Glenn Beck: One Bad Investment

Click on this picture for a great graphic narrative of the Goldline investment scheme. Essentially, investors who are trying to hedge against inflation are "advised to" (read "coerced into") purchase incredibly marked up gold coins. In buying the coins Glenn reportedly buys, you have already lost 64% of your investment and gold will need to triple in value before you can break even. But this is supposed to be good for you as, according to Beck, the government will soon confiscate all your gold thanks to a 1933 executive order, EXCEPT antique coins.

Of course, it is not illegal to sell assets and stupidly marked up prices. Further, "investors" who are caught by this sham really are responsible for their own foolishness. Stupid is as stupid does.

Happy prospecting!

Infographic by The Big Picture

Racism and Conservative Hypocrisy Pt. II

Let me start by saying that Andrew Breitbart is an awful, awful person. For those who don't know, Breitbart posted "video proof" of the racism within the NAACP. His edited, out of context video was played ad nauseum by Fox News, with scathing commentary by blond, blue eyed newsbots and the usual gang of idiots. By the time the day was over, Shirley Sherrod was out of a job. This was done in response to the NAACP passing of a resolution which challenged the Tea Party movement to repudiate (the proper usage of an actual English word) the ramapant racism within its ranks. This was mistakenly viewed as a resolution that the Tea Party was itself a racist organization, a laughable notion as very little about the Tea Party can be considered organized. Then the floodgates opened and the sad saga of Ms. Sherrod, whose full speech I am listening to as I write this post, was thus inevitable.

Of course the proper answer to a charge of racism is to accuse the accuser of being a worse racist. This, anyway, is the response of the conservative echo chamber and it regrettably works very, very well. The two minutes on Breitbart's website is part of a personal anecdote wherein the speaker, Ms. Sherrod, learns that her own biases, created by early experiences with White people that were resoundingly negative, caused her to act wrongly and that her objective was not to protect those of her own race, but those who are drowning in poverty.

The story, which occupies the better part of the first 21:30 of the speech, is a beautiful one of personal discovery that happened twenty-four years ago when Ms. Sherrod worked for a nonprofit organization and not the federal government. It is a shining example of how conversations about race relations and racism ought to be framed. Ms. Sherrod immediately goes on to say, "There is no difference between us. The only difference is that folks with money want to stay in power." When conservative media converge to create these kinds of monstrosities they call news, it only proves that there is a palpable need to come together and hear these stories and have these conversations. If we are called to repudiate racism and our response is a failed attempt at satire that only highlights how racist we are, something is still very wrong. I applaud the Spooners for being so quick to come to Ms. Sherrod's defense, calling her a lifelong friend who personally saved them from bankruptcy.

The boldest move that could now be made, the only way to show that we will not be bullied by racist hypocrites, is for the USDA to offer Shirley Sherrod her job back. It should be hers to keep or leave at her own discretion and not forced to resign in order to save face. The USDA, the Obama administration owes her that much.

Waving the Bloody Deficit

It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear how upfront and honest Republican leadership has been about their economic policy. That isn't to say that they weren't always very obviously the party of 'no taxes, small government, free enterprise,' but that refrain hides a much larger statement. There is another side to that coin that only now are Republicans truly owning. They do this with the expectation of massive victories in the House and Senate in the November midterms, which makes it all the more surprising. There is no real need to expose their hole cards, as the far-right base already understands the caveat to lowering taxes for the rich. But before trying to figure out exactly at whom this end-run is aimed, let's hear it first from one horse's mouth:

And there it is! As I have previously put it, the position advocated by Kyl (and Gregg and Boehner and many, many others) is 'reduce the deficit at all costs, unless those costs impact the rich, then fuck the deficit.' The pretense of protecting the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (read 'poor'), which were minimal at best, is negated by the fact that Kyl and his crew fought tooth and nail AGAINST the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. To say that tax cuts shouldn't require funding is also bunk. according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

This chart shows how various economic policies will impact the deficit over the next ten years. That big orange swath growing as time passes is... you guessed it. The Bush tax cuts! (okay, and wars) By contrast, there is a deficit bubble in 2010 that flattens out to a thin strip of pale blue. That is recovery measures and stimulus enacted by the current administration.

Supply side economics is a massive fail. Read Paul Krugman's brief post on the sheer lack of evidence that "supply side roolz!" History proves that intervention on the demand side is what spurs true growth, as opposed to a significant drop followed by nominal growth. That is, put money into the hands of consumers. The consumers will spend the money and business will grow based on consumer demand. That is why every dollar spent on unemployment benefits returns $1.63, while every dollar in tax cuts returns $1.02. Obviously reducing taxes can and does make a difference, but the recipient of those tax breaks makes a big difference.

The deficit hawks want the last say in government intervention in this slumping economy. But these deficit hawks have forgotten exactly how a deficit is achieved in the first place: Step 1, a government collects revenue in the form of taxes. Step 2, that governments spends more than the tax revenue collected. Want to cut spending? Sure, great, have at it. But how can you say that decreasing the government's tax revenue does not affect the deficit, when you are unwilling to offset those tax breaks? Republicans have planted their stakes in opposition to spending, even while a majority of the country supports spending measures, such as extending unemployment benefits, that actually stimulate the economy.

The net effect, which is as likely the cause, is the far right positioning of the Republican party, out of the mainstream let alone Main Street. They are aiming their propaganda at what they consider to be the middle, the undecided, and they've decided that said voters are core conservatives. It is a mistake, I hope the voters of this country prove wrong in November.' Conservative/Liberal,' isn't an ideological name tag most of us wear on a day to day basis. It's bad policy to be against government intervention, when it is clearly required. Intervention on behalf of the people (not the corporations) is the primary role of government. To vow repeal of healthcare reform, financial reform(both of which act as deficit reducers) and to extend tax cuts to the rich that will have the opposite effect of reducing the deficit turns that responsibility upside down. I really hope voters remember this and spare themselves a lot of heartache in the fall.