Obama's gas

I confess, I'm a loud-mouth critic of people who insist on driving heavy and dangerous trucks to the office or to do daily errands, but a guy who nevertheless owns a vehicle that gets, with a good tailwind, about one mile per gallon.

It's a boat, of course and these days I think carefully about where I'm going with it before I leave the dock. I probably don't use too much more than 500 gallons a year, which is still a whole lot less than I used to use as a commuter driving a small car. If gasoline rose to 5 or 6 or 7 dollars a gallon at the fuel docks, I probably wouldn't change the number of hours I put on the boat, but if I were driving to work, as many of you do, that 7500 pound, 8-12 mpg "SUV" or super heavy duty monster truck might just get traded for something less absurd.

So I have to make another confession: I secretly wish fuel prices would soar long enough to make urban hipsters go back to taking the bus or driving Fiat 500's, and suburbanites trade in their grotesque fashion statements for cars.

Of course the noises bubbling up from the bottom of the national cesspool have been blaming Barack Obama and "liberals" for those scary numbers that appear on gas station signs, as if it were the president or some government office that dictated prices on the free world market rather than the laws of supply and demand and the mechanisms of capitalism. I'm tempted to say that the self-appointed guardians of the free market either haven't the most elementary idea of how those markets work or perhaps are simply too dishonest to risk not blaming Obama for rising world demand. No sir, there's no pea under that particular walnut shell and if even a small proportion of Republicans had the mental wherewithal to deal with the notion that economic recovery means increased demand for resources, they might figure out that those screaming the loudest have a vested interest in a collapsing economy. As the infamous Rush once said: "I hope he fails."

So yes, some Republicans, some voices from the corporate owned media are also wishing for a big increase because the public is stupid enough, or so they hope, to believe that the "socialist" Obama is behind it all. You'll remember John McCain making that moronic accusation when gas prices soared under George Bush. No, he didn't blame Bush or the huge demand for fuel his wars gave us, he blamed Obama, because that's what Republicans do, they blame the other guy for their own actions; they blame the opposition for the workings of the natural forces of the same free markets they pretend to worship.

No, the old song is about the holy market and how all the ugly features of unrestrained capitalism like disregard for public safety and the powerlessness of an oppressed work force would wither away if we only let them drill for oil in your town's reservoir or chain your kids to a punch press the same way those Commies do, but the reality is that they have a very selective interest in capitalism and the high priests of 'enlightened self interest' are trying as hard as they can to take the enlightenment out of it.

So yes, rising energy costs sap the strength of the recovery and so that's just what a certain party wants so that they can go on pretending there is no recovery or that it would be a much better recovery if only they had someone like that Mad Monk Santorum in the White House. So maybe "jobs, jobs, jobs" is now last month's mantra because we're creating more jobs every week that were created under that 8 year Republican debacle. So it's time to turn on a dime and let's put on that Jumpin' Jack Flash disc 'cause now it's all gas, gas, gas.

Save the Fed

Doomed to repeat history? Of course we are, but the fate I fear isn't the sort of doom that descends upon us from above unless you consider the cesspit of "Conservative" rhetoric to be a higher plane of thought. No, I'm not talking about the market bubble of the late 1920's that was brought about by slashing the top marginal tax rate or the deregulation of the markets that gave us the 1929 crash; I'm talking about where we were fourscore years ago in 1931 when the European banks began to fail and nobody was able or willing to do anything about it. Then as now, we had "Conservative" rhetoric attempting to blame the mess on the usual suspects, like lazy American workers and in Europe: the Jews. We had calls around the world for even more austerity, as if the world could save itself by saving money.

" Instead of easing monetary policy by cutting interest rates and buying bonds, the Fed tightened. The result was a catastrophic chain reaction of bank failures, which caused the money supply to contract by approximately a third, and economic output with it"

writes Niall Ferguson at the Daily Beast, lamenting the gross lack of knowledge of bankers, investors, fund managers, regulators, policymakers, and economists. Ferguson cites Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s Monetary History of the United States, which argues that

"the stock-market panic of 1929 turned into a depression because of avoidable errors by the Fed. Instead of easing monetary policy by cutting interest rates and buying bonds, the Fed tightened. The result was a catastrophic chain reaction of bank failures, which caused the money supply to contract by approximately a third, and economic output with it."

The Gold Standard, the massive debt from The Great War, the partisan inability to compromise brought on the disaster we know as the Great Depression and only those countries that dropped that standard and began hiring while gearing up for war, began to recover. Germany led the way and the US followed.

With some Republican spokesmen demanding the return of the gold standard, demanding an end to the Fed, demanding more austerity, demanding that more capital be tied up in the hands of a tiny minority, the money supply diminished and the demand for goods and services curtailed, the few who understand what needs to be done are being shouted down by politicians who insist that the only solution is a bigger cut in the marginal rate, and the angry mob they feed.

"We are indeed fortunate that at least the world’s leading central bankers have studied this history: not only Ben Bernanke but also the heads of the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, and the European Central Bank. The bad news is that so few politicians and voters understand what they are trying to do, or why. The even worse news is that central bankers by themselves may not be able to stop our depression from turning great."

Worse news even than that, is the fact that people like Dr. Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University, a senior research fellow at Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University do not inform the Cains, Bachmanns, Palins or Gingrichs or the rabble who support them, nor would the public trust any "elitist" "Libtard" "pinhead" over the kind of small minded moral abomination now stumbling toward Washington.

When up means down

The Mayans were far less pessimistic about 2012 than the people who fill my inbox with prophecies of economic doom every day. Actually doom is too mild a word and so is apocalypse if one is trying to set a mood so terrifyingly descriptive of what is happening now and is about to happen, thanks to that Obama. Of course these people are selling investment strategies which I'm sure include buying things they're desperate to get rid of like the gold they bought at $1900 an ounce, but any way the market wind is blowing, they make money from the seminars and newsletters and from screaming like Chicken Little. There's a lot of money in the doom business.

Most of the people I talk to seem convinced that everything is getting worse and won't get better until we "get rid of" Obama in 2012; replacing him no doubt with someone who thinks managing a worldwide economy is an easy task for someone who once managed to save a pizza business by firing everyone, and yet has the nerve to talk about being able to "create jobs." Not to change the subject, but it's truly stunning to see the seamless segue from "government can't create jobs" to "elect me and I'll create jobs, jobs, jobs."

I guess it's no less stunning than Fox News' and John McCain's embarrassing assertions that the 2008 economy was "robust" as we all marched unwittingly off the cliff like a certain cartoon coyote -- and of course, that because "Liberals" were warning us about the inevitable collapse, they "hated America." Not like those forward thinking optimists that modern conservatives are.

We can expect, now that the next presidential election is a year away, that the howling and wailing and rending of garments will grow louder and angrier and numbers will appear proving that calamity awaits us all, no matter what actually happens. It's far too soon to be sure, but this chronic pessimist and a few others with more credible credentials are noticing that our Gross Domestic Product After adjusting for inflation, climbed to $13.35 trillion last quarter, topping the $13.33 trillion peak reached in the last three months of 2007.

I hate to make too much of it, particularly with the Filibustering Vandals doing everything they can to sabotage the economy until November 8th, 2012, but the reality is not quite what the pseudo-conservative chorus is chanting. At least for the moment, things are looking less down. Unemployment is still high, of course -- just a bit above Ronald Reagan levels and we can expect the screamers to keep screaming about that while refusing to do anything about it. We can expect Tea Pissers like Tom "Looney" Rooney (R-Florida) to keep meeting with "Job Creators" and telling us that business owners will hire more employees, irrespective of demand, if we cut their marginal rates even more -- and we can expect that if things do recover steadily and noticeably, he'll find a way to take credit for it because after all, they kept that O-BAH-ma from doing anything for four years while lambasting him for doing nothing. If there is anything these Doomsters are optimistic about it's that they'll always have someone to blame.

Crocodile tears

Most bad drivers, like the American public in general have no concept of momentum or kinetic energy. Americans are the sort of people who will complain they're still falling after the parachute opens. Americans were the people who lapped up Fox News' "Democrats are pessimists trying to tear down the economy which is strong, strong, strong" and the Administration's "Debt doesn't matter" philosophy and are still the people who remain steadfastly unaware that the Republicans raised the Debt ceiling 7 times in the 8 years they held the White House and asked for a bigger bailout with no accountability or accounting. They're just shocked, shocked, shocked to see what that farleftliberalcommie president is doing and just look at the tears in Boehner's eyes.

Listening to Tim Geithner trying to be re-assuring on Meet the Press this morning didn't do much to dispel the idea that Republicans want nothing more than to allow default so as to give the illusion of Democratic guilt to their "look what Obama did" strategy. If he's right that the government will still pay it's bills after August 2nd, there will still be serious repercussions for all of us. If Geithner is right that a larger catastrophe than the Great Depression has been diverted it makes little impression on those who don't remember what caused the 1930's to be what they were and what brought about the rebound. They don't remember that every experiment in drastic upper bracket cuts has has the same negative result, that an extra few percent on the top bracket puts more back into the economy than cuts do or remember that paying off the debt on WWII brought steady expansion and job growth and infrastructure improvement. The kids in the back seat will continue to bitch until the money they imagined they had five years ago materializes again.

No, it's burn baby burn and the new Utopia will rise from the ashes and far better to let people who need Social Security and Medicare to stay alive die and reduce the surplus population than for hedge fund tycoons to pay an extra couple of grand more and send an extra couple of grand less to to offshore tax havens. If Medicare is indeed bankrupting us, it's by Republican design. If the debt is expanding, it's part of their plan to pay it off by reducing taxes and eliminating things they have opposed for 75 years on "moral" grounds. They look on economic tragedy as an opportunity and are probably quite aware at the Boehner and Koch Brothers and Murdoch level, that the 'lower the income to make the debt go away' strategy will, like pulling back on the stick and cutting the throttle, send us spinning downward instead of climbing. It's what they want.

I would be tempted to give a shit once again if there were any significant number of people who recognized that funny feeling in the rectum for what it is and weren't too easily seduced by the feeling of importance one gets by joining the Low-Brow Brotherhood of Trolls and Tea Smokers Marching Band, but there aren't enough and and no, I'm not tempted.

Pillars of wisdom

It seems to me that there are two kinds of Americans these days: the uninformed and the misinformed although one has to allow for considerable interbreeding. Is this more true than it used to be or are they just more self assured now that we have multi-billion dollar industries devoted to supporting both mental conditions?

At any rate, it's increasingly customary in the world of blogging in these latter days, to suffer unrestrained and personal attacks in proportion to how well one backs up one's thesis with facts and figures and of course the fury is loudest when one of the fragile pillars of the Republican temple are leaned upon. So let's have another go at it and see what happens. Having been subjected to the unending right wing Jeremiad about the massive public debt and the question of who bears responsibility for it, I thought it interesting to show what the U.S. Office of Management and Budget can tell us about where we are now.


First and most obvious of all is that we're nowhere near the level of debt we had by the end of WW II, although that may be as expected, but that debt fell sharply and almost uninterruptedly until Ronald Reagan established forever the two regnant principles of Republican policy: Debt doesn't matter and tax cuts pay for themselves by creating businesses and jobs. Looking above, it's hard to see the evidence. High marginal taxes of nearly three times as high as today's were in effect as the debt fell, Debt began to rise sharply in response to Reagan's tax cuts and what the chart fails to display is that unemployment during the Teflon years rose to 9.6%, essentially the current levels we have today. Neither does it show that no new private sector jobs were added during the years of the Bush II tax cuts.

Again, what you don't see is how expensive the S&L collapse under Bush I was or how quiet was the Right about Bush's bailout of an industry that collapsed largely because of deregulation. Uninformed? Misinformed or just hypocritical?

We can see elsewhere however, that during the Clinton years, characterized by hysterical outrage at the "confiscatory" tax structure of the Democrats, employment soared and the debt sank, not to resume it's climb until the Commander Guy outdid even Reagan in illustrating that, no, tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs and do as they did in the 1920's precipitate bubbles, busts and recessions.

So, I'm waiting for the slurs about my parentage, defective IQ and the rest of the typical projectiles, or at least the catechism of unsupportable maxims we've heard from every Republican since the debt began to climb, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'm just sayin'

I know a country that one would think was a Capitalist paradise. No income taxes. No property taxes. A weak central government. Restrictive, nativist, immigration policies that effectively keep minorities from working legally or getting citizenship. There's a "Christian Values" clause in the constitution. Banking regulation is extremely lax.

It's the Bahamas and it's a third world country. Most of the nation's wealth is owned by a small handful of people and the obligatory multinational corporations. Nothing trickles down but the rain and there's little of that in the dry season. There's not as much reason to invest when it can just sit there and accumulate tax free. The basics like food, water and shelter are quite expensive, unemployment is tremendous.

I'm just sayin'. . .

But of course they do have a certain level of government backed health insurance for those who aren't privately insured and a Social Security like program, so that must be why they're an underdeveloped and poverty stricken country, right? I knew I'd find a reason.

No matter how you party, it's still 2010.

When Reagan bailed out Chrysler, although it may or may not have been the best thing for the auto industry in the long run, it wasn't Communism, because Reagan wasn't a Democrat and because the Republican technique of calling things their opposites wasn't employed against him. And of course the loan was repaid, with interest. Jobs were preserved, a small disaster was prevented, or at least postponed for 30 years. Of course principle was involved, which means it was contrary to the doctrine that must not be tested, since it always seems to fail in predicting outcome.

Bailouts and secured loans you see, are not quite the same as nationalizing the means of production, but certain parties having had so much of a good time waving warning flags over the years, cries of COMMUNISM come as naturally to the lips as an obscenity might when you stub your toe at 4:00 AM.

When the Democrats do it: when Democrats do anything including winning an election, it is of course Communism because -- well because you win elections saying idiotic things like that and popularity is the test of truth, is it not? Value perceived is value received and if something succeeds, and there's no Republican there to insist it didn't, it never happened.

Anyway, I digress. What I wanted to mention this morning was an article in that Lefty web site Bloomberg.Com (or is it a Righty site?) telling us that the Wall Street Bailout that self taught economists who slept in a Motel 6 last night tell us was an example of extravagant Government spending, has so far returned an 8.2% profit: a cool 25 billion, 200 million bucks. Sure, the long term consequences are not certain. Most long term projections are not, but

"Two years later TARP’s bank and insurance investments have made money, and about two-thirds of the funds have been paid back."

says Bloomberg and although you can consider the source, you must in turn consider the sources screaming about Communism, demonic possession, masturbation, moose hunting, grizzly bears and Kenyan tribal politics -- and their nearly 100% failure to predict what we've been through in the last three years even with all those "liberal" voices prophesying doom.

I'm not trying to make too much of this, but it seems that reality differs quite a bit from the boiler plate hyperbole, which makes semantic sense if nothing else, since that's how hyperbole relates to objective reality. But Citigroup has payed back $33 billion of the $45 billion it received, leaving the Treasury with a profit so far of $8.2 billion, or 18% payback, mostly as a result of selling its stake in the lender at a higher price, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg. Bailouts for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have returned 14% and 13% respectively. Not the Promised land, really, but not communism; not a "Government takeover." It certainly isn't the Great Depression redux it certainly would have become had we elected to let it all fall down, blame the country for laziness and wanting something for nothing and recommend austerity like old Herbert Hoover.

In terms of harming the country it can't compare with the swashbuckling spending on invasions and hugely inefficient government agencies of record size and the wild borrowing on the promise of big revenue increases from tax cuts to millionaires that never appear no matter how many times we're promised it will.

Again, I'm not trying to call it a recovery, but I'm not trying to call it any of the things the Tea Partyers and those riding their coattails are calling it, even the very, very few who have the slightest idea of what's going on. If they do know, they're careful not to pass it on to the "party like it's 1773" crowd who still think their taxes went up and their guns are going to be confiscated and the masses must arise to shake off the chains of democracy. It would interfere with the program of making them think they're smart and knowledgeable as they dress up as an overweight John Hancock, making asses of themselves.

No, what it is, is waking up in the wreckage after you disregarded the advice of your friends not to let your drunken big brother drive; blaming them for the wreck, blaming the air bags for your injuries and blaming the EMT's for not instantly repairing your broken ribs - with no cost to you.
How's that same old shit working out for you?

Proving the pudding.

Warren G. Harding; if you listen to the Cato Institute he may have been the greatest president ever, because he's responsible for the great prosperity bubble of the "Roaring Twenties." Of course he was corrupt; his fingers found in the Teapot Dome scandal (proving that government involvement is always bad) and was noted for taking the presidential yacht down to Stuart Florida to fill it up with illegal booze run in the inlet at night from West End in the Bahamas. ( you wonder why these people hate government "intrusiveness?")

Bubble or prosperity? I'll leave it to the guys with the degrees to fight it out, but Cato Institute writer Jim Powell's assertion that the Depression originated in "too much government involvement in Business" is too slippery -- too oily ( to tease you with a metaphor) to let pass without comment.

The weasel word here is "involvement" and to make my discomfort with it shorter and easier to read, let me ask whether referees corrupt the game simply by enforcing the rules -- and whether having rules is necessary to differentiate between Football and Assault and Battery. See what I'm getting at? I hope so, because if I agree with the non-Cato premise that having slashed taxes for the very rich and permitted unregulated markets, a bubble was created in the late 1920's and because Wall Street was more like the wild west than it's been until recently, the bubble inflated and blew up, then you'll understand my confusion. Banks failed, businesses failed lives were ruined and books like The Grapes of Wrath attempted to get the message through to Cato types that these "cycles" and the unwillingness of Americans to suffer any aid given to anyone, created unconscionable suffering for millions and millions and set back our country by more than a decade.

Then as now, that suffering was blamed on the intrinsic laziness of the "inferior classes:" black people, immigrants, people who willingly are ill or injured or incapacitated. It's a premise somehow supported even by those who have now lost their jobs and are collecting unemployment much to the angry chagrin of conservatives calling themselves Libertarians.

But I digress. Can we talk about government involvement in business as though there were only one kind and all kinds are bad? No, I don't think so, but that's what they do. I think Cato is simply indulging in the fallacies of simplification, albeit more articulately than the average T-Party bozo who thinks his taxes have gone up and his guns snatched and people who control hedge funds, brokerage houses, insurance companies and banks, caused the credit crunch only because of "too much government." The kind of bozo who thinks safety regulations and honest regulators cause oil spills. Can it be that too much business involvement in government starts that vicious circle of corruption? Can it be that too much business involvement in government is a core value of the GOP?

Cato libertarianism assumes, and I think maliciously, that a playing field will not only exist but be level and remain level all by itself and it expresses that with a studied pose of innocence. After all a car or an airplane will self correct and remain more or less on course without a pilot. Pilots are bad because most accidents are the result of pilot error.

It assumes incorrectly that large concentrations of wealth that tip that playing field in their favored direction will not occur because entrepreneurs will always be able to compete with huge multinationals and break up their monopolies. It assumes, worst of all, that companies like Enron will be persuaded by competition to act honestly, their books smelling like roses and that the crimes of Arthur Anderson simply won't happen unless, of course, someone demands an audit and thereby corrupts their moral altruism.

No, the Great Depression wasn't ended, wasn't eased, but was perpetuated by things like the TVA and WPA and CCC that built infrastructure and kept many people working. Despite the statistics that show GDP and employment rising and falling with FDR's spending, it was ended only by the draft, says the Cato Institute's Powell to great applause from conservatives. Yet, somehow, the Vietnam and Korean War draft didn't have a similar effect, but not to be distracted, didn't the economic expansion continue after the troops came home looking for jobs, taking advantage of government housing loans, going to school on the GI bill, starting businesses and taking advantage of all that government spending? Maybe I'm off base, but the Cato scenario is set on a very bare stage and seems to need a few more props to be convincing. Could it be that all that government borrowing and spending on huge plants to make trucks, tanks, cars, airplanes, ships had a positive effect? could it be that massive government involvement in the electronics business and aviation technology and nuclear science and rocketry extending through the Cold War made the US the world leader? Can we speculate that the GI bill created the middle class we'd never really had before? I think we can and with more factual support than the other side with its austere and simplistic assertions.

After all, the First World War was followed by recession and perhaps because the troops got no support from Warren G. Harding who vetoed the whole idea that we owed them a damned thing because after all, "government involvement" is a bad thing and really, what have they done for us recently? No work, no food -- no handouts you lazy bum! ( now shut up while I buy booze at your expense and sell your property to the oil men.)

Ok, so I don't have degrees in all this stuff and nobody pays me to write -- especially not the people who pump the Cato Institute's output with all those corporate bucks, but I do have a simple question nobody seems to want to answer in a serious manner. If, there will be no crime in the absence of law; no crime in the absence of oversight and enforcement, why do we have a government at all? Assertions that we don't need one are not an answer, but an evasion. To be more specific, if oil companies can drill on our common property without having any safety rules imposed on them and if we must automatically grant the rights to do so without regard to when and where and how without "government involvement" why then don't we stop requiring airlines to inspect and maintain their planes, stop requiring prescriptions for drugs, close the schools, disband the police and fire departments, open the jails and let freedom ring? I really want to know.

I really want to know why if the Reagan and Bush tax cuts stimulated revenue growth and created jobs, don't the statistics show it? Why there were no new private sector jobs created during Bush's eight years? I want to know why public and private debt soared while private capital pumped the markets up to the bursting point and corruption spread like cancer. I want to know why the biggest and fastest growth of government size, expense and intrusiveness have occurred by preachers of the "government is always bad" gospel. I want to know why this pie of prosperity a la laissez faire mode has remained in the sky for nearly a century now and as the proofs of failure pile up over and over and over again, it's obscured by excuses, by repetition of doctrine, by scapegoating, stereotyping and creative slander.

Lady Blah-Blah

Contrived extrapolations from the trivial and inconsequential event to gross generalizations, sweeping condemnations and general non sequitur makes up so much of the right wing blather that I'm tempted to say that blissful silence would ensue if it were to stop and inclined to pray for it.

What kind of "journalist" would pounce upon small children for giving away lemonade because they didn't truly understand the concept of profit? Lady Blah-Blah herself, Terry Savage, of course. Jumping from her car, she writes, she admonished them for not being capitalists and likely scared hell out of them. Of course that only constitutes being rude, self important and nasty. Yes, that's a prerequisite for being a Republican pundit, but what elevates her to the ranks of the truly despicable, is her blowhardian expose in the Chicago Sun-Times in which she rants about welfare, government subsidies for things other than oil drilling and the decline of America. She tilts at all the usual windmills with all the same old cliche arguments having nothing to do with the innocence of Kindergarteners and the righteousness of profits and all at the expense of some cute little kids who have yet to learn just how nasty, pompous, self-righteous, dishonest, stupid and bad at their jobs Right wing columnists can be.

"If we can't teach our kids the basics of running a lemonade stand, how can we ever teach Congress the basics of economics?"

The government does not exist to make a profit, and if, as you say, unemployment benefits will only impoverish the employed, you owe us an explanation of why your version of capitalism has done exactly that, why no new private sector jobs were created by it in 8 years and why each Republican administration has brought us ever increasing expense and debt and ever decreasing standards of living. Never mind tiny tots and lemonade -- explain that.

Sorry, Terry, perhaps some of the 6 quarts of botox you pump into your aging face every morning has leaked into the parts of your brain concerned with basic human decency and has totally paralyzed any notions of honesty. Yes, Terry, we can teach our children about economics - they're already learning thanks to your having driven us over a cliff. No Terry, these are just babies, and sorry, we all know what a profit is and no we're not having a recession because we try to help struggling Americans and keep them from the Dickensian hell you dream about every night.

We're suffering high unemployment because of your insistence that Giving the very rich a tax break will create new jobs, raise government revenues, reduce the tax burden on the middle and working classes; because of your insistence that businesses will resist cheating and corruption and fraudulent activities if we no longer test their claims, audit their books and make fraud itself legal. We're suffering not because some kid you made cry hasn't been reading Ayn Rand, but because you're still reading it while each and every one of your and her bogus axioms has been proven false over and over and over again. At least the girls you're exploiting are giving away real lemonade instead of the toxic and even lethal witches brew you're giving away.

"The Declaration of Independence promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It didn't promise anything free. Something to think about this July 4th holiday weekend."

Stop me if I'm wrong, but it didn't say anything about subsidizing Oil Drilling or looking the other way while our resources are stolen; while we're sold fraudulent securities by fraudulent corporations, while the government starts wars for profit and gives away billions to friends of the Vice President either. It didn't promise corporate feudalism and it didn't suggest a Randian denial of responsibility or a great many other things you're trying to work into the discussion of a lemonade stand. If that's the best you can do, perhaps it's time to shut the hell up and send the RNC their check back.

A decent human being -- and by that I mean someone other than you -- would simply have given the girls a dollar and told them they would earn some money to replace their stolen bicycle by charging, but no, not you. You made it into a baseless condemnation, a sales pitch for calamity and a caustic attack on the innocence of childhood. You found it more important to bear false witness against your country than to protect the feelings of small children who will doubtless remember the nasty witch screaming NO! from her car for the rest of their lives.

If people like you can call our President Pol Pot and Hitler in the same breath simply for talking to them about making the future a better one, I can certainly call you worse for trying to perpetuate the same twisted economic madness that's brought us to our knees as it did in 1929 and screaming it at our kids. I can call you all kinds of things with a clear conscience but none can be so damning as the name you've made for yourself.