or anyone got a job in this country, but better. Mostly because the President seemed to jettison the ideas of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and embrace Paul Volcker and the idea of actually getting tough on Wall Street. There finally seemed to be some interest in paying attention to unemployment and the peasants. Putting that "laser like jobs focus" on making sure we had nice plows and a sturdy mule for our new job opportunities toiling in the fields. Hell, It even looked like a Fed Chairman who was uninterested in getting unemployment figures to drop was going to ironically find himself jobless. Positive steps were being taken.

Then today came. President Obama announced his big economic idea for the State of the Union was to be an across the board spending freeze for all non defense spending. In other words: all the money spent that benefits us. We'll not dwell on the fact that Obama ridiculed this idea as not serious when John McCain said it. Instead we'll dwell on the fact that it's just cheap political theatrics and a terrible economic idea that will contribute to weakening the economy further. Because my beard isn't as great and the Nobel committee doesn't want to recognize my economic work, I'll let Paul Krugman explain.
A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback? It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon”
...
It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead. And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for.
Tell us how you really feel, Paul. I forgot to mention he also calls the idea "pure disaster". But hey, looking tough on the deficit, whether or not it shorts the GDP gap that government spending has to make up in order to get us out of this recession, is really really important. More important than making sure the economy is fixed.

Of course, a spending freeze isn't even that good a policy if you're looking to cut the deficit. A spending freeze on non-defense spending is almost useless. It's what someone does when they want to look like they're serious and pretend they're cutting the deficit. Looking serious combined with pretend action? Sounds familiar. At least they're combining it with something that will be politically popular and economically terrible.

So, on the bad side, it doesn't look like we're going to get a handle on that economy thing anytime soon. On the other hand, we are going to get a lot of cheap political pandering. If something makes the economy worse, is panned by most economists as a bad idea, but sounds good to Republican lawmakers, and gets the political media all in a Twitter over your decisive action on the deficit, who really loses? Sure, the American people will lose. But Barry needs some good political coverage. We need to take one for the team.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Drink up!

Because the health care fight is sometimes too depressing and infuriating to discuss, we here at These Bastards will move on to a lighter hearted subject that might bring a little smile to your face: you're drinking poison and you are going to DIE DIE DIE DIEDIEDIEDIE!!!! And it's legal. Further compounding the bad news, the problem spawned a thousand page and million word New York Times article. That's how much poison is in the glass of water that you aren't drinking because the office installed a Coke machine down the hall. If you weren't drinking so much high fructose corn syrup to shock your brain through another groggy morning, you'd probably be dead already.
The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.

Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.

But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.

Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known.
Yup, since 2004 over 64 million Americans have been exposed to water that did not meet "at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease." Right now there is probably a tumor the size of Hervé Villechaize on your spine. I know this is largely a problem that hasn't been dealt with since 1974, but what do the phrases "no chemicals added to the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000" and "increased cancer dangers for Americans since 2004" have in common? Our good friends in the Bush Administration. I think I know what they'd say: "The water meets the legal requirements and adding chemicals to the list would just have caused undue strain on the business community. Besides, it's not like our water is 'Yamuna River, New Dehli' bad."

And our drinking water isn't "New Delhi bad", but we might only have to wait a few years for that. On the bright side, some public health officials, like Dr. Pankaj Parekh of Los Angeles, who recognize the shortcomings of the laws and are trying to go above and beyond their duty to protect people from poison induced cancers are being thwarted... by the people they're trying to protect. I guess it is a fundamental American right to poison ourselves.

Don't worry, even though action on this is about a decade or two overdue, I'm sure our elected betters will get right on it and pass a law to fix things. I mean after all, this is something that both affects public health and the environment, so they'll probably get right on it. I mean if our government does handle two things competently it's major legislation on health care and the environment.

I think I'll go cry now.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Cheap Blogging Crutch 08.24

The Favre and I
It was a romance many thought would span the breadth of time and teach us all about the true meaning of love. But like all true love, one day it withered on the vine. Such is the tale of Brett Favre, fresh off his 17th retirement, and his #1 media sweetheart Peter King. Slate traces their relationship from its earliest days of smitten infatuation, to the cruel breakup amidst rumors of a Favre/Madden tryst in the back of the Madden Cruiser. Will they ever reconcile? We'll see, since Favre will never retire, King will have plenty of opportunities to fall back in love.

All the President’s Zombies
Paul Krugman decides to use the TB metaphor method of choice -- ZOMBIES!!! -- to describe the health care debate and the seeming undead rise of Reaganism in the "government is bad" arguments against health care reform. Discredited ideas that keep rising from the dead inexplicably to menace British comedy duos, the greater Pittsburgh area, and women named Barbara. Here's an idea: shoot the zombies in the head. Either get some juice behind discrediting these ideas/getting news organizations to point out that they've been discredited....or just kill anyone who repeats them. Either/or. It's really up to you, Paul.

BERNIE 'DYING' IN JAIL
Awwwww, why does cancer always happen to the good ones? Could his confession and positioning as the sole fall guy for the entire Ponzi scheme be his attempt at cleansing his soul before death? Who gives a fuck? God has smited him with a plague for his many affronts against humanity. On a lighter note, the Post also divulges that Madoff hangs out with the Native Americans in prison, partaking in their sweat lodges, and also pals around with "the homosexual posse", but that other ethnicities are trying to recruit him into their gangs. I can think of no funnier thing than Bernie Madoff weighing the relative merits of joining the Mexican Mafia or the Black Guerrilla Family with his "homosexual posse."

Healthcare insurers get upper hand
I don't want to alarm you, but it seems that heath insurers might stand to reap a financial windfall and are might be exceedingly thrilled with the way health care reform negotiations have seemed to ditch the only possible chink in their armor: a public plan. By which I mean they are going to get rich and are really happy about it. Whew! I was worried for a second that these useful pillars of American society weren't going to make out like bandits. Thank God we have people in Congress looking out for them, instead of the teeming masses of peasants who want just a touch more gruel in their bowl.

Obama’s Team Is Lacking Most of Its Top Players
Wonder how the Obama Administration is supposed to run any of the Government Department's with only 43% of it's political appointees in place? Yeah, so are a lot of people. But hey, it's just the beauty of our system, where the President is expected to run the government without our legislative bodies or vetting processes actually allowing anyone to be put in place to run the government. Marvel at Hillary Clinton going to a international forum on international development, but having no one manning the Agency for International Development. Or holding a summit for nuclear nonproliferation with no nonproliferation secretary. Remember: when America does finally collapse under the weight of its own ineffective bullshit, try to act surprised when stuff like this is brought up.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Bipartisanship

"But I invited them over for cookies, what happened? No support?"

So yesterday the House had their vote on the $820 billion stimulus package Obama wanted to get through. He had a hope and vision to get it passed with lots of bipartisan support and possibly bluebirds fluttering around him and a baby deer walking up and eating food out of Nancy Pelosi's hand. He pulled out all the stops, choked down brisket in the presence of Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, invited a dozen GOP moderates up for cookies and soda with Rahm, had about 22 members from the House and Senate up for a White House kegger, and had a sleepover out behind the White House where he told the spookiest ghost story ever and made Eric Cantor wet himself. The result? The bill passed 244-188, with not one single Republican voting for it.

This after he went into the process offering up a watered down version of the bill with increased tax cut proposals his own advisers deemed ineffective in an attempt to win over the support of Republicans. Whoops. This will also get no Republican support in the Senate. Whoops. A word to the wise Mr. Barry, you have the numbers to pass whatever the hell kind of stimulus you want. Republicans are going to oppose it no matter what. They view a stimulus package not solely based around tax cuts as either the abandonment of capitalism or the murder of capitalism or at least the drunken grope of capitalism. So why not try and craft the best bill you and your advisers feel will do the most good and pass that? Because in two years when they hold midterms and in 4 when you're up for re-election, you aren't going to get judged on how hard you tried to work with people, you're going to get judged on the results.

Or try another cookie party......but with bigger cookies!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Warren Buffett wins Florida on a bet

These are tough economic times for many states. Budgets have to be met with large budget shortfalls being predicted. Couple that with some of the damage certain states have to pay for and insure because of hurricanes or tornadoes or other God based attacks. What is a state to do? Apparently make wagers with Warren Buffet where he promises to fund your bonds if your state is destroyed and you pay him money if it isn't.
Billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. won a $224 million bet that Florida would escape major damage from hurricanes this year.

Florida’s option agreement that would have compelled Buffett to buy $4 billion of bonds to finance storm recovery will expire Dec. 31, Dennis MacKee, a spokesman for the State Board of Administration, said in an interview today. The state earlier paid Buffett $224 million in return for his commitment to buy the debt if needed. The calm season meant Florida had no need to raise the money.

Florida turned to Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire to erase doubts about the state’s ability to raise money after a hurricane. The state sells coverage to homeowners and private companies at below-market rates, and plans to fund cash shortfalls in the bond market. Finding investors could be a “very challenging task,” Fitch Ratings said in March.
This is also in addition to a separate bet they made with Buffett over a hand of blackjack the result of which means Governor Charlie Crist has to streak from Jacksonville to Atlanta and pay Warren $100 million. Kids, never hit on 18. This new strategy of making bets with billionaires has caused a budget shortfall for the year after payouts had to be made. But good fortune has given Florida the opportunity to win the money back. If they correctly select the red queen in a game of three card monte, Buffett will make up the shortfall, if they can't, Florida owes double. No worries there, they've worked out a scheme with Bill Gates whereupon Bill will make up the difference if he gets to sleep with Florida's wife.

Running a state, it's serious business.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

What does the government have to spend money for anyway?

Palin: ‘We Shouldn’t Worry About Government Having Enough Money’

During an interview with a local television affiliate in New Hampshire yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was asked how John McCain will make up revenues the federal government will lose because of his enormous tax cut plan.

Palin was shocked at the premise of the question. “Really!?” she immediately replied, adding that the “suggestion there is that revenue should be coming into government at this time and that’s not what should happen at a time like this.” But later Palin dismissed any concerns about the federal government’s lack of cash flow:

PALIN: We shouldn’t worry about government having enough money, the government has plenty of money its a matter of how government prioritizes the expenditure of those public dollars.

What does the government even need money for anyway? I mean it's not like it has wars, infrastructure projects, health care, social security, government institutions, defense, or penis shaped monuments to pay for, right? Who cares if we have the money for that, we'll just call up the Chinese and borrow some. Debts don't matter, we never have to pay them off or suffer any consequences for having massive ones. Just dial up Deng or Ling or Yao and be all like "Yo, unmarked and non-sequential, by the Lincoln Memorial tomorrow. We're good for it." Maybe we can just print more.

Under a McCain/Palin Administration (its even funny to type) government may be broken and broke, but at least we can get folsky charm and faux-rural smug bullshit by the bucketload. That's almost as good as money. Maybe a nurse smiling, winking and saying 'you betcha' will allow you to get your appendix out without declaring bankruptcy. It's kept Putin at bay. Maybe we don't need a solvent government.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

The NSA knows your sex euphemisms

Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans
Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia....

She said US military officers, American journalists and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and "collected on" as they called their offices or homes in the United States....

Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer.
Who could ever have foreseen that unfettered access to American's phones would result in abuse by the government and invasion of privacy? Though I'm sure it was beneficial to US homeland security efforts. Knowing how to differentiate Red Cross cock talk from soldier's verbal dongsmanship and Doctors Without Borders themed audio cosplay is critical to catching and prosecuting terrorists. Surely the database of fucking metaphors and vagina codewords will prove invaluable.

Rest assured though, this is only happening with people overseas who use satellite phones. Honest. There is no way that this exact same thing is happening within the US. Take their word for it, because there's no way you can actually sue for it or have any legal recourse or do anything other than take their word for it. So next time you tell your girlfriend over the phone that you want her to put her mouth on your Michael Hayden before you telcom immunity her ECHELON, some hayseed at Fort Gordon is making a tape of it. So try to make it entertaining for him.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Bailoutapalooza: I think we're communists now

After initially signaling that no bailouts were on the table the Fed decided against it last night and decided that it was willing to put up $85 billion in loans to AIG. Excuse me I wrote that wrong, I meant fucking eighty fucking five fucking billion goddamn dollars. In exchange the Fed gets to own 80% of AIG's worthless shit and Manchester United has to put a picture of Ben Bernanke swimming in a pile of money on the front of their jerseys. That was a soccer joke. I'm sorry, it'll never happen again.

So we basically own and run AIG now. That along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And whatever company goes tits up next week when no private sector entity wants to put up cash for it. That should be the telling key. If this is such a good idea why wouldn't some mega bank or other such entity step in and 'rescue' it? Don't they want all the valuable shit we're getting? Don't they want a clear crack at this brilliant moneymaking opportunity? So now the Feddy Gov runs three major financial entities. Isn't state control of financial entities communism? Or do we not run enough? Are we only partial communists? Should I cancel the red ensemble I picked out?

The best part of the article, other than finding out AIG was a "provider of esoteric financial insurance contracts", was this description of what would happen if AIG went under.
It meant A.I.G. was potentially on the hook for billions of dollars’ worth of risky securities that were once considered safe.

If A.I.G. had collapsed — and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims — institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of those securities, and that in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt.
That's right, if AIG went under other companies might have had to re-evaluate the worth of the securities to their actual value, not their imagined, theoretical value. So AIG must be propped up by the taxpayer lest reality invade financial markets.

But what about all the other bad debt out there? Fear not, dear reader, there are rumblings under way about the creation of a new federal agency tasked with buying bad debt and disposing of mortgage related assets. That's right, the taxpayers get put on the hook for billions of dollars worth of worthless assets. The way the free market intended.

So remember, while we can spend all the taxpayer money we want buying up worthless shit at high prices and nationalizing private institutions to bail out the private sector, nationalizing health care or anything that would provide better care or safety for you is socialism and thus can never be attempted. The free market will take care of it. Like it always does. Remember that when the government buys Washington Mutual next week for a $100 billion.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Barry used to work on the docks

Apparently Palin earned as much money for the Democrats as she did for her own party last night. Even more amusing, Obama plans to watch McCain's convention speech from Jon Bon Jovi's house, where he'll be having dinner and, I'm sure, a jam session. You can go too, provided you've got 30 grand lying around. Hey, historic campaigns don't run on candy canes and dreams. Not exclusively, anyway.

While I'm shitting in everyone's Change Flakes, I might as well bring up something that has had me offending people at parties for weeks now. You all know that Obama's really not all that different from McCain when it comes to money, right? Courtesy of Mr. Taibbi...
Other companies are getting in on the ground floor with the new chief by stuffing money in his ears. Overall, Obama is flat-out kicking McCain's ass when it comes to Wall Street contributions, raking in nearly $9 million from securities and investment executives, compared to $6.2 million for McCain. Obama has received more contributions from Goldman Sachs than from any other employer — more than $627,000 at this writing — not to mention $398,021 from JP Morgan Chase, $353,922 from Lehman Brothers and $291,388 from Morgan Stanley. Even among hedge-fund executives, who have an unequivocal interest in electing McCain, Obama is whipping the Republican, collecting $500,000 more than McCain.
Meet the new boss...

Four more years! (not really)

First there was theft, then there was justice, now there is The Funny. Jack Abramoff got spanked with a(nother) sentence today, to the tune of four more years. None of those years will count, however, as the honorable Ellen S. Huvelle ruled that these four can be served concurrently with the four years remaining on Abramoff's six-year sentence received for pleading guilty in 2006 to scamming American Indian tribes out of millions of dollars, touching little boys, corrupting public officials, and generally being the singular incarnation of everything that is wrong with humanity.

The moral of the story, children, is that if you're going to break one law, you might as well break a shitload of them. If caught, immediately rat out all your friends and repair to a minimum security penitentiary for a few years of deep self-reflection and Talmudic study. You might even get to bunk with Bob Ney, who, for the record, has stopped demanding that he always be outside spoon.