Government Shutdown is Great for the Economy

I know this may surprise some people but I am not a fan of Obamacare. On the other hand I think holding the economy hostage is exactly the wrong thing to do. Why don't I like Obama care? It creates another layer of  bureaucracy between the patient and the provider. It also creates bigger government when it isn't needed. 

I think our healthcare system is broken and needs fixing but I don't think this is the solution. Anyone who says it is doesn't know what they're talking about because no one has read it, not even the people who voted for it, not even Obama himself. Is it bad, well we don't really know because again no one has read it, but even if it is bad it shouldn't be used as an excuse to shut down the government because that will do huge damage to the economy.

The Republicans, and I'm no Democrat, have already slowed the recovery by forcing sequestration. Are they really going to do this again. I always thought conservatives were in favor of a strong economy. The affordable care act should be dealt with, but this is not the time or the way to deal with it. Repeal it, or fix it page by page or do anything but slow down the economy. 

The republicans have created a crisis out of thin air. They have painted themselves into a corner by convincing their constituents that Obama and Obamacare are the devil. Then they say they are going to defund it or stop the government. Now the fanatics they created with their over the top rhetoric won't be satisfied with anything less. They've actually convinced themselves and their constituents that this will work and if it doesn't it's the democrats fault. 

The democrats have their own problems and their own shrill fanners of the flames, but I'm going to give this crisis to the republicans and the tea party. You can't do something ridiculous and unheard of and then when it destroys the economy say it was the Dems fault.

So John Boehner and company you need to step off. Be realistic and stop playing politics with the economy. I know what you're thinking, if the economy does well while Obama is pres. America will elect another dem. I know that seems like the end of the world to you, but the real end of the world is you playing no compromise hardball with the economy. All that is happening is both sides are drinking more and more of their own kool aid and the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations are getting a free pass and you're enacting laws that will perpetuate the system and be difficult to undo.

I also know that if the economy does starting doing well there will be less incentive to reform Obamacare. Well that is on your shoulders. You are the people that won't do anything difficult like cut spending when the economy is doing well. You always think it will go on forever, then you're so surprised when the next recession comes and you can't cut spending fast enough. The time to cut spending is when the economy is doing well, then it won't slow the economy. You always want to cut when times are tough, this is exactly when you should spend to give the economy a kickstart.

To summarize all politicians are ridiculous tools and we shouldn't be surprised when they do stupid tooly things because we knew they were tools when we voted for them. They will not be capable of doing the right thing until we reform our political system, specifically lobbying and campaign finance. They are bought and paid for by contributors, but since I know all members of the house and senate will read this I have specific advice for you. This is what you must do to make the country better. I know our system is set up to be slow and its hard to make big changes, but if you all did the right thing you could go down in history as the greatest congress ever.

Here it is:

Forget everyone who gave you money, forget the extremists, forget the naysayers. Create new bills from scratch and only include things that benefit the whole country. You are our national representatives, make the country better and the states and cities will take care of themselves.

Spend money now on things the country needs like infrastructure, help the poor and middle class and stop giving breaks to the rich and subsidies to big corporations. Fix the health care system by listening to doctors, nurses, patients and researchers, instead of listening to drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, and insurance companies. 

But most importantly don't stop the economy just because you can't figure out another way to show how tough you are. Cruz and Boehner it is really sad to watch you have a hissy fit. You are pitiful. 

Now is the time to step on the gas, not drive into a wall.

Challenges and Solutions

Here we will be discussing challenges, exploring their history and causes, and debating real world workable solutions. The format will follow the above sequence.

State the Challenge:
Explore how it arose and why it is an issue that needs a solution:
Work out realistic solutions: All three phases will be interactive. 

Anyone on earth can submit a challenge, in any social, political, or economic area.

Then we will collaborate to define the problem in a way that reveals it's true essence.

Then we will explore the story and causes of the problem to attempt to clarify it further and possibly spot the seeds of a solution.Finally we will welcome possible solutions from all comers and try to forge them into a solutions that will be acceptable to all reasonable people.

Maddow on Guns

Here is a link to a recent Rachel Maddow clip where she "Tears into Ted Cruz" (sorry Jason) and talks about clips.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rachel-maddow-ted-cruz-gun-control_n_2883141.html

So I agree with her take on Ted Cruz. He must think pretty highly of himself to lecture our fine senator like she is a third grader. Of course he was playing to the hometown audience so you can hardly blame him for being insincere.

I would agree with her that there are limits on the second amendment already, and the first and probably others as well. And it is right and reasonable that the rights guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights are not unlimited. If they were we would not need either and there would be anarchy.

I won't get into why ordinary citizens shouldn't own RPGs or Nuclear Subs.

But saying that the 2nd amendment can be limited does not necessarily mean that we should ban assault rifles and high capacity clips.

As Sam Harris says in The Riddle of the Gun, (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun) "According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Again, only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type)."

So at best banning assault rifles would only prevent 3% of murders in the U.S.. But that is really an overstatement. Unless you collect every assault weapon from every citizen, and figure out a way to stop soldiers from taking them home after work, and seal the borders up tight there will still be assault weapons available for murderers.

So this another fallacy Maddow falls into. She claims that if the assault weapon ban had still been in effect the Newtown shooter's mother could not have purchased those rifles and high capacity clips. That is assuming a lot. I don't know if she purchased her weapons before the ban went into effect or after it expired, but if were going to play "what if" which is what Maddow is doing by saying what if the ban was still in effect, then I say what if she purchased the guns before 1994? It is just as valid. 

Again according to Harris who is quoting FBI figures, you could stop 13% of all murders by banning knives. That's over 4 times as many as a theoretical perfect assault weapon ban.

Then next "fact" that Maddow makes a big deal about is that if high capacity clips were banned he would have only had to reload 14 times instead of 4. She seems to think there is no way he could have done that and still fired 152 shots in 5 minutes. Well I think she may be mistaken again. Someone completely untrained could easily reload in 4 seconds. A nerd who practices in his basement for hours at a stretch could probably do it in less than half a second. Again, "what if" his gun jammed? Well he had another. What if he dropped a clip, well if he was limited to 10 round clips he probably would have had 20 more. He would have to carry 14 clips, well most of the weight is the bullets themselves so it wouldn't be a major hardship.

So why are Maddow and so many others so passionate about this issue? In Maddow's case she has to sell Cialis or whatever they advertise on her show. Feinstein thinks it will get her reelected. Do either of them really care? It's an emotional issue that is easy to get behind when you know kids are being killed.

If your goal is to save lives though why not do things that are actually effective. More people still die on the freeways than are killed by guns. What are the reasons people murder?

As I said in a previous post.

Murder=Life in Prison 
2 strikes max for gun crimes including straw buyers
While were at it Rape=Life
Universal Background Checks for criminals and mental health
More mental health care
Your thoughts here...
So I say let's get the data, let's study this. I think the NRA was silly to stop the NIH from researching gun deaths. I think there might be useful data out there that would save lives and keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens.

Some of the things I really can't stand!

Lobbying, campaign finance, congress can legally do insider trading, citizens united, revolving door between elected and appointed officials and the industries they regulate, pork.

I mean how is it that so many people enter congress with a middle class net worth and somehow when they leave they are multimillionaires? Isn't that a little suspicious.

Lobbying:

Is basically bribery. If a company or individual makes a campaign contribution, buys a senator a trip, or buys a congressspereson some Wizards tickets, they expect something in return, or they are rewarding the politician for something they have already done. Why else would congress consistently pass laws that benefit the big buusienesses and unions at the expense of the average American? The really sad part is how little money it takes to sell us out. I'm sure lobbying has the greatest return on investment of anything big corporations do. And the money doesn't stop when they leave office. Right away politicians get jobs as lobbyists themselves and that is where they get the big payoff. Now i am not calling our politicians criminals or even unethical, this is the culture of Washington but it needs to change.
I propose making all lobbying that involves money and/or gifts, and promises of future gifts, money or jobs illegal. Let people persuade our politicians on the merits of their proposals. If politicians can't survive on the salary and benefits they receive they should look for another job.

Campaign finance:

Just another bribe. Who is the politician going to remember, the citizen that gave her $5 or the industy that gave a million? Level the playing field. NO contributions over $100 from any person or group to any single candidate during a particular election. And candidates cannot use their own money or take loans. This would level things right out. And pass a law that reverses Citizens United. Really money is not speech, and when the right talks about activist judges they should remember this decision.

Capitalism and Democracy

Remember that Capitalism does not equal Democracy. Remember if you want to quote the founding fathers, that they created a Democracy, or a Republic if you need to be precise. They did not create a free market capitalist state. In fact they went to great lengths to rein in government and markets.

Many people talk as if free and unrestrained markets were the goal of our nation and of the architects of the constitution. They are not. The constitution was designed to allow as much freedom as possible without allowing people, or groups of people to infringe on the rights of others.

Increasing GDP is not the only goal. The goal is to increase GDP, and increase the standard of living of everyone in the USA because people follow the rules and play fairly.

There are no truly free markets in the US. If there were wealth would quickly become concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and huge corporations. The US would start to look like Libya under Gadaffi, or North Korea, or Burma. Free markets are not worth that outcome, and that is why we have anti-trust laws and government regulators.

Capitalism is a great thing and it is part of what has made our country great, but it is not the only thing. There is no need for it to be unrestrained for it to be good, in fact some restraints make it fairer and better.

Who Doesn't Pay Taxes?

A nice graphic form the right leaning (who am I kidding, they leaned so far to the right they fell over) San Diego Union Tribune.




http://www.utsandiego.com/paying_taxes/

Wealth Inequality

I just saw a post on facebook with a link to this video (http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/) describing wealth inequality in the U.S.. It was under a cartoon describing the evils of socialism. It was a appropriate that it was a cartoon because the logic was cartoony.

The common argument is that doing anything about wealth inequality is equal to socialism. It is not.

1. I am not in favor of any more socialism in the U.S. than we already have. Yes America is socialist to an degree. If you don't know that you might check the definition of socialism, and then look at programs like Social Security and Medicare and charging oil companies nothing to drill on public land.
2. Creating more wealth equality does not have to come through socialism or "redistribution." It comes through making the rich play by the same rules as the poor and middle class. This huge increase in inequality in the last 30 years did not come about because the super rich worked that much harder. They have gamed the system! Their lawyers and accountants have figured out every loophole, and when there weren't enough loopholes they got Congress to create more. They are truly playing by a different set of rules.
3. So how do we level the playing field? We could start with a progressive tax with no deductions for anything. Most people could pay a lower rate because closing the holes would raise more revenue. Every person and corporation pays the same rate at each income level. Eliminate the Capital Gains rate and tax everything as income. No moving money offshore to evade. If you live in the U.S. you pay on any money you make in the U.S. or bring into the U.S..

What are your ideas? Let me know if you think I got it wrong.

Not a Zero Sum Game

Economics is not a zero sum game. If it was the earth would have run out of food and collapsed centuries ago. Almost every year GDP grows. Where does that growth come from? Do we create something out of nothing? No, we create it with our work and our innovation.




Scarcity is the greatest myth in economics. It is the first principle that all economic theories are based on. This is not some pie in the sky spiritualist abundance idea. There really can be enough for everyone, if we focus on creating more of what we need.




Eventually creating more out of less will become more and more difficult, so we need to either decide that we can and will innovate as fast as we can, or we need to slow population growth. But in the meantime if we realize that we can make more, and that we do it all the time, it changes the argument.

My heart goes out to Newtown

Newtown is a tragedy, it is impossible to imagine what it feels like to the people who lost loved ones. What the nation should be doing is trying to console them as well as we can. Many people feel the need to take action, that is a worthy sentiment, I recommend doing something that will actually make them feel better. Of course everyone handles grief and adversity differently so we need to ask them what would make them feel better, not just assume they respond like we do. 

Let's not turn this into a political fight that only distracts from the tragedy. I know many people are so worked up they think they need to do something immediately. Rather than doing the first thing we think of let's think a while and do the right thing.

For now I will take my own advice and stay quiet about what I think should be done, and instead focus on doing something positive for the families of the victims.

The Other Myth of Economics

The thing economists never tell you is that no one really understands economics or can predict the effects that actions will have. Sure maybe in some small controlled situations, but if someone really knew how to create a stable growing economy wouldn't every country be doing it all the time. The Fed can manipulate interest rates to slow inflation or spur growth but that isn't always enough.

Even given the differing ideologies of our two parties don't you think they would agree on economics if they knew it would create economic growth? Actually maybe not. I think Republicans might be so opposed to government spending and debt that they would oppose stimulus even if they knew it would help. And on the other side Democrats might be so opposed to cutting entitlements that they would do the same.

SDG&E WTF2

As Reagan would say, "Here we go again." Once again you knew of the problem before it happened, when it was still preventable, but you went ahead anyway because you thought you could pawn the consequences off on us, the sheeple.

For those who are unfamiliar with SDG&E's current debacle they knew the new turbines were faulty before they installed them. Then they installed them. Then there was a radiation leak. The plant shut down and now SDG&E want us, the ratepayers, to pay for the plant even while it is not producing electricity.

I personally do think that is fair, or right, or legal. SDG&E you should be ashamed. I know it is in the corporate mindset to try to pay as little as possible while charging as much as possible but you even you should have a limit where you just think, "I can't be that big a jerk."

Apparently you don't have that limit.

My good friend Jody asked what I thought of Nuclear energy and I said I was in favor but that the government couldn't regulate it. By this I mean the Company that owns the plant will always be trying to maximize profit. That's Ok, that's what companies do. A company, especially a big corporation has no morals. The leadership can try to write morals into the mission statement, and I commend that, but once there are stockholders involved morals drop to a kind of lowest common denominator minimum.

So the goal is profits and that means saving money wherever possible. Safety, health, and the environment are not priorities. Even though it might make long term sense to not spill nuclear waste everywhere in the short term a manager will choose the cheaper drum for storage.

In a word corporations will not police themselves, so for the common good government must. But, just like the banks, power companies are always one step ahead of their regulators. I don't know if it can ever be otherwise.

So like marriage, nuclear power is good in theory, but I don't know if it can ever be safe. Maybe if it were a coop owned by the people who live near it, receive it's power and live near the waste. They would have the incentive to keep it safe. But i think like fossil fuels, when you add in the real costs in health effects, environmental damage, regulation, subsidies, storage costs and in the case of oil the cost of wars fought, suddenly solar and wind are cheaper than anything.

SDG&E WTF

SDG&E your audacity is amazing. You started the fire! You started it and you were warned that the way you were doing things could start a fire. Now you want your customers to pay for your mistake. That is ridiculous. 

You say the price for insurance was too high. Well perhaps if you showed the insurance companies a better safety record or better practices it wouldn't have been so high. But high price is no excuse. Either pay it or self insure. What happens when a driver or homeowner has no insurance? They pay the consequences.

So who is responsible for the fire and the associated costs? Your management and executives. They made the decisions that created the problem. Why should the ratepayers pay for your mistakes? Our only mistake was buying electricity from your monopoly. 

So who should pay. If I were a stockholder I would want the managers and executives responsible to pay until their money ran out. When it does it really falls to the stockholders. We can't continue with this corporate welfare. If you want the profits when you make the right decisions then you need to be prepared to pay for the losses when you make bad decisions.

You can't have all reward and no risk. That isn't Capitalism, that's a system rigged to reward the rich by taking from the poor.

So pay up and quit asking for a handout.

Things that will actually help the U.S.

Name calling and chest thumping won't help America. What we need are ideas that will actually get us out of this mess. I will list a few that you can send to your Representatives and see if they will actually represent you.

1. Pass a law that will overrule Citizens United. If the Supreme Court can't see that money is not speech and allowing unlimited campaign donations is just a way of buying politicians then they should go back to law school.
1. In fact I would take it a step further. No donations from any person, business, organization...(let's just say "entity") of more than $250 to a single candidate, issue, or party per election cycle.
1. This would especially apply to lobbyists.
2. I have heard another suggestion from a wise person. Allow unlimited donations but the candidates CANNOT know who made the donations.
2. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. 
1. Enforce all regulations on banks and other industries.
2. Enforce Antitrust laws on all industries. This would eliminate the possibility of "too big to fail."
3. Find and prosecute the bankers who committed crimes and still are committing crimes. Put them in jail. This would also apply to the ratings agencies, and any regulators who were asleep at the wheel.
4. Don't appoint former Wall Street jackals to offices like Treasury Secretary. Talk about the fox watching the henhouse. Apply the same logic to every industry.
3. Put the top economist form the 20 top conservative and liberal think tanks in a room and see if they can figure out a way to make the economy go.
4. Enforce existing gun laws.
1. 2 strikes (max) = life without parole; for gun crimes, murder, rape, child molesting...
2. Straw buyers get 20 years first time, life the 2nd.
3. Universal background checks.
4. Programs like BAM (http://www.youth-guidance.org/our-programs/b-a-m-becoming-a-man/ ) for all at risk youth.

So write your representative if you agree, and write them if you don't, just keep them honest.

Reform Congress Now!!

Some more radical ideas that deserve serious thought. Maybe we could at least scare congress with these ideas.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.


Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.


These ideas are not mine, they come from; http://askville.amazon.com/CONGRESSIONAL-REFORM-ACT-Warren-Buffett's-Solution/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=87093974

Why is congress allowed to engage in insider trading? Number 6 above would eliminate that.

Global Financial Crisis 2.0

Does anyone remember what got us into this mess? Does anyone remember why the world economy is in such bad shape right now? It was the financial crisis. Now I know we have a lot to think about but one thing that deserves some attention is the fact that a financial crisis could happen again. I don't want to sound gloomy and doomy but in some ways we might be worse off now than then. Remember when Citibank said they were fine and the regulators said they could buy up some other banks and then low and behold they needed a bailout after all. Other banks did the same, so if banks were too big too fail then they are much too big to fail now. All our elected officials said they would make sure it could never happen again, but they did nothing to ensure that.

Dodd-Frank is a toothless wonder, Glass-Steagall is dead and apparently no one is enforcing antitrust laws because banks are still much too big to fail. Now they're talking about making Jamie Dimon Treasury Secretary, didn't he say Dodd-Frank was too constraining.

So I have heard it argued that people will just keep coming up with ways around regulations so we might as well deregulate. That's like saying people speed so we should just not have speed limits. Let's get some regulations that work, let's make sure no business is too big to fail, and let's enforce the laws.

For all the libertarians out there who say let the markets be free I say look at what happened when we deregulated the a banks. First we had the Savings and Loan debacle then we had WORLDWIDE FINANCIAL CRISIS.. Is anyone happy that we deregulated the airlines?

Free Markets are great if your God is money and your Messiah is Adam Smith. But markets are never really free, and there are more important things than money. Without regulations unscrupulous rich people and companies can trick poor people out of their hard earned cash. Legal stealing. There is a lot of that going on today, but it would be worse with less regulation.

This nation was founded on rule of law, meaning everyone plays by the same rules. Our goal should be to return to that ideal, not keep making excuses for big companies and rich people to get tax breaks and subsidies while people are hungry in America.

stop the monsanto rider

Headline;
The 'Monsanto Rider': Are Biotech Companies About to Gain Immunity from Federal Law? from http://www.naturalnews.com/036425_Monsanto_biotech_immunity.html

You can help here;

Stop the Monsanto Rider today! Please ask your Member of Congress to join Rep. DeFazio by signing-on to his "Dear Colleague" letter! Watch to learn more and then take action against Monsanto:http://youtu.be/s3OUJeVOyZY

Action Alert: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8644

from; Millions Against Monsanto by OrganicConsumers.org

Piers Morgan is a pompous, arrogant, bombastic, blowhard

I know that sounds redundant, but I wanted to catch all the nuances of his many faceted personality.

Indisputable Facts (or are they?)

I recently received this email and was asked for my response.

I won't defend liberals because I think they are always right or even because I think they are right more often than conservatives. Both are to blame for the situation we are in, and both benefit from fanatical true believers that get them elected and fund them.

Our system has devolved to the point where politicians' main priority is to get reelected. This type of partisan rhetoric doesn't solve any problems, and actually makes it more difficult to solve problems because it whips up the emotions of the extremists and since they are the people that scream the loudest they are the people the politicians hear.

The solution to a specific problem is NOT always in the center. But if the 2 sides see each other as mortal enemies and subhumans there is no way they will ever accept an idea from the other side even if it is a good idea that will actually solve a problem.

> Subject: Indisputable Facts Not
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:35:25 -0800Things conservatives get blamed for, but were in fact done by 'progressives'.
>
> If you ever get a chance, look into the history of woodrow wilson (I have a woodrow right now beavis). IMO, he's a criminal of the highest order and what's listed below is only a fraction of his crimes.
>
> For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena. These are sins America itself must atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged “conservative” misdeeds — say McCarthyism — are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake that liberals make is failing to fight “hard enough” for their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. (You're saying that it is a God given fact that of the millions of liberals since 1776 none have felt a compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. Did god herself tell you that? If I were a liberal I would not feel responsible for the historic misdeeds of past liberals, many were probably bad men, and sociopaths, why would I feel responsible for their actions? If the underlying philosophy of liberalism has led to mistakes that is something that needs addresing.) Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself. (I would love to see some specific examples of that. Are you saying they willingly take the blame for things they worked against or liberals give them the blame? If conservatives are going around taking blame for things they didn't do they are either all bona fide saints or total idiots.) -- Jonah Goldberg
>
> 1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way. (Ok, not very nice. Does his philosophy have any relation to the modern Democratic party? Did he do this because he was a Democrat or because he was an asshole?)
>
> 2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln's election by seceding, which led to the Civil War. (Like most of this rant, Democrats now should do what? Pay reparations because some Democrats then liked slavery. Was it really just Democrats that seceded or was it most of the people in the South?)
>
> 3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK. (Again, is there something about being a Democrat that makes you more prone to racism. Would you say all or most racists are Democrats? Should a Democrat today be held responsible for what some nutjobs who happened to be Democrats did then? The same goes for Republicans. Unless it is a continuous policy intrinsic to the Party it really doesn't reflect on the party.)
>
> 4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): "Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor."
>
> 5) The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.
>
> 6) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): "The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure."
>
> 7) The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.
>
> 8) Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than 100,000 Japanese Americans being put into "bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."
>
> 9) Alger Hiss Convicted Of Perjury (1950): Hiss, who helped advise FDR at Yalta and was strongly defended by the Left, turned out to be a Soviet spy. He was convicted of perjury in 1950 (Sadly, the statute of limitations on espionage had run out), but was defended by liberals for decades until the Verona papers proved so conclusively that he was guilty that even most his fellow liberals couldn't continue to deny it.
>
> 10) The West Virgina Democrat primary is rigged by John F. Kennedy (1960): From an interview with the late, great Robert Novak.
>
> John Hawkins: You also said that without question, John F. Kennedy rigged the West Virginia Democratic primary in (1960), but that the Wall Street Journal killed the story. Do you think that sort of thing is still occurring with great regularity and do you wish the Journal had reported the story when it happened?
>
> Robert Novak: In my opinion, they should have. They sent two reporters down to West Virginia for six weeks and they came back with a carefully documented story on voter fraud in West Virginia, buying votes, and how he beat Humphrey in the primary and therefore got the nomination. But, Ed Kilgore, the President of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative man, said it wasn’t the business of the Wall Street Journal to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party and he killed the story. That story didn’t come out for many, many years — 30-40 years. It was kept secret all that time.
>
> 11) The Bay of Pigs (1961): After training a Cuban militia to overthrow Castro, Kennedy got cold feet and didn't give the men all the air support they were promised. As a result, they were easily defeated by Castro's men and today, Cuba is still ruled by a hostile, anti-American dictatorship.
>
> 12) Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama's notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.
>
> 13) Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
>
> 14) Escalation In Vietnam (1964): Lyndon Johnson dramatically escalated our troops’ presence in Vietnam while he simultaneously put political restrictions in place that made the war unwinnable. As a result, 58,000 Americans died in a war that ultimately achieved none of its aims.
>
> 15) Chappaquiddick (1969): The Democrats’ beloved "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Ted Kennedy ran off the road into a tidal pool with passenger Mary Jo Kopechne in the car. Kennedy swam free and then spent 9 hours plotting how he would reveal the news to the press while she slowly suffocated to death.
>
> 16) Democrats Deliver South Vietnam To The North (1975): "In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies." -- Newt Gingrich (Lying weaseley sack of shit. Interesting how when there's a Republican in the Whitehouse Congress controls the universe but if a Democrat is in the Whitehouse everything is his fault.)
>
> 17) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): 52 Americans were held hostage by the government of Iran for 444 days. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous, failed rescue attempt, (Did Carter plan every detail of the operation? Did he fly the helicopter? The buck stops there, but shit goes wrong in every military action. The hostages were released when Reagan took office because CIA Director George Bush gave the Ayatollah of rock and rolla a birthday cake and asked him to keep them.) the hostages were finally released after Ronald Reagan's inaugural address.
>
> 18) Bill Clinton turns down Osama Bin Laden (1996): In Bill Clinton's own words, "'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.' — Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan’s offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996." Had Bill Clinton accepted Sudan's offer, 9/11 would have likely never happened. (9/11 would have likely never happened. WTF? Well if Nixon had killed Osama's mom it definitely would have never happened. The pres. can only go by the intelligence he's given. If he was told the threat was substantial maybe he would have extradited, but if you want to second guess every decision made in the past based on the knowledge we have now, we can start with Iraq.)
>
> 19) Bill Clinton was impeached (1998): Clinton became only the 2nd President in American history to be impeached after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
>
> 20) America loses its AAA credit rating (2011): The United States was first given its AAA credit in 1917, but it couldn’t survive Barack Obama's record breaking spending. In 2011, America lost its AAA credit rating. (America lost its AAA credit rating because of deregulation and lack of enforcement of the regulations still in place. Mostly it lost its rating because those same Ratings Agencies were giving Mortgage Backed Securities made up of subprime loans AAA ratings. The shit hit the fan before Obama took office and it wasn't all Bush's fault either. Congress, the SEC, and every agency the oversees banking, and Wall Street, totally dropped the ball. Conservatives are in favor of bailing out the banks and billionaires that caused the crisis but when it comes to spending money that will actually help the general economy they are against it. Pumping money into the economy during a crisis will help it grow, if it wouldn't why was everyone predicting a contraction if we went over the fiscal cliff or now with the sequester. When the economy is going and growing and there is a surplus that is the time to cut spending and lower taxes, but not too much or too fast or you end up in the same place again. Conservatives say a family doesn't spend more than it takes in, and I agree generally a responsible family doesn't. But the Country is like a family with unexpected medical bills that insurance doesn't cover. Maybe you put them on a credit card until you can pay them off. So now you have a debt, (conservatives are so adamant about debt, like it's a goddamned religion to them) are you going to put your entire paycheck toward that credit card or are you going to put food on the table and gas in the car so you can continue to go to work and make another paycheck,...and put more money toward your debt.? Maybe you'll even put a car repair, or a new tool for your business, or a new suit for a job interview on that credit card if it will help you make more money in the long run.)

So this whole diatribe is just a list of things some Democrats have done wrong in the past. Does it mean every part of the liberal agenda is bad for the country, or every part of the conservative agenda is good for it? Of course not. Would a similar list of conservative mistakes be just as useless? Yes. The only reason for a list like this is to whip up the base and force elected fools to stick to there guns. This ensures nothing will get done and the country will continue to take a huge shit.

When someone comes up with a real plan to actually get something done I'll listen. Everything else is just wasted words.