Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag

The Bowles-Simpson proposal has become a kind of short-hand in Washington for what a balanced, bipartisan deficit-reduction deal could look like. When given a closer look, the plan is anything but balanced. Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of "hard choice" we need to be making. We should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income ~ Jan Schakowsky (dob 5/26/1944) the Democrat representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, serving since 1999. The Congresswoman was a member of the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (AKA Bowles-Simpson Comission). The Rep voted against the commission's final proposal.

Refuting lies about me in regards to past comments ("old bones" some might say) on another blog are why I have decided to author this commentary. Lies from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" put forward by one Willis Hart in a blog post of his from 7/12/2014.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a "Conservative Plan"... Only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered. The fact of the matter here is that the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1, and the only reason that it's even this high is because of interest apparently having been included. Compare this to the ratios of the ACTUAL conservative debt consolidation packages which have consistently put forth a cuts to revenue ratio of approximately 5 or 6 to 1... or even to that deal which Obama almost had with Boehner which was pretty damned close to 4 to 1 and, if anything, Bowles-Simpson is probably a little bit to the left of center. Of course, if you yourself are so brazenly to the left that you actually consider people like Bernie Sanders, Van Jones, Francis Boyle, and Bill Ayers as mainstreamers, and even go as far as to quote Joseph Stalin, you're probably going to think that pretty much anything is "conservative", I would think. (7/12/2014 AT 12:32pm).

Yet another post from this doofus in which he, for some strange reason, makes it out to be that I alone in the entire world hold a position that is so incredibly ridiculous that all those negative adjectives are necessary. And he lies about people I view as "mainstream", none of which I really view as "mainstream".

I like Bernie Sanders, and I like Van Jones. Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist. His voters seem to like him, although I will absolutely admit that Senator Sanders is to the Left of mainstream... although Bernie Sanders is the founder of the House Progressive Caucus, which is the largest Congressional Congress. Isn't being the largest a hallmark of being mainstream?

Van Jones I would describe as a Progressive that fights for the Middle Class. The Middle Class isn't "mainstream"? But he may be a little to the Left as well when compared to the Democratic Party at large, which I would describe as skewing Conservative. Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, which means he considered himself a Democrat who was "economically neoliberal".

New Democrats claim to be "an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party" but their adoption of neoliberal policies also advocated for by the Right makes New Democrats CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

New Democrats were more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats... were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (Wikipedia/New Democrats/Bill Clinton as a New Democrat).

Also, under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Democrats began (more) aggressively pandering to the business community (which the deregulating and free trading advocating was a part of) in order to secure more campaign cash (bribes). DLC/New Democrats viewed their past losses (losses that sent Reagan and Bush Sr) to the White House as being related to Republican campaigns being better funded. Better funded because GOP candidates had greater greater access to the Conservative Business (plutocrat) money pool.

The "New Democrat" movement was a response to this funding issue. Incorporate Conservative ideas in order to get Conservative business money. New Democrats are Conservative Democrats.

The Blue Dog Coalition "is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives". This caucus was formed in 1994 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia notes that "the term Blue Dog Democrat is credited to Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren... who later joined the Bush Administration.

Our current president, the fellow who appointed Bowles and Simpson to co-chair the so-called "bipartisan" commission tasked to produce debt reduction legislation, is a self described Blue Dog. Erskine Bowles is a Conservative Democrat [1] who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Congressman who "George H.W. Bush reportedly considered Simpson for the vice presidency in 1988".

So what we have in this "debt reduction" commission is Conservative Democrats partnering with Republicans. And, if that is not enough information to know for a fact that ANY "compromise" that MIGHT have come out of the commission would most certainly skew to the Right, there is also the fact that reducing the government's debt in response to a poorly performing economy (AKA austerity) is an ENTIRELY Conservative idea.

Keynesian economics - the economic theory subscribed to by TRUE Leftists and Left of Center Democrats - "is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy)". Talking debt reduction (austerity) in response to an economic downturn is a wholly Conservative concept.

Heck, the NAME of the commission was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. "Fiscal responsibility" is code for "austerity". The idea that austerity is the answer to economic downturns is in complete opposition to the theory behind Keynesiansim.

As such, NO debt reduction (i.e. austerity) plan coming from such a commission could in any way NOT be Conservative! Now, if the Democrats had proposed a commission in which cutting waste and improving efficiency were components - but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas - THAT would be a plan truly befitting Democratic economic ideals.

But a plan of action that immediately concedes that the very ideals the Democratic Party is built upon are wrong and capitulates that the Republican austerity is the way to address an economic downturn? Such a plan is CONSERVATIVE from the get-go. It does not matter if "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1".

And there is also the fact that the spending cuts included items that would actually hurt our economy like using the (bogus) chained-CPI to take money out of the pockets of Seniors (and other Social Security recipients). Non-conservatives view the chained-CPI as a non-starter.

The Nation: [Bowles-Simpson and the White House] depicted [the chained CPI] as a "more accurate" formula that "will reduce deficits and improve Social Security solvency". ...but there's no debating these simple points: Chained-CPI is both a benefit cut and a tax increase. (Top 5 Myths About Chained-CPI, Debunked by George Zornick, 4/11/2013).

In addition to the chained CPI, Bowles-Simpson wanted to "increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075". But the problem with all these Social Security cuts is that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with our national debt!

Truthout: [The Social Security trust fund is invested in Treasury Securities amounting to] $2.7 trillion... [This] came about not because entitlements are out of control and the government has been forced to borrow to meet retiree benefits, but rather because future retirees have paid more taxes than necessary to meet benefit obligations. Workers have essentially been prepaying into the Trust Fund in order to provide for their future benefits. So it makes no sense to try to solve the supposed problem of too much government debt by cutting benefits for current and future Social Security recipients. (The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt by Marty Wolfson, 1/11/2014).

So, not only is the Chained-CPI a non-starter; ANY cut Social Security benefit cut is a non-starter (this includes raising the retirement age, which also is a cut). The ABSURD idea of cutting SS benefits to "reduce the debt" is CONSERVATIVE in nature.

Other "reforms" that would take money out of the pockets of ordinary Americans included cuts to all other "inflation-indexed programs... [such as] the military and civil service retirement system". Still other "reforms" included cuts to student loan programs and cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. All which would be cuts in opposition to the theory of Keynesianism which says cutting (austerity) makes economic downturns WORSE, not better.

So, again, it DOES NOT MATTER that "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1" because it is a CONSERVATIVE idea that austerity is economically beneficial!

Now, I'm not saying that Bowles-Simpson had nothing positive in it at all. There were actually some proposals Democrats could get behind in the Debt Reduction plan (such as reforming farm subsidies), but it absolutely did skew Conservative (for the reasons I just outlined).

Now, here I should note that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky released an alternate proposal that actually did provide for balanced deficit reduction. A proposal that did not place so much of the deficit reduction burden on seniors, the middle class, and low-income families.

Rep. Schakowsky's plan proposes increased investment in jobs, infrastructure, education, and research and development to strengthen the economy and generate growth. The plan also calls for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare while proposing additional steps to bring down the cost of health care overall. The plan would raise the top tax rates on the wealthy and end tax subsidies for big oil and highly-profitable corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas. It would eliminate wasteful military spending and focus on modern threats. The plan proposes additional revenue opportunities to strengthen Social Security and achieve long-term solvency without cutting benefits. (9/12/2012 Press Release as posted to the Congresswoman's website).

The Schakowsky plan is considerably closer to what I was previously talking about a plan that included cutting waste and improving efficiency, but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas. The Schakowsky plan IS the Progressive answer to the CONSERVATIVE Bowles-Simpson proposal.

And, if I am "so brazenly to the Left" as Willis asserts, then so too must Jan Schakowsky, as well as other critics of Bowles-Simpson, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who "criticized the deficit report for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund" and Paul Krugman, who wrote that "Simpson-Bowles... raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most".

Lastly, I have to wonder why the hell names like Francis Boyle and Bill Ayers are added to the mix of people he THINKS I view as "mainstream". They aren't. I've actually spoken against the views/actions of both of these individuals. Not that it matters, I suppose, as in the minds of the idiots who post/comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog disagreement by me somehow becomes agreement.

Hence the reference by Willis to me quoting Joseph Stalin, which he thinks I did to "buttress my opinion"... a claim that is complete bullpucky. That I quoted Stalin (which I did) to "buttress my opinion" (I did not) was something the Hartster imagined happened.

And in regards to imagining things, commenter Dennis Marks added canards concerning me defending "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views [and] Mao worshiper Van Jones [by equating] Maoism to ending police brutality".

The truth is these are both vile lies (although quite typical for the scumbag Marks). *If* Noam Chomsky HAD "pro-Khmer Rouge" views I would NOT defend them. And *if* Van Jones was a "Mao worshiper" I would not defend that either. Both assertions are false, however [2+3].

Also, Maoism has nothing to do with ending police brutality. Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao AND advocated against police brutality. But these were two separate things. The advocating against police brutality did not come from the reading of literature by Mao (there is/was no linkage).

In any case, Mr. Jones has changed his mind in regards "world-views and philosophies" that he experimented with in his youth. Van Jones now firmly believes our regulated market system is the best way to achieve desired reforms that will allow the middle class and working poor to prosper.

Footnotes
[1] "Like a lot of technocrats, Bowles is a conservative Democrat who has struggled to find a niche in elective politics". Source: Keep Erskine Bowles Away from Treasury By Timothy Noah, The New Republic 11/8/2012.
[2] The boring truth about Chomsky: he does not support Pol Pot by Michael Brull, The Drum 7/5/2011.
[3] Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition SWTD #144 5/6/2013.

SWTD #269, wDel #69.

Skepticism Of Policies That Harm The Wealthy Elites But Acceptance Of Policies That Further Enrich Them

...globalization is more of a boon to the members of the global elite than it is to the average Jose ~ Dani Rodrik (dob 8/14/1957) Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government; a quote from his book The Globalization Paradox, which argues "that when the social arrangements of democracies inevitably clash with the international demands of globalization, national priorities should take precedence".

A global climate change denier once quoted science fiction writer Michael Crichton, who said, "the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus". In other words, the very fact that 90 percent of climate change scientists agree that global warming could cause us some major problems in the future is evidence that these "warmists" are probably wrong. Because those who break with consensus are, more often than not, the ones who end up being right (and that is the case with global climate change. It is mostly "alarmism").

Except when those critical thinkers in the minority are breaking with a "consensus" that benefits the wealthy elites, apparently. Then they are wrong. I'm referring to economists who disagree that "removing trade restrictions invariably helps some firms and people and hurts others but with a positive net benefit for the country as a whole". Willis Hart agrees wholeheartedly with the free traders, even though they are in the majority.

When I presented Mr. William H. Hart with the names (and words) of a few economists who break with consensus and say free trade is problematic, he said, "90% of economists support free trade, wd. It's you who have the minority position on this one".

OK, I get it... when he has the minority opinion (regarding global warming), he's right, because the thinkers he cites "are great precisely because they broke with consensus", but when I'm the one with the minority opinion it proves how wrong I am! That works out quite nicely for Mr. Hart. Also, notice how both these positions (global warming: no big deal and free trade: awesome) benefit the wealthy elites?

BTW, for anyone who might point out that the reverse is true... that I say I'm right on global warming (because the majority of climate scientists agree with me) and right on free trade because I'm with those who are breaking with consensus... I have to point out that I'm only making the first argument and not the later one. The great thinkers who broke with consensus and were right are in the minority. Most often scientific progress is made by researchers who build on the accomplishments of those who came before them. Also, protectionism is what made the US a manufacturing powerhouse. Since we broke with (what used to be the) consensus we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs.

When Mr. Hart breaks with consensus and takes the position that those concerned about the possible negative effects of global warming are "alarmists" and we shouldn't do anything to address the problem because it is actually not a big deal... his position protects the profits of polluters and Big Oil. And when he adheres to the consensus that says free trade is a net positive... his position protects the profits of large corporations who profit by offshoring American jobs to low wage countries. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

I say it is not a coincidence that in each instance Mr. Hart takes the position that best serves the wealthy elites, just as the Conservatives that Mr. Hart insists he is not one of do. Mr. Hart asserts he is a "Moderate" yet he always comes down on the side of the plutocrats and in opposition to policies that would benefit working people. His May 12 post, "Top Five Favorite Newport Mansions, being is just another example of how this individual exhibits behavior typical of a Conservative... behavior that could be called "wealthy worship".

If you have mega-bucks Mr. Hart assumes you worked hard and busted your ass to earn that dough... and the government should keep it's "stealing" (aka taxing) of what's yours to an absolute minimum. If you're a poor shlub, on the other hand, you probably have only yourself to blame for your lot in life. You should have worked harder, not had kids at an early age, not smoked, or some other issue that's entirely your problem and not due in any manner to greedy "job creators" taking advantage of you. This is what is known as "blaming the victim", and is a tactic Conservatives have perfected. It is also a tactic Mr. Hart frequently employs.

The bottom line is that we can do something about global climate change (such as promoting a green jobs economy that will actually be a boon for our economy)... and we can do something about the job-destroying free trade policies being pushed by the corporatists (in both parties, but mostly in the "R" party) who don't want to pay American workers fair wages (by using tariffs and our tax code to encourage corporations to bring jobs back to the US)... but in both instances it will mean slightly less profit for the wealthy elites. Apparently people like Willis Hart find this prospect to horrible to contemplate. That, or he's buying into the spin put out by the plutocrats that we'll all benefit if we do it their way.

Also, the Hartster despises green energy and has written dozens of posts on how terrible it is. Maybe this explains why Mr. Hart hates the former Green Jobs "czar" almost a lot less than dmarks (although he still dislikes him, he just falls short of believing Mr. Jones smiles when he thinks of getting into government and starting a genocide. probably). Regarding Van Jones (an individual I greatly admire) the Hart guy says, "he's a real shit, crony capitalist, 9/11 Truther". Although none of that is even remotely true.

In summary what he have here is a deluded individual who believes... global climate change: BFD, green energy: Lucifer-endorsed, free trade: manna from heaven for American consumers, and the wealthy: job creators we should all worship er admire. Wow, huh? Could one person possibly be any more "Moderate"? What say you me-buck?

SWTD #151, wDel #25.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition

Dirty energy backers blocked cap-and-trade, which would have spurred green innovation and enterprise. Now they complain that we have not had more progress regarding green jobs? That would be like someone tripping a racehorse and then saying, "See, I told you that horse was no good"! ~ Van Jones (dob 9/20/1968) explains his frustration at the Republican efforts to stymie the creation of green jobs during the brief period he served as green jobs "czar" (March to September of 2009).

The blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) is one mentally strange Conservative, the most severely deluded one I have ever encountered, in fact. And it is Dennis Marks who is the subject of the "Severe Conservative Delusions" series of commentaries on this blog, of which this post is the 5th entry. In this commentary I examine the unnatural obsession of Dennis with former Green Jobs Adviser Van Jones. Van Jones is a progressive advocate and political activist Dennis hates with a passion.

For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Jones, here is a short excerpt from his bio at Wikipedia...

In March 2009 Jones was appointed by President Barack Obama to the newly created position of Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked... to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives... In July 2009 he became "embroiled in a controversy" over his past political activities, including a public comment disparaging congressional Republicans, his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org, and allegations of association with a Marxist group during the 1990s. For these issues, Van Jones was heavily criticized by conservatives. Jones resigned from the position in early September 2009...

Mr. Marks doesn't just hate Van Jones, he LOATHES him. The reason being Mr. Jones' "past political activities" that include an "association with a Marxist group during the 1990s". That last bit in particular rankles Mr. Marks' sensibilities, which is why he brings it up frequently, as in this 5/5/2013 comment on the blog Contra O'Reilly...

Dennis Marks: ...by the way, appropriate to energy discussions, I found this photo when looking up unrepentant Maoist extremist Van Jones... That windmill behind him sure does inspire confidence, doesn't it? This is while I looked up the figures from various sources to find out that Van Jones was likely paid $60,000 for six months work as a jobs czar. During this period, unemployment increased 14%, with more than a million losing their jobs. What a public servant! Perhaps Jones saw the goal of a jobs czar to eliminate jobs, just as a poverty czar tries to eliminate poverty. He sure acted like it. (5/5/2013 AT 2:43pm).

There are, of course, numerous problems with this statement by Dennis about Van Jones. Namely that Dennis is lying through his teeth about Mr. Jones being an "unrepentant Maoist extremist". Wikipedia notes that "in October 2005 Jones said he was a rowdy nationalist... but that by August of...1992... he was a Communist. Later he became a member of a socialist collective called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested... police brutality".

It is because of Van Jones' affiliation with STORM that Dennis calls him a Maoist, but I say, so the hell what? Is Dennis in favor of police brutality? In any case, all this is in Mr. Jones past, as he explains on his website...

Van Jones: I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older.

In other words, Van Jones was a champion of the poor and minority communities (in opposing police brutality). Previously he believed that far-left tactics were the way to accomplish his worthy goals, but he has since come to the realization that his goals can best be accomplished within the framework of our free market system. Van Jones now says he is "probably the biggest champion of free market solutions for America's problems, period". I don't know about you, but he doesn't sound like a Commie to me.

As for Van Jones "repenting", what Dennis means is that he believes Mr. Jones is still a Maoist/Communist and wants America to adopt that ideology. I guess Mr. Jones referring to his past views a "wacky" and stating that he CHANGED HIS MIND isn't good enough for Mr. Marks. Dennis KNOWS Van is lying. I know this (that Dennis does not believe Van Jones has rejected Communism/Maoism/Marxism/Leninism/other-far-leftism) because on 12/8/2012 Dennis posted the following comment on the Contra O'Reilly blog...

Dennis Marks: Van Jones' views are the worst of the worst, at least as bad as Nazism. He's a Maoist. You know, the political ideology that demands execution of a large percentage of the population in order to achieve political reform. He's the equivalent of David Duke. Based on his professed political ideology, he's the kind of guy who could look around a crowded room and think of who he'd send to the death camps if he were leader. (8/29/2011 AT 4:12pm).

So, what Van Jones desires (in his heart of hearts) is mass murder? What utter bullshit. These are slanderous and completely unsupported-by-the-facts accusations that Dennis pulled straight from his ass. But Dennis has a history of slandering and lying about Left-leaning individuals, frequently stating that they wish to murder large numbers of people, instead of helping them (which is their true agenda).

Van Jones is not "one of the most truly evil men in politics", he is one of the truly good ones. Mr. Jones' most recent project is "Rebuild the Dream", a movement dedicated to making the changes necessary so that more citizens can attain the American Dream. The problem, according to Mr. Jones, is related to the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes are draining our nation's wealth". How can this goal possibly be characterized as "evil"?

Fact is, Dennis himself opposed and opposes the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes" (or he SAYS he does). As for the other lies of Dennis... he says Van Jones worked "as a jobs czar". Close, but not quite. He was specifically in charge of Green Jobs... and Dennis thinks that after a mere 6 months his efforts should have been bearing fruit? Van Jones was just getting started when he was forced to resign. That unemployment increased while he was on the job (due to the bush recession) is not something that can be attributed to Mr. Jones.

As for his salary, I'm not going to bother looking into it. Whatever it was I'm sure it was appropriate and in line with what other advisers earn (and earned, under Obama and under past presidents). How Van Jones is at all like David Duke, I have no idea what-so-ever, except to note that Republicans quite often accuse Black progressives of racism (David Duke is a racist, so Dennis must be accusing Van Jones of racism). "Race hustler" is another slur Conservatives love to apply to Black progressives that advocate on behalf of, and stand up for poor Blacks (and often poor Whites as well). It's a thinly veiled attempt to paper over their own racism.

Dennis Marks is guilty of this sort of behavior, as I documented in a prior blog post. Although I believe the primary objection of Dennis to Van Jones centers on his PAST identification with far-left ideologies, and not the fact that he's black. But would Dennis be comparing Van Jones to David Duke if he (Van Jones) were White? I doubt it. But, to be "fair" I am positive that Dennis is more of a socialist hater than a racist.

Communism and Socialism are ideologies that say we are "our brother's keepers"; that we need to look out for each other and make sure everyone has, at the very least, the bare essentials of life. It is an ideology that says nobody should live in poverty, or we should (at least) do our best to reduce poverty as much as we can. Dennis rejects these ideas. In the Dickensian world of Dennis individuals should be able to accumulate much more wealth than they need, even if it means a large number of people have to live in abject poverty.

It is true that Communism and Socialism, when implemented on a national scale, have failed. Mainly due to the greed of the leaders who used their positions to grab as much wealth and power for themselves as they could. This is why Van Jones wised up and realized his goal of HELPING PEOPLE (not murdering them) could be be attained by using the system already in place. A democratic free market system where we can implement as much socialism as we want (via our elected officials).

Democratic Socialism can never lead to genocide as the liar Dennis claims. It is only when the people hand off absolute power to a small group (no matter the ideology) that bad things tend to happen. It is wealth and power concentrated in a limited number of hands we need to be concerned about, not the desire to HELP PEOPLE. But Dennis does not want to help people, at least not at the expense of the wealthy.

If people cannot accumulate vast fortunes beyond what they could possibly spend in one lifetime, Dennis Marks says "NO". You have to draw the line somewhere, after all. If not, then you'll probably go from helping people to wanting to murder them, as Van Jones (in the demented imagination of Dennis) obviously wants to.

As we all know serial killers often start out helping animals, right? That's before they move on to helping people. Then comes the mass murdering. Or desire to kill on a large scale. At least that's how Dennis thinks it works, apparently.

You know, If I were to compare Dennis and Van Jones I would have to conclude that Mr. Marks is far, FAR more evil.

SWTD #144, dDel #7.