Thursday, August 23, 2012


runnin' th'other way, yelping "YIP-YIP-YIP-YIP-YIP!!!"


Wednesday, August 22, 2012


THE STUNNING DISHONESTY OF THE REPUBLICANS, FROM RYAN-ROMNEY DOWN THE LINE, demagoguing the Medicare debate and lying repeatedly about the Affordable Care Act's savings aimed at preserving the program for future generations, is matched only by the IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY of sectors of the electorate, principally seniors, who, inexplicably identify with TEH STOOPID PARTY, which did not create Medicare and has historically done everything in its power to eviscerate and finally kill it. But the GOP LIARS and CRIMINALS and TRAITORS are counting on the fact that these are complicated issues that require thought and a higher than a 5th grade understanding — which is perfect for the sound bite LIES in Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks.

The Republican Party is an anti-American, treasonous CRIME FAMILY whose sole, overriding motivation is the MASSIVE TRANSFER OF WEALTH from WE, THE PEOPLE to Wall Street criminals, corporate oligarchs running the insurance companies, and international investment bankers who are salivating to get their grubby little fingers on the LAST, GREAT CHUNK OF THE PEOPLE'S MONEY that has eluded their control — PRIVATIZATION is their ultimate goal: (1) Privatizing Medicare, vastly raising premiums on current and future retirees (see below, and links) ensures a BONANZA of seniors' income into the pockets of the private insurance corporations. It's the ULTIMATE senior citizens scam to drain them of their life-savings with ever increasing medical costs, and make them (not falsely dependent on the government, but) actually dependent on the soaring private cost of healthcare for survival. (2) Privatizing Social Security is the NEXT STEP in their craven plan (failed when GWB tried it in 2005). Assaulting the Social Security trust fund, solvent for the next 75 years, quite simply because it's the LAST, HUGE CHUNK of our wealth Wall Street hasn't yet stolen to gamble with and make their fortunes from more ill-gotten gains, thanks to the GOP, a la Romney, with overseas shelters and investments, further draining our treasury, as we become a warfaring, feed-the-Pentagon-beast oligarchy with a FEUDAL social structure: THE HAVES (1%) AND THE HAVE-NOTS (99%).

These are the stakes. The very SURVIVAL of the Middle Class, as the President correctly stated. And so, defeating greedy, treasonous oligarchs riding Citizens United toward the hijacking of our democracy, and stopping "Robin Hood in reverse" in its tracks, becomes our critical task in this election. Here is the Times' editorial of 8/18 with just the facts, ma'am. (Emphasis mine.)

THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.
NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program’s solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going “bankrupt”; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.

The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

Regardless of who wins the election, Medicare spending has to be reined in lest it squeeze out other priorities, like education. It is utterly irresponsible for the Republicans to promise not to trim Medicare spending in their desperate bid for votes.

THE DANGER IN MEDICARE VOUCHERS The reform law would help working-age people on modest incomes buy private policies with government subsidies on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Federal oversight will ensure a reasonably comprehensive benefit package, and competition among the insurers could help keep costs down.

But it is one thing to provide these “premium support” subsidies for uninsured people who cannot get affordable coverage in the costly, dysfunctional markets that serve individuals and their families. It is quite another thing to use a similar strategy for older Americans who have generous coverage through Medicare and who might well end up worse off if their vouchers failed to keep pace with the cost of decent coverage.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would allow beneficiaries to use vouchers to buy a version of traditional Medicare instead of a private plan, but it seems likely that the Medicare plan would attract the sickest patients, driving up Medicare premiums so that they would be unaffordable for many who wanted traditional coverage. Before disrupting the current Medicare program, it would be wise to see how well premium support worked in the new exchanges.
THE CHOICE This will be an election about big problems, and it will provide a clear choice between contrasting approaches to solve them. In the Medicare arena, the choice is between a Democratic approach that wants to retain Medicare as a guaranteed set of benefits with the government paying its share of the costs even if costs rise, and a Republican approach that wants to limit the government’s spending to a defined level, relying on untested market forces to drive down insurance costs.

The reform law is starting pilot programs to test ways to reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits. Many health care experts have identified additional ways to shave hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending over the next decade without harming beneficiaries.

It is much less likely that the Republicans, who have long wanted to privatize Medicare, can achieve these goals.

TEH STOOPID: As I Was Saying ...

EVEN MORON JOE IS EMBARRASSED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH "THE STUPID PARTY." Some right wing idiot sitting in a Rock Center, NYC, studio with his elitist "liberal" hostess and her rabbit food, country cottage outside NYC, Katrina "rescue" dog (more important than those dark people), expressing the flyover embarrassment of the GOP corporate elites. So fucking what?

The fact remains that out in the real world, getting rid of the Moron Joes and Bill Kristols and those of their ilk, up- and down-ballot, is an existential imperative for millions of Americans. TEH STOOPID Party has done untold damage and violence to this country over the course of 30 years. If the oligarchs, including the media elites of Moron Joe and Mika and Kristol win, history informs us there will be revolution. But Lawrence does a good job of finding humor in what his humorless buddy Joe says:

Tuesday, August 21, 2012


THIS IS DEDICATED TO TODD AKIN AND HIS TEA PARTY FUNDAMENTALIST FREAK SHOW: "In a world that keeps on pushing me around, no, I WON'T BACK DOWN!" (SNIFF ... This is SO inspirational — YOU GO, AKIN-BOY!) Checked in on the "Cycle" — the RE-EDUCATION of S.E. Cupp is going well. She blushes a lot, losing every argument ... but she's very cute. S.E. is definitely redeemable. And Touré, I understand why you had to genuflect to the Romney suits cutting your paycheck, but NEVER apologize for TELLING THE TRUTH.

BELTWAY PARAMOURS? Chuckles And Nancy, Sittin' In The Briefin' Room, K.I.S ...

THIS MAY EXPLAIN CHUCKLES' DISCOMBOBULATED JOYCEAN QUESTIONS, although from the President's perspective he's the useful idiot in the Briefing Room, since Chuckles' diffuse questions are both unintentionally softball and time-consuming. It's quite amusing to see the President's genuine, self-serving, affection for Toddy.

Who's that woman in the front row, I thought, working on her best 'I'm-a-bitch-and-I-like-it' CYNICAL GRIN, trying to make eye contact with the President, who studiously avoided her hungry glare. It's Nancy Cordes, CBS White House media pool shark. Evidently, she was distracting Toddy, who likes hanging out in left wing (ironically), close to Jay Carney, the better to pick up those important tidbits of information to fulfill his "obligation" to the American people. Why don't we let Chuckles explain, in subliminal mode:

CHUCKLES, PIOUSLY: "It's my responsibility to ask the tough questions on behalf of the American people ... I have unique access to the White House ... I better use that access for a greater good:"



Monday, August 20, 2012


  ... TODD AKIN!!!


Quotable, President Obama: BRILLIANT Slam of Anti-Woman REPUGNANTS

"This only underscores why a bunch of politicians, A MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE MEN, shouldn't be making health care decisions on behalf of women." ~ The President commenting on the STUNNING remark by wingnut Teabagger Rep. Todd Akin, challenging Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill for senator from Missouri:

"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

A LEGITIMATE RAPE?! As opposed to — an "illegitimate rape" ...?!? What's this NEANDERTHAL RATBASTARD talking about: date rape? She was 'asking for it'? When she said 'NO' her 'signals' said 'YES'?!


P.S. — The REPUGNANT leadership is in FULL PANIC ALERT, trying to mop this up. Sen. John Cornyn, who coordinates REPUGNANT senate races has pulled $5 million in ads for Akin. GUESS WHAT, REPUGNANT SCUMBAGS, in case some SANE Republican woman is wondering where Akin got the jaw-dropping "legitimate rape" notion:

Paul Ryan, for whom Baby Jee-SUS Sean Hannity has a real Christian hardon, not only sponsored a so-called "personhood" bill but CO-SPONSORED with Rep. Akin a bill that precisely narrows the definition of rape with the specious language, "forcible rape." EXCUSE ME, YOU ANTI-WOMAN MULLAHS, BUT RAPE IS RAPE! IT.IS.FORCIBLE.BY.DEFINITION. What's next: A stoning punishment bill for women who are considered by MEN to NOT HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY RAPED?!

ONE MORE THING. Thousands of rapes go unreported in this country, because NEANDERTHALS like Romney/Ryan/Akin with their "legitimate rape" MINDSET are in positions of power and authority over women. But I have NO SYMPATHY for apolitical Repug/so-called 'independent' women who are suddenly going, "OMG!" You voted for these SCUM, ignoring their WAR ON WOMEN, lapping up the FOX lies, and that alone is a form of double victimology and mind rape.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Quotable, PIGMAN: Presidential Debate Hosts Are "Far Left Liberal Democrats"

JIM LEHRER, BOB SCHIEFFER, CANDY CROWLEY, MARTHA RADDATZ. Patent nonsense from Limbaugh, since at least two, maybe more of these Corporate Media Establishment figures are, behaviorally at least, Republicans. Shortly before he retired, JIM LEHRER showed an uncharacteristic antipathy (given the pretend image of lofty neutrality he has cultivated on his PBS corporate ass-kissing "news" hour) toward unions, being decimated in Ohio and Wisconsin; ( there's a reason PBS's only good journalism is their foreign coverage ... d'oh); BOB SCHIEFFER may be a "dinosaur" as Limbaugh puts it, but these days that's a sign of quality and integrity; CANDY CROWLEY, who Limbaugh called a “far, far left-wing liberal Democrat momma,” does recall 'Mama Cass' of the Mamas and Papas, and that's where the resemblance ends; and MARTHA RADDATZ as the ultimate BELTWAY insider who was, naturally, ANDREA MITCHELL's shadow, when both were privileged foreign correspondents for ABC and NBC, one once married to WaPo's slushy crusading editor and the other still married to the ÜBER powerful and influential objectivist jazz hornblower-cum-"economist" who fucked us all over.

Yeah, it is a ROGUES GALLERY of BELTWAY power connectivites and HACKISHNESS as Rush 'POT-belly PORK ROAST meet KETTLE' Limbaugh has insinuated. But the PIGMAN is in on the joke, ensuring a Romneyesque corporate, sanitized debate format, in which differences and conflicts are glossed over, to the extent the hosts have anything to say about it. He's only trying to influence the general tenor of the debates even more in Romney's favor, a priori, by implying there's all that much daylight between himself and the hosts, where the rubber meets the road. The ridiculous charge of not only "far" but "far far left liberal democrat" is widely held, even today given its importance to the FAKE BELTWAY NARRATIVE of misinforming Americans, which will doubtless be perpetuated in the debates. It was a canard even the simpatico but gullible Chris Matthews repeated, though we've made some modest progress disabusing him of such useful nonsense.

Correcting Lawrence on Video Cafe, when he plays the loyalty game to his colleagues, we don't begrudge him so much, just a little: "While I agree with him on why Limbaugh is doing this, I disagree with his characterization of the moderators. They're not neutral. They're corporate, inside the beltway Villagers. And I haven't watched a lot of Lehrer or Raddatz on the air, but I do catch Crowley and Schieffer on a regular basis and they're both neither fair or balanced and are always more hostile to Democrats than they are to Republicans and both are pretty useless when it comes to addressing issues or matters that actually have any real impact on most voters' lives."