Debate Time, Late Time!

So, Presidential Debate #2. In order to prep for this, I got a bottle of Bushmills, watched the two-parter 30 Rock about Valentine's Day and Ikea, and some Daily Show. I figured I was good and prepared. I wasn't too sure what to expect at this point, as Biden/Ryan was actually exactly what I thought it would be, but everyone was speculating on what Obama's "comeback" performance would be like. Trying to empty myself of expectations, I flip on the XBox Live feed and get to it.

I remember during the last election when there was a moment in a town hall meeting where a lady talked to John McCain and referred to Obama as a Muslim. There was a second in McCain's eyes where he seemed to realized just how deep the rabbit hole was at that point. McCain was never a particularly clean or perfect candidate, but you usually got the impression he was earnest in what he was saying or believed overall. While I'm looking at the debate waiting to start, I wonder if there'll ever be a moment where Romney is taken aback by the corner he's put himself in logically with his phantom tax plan and promises.

What a lot of folks don't seem to understand is that Romney is effectively a construct of what the Republicans thought Obama was in 2008 (and beyond): Someone who says anything that sounds good at the time, rails against how things are, and doesn't have any logical consistency in his pledges. It's funny to see people voting for Romney for all the reasons they thought Obama was an empty suit four years ago, I guess.

The camera pans over to the moderator, who mentions her job is to see that the questions will get answered and time is stuck to correctly. Let's see how well that holds up. With those huge shoulders, she seems somewhat more likely than Leherherheeher to actually bodycheck someone when time is called.

First question is about employment. What always kills me about this question is how little real control the President has over direct employment issues. And yet we keep batting it around like the President should be responsible for it. Romney starts by saying thanks to the moderator, Obama, the audience, Jesus, God, Mickey Rooney, Alf, and anyone else he could think of. He then digs into the question and touts his public education program in Mass, which kills me a little since he wants to minimize/destroy the Dept of Ed. Obama doesn't start by thanking everyone on the planet for being there, so I'm sure FOX or someone will notice how "rude" he is. He mentions Detroit "surging" back again, which sucks, since "surging" is not the best word ever for what actually happened. Eugh. So far, some predictable back and forth about who is going to do more damage in the next four years.

Romney gets to the follow up question about people in long-term unemployment. Naturally, he responds by bashing Obama's policies, which always kills me. What policies? Republicans have spent the last four years blocking the left from doing nearly anything. There have been very few "Obama's policies" that have any reason to be bashed. He also mentions Obama allowed GM to go bankrupt just like he said should have been done. Obama fires back by just talking about how Romney's policies favor the rich. Great, awesome. Answer the damn question, man.

Romney gets up to get a second rebuttal and is asked nicely to sit down. Actually happens. Shocking.

Next, a question about gas prices - something else the President has little control over (compared to what we think he can do). There's some talk about investing in businesses and domestic production, which is good. He mentions by shaving off demand, the gas prices go down, which makes sense. Obama is making a good case here for tying his answer into the previous question by stating domestic energy businesses will help. Romney goes into the "let's look at the President's policies" routine again, starting with a reduction of licenses, and then talks about how apparently the President doesn't walk the walk because he... uh... doesn't just hand licenses to everyone and allows people to drill and mine even if they break rules? Romney cites that Obama stated the gains in domestic energy production are up, and then asks the rhetorical question of "where did those gains in production come from" but never answers it. I dunno where he was going with that. Probably something of a logical handwave like Ryan did with the unemployment number last week. "But unemployment is at 10% in your hometown, Biden, thus unemployment is up, technically."


Romney is talking a lot about, effectively, achieving energy independence through a total or large loss of regulation. Personally, I pass on this notion, but it's at least something. He wants to hand out more licenses and allow more production, but isn't speaking to how that can be done safely.

Moderator asks a new question about gas prices, Obama says something mildly related about efficiency, and then gets back to the previous question, using this to get a second rebuttal. Like a dog with a Goddamned bone. Because of that circle-back, they're getting into it now. Romney says the President cut licenses in half, Obama denies it, Romney says "what's the new amount", and then we get into a bunch of "uh huh" "nuh uh" crap. Moderator has really lost control of what's going on here. She brings it back to gas prices, and Obama says the gas prices were low due to an impending economic collapse. I don't think I quite followed that, and I'm not sure a lot of folks will see the connection either.

Someone needs to give the Moderator the ability to cut the mic on either person. She tries to steer it back on task, and Romney throws a grown up tantrum, just stuttering and talking over her.

Oh man, now someone is asking about the tax plan Romney has. Credits, loopholes, and all that, and how it will actually all add up. Romney starts with some stats on budgeting and spending which is... I dunno. Not relevant? So he starts talking about tax credits and capping a total amount of deductions, and gives a "I'll pick a random number" example which is a horrible idea. We're trying to determine the specifics, here, guy. Buddy. Pal. He keeps saying that the middle class is being "buried", but not exactly how in regards to taxes. Obama gives some usual pandering to the middle class, and then goes to the $250k tax increase plan. He mentions a realistic view that crap just has to be paid for, and taxes have to be paid. He hits Romney on his record plus what he's said previously about taxes - cuts for the higher end. At this point, it's just a simple yes/no battle: Will Romney stick with what he's (vaguely) saying he'll do, or do what he's done and his Party is more prone to doing?

As a side note for Romney: Giving capital gains tax deductions to people who make under 250k is not substantial at all.

Obama goes back to the Big Bird thing. Let it die, man. Please let it die. It's a crappy, oversimplified meme, and it's nowhere near as clever or funny as people want to think.

Moderator: "If the taxes don't add up, will you..."
Romney: "Well of course it will add up. Now let me talk about the deficit and how Obama is to blame for all of it."

While she's having an ok time keeping people on the clock, this is a pretty good way to not get people to answer their questions. Romney gets back to trying to overtalk the moderator and is looking more desperate and spun than aggressive.

We now get a question about pay equality, which is interesting. Pay equality is an actual legal issue and societal one, and it's one that people just take on as a fact of life. Obama goes on about how women have had an impact on his life, mentions the Lily Ledbetter Act as an example of advocacy. I'm curious, really, to hear Romney's answer on this because the GOP has been really women unfriendly these past few years. In the middle of his answer, Obama mentions he "cut out the middlemen" in student lending, and Romney perks up a bit. I imagine he's going to have that comment shoved in his face about jobs.

Romney answers the question about how he had to go out of his way to hire women. He mentions child concerns as if that's the unique purview of women. He's just trying to sound concerned about women, but won't say what he's going to do other than "make it better than the last 4 years." Romney, do you understand what pay and employment inequality actually is? I don't think you do. Obama comes back with just the generally bad record the GOP and Romney have with women.

So this next person gets up and brings up the specter of Bush. She asks the question in a great manner - "I'm worried about Republican policy, like Bush's," rather than just dumping things on Bush. Romney comes out with a rebuttal out of turn once again, looking a little desperate and thrown still. He reverses his stance on birth control yet again, which is not a shocker. Romney, to my huge surprise, freely says Bush was wrong and outright says the GOP is too focused on big business. Just says it outright. If this was coming from anyone who wasn't Romney, it'd be heartening. From this guy, it just sounds like another in a long line of things he's saying that people want to hear.

This question is practically a gimmie for Obama to slam and slam and slam both Bush and Romney. He has a lot of good shots in here.

Next question - "Obama, what have you done for me lately?", effectively. Obama goes over a few things he's managed to help the economy and industry, but largely avoids the question. He states most of the commitments he's made, he's kept... but the ones he hasn't isn't lack of trying. I don't know if I can agree on that. Romney just comes up and says, "I think you know better." This is a reverse of the previous question - a gimmie for Romney to knock around Obama for a bit. Romney uses the time well to showcase the shortcomings of the administration, of which there are many.

Romney uses "we have his record to look at" during this time, which is a poor plan. You don't want us to look at records vs what we say, buddy. Chief. Guy.

Immigration question: Romney opens with "Did I get that right?" about her name. This is going WELL RIGHT OFF. And now he's comparing his white born-in-Mexico father and Welsh mother to the immigrants from Mexico who are Latino. What a fumble. What. A. Fumble. Brings up a good point about Obama's lame record on immigration vs his promises. Obama goes in to some detail about what he's done, including stepping up border patrols, which is not the greatest. He mentions that if you're going to deport folks, you want to target criminals first.

Moderator asks a new question, Romney flatly says, "No, let's talk about..." and then goes back to previous points. The problem is that Obama keeps remembering what Romney actually said. You say that the villified Arizona model of immigration reform is "THE model", and then want to back off that, but you can't. People remember. Romney is not enjoying that. He keeps trying to take control of the debate and is really upset he doesn't get to do whatever he wants on his timeline.

The next question is about Libya and scaling down security in the embassy. Most of this is a re-hashing of the same back and forth about how Obama is a bad leader and Obama claiming he is clamping down and controlling this stuff. No one really answers the question. Obama makes an interesting stand, taking the responsibility for what's going on, pushing off a claim that Sec Clinton should have to deal with it. Romney tries to put Obama's words out of order, the Moderator puts it back in the actual chain of events, to some applause. Romney then just repeats the attack with more vague terms so he can keep it.

Question about assault weapons, per a 2008 promise to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The President shares some touching story but nothing useful and some comments about what he MIGHT and WILL do. Talks some about making people just better, which is a nice rainbows and roses strategy. Interestingly, he does mention that handguns are the real problem in regards to guns and deaths. Romney rebuts saying he's not about adding more gun control (though he has actually done more for gun control than Obama has), and then goes into some faff about schools and parents. Moderator calls Romney out on the fact he put down an assault gun ban, and Romney says that it was agreed upon by both the gun control folks and the gun freedom folks. Romney then states that it was a great example of bipartisanship! Obama starts laughing.

Obama points out Romney changed his mind on guns to get the NRA on board.

Question comes up about overseas trade imbalance, and Romney somehow gets on "trickle down government" and how it doesn't work. What? Why are we here? This is about as bad as how the gun question somehow became a referendum on schools. There's just a bunch of general statements about taxes and tax code. Obama brings up a good point about tax-free gains overseas.

Question from the mod about getting labor jobs back here, Romney says that China just steals things from us and that's going to have to stop. Like, "they're hacking" and whatever. And he was going to label them "currency manipulators". Obama states flatly some of those jobs are gone and we need to aim for higher, better jobs. What on earth, you two.

Personal question now about dispelling misconceptions about themselves. Romney tries to say he loves ALL of America! And then goes on to talk a bit about himself and God and the Olympics and the stuff he's done with his record. Funny to watch him go on about his health care plan and public education. What party is he with, again? Obama goes for the misconception that he supposedly thinks government creates jobs, and that people think he wants to take from some and give to everyone else. Then he hammers away at the 47% comment some.

All in all, I'm saying Obama did better on this one, but it wasn't a beating one way or another. The damage done to Romney was done to himself most of the time. Obama spent way, WAY too much time going on about how Romney is bad and scary and won't do anything good. Listen, man - the reason why people were so lab monkey apecrap for you four years ago is because you had a series of ideas. Sure, they were oversold, but at least you had a direction. This run of the mill brand of "my opponent sucks, America. Vote for not my opponent," is sad. Sad.

All that icing and all that cake...

So the Occupy movement has been something that's been taking up a lot of my rhetorical time - that is, my time where I speak about things, not time that is... somehow theoretical. I've been pretty calm, all things considered, and there are many things to consider. The reaction to Occupy has been largely an exercise in watching confirmation bias drive many people to say hurtful, hateful, and irrational things all in the name of sticking it to (insert "the man" or "those jobless hipsters" as appropriate here). In the middle of all this, I've tried to commit myself to the Sisyphean effort of remaining calm and trying to speak to people who had forcefully set themselves against the movement, and cajole those who were losing sight of the actual problem back into more useful thought and action.

Today I kind of lost my shit. I didn't lose it so much as angrily begin flinging it around at anyone who dared get in my path. I could cite some excuses - and I will - but I will first say that I'm not too proud of how I handled myself. I believe that some people really needed to have someone finally get in, stop being polite, and blatantly say, "You are wrong. We do not need to be tactful or meek about this - you are wrong and you are misinformed." But I've been sick, and I was tired, and I hadn't slept well, perhaps the sun got in my eyes and I slept on my hand, who knows. I woke up in a shit mood, saw what was going on last nigh, and something in my dam of patience snapped.

It wasn't just that this was happening; honestly, it was one of the few logical conclusions to the Occupy camp in New York. The problem I was having was with the reactions I was seeing. Police officers were being used as a military to conduct unlawful actions against Americans: arresting protestors who complied, forcibly destroying recordings and denying press access, taking private property belonging to the protestors and destroying it, cutting off the airspace above to the media, and so on. Was the occupation illegal? That is actually up for debate, as the NY courts have begun fighting back and forth over that question while an order to allow protestors back in to the park languishes. But even if it was, look at what happened, and then witness Americans cheering gleefully at the treatments of their fellow citizen. Why is this ok? Simply put, it's always okay when laws and rights are conveniently ignored in order to expedite punishment of those who don't agree with us. This is the rule of the day - what Bush did and what Obama does, however similar, is either heroic or demonic depending on which end of the political spectrum you sit yourself on.

This is a fiction that far too many people have happily eaten up and clamored for seconds. The Occupy protestors are hippies and/or trust fund babies bored with their lives and trying to pretend their existences mean something. So many right-wing media outlets realized that ignoring the protest didn't mean anything, so the narrative quickly shifted - let's talk about how disorganized they are, how shiftless and worthless they are as human beings. Please for the love of God, let's just not talk about the actual issue at hand. And, again, so many were happy to take that direction and run with it as if they were scoring a touchdown for (insert political or religious idol here) itself.

The truth of the matter is this - what happened over the past decade in regards to the destructive and corrupt relationship between political power and financial regulation was a crime committed against America as a country. Executives at many levels across several powerful firms perpetrated a fraud that no intelligent businessman would have attempted, if they had the long term interests of their company in mind. They soaked up countless millions, even billions, of dollars that did not belong to them through misdirection and blatant lies, making bets they would never be able to cover. When the bet came due, when a company must finally be held accountable for the failed risks it took, the government stepped in and saved them all. Who will pay the price for the misconduct of these few? Everyone but them. To these privileged few, the idea that they could lose was an insult. They were largely born into money, and they will always have money, and the concept that this could change was laughable at best or otherwise simply a conspiracy. As far as they're concerned, they have a right to their lifestyles and wealth, not any need to earn and maintain it.

So instead of feeling the repercussions of what they had done - actually playing by the rules of the capitalist philosophy they all pretend to be such devotees of - the backlash fell to the public. Banks were bailed out. Companies were saved by the government. And in turn, these companies, in order to even out their bottom line, fired employees, stopped lending, hiked up fees, and squeezed every rock they could find for some cash - as long as that rock wasn't somewhere on their own property. And when the economy froze due to unemployment and a lack of moving cash, these same people shrugged helplessly and said, "oh, sorry, it's just how things are now" as if they had no hand in it and no power to make it otherwise.

Above: "Shiftless hippie bums".

But instead of worrying about this, we have people who snicker to each other that Occupy Wall Street has no clear direction (nevermind the fact that the living document known as the OWS Manifesto can be found easily by just Googling the completely obscure phrase "OWS Manifesto"), or that these people are just shiftless hippie bums who want to end the American way of life. Why? Why do we bother with this? Because, simply put, partisan hatred in this country has taken over every aspect of life. Every decision you make, everything you like or dislike, is now considered on part of the political spectrum. Do you drive a truck? You must be a conservative. Only liberals like Muse. And so on. In the middle of the rabble, the message is not only getting lost, it's getting actively drowned out and distorted, because so many people know that it's a message that the average citizen should not and will not ignore.

I would usually puff out my centrist, more-enlightened-than-thou chest and now admonish the other side, if this were any other issue. "They're all wrong, to some degree," is the chic political line of thought these days, and in some regards it's true for OWS. Occupy has done a great deal of damage to itself, and there are those within the movement that I, and many rational people should disagree with. End capitalism? Pass. Abolish all banks? You have no idea what you're talking about. Forgive all student debt and/or home loans? The damage that would cause is beyond what you can apparently understand. But beyond that, the basic principle - that the government has now enshrine the idea that reward is privatized to a select few and risk is now socialized to the whole country - is right. If you do not agree with this, if you want to spend your time smirking and rolling your eyes at the people, then you are wrong. Flat out.

This is a nuanced issue, to be sure, but there is very definitely a right side. If you want to waste your time counting the minor infractions of the movement, as if such a movement could ever be without people who act in such a manner, then that's your choice. And it's the wrong choice. I quoted this earlier, but it remains appropriate: Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." If all you can talk about is how these hippies were asking for it, or how you heard a story about how some guy broke a sink, you've made your choice. 


Went to bed and didn't see,
why every day turns out to be
a little bit more like Bukowski.
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read.
But God who'd wanna be?
God who'd wanna be such an asshole?

I smolder with generic rage.

So let's stop and take a look at the budget for a second, since I'm hardly ever right about things but I really want to take a moment to be sadly correct in my assumptions about Obama and his administration. First, some statistics. From the following two links, we can get good figures on the things that were cut in this budget "deal".

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/12/budget-deal-cuts/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-12/epa-budget-cut-will-restrict-enforcement-of-clean-air-rules-activists-say.html


With those statistics, someone on a forum I frequent took the time to look back at the previous budget and show how much was cut as a percentage from these programs. It's important to take a look at both the dollar amount and that percentage, because it really tells where priorities are and what these fine folks in Congress believe aren't worth much. The first line in each category is the overreaching subject, with the breakdown of cuts underneath there to illustrate what portion of the program they're coming from.

But first, some kittens. You will thank me in a few minutes.

Total Cut: ~40 billion (3.67%)

• -Agriculture Cut: 3 billion (12.9%)
• ____-Food Safety and Inspection: 10 million (1%)
• ____-Agricultural Credit Program: 433 million (?%)
• ____-Agricultural Research Service: 64 million (?%)
• ____-National Institute for Food and Agriculture: 126 million (?%)

• -Commerce, Justice, Science Cut: 10.9 billion (17%)
• ____-Increased funding for National Institute of Standards and Technology $? (?%)
• ____-Increased funding for FBI and prisons $? (?%)
• ____-Justice Department Appropriations: 946 million (?%)
• ____-Commerce Department Appropriations: 6.5 billion (?%)
• ____-Prohibits funding for Establishment of a Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, approval of new fisheries catch-share programs, and for NASA or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage in bilateral activities with China.

• -Defense Funding: Increased by 5 billion (1%). Also includes an additional 157.8 billion as emergency overseas contingency operations. No money is to be used on transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees to the US for any purpose, or to construct or modify US detention facilities for them. The Secretary of Defense must provide a certification to Congress that a transfer to a foreign entity will not jeopardize the safety of the US or it's citizens.
• ____-Defense Earmark Cut: 4.2 billion (100%)
• -Energy and Water Cuts: 1.7 billion (5.1%)
• ____-Increases National Nuclear Security Administration: 697 million (7%)

• -Financial Services Cut: 2.4 billion (10%)
• ____-Reduces funding for construction of new federal buildings: 800 million (?%)
• ____-Eliminates the use of Federal and local funds for abortions in DC: $? (?%)
• ____-Reauthorizes the DC Opportunity Scholarships, including increase of 2.3 million (?%)
• ____-Eliminates the "Health Care Czar", "Climate Change Czar", "Car Czar", and the "Urban Affairs Czar"

• -Homeland Security Cuts:
• ____-HS Discretionary spending: 784 million (2%)
• ____-FEMA first responder grants: 786 million (?%)
• ____-Eliminate earmarks: 264 million (?%)
• ____-Rescind previous years' unused funds: 557 million ?%)
• ____-Increases fund for expected and existing 2011 disasters: 1.05 billion (65.6%) This is more than what was removed from first responders, so there are more disaster funds total

• -Department of the Interior Cuts: 2.62 billion (8.1%)
• ___-EPA: 1.6 billion (16%)
• ___-Land and Water Acquisition Fund: 149 million: (33%)
• ___-National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for Humanity: 25 million (?%)

• -Labor, HHS, Education: 5.5 billion (3.36%)
• ___-Title X (Family Planning): 17 million (5.4%)
• ___-Additionally Students can no longer draw two Pell Grants at the same time, which will provide an expected savings of 35 billion over the next ten years.

• -LegislativeBranch: 103 million (?%)

• -Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Cuts: 3.3 billion (4.3%)
• ___-Includes Increase of 13.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (?%)

• -State and Foreign Operations: 504 million (1%)
• ___-Prohibits pay raises for foreign service officers.
• ___-Contributions to UN and other International Organization: 337 million (?%)
• ___-Contribution to international banks and financial institutions: 130 million (?%)
• ___-International family planning activities: 73 million (?%)
• ___-___-US Contribution to the UN Population Fund Cut: 55 million (100%) This was a fun one, the document stated that is was “reduced to the 2008 levels. I looked up the 2008 levels to find that they were 0. Way to be open and honest.
• ___-The bill also maintains pro-Life policy provisions carried in fiscal year 2010.

• -Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development: 12.3 billion (18%)
  ___-High Speed Rail: 2.9 billion (116%) No that is not a typo. This completely cuts new High Speed Rail spending, as well as rescinding 400 million from last year, which I’m guessing was available because Republican States repeatedly turned down the money.
  ___-Transit funding total cuts: 991 million (?%)
  ___-TIGER grant cuts: 72 million (12%)
  ___-“Contract authority rescissions” (?): 3.2 billion (?%)
  ___-___-Old earmarks cut: 630 million (?%)
  ___-Department of Housing and Urban Development Cuts: 942 million (21.2%)
  ___-Increases Housing voucher program: 200 million (1.1%)

First, a note from the guy who put this together: "All numbers and percentages are from 2010 fiscal year, which was always provided, not from Obama's budget request. When Obama's request was included it was generally higher than 2010 fiscal year spending, but not always. And yes, you read that right. The $40 billion budget cuts include $140 billion dollars of increased military spending." So thankfully, we've actually cut 180 billion and put 140 of it towards military spending for wars that the majority of Americans aren't really too happy with. Let's go ahead and keep that in mind the next time someone levels a "how dare you fund Planned Parenthood with tax money taken from people who don't agree with it" type charge at some program.

I want to comment on the second to last line (Dept. of HUD) because I think that others might share my viewpoints on several of these budget items - "well what does that mean?" In this particular case, HUD's cuts are going to be felt primarily twofold: Obviously, employees will likely get laid off or have their salaries reduced. Also funding for housing and development programs is going to get hit extremely hard. HUD gives a large deal of funding to NeighborWorks, which institutes training and development programs nationwide for housing preservation (the softer term for foreclosure prevention), community development, and homebuyer education. The funding that doesn't go to NeighborWorks goes to similar, local agencies that help consumers understand the potential pitfalls and benefits of ownership, dealing with their mortgage lender on a fair basis, cope with the financial challenges brought on by ownership, and help owners understand their options when faced with a possible foreclosure.

Without this funding, a lot of these agencies are going to shut their doors, because they're not-for-profit organizations, and funding/granting from other sources has dried up hardcore in the past couple of years. Many of them have already gone through the cutback/salary reduction/layoff cycle to stay afloat. This is just a nail in the coffin for most of those. Without these agencies, there is literally no resource for consumers who need what amounts to a lawyer to help them understand the above topics. No one does it.

As was mentioned above, with budget cuts comes cuts everywhere and everyone believes that their interest is the one that should be exempt. But given the relative proportion of funding lost compared to other categories (21% vs most other areas suffering in the single digits), I am at that now familiar crossroad of enraged and exhausted. It has a particular dark humor to it as well, considering these agencies exist specifically to try and help counter the large abuses that led to many of our current financial woes - and Congress has seen fit to let the abusers stay merrily afloat but cut the lifeline to these not-for-profits "for the greater good".