So I was unlucky enough to come across Glenn Beck on C-SPAN this weekend giving the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference. There were three things I wrote down as he said them, fully expecting them not to be true. Here is what he said:
"Calvin Coolidge was one of Reagan's favorite presidents. There's a reason.
Taxes went from 77% to 25%.
Spending dropped by 50%.
Unemployment dropped to 1.8%."
So, Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States. Served from 1923 until 1929. Let's check out what ol' Glenn has to say:
"Taxes went from 77% to 25%"
No they didn't. When Coolidge took office, the top tax bracket was 50%. When he left it was 25%. So I guess he was half-wrong on that one, on the side of overstating his case, of course.
"Spending dropped by 50%"
No it didn't. In 1923, total federal outlays were $3.14 billion. In 1929, total federal outlays were $3.127 billion. That's a 0.4% drop if my math is correct.
"Unemployment dropped to 1.8%"
Uh, take a guess whether he's right or wrong. It was 5% in 1923, the year he took office; "peaked" at 4% in 1926, and in 1928-29 went from 5% down to 4.8%. At no time was it even remotely close to 1.8%. It didn't even get down to twice that. At least Glenn is consistent.
The thing about Beck, Hannity et. al. is, they fully expect you to not think. Of all the people going bananas in that room during his speech, of all the conservatives who have read, watched and fawned over it since, I guarantee you not one of them did any fact-checking whatsoever. None. And that's what Glenn is counting on: that you will accept everything he says at face value and would not dare to think for yourself.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Ann Coulter: an idiot's guide to an important issue
Most of Ann's most recent immature, uninformed babble - wittily entitled "Take Two Aspirin and Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4" - is just that: fluff and nonsense, not worth reading much less commenting on. She did make a few woefully incorrect statements, though, that I just can't let pass.
At one point she says, "As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured."
Which, of course, is completely untrue. Young, healthy people, or anybody else for that matter, who do not want to have or can't get full health coverage but do not want to go completely uninsured have the option of buying what is commonly known as catastrophic health insurance, or a High Deductible Health Plan. The premiums are low and you pay your own medical expenses (which you presume will be low if you have such a plan) until you reach a certain amount, and then the insurance kicks in. It's good if you don't want coverage with all the bells and whistles, but want something in case you get hit by a car, or, taking Ann's example, get cancer.
Of course, the funny thing is, right after she says there are only two ways to go - insured or uninsured - she undermines her own argument:
"The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas."
Really, Ann? You mean like catastrophic health insurance?
Of course, now we have to get into liberals and communists, something an Ann Coulter article can scarcely go without:
"Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism."
Well, except health care. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), an organization of 30 countries which accept the principles of representative democracy and free market economy (sounds scary, right?), the United States spends 5% more of it's gross domestic product on health care than France, which spends the second-highest amount by percentage in the organization. We spend nearly 2.5 times as much per capita as the average OECD country on health care ($7,290 vs. $2,964), and somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% more than Norway, the country with the second-highest per capita spending, and I'm relatively sure that Norwegians are a bunch of raving mad socialists.
So, Ann, 0-for Thursday as per usual. Thanks for playing.
At one point she says, "As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured."
Which, of course, is completely untrue. Young, healthy people, or anybody else for that matter, who do not want to have or can't get full health coverage but do not want to go completely uninsured have the option of buying what is commonly known as catastrophic health insurance, or a High Deductible Health Plan. The premiums are low and you pay your own medical expenses (which you presume will be low if you have such a plan) until you reach a certain amount, and then the insurance kicks in. It's good if you don't want coverage with all the bells and whistles, but want something in case you get hit by a car, or, taking Ann's example, get cancer.
Of course, the funny thing is, right after she says there are only two ways to go - insured or uninsured - she undermines her own argument:
"The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas."
Really, Ann? You mean like catastrophic health insurance?
Of course, now we have to get into liberals and communists, something an Ann Coulter article can scarcely go without:
"Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism."
Well, except health care. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), an organization of 30 countries which accept the principles of representative democracy and free market economy (sounds scary, right?), the United States spends 5% more of it's gross domestic product on health care than France, which spends the second-highest amount by percentage in the organization. We spend nearly 2.5 times as much per capita as the average OECD country on health care ($7,290 vs. $2,964), and somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% more than Norway, the country with the second-highest per capita spending, and I'm relatively sure that Norwegians are a bunch of raving mad socialists.
So, Ann, 0-for Thursday as per usual. Thanks for playing.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Ann Coulter's Weekly Lie to the American People
This is going to be kind of short and sweet, because in this case we're just dealing with one big, fat, blatant lie that doesn't require a lot of discussion. In masculine Anne's most recent column, boringly entitled "Welcome Back, Carter," she says the following:
"Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a 'war of convenience'"...
Of course, that's not at all what he said. What he said was:
"Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice"...
In fact, nowhere in his 6,094-word, 55-minute speech does he even use the word "convenience."
So there you have it, Ann's Lie of the Week.
"Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a 'war of convenience'"...
Of course, that's not at all what he said. What he said was:
"Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice"...
In fact, nowhere in his 6,094-word, 55-minute speech does he even use the word "convenience."
So there you have it, Ann's Lie of the Week.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Hi, I'm Sarah Palin and I failed Economics in College
Our dear Sarah Palin, the woman I am THRILLED to say is the Governor of Alaska, had this to say to furl-browed Sean Hannity on his cross-eyed-serious TV show the other night:
"When you consider that the federal government is about $11 trillion in debt, and we're borrowing more to spend more ... it defies any sensible economic policy any of us ever learned through college. It defies economy practices and principles that tell ya 'you gotta quit digging that hole when you are in that financial hole.'"
Now, ignoring the fact that her state, Alaska, receives $1.87 in federal spending for every dollar it sends to Washington in federal taxes - making it the second largest leach off the federal government in the Republic - it is readily apparent she didn't take Business 100 at the University of Idaho, either her first time there or the second (after her community college tour). As such, she missed out on the portion of the syllabus entitled Economics Major Objectives 1: Famous Economists, which said the following:
"Many would argue that (John Maynard) Keynes was the most influential economist of the 20th century. In his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published during the Great Depression, Keynes argued for active action by the government to increase spending of money they didn’t have. His legacy is something called Keynesian Economics, which advocates the use of government spending and taxation to stabilize the economy."
If this is taught in freshman business class at the University of Idaho, you would assume it's common knowledge. I personally know about as much about economics as I do about the rebel Dahan regime during the Yuan Dynasty in China during the 14th century, and even I know about John Maynard Keynes:
Keynes's theory suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy. Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead."
So either Sarah took the class and failed it, or never took it or any other course in basic economics. Not at North Idaho Community College, Matanuska-Susitna Community College, Hawaii Pacific College, or her alma mater, the University of Idaho (in Moscow, no less) during the five years it took her to get a journalism degree. Perhaps she didn't think she needed it to become a sports reporter at the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. She certainly didn't use her intricate knowledge of economics when she increased the long-term debt of Wasilla, Alaska, from $1 million to $25 million during her two terms as mayor.
(Incidentally, for someone she claims to love so much, she also apparently doesn't know much about Ronald Reagan, who, upon taking office during a recession, went on an 8-year deficit spending spree like Keynes on ecstasy, increasing our national debt from $700 billion to $3 TRILLION in 8 years as the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation, but I digress.)
Every time this woman speaks I thank the good Lord and the people of America for not putting her one John McCain heartbeat away from raining stupidity on the United States.
"When you consider that the federal government is about $11 trillion in debt, and we're borrowing more to spend more ... it defies any sensible economic policy any of us ever learned through college. It defies economy practices and principles that tell ya 'you gotta quit digging that hole when you are in that financial hole.'"
Now, ignoring the fact that her state, Alaska, receives $1.87 in federal spending for every dollar it sends to Washington in federal taxes - making it the second largest leach off the federal government in the Republic - it is readily apparent she didn't take Business 100 at the University of Idaho, either her first time there or the second (after her community college tour). As such, she missed out on the portion of the syllabus entitled Economics Major Objectives 1: Famous Economists, which said the following:
"Many would argue that (John Maynard) Keynes was the most influential economist of the 20th century. In his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published during the Great Depression, Keynes argued for active action by the government to increase spending of money they didn’t have. His legacy is something called Keynesian Economics, which advocates the use of government spending and taxation to stabilize the economy."
If this is taught in freshman business class at the University of Idaho, you would assume it's common knowledge. I personally know about as much about economics as I do about the rebel Dahan regime during the Yuan Dynasty in China during the 14th century, and even I know about John Maynard Keynes:
Keynes's theory suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy. Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead."
So either Sarah took the class and failed it, or never took it or any other course in basic economics. Not at North Idaho Community College, Matanuska-Susitna Community College, Hawaii Pacific College, or her alma mater, the University of Idaho (in Moscow, no less) during the five years it took her to get a journalism degree. Perhaps she didn't think she needed it to become a sports reporter at the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. She certainly didn't use her intricate knowledge of economics when she increased the long-term debt of Wasilla, Alaska, from $1 million to $25 million during her two terms as mayor.
(Incidentally, for someone she claims to love so much, she also apparently doesn't know much about Ronald Reagan, who, upon taking office during a recession, went on an 8-year deficit spending spree like Keynes on ecstasy, increasing our national debt from $700 billion to $3 TRILLION in 8 years as the United States went from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation, but I digress.)
Every time this woman speaks I thank the good Lord and the people of America for not putting her one John McCain heartbeat away from raining stupidity on the United States.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Not to be outdone, Ann Coulter gets in on the lying
In her most recent dim and irrational loony rant, entitled "MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'," Upper East Side Ann begins so:
"Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted 'torture' and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad."
ZING! Wow. Good one, Ann. I guess neither the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution provide a good basis upon which to form an argument in her opinion. She does, however, manage to include all the ingredients she needs to get people to read her stupid column: an insult to an entire group of people, a childishly silly (her intellect level, after all) claim, and the big L word.
Now first of all, let's just establish that after 5 minutes with a few CIA interrogators using the techniques she calls "wussy," Ann would wet herself and start crying. But that's entirely beside the point. And of course there are other things in her article that I (or any 5-year old) could take apart, but let's just get straight to the lying. At one point, Ann states:
"As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War."
Not only is our dear Ann wrong, she's like extra, super-duper wrong. Let's do a quick review of the relevant international law on the subject:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR - 1966, Article 6.1)
" [The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" (ICCPR (1966), Article 6.2)
"In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (ICCPR (1966), Article 14.1)"
And finally, the real kick in the pants for Mr. Coulter:
"No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." (Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) Art 6.2)
Anyway, instead of tearing the rest of her stupid article apart - I'll leave that to a 6th grader - I'll just leave it at this.
"Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted 'torture' and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad."
ZING! Wow. Good one, Ann. I guess neither the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution provide a good basis upon which to form an argument in her opinion. She does, however, manage to include all the ingredients she needs to get people to read her stupid column: an insult to an entire group of people, a childishly silly (her intellect level, after all) claim, and the big L word.
Now first of all, let's just establish that after 5 minutes with a few CIA interrogators using the techniques she calls "wussy," Ann would wet herself and start crying. But that's entirely beside the point. And of course there are other things in her article that I (or any 5-year old) could take apart, but let's just get straight to the lying. At one point, Ann states:
"As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War."
Not only is our dear Ann wrong, she's like extra, super-duper wrong. Let's do a quick review of the relevant international law on the subject:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR - 1966, Article 6.1)
" [The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" (ICCPR (1966), Article 6.2)
"In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (ICCPR (1966), Article 14.1)"
And finally, the real kick in the pants for Mr. Coulter:
"No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." (Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) Art 6.2)
Anyway, instead of tearing the rest of her stupid article apart - I'll leave that to a 6th grader - I'll just leave it at this.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Who Wanted to End Individual Liberty in America, Lush?
You've probably heard the lunatic rant of the right's favorite drug addict, Lush Rimbaugh, at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) over the weekend. It's amazing how he was able to sum up what I hate about that fat moron and his ilk in one sentence:
President Obama is actually working away from some of the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration, yet Rollie-Pollie Limbaugh is somehow certain that "individual liberty [will not be] the foundation [of the United States]"? You mean our individual liberty to speak our minds, our individual liberty to a free press, and our individual protections against warrantless searches that BushCo. didn't think we had, you raging hypocrite?
So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?Ok, so it's two sentences. Now, another interesting piece of news came out today, which was:
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.Now I purposely left out the commentary - or what could be considered commentary - from the article because I wanted to point out the fundamental belief held by the Bush administration that certain Constitutional rights did not always apply, and we aren't talking that they did not apply to foreigners or to terrorists, but that they did not apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS. Can you even possibly imagine what Lush would say if either President Obama or President Clinton had said that our first and fourth amendment rights had to be "subordinated" for the good of the country? Someone would have to get that hulking slob an Oxycontin, because he would blow fat deposit.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote.
President Obama is actually working away from some of the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration, yet Rollie-Pollie Limbaugh is somehow certain that "individual liberty [will not be] the foundation [of the United States]"? You mean our individual liberty to speak our minds, our individual liberty to a free press, and our individual protections against warrantless searches that BushCo. didn't think we had, you raging hypocrite?
Monday, February 23, 2009
How Bill Clinton forced banks to make loans to poor people - the Hannity 5-Minute Lie part Duex
This is just outrageous. I was watching Sean Hannity tonight, and he and Ann Coulter told me about how Bill Clinton forced banks to make loans to people who might not be able to pay them back. I was so upset, I did a little research. Here is what I found out:
So not only did the government force banks to make mortgage loans to poor people, they also threatened them with FINES if they didn't do it!
One problem: the law I quoted above is the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. That's right, 1992, when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. (google "H.R.5334 ", it's the first listing, then click on "CRS Summary"). Not only that, but it didn't force banks to lend anything to anybody - it simply changed the standards for mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac could purchase from banks.
So Sean, I have to hand it to you, you at least made me work for this one (this took a fairly diligent amount of research, which apparently none of the sheep who watch you are willing to do). You also almost made it through 5 minutes - almost.
Another Hannity 5-minute lie. Adieu.
[The Act] requires the Secretary to establish specified housing goals for [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac], including goals for purchase of mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families (adjustable annually to meet unaddressed needs of such families for affordable housing), and on housing located in underserved areas (both urban and rural).
Requires the Secretary to monitor and enforce compliance with such goals, establishing guidelines, filing goal failure notices, and requiring (of noncompliant enterprises) submission of housing plans.
Authorizes the Secretary to issue cease-and-desist orders, subject to administrative hearings. Provides for judicial review of such orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sets forth civil money penalties for noncompliance with housing plan requirements, ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 for each day of failure.
So not only did the government force banks to make mortgage loans to poor people, they also threatened them with FINES if they didn't do it!
One problem: the law I quoted above is the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. That's right, 1992, when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. (google "H.R.5334 ", it's the first listing, then click on "CRS Summary"). Not only that, but it didn't force banks to lend anything to anybody - it simply changed the standards for mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac could purchase from banks.
So Sean, I have to hand it to you, you at least made me work for this one (this took a fairly diligent amount of research, which apparently none of the sheep who watch you are willing to do). You also almost made it through 5 minutes - almost.
Another Hannity 5-minute lie. Adieu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)