You can always count on Newt Gingrich to give you bang for your buck when it comes to rhetorical diarrhea. Here’s how it’s done.

At a campaign event in Suwanee, Georgia, the former House Speaker told supporters that he would bring back cheaper gas because “you can’t put a gun rack on a Volt.”

“There is no reason not to believe that we couldn’t stabilize with American production by drowning demand in supply the old-fashioned, free market way,” he explained. “There’s not reason we couldn’t have a stable price around $2 or $2.50 [per gallon].”

In a couple of lines Gingrich was able to attack President Obama and his campaign for clean energy, lie about what can be done about gas prices, suck up to gun owners (at least those gun owners who believe a personal vehicle is never fully accessorized until it has a gun rack prominently displayed) and all the while keep his ‘pompous buffoon‘ image intact. The man has talent.

For the record…

a) Domestic oil production has gone up under Obama.

b) There are a number of outside influences (e.g. economy, war, demand, Iran) which affect gas prices and make it impossible for a President to control prices at any one time. Economists will tell you that the main reason for the recent spike in gas prices is the fact that the economy is improving. A better economy means greater demand for fuel which means higher prices. Economy 101. A President Gingrich would not be able to unilaterally determine gas prices.

c) Why the hell would anyone want to put a gun rack in their Volt?

__

(The Newt Gingrich source photograph for this illustration is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore.)

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.

I found this pretty funny…and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.

So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are

• A vulture capitalist who believes that any attempt to examine the sources of his income is roughly the equivalent of Stalin liquidating the Kulaks.
• A thrice-married disgraced former Speaker who has abandoned dog whistles in exchange for dog Klaxon horns.
• An angry dwarf who is one step away from advocating tinfoil helmets and railing about the International Shaker Conspiracy.
• A fanatical anti-sex crusader with an unfortunate Google problem.
• Rick Perry.

That sounds right.  And here are a couple of vulture facts which you might not have been aware of.  I believe they apply to both the avian and human variety.

New World vultures have the ability to use their corrosive vomit as a defensive projectile when threatened. New World vultures also urinate straight down their legs; the uric acid kills bacteria accumulated from walking through carcasses, and also acts as evaporative cooling.

Having watched Romney in a number of debates will attest to the first fact being true.  As for the second, check out Romney’s pants leg the next time he walks out in front of the podium.  We might just see some telltale signs of uric acid stains.
___

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.

Romney was asked whether questions dealing with distribution of wealth and power were a matter of jealousy or fairness.

You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

And asked if there is any legitimate question one can ask concerning the discrepancy of wealth in America, SilverSpoon had this to say…

I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like.

Of course. If there’s no real problem with wealth distribution, then there’s no point in discussing it out in the open, right?  Better to relegate talk of that sort to the back rooms where important rich folk can discuss such matters in private.  After all, no point in getting the masses riled up with nonsensical talk which does little more than confuse and anger them.  Better to let the little people believe that any talk dealing with the increasing divide between the haves and have-nots is simply one of envy and class warfare.

Nothing there, people.  Move along.

___

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.

A must-read Krugman piece.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

That last line on “raw extortion” is the one which should concern people most. There is nothing now to stop Republicans from using the same technique to extort even more from this President. They’ve utilized it enough times and in every case, the President has caved in to their demands.

There might be some ingenious madness lurking behind President Obama’s methods but one would be hard-pressed at this time to guess what that might be.  Hopefully, it has nothing to do with his dream of making bipartisan politics happen anytime soon.  The blood thirsty wolves on the other side of the aisle have clearly shown they have no interest in playing that game.

.

…this guy says he supports it.

When the guru of corporate greed signs on to anything, someone is going to get hurt big time…and $10 says it’s not going to be the Koch brothers.

Norquist is smiling, Boehner is smiling and the President laments that it is not the deal he would have preferred.  You just got fucked.

.

This week’s comment was written by James Miller and appears in the ‘The One Chart Which Best Explains The Debt Ceiling Crisis’ post. In it, I put up a chart which compared spending costs under two presidents – George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In true Libertarian fashion, Tommy questioned why Bush’s tax cuts should be considered a $1,812 billion cost.

Tommy:

I’m amazed when someone thinks it’s an expense when we let people keep their own money. That thought presupposes that everyone’s money is actually public money, and that keeping it, is taking something away from the government.

James took it upon himself to clear up the issue for Tommy.

Your argument is a giant arm waving distraction. No matter how you call it, Bush cut 1.8 trillion in revenue that he didn’t budget for, and is the first President in US history to go to war without RAISING taxes. I really suggest you read my article, you’d learn something. [Great article by James, btw. You could read it here or here.  -mario]

Also, it’s actually not just their money. I suggest you reconsider the writers of the enlightenment. Government serves as part of the social contract, a social contract that also ensures that the rich don’t eat the poor. As nations throughout history have discovered, the nation that best manages their social contract is successful, the government that allows society to break its contract falls apart. Let’s take wealth disparity:

Between 1930 and 1970, America saw an incredible DROP in the gap between rich and poor. During that time, taxes on the highest earners ranged from 50% to 90%. And yet, we built the Jefferson Memorial, created the highway systems, build and improved many national parks, created a space program, put a man on the moon… AND WON A WORLD WAR. That sounds like the heart of the America I know.

In the 1970s, a faltering economy hurt wealth disparity, but the gap has been racing wider since the election of Reagan in 1980.

So, despite the fact that wealth disparity is at record high, corporate profits are as well, and taxes are at their lowest point in 60 years, apparently Obama is a socialist because he wants to raises taxes. While, by the way, cutting $4 trillion from the deficit by slimming government programs.

For perspective, a week ago 5 democrats voted for a bill Boehner suggested. Tonight, Boehner’s bill was so radical that no democrats would vote for it, and yet it still wasn’t radical enough to get the support of the tea party. So who is the radical? Who is unwilling to compromise?

Who is unAmerican?

A question for Tommy: Do you ever at times read any of this stuff and think that maybe, just maybe, some of your thoughts on government and Libertarian ideals are not as utopian as you’d like to believe they are?  Ever?  Just a little?

James Miller publishes Dissected News.

___

To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s Facebook page. Click on ‘Like’ here.
.

Cross-posted from Jimmy Zuma’s blog at Technorati.

___

As near as I can tell, “exceptionalism” is a made up word only found in the phrase “American exceptionalism.” Yet that hasn’t stopped the creation of a cottage industry asserting the mythological idea. Underpinned by both religion and hubris, American exceptionalism argues that the United States is the land chosen by God to enjoy the miracles of capitalism. According to the belief, Americans are a modern day chosen people – sorry Jews; you’re so yesterday — meant to lead the world by divine right. Divine right, of course, is a concept that used to be associated only with kings. Nowadays, it’s associated with morons.

In the ethos of American exceptionalism, we are the best at everything. We have the best health care, the best economy, the best civil society, the most freedom and the greatest opportunity. God made it so. And who are you to question God? Never you mind any facts to the contrary. Everyone knows that only over-educated liberal snobs like to use facts to find the truth.

This belief is a big factor in why Republicans in Congress imagine we can default on our debt without consequences. Because this same American exceptionalism – borrowing from its 1^st cousin, Neoconservatism – argues that we can do whatever we want. Who can stop us, after all? We’re the top of the food chain. Everyone else is dependent on us. Screw ‘em!

Did I mention that most believers have never been outside of the US? Never seeing (Or is it never looking?) is a necessary part of any self-delusion.

So here we are at the brink. Many in Congress are ready to renege on paying the debt created by a decade of government underfunding. A sneering Eric Cantor, for example, has voted to spend the money since 2001. Now he won’t vote to pay what he owes.

Republicans like to say that running the government is just like running a household. If so, then this is deciding to default on the mortgage, refusing to move out of the house and saying that’s OK because God says you are the greatest neighbor on the street. You can also forget this whole notion of just paying the interest, like the chronically under-informed Michelle Bachmann likes to argue. When a loan is due, both the interest and the principal are due. Try just paying just the interest on your car loan next month.

Meanwhile, investors are beginning a selloff of US Treasuries in anticipation that they’ll lose value. The Greece crisis is near-solved and the Euro is poised to restart its march to displace the dollar as the world reserve currency. And China continues to prosper by cornering the market for green tech manufacturing. They’re competing mostly with Germany in this market, not at all with us. Meanwhile, we’re focused on protecting coal and oil profits.

Today, the word “patriot” has been co-opted by dumb crackers and “Founding Fathers” has been stolen by high school dropouts. These words now make us cringe because we know that they are used as cover for some utterly selfish argument. Real history is competing with a belief-based version that imagines great leaders and great doers were promoting not democracy, but unfettered survival of the fittest. Selfishness is exactly the opposite of what our great patriots and Framers practiced. They were defenders and creators of cooperation through government.

But I wouldn’t expect these mooks to know that. They practice a weird kind of faith-based history. It’s true because I believe it’s true. Presented with a fact, they’re reply with an “I believe…” as if it trumps as evidence. I believe that lower taxes create jobs, they say, even though there is zero evidence of that. Lower taxes didn’t break the economy, eight years of no regulatory oversight did. Lower taxes only broke the government.

House Republicans intend to default. They don’t know what they don’t know. Through the foggy lens of American exceptionalism, default has no negatives. So if default is to be avoided, it can only happen by force. The President, the Senate, House Democrats and smarter House Republicans will need to shove it down the throats of these right-wing anarchists.

American exceptionalism? It means we’re the only country heading over a cliff because we decided to believe that dumb was the new smart. Now isn’t that special…

___

Jimmy Zuma is a longtime advocate for disability rights and a strong voice from the left.  Jimmy blogs at Smart v. Stupid and his writing is published in the The Tucson Sentinel, DC Water Cooler, Open Salon and OpEd News.

.

Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans are on a mission.  The budget has become their number one priority and they’re willing to slash spending no matter who (i.e.  middle class) suffers as a result. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all on the table. The budget fight has turned into a gam.e of chicken between Republicans and Dem and at stake is the government going into default.

Steve Benen gives a little perspective.

I’d be remiss if I neglected to mention how amusing it is to hear Mitch McConnell express concern about the debt. The Kentucky Republican voted for the Bush tax cuts, and added the costs to the national debt. McConnell then voted to finance the war in Afghanistan by adding the costs to the national debt. He then voted to put the costs of the war in Iraq onto the national debt. McConnell supported a massive expansion of the government’s role in health care, Medicare Part D, and voted to pile all of its costs right onto the national debt, and then backed the financial industry bailout, and added the bill to the national debt. All the while, McConnell had no qualms about voting to raise the debt limit.

But now McConnell is willing to risk default unless Democrats agree to a plan to help clean up the mess McConnell helped create. Fascinating.

Classic Republican strategy. Spend the country into financial crisis and then pin the blame on Dems once they took control and started to deal with the fallout. This strategy works because in tough economic times the only time frame that matters for most is now. Deregulation, wars and tax cuts got the country into this economic crisis and if the situation can’t be fixed in a week or month, the blame goes to the party in power. That’s the way it works and Republicans are quite aware.

My thinking is that they’re hoping for a government shutdown and a further tanking of the economy.  It’s all about 2012 and every move Republicans make between now and then is one which furthers their chances for victory.  And if that means more home foreclosures and job losses, so be it. They know who’ll get the blame.

.

Less than two years ago, this is what Republicans were saying about the government bailout of GM.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?” [6/1/09]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “It’s basically going to be a government-owned, government-run company. …It’s the road toward socialism.” [5/29/09]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?” [6/2/09]

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): “Unfortunately, this is just another sad chapter in President Obama’s eager campaign to interject his administration in the private sector’s business dealings.” [6/2/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): The auto company rescues “have been the leading edge of the Obama administration’s war on capitalism.” [7/22/09]

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” [7/22/09]

And here’s a story from today’s NYT.

General Motors, which nearly collapsed from the weight of its debts two years ago before reorganizing in a government-sponsored bankruptcy, said Thursday that it earned $4.7 billion in 2010, the most in more than a decade.

It was the first profitable year since 2004 for G.M., which became publicly traded in November, ending a streak of losses totaling about $90 billion.

In addition, G.M. said 45,000 union workers would receive profit-sharing checks averaging $4,300, the most in the company’s history.

What say you now, Republican doomsayers?

The  Center for Automotive Research has determined that the bailout to GM and Chrysler saved more than 1.4 million jobs in 2009 and 2010.  If government had listened to Republicans in 2009, those jobs would have been lost forever…as would the American automobile industry.

So how will the GOP spin this one? I’m guessing it’ll be along the lines of suggesting that the profit-sharing checks to GM’s unionized workers are nothing more than government handouts.  Socialists! Socialists! Kill the unions!

.

Ezra Klein makes the distinction between deficit hawks and deficit frauds.

The deficit frauds are the folks who use deficits for short-term political gain: This year, they’ve mainly been Republicans who opposed unemployment benefits because they’d add $56 billion to the deficit but demanded tax cuts that would add $4 trillion to the deficit. And they’ve been empowered not by Peterson’s money or even the climate in Washington, but by the fact that people get very anxious about the deficit when the economy slows, as it’s a number that they think helps explain the economic problems even as it mainly tracks them, and because a misplaced analogy to the European debt crises has made our deficit look scarier than it actually is.

Matt Yglesias prefers referring to deficit frauds as deficit peacocks.  That works for me.

.