The truth about Bain

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's budget director and worked as a private-equity investor for 17 years. He explains why Romney's often poor choices at Bain Capital do not qualify him for president.
Read it here.

Time is plastic

Quantum Mechanics asserts that a "particle" can be in two states at the same time, that it assumes one state only when observed. Two "entangled" particles communicate instantly their respective states if one is observed no matter the distance between them. A "particle" may be in two "places" at the same time, its position essentially a "wave" of probability. 

Each requires the assumption that "time" is absolute.

What happens if time itself is indeterminate, flexible, malleable on a quantum scale? What happens to our ideas of particles? What happens to our miles per hour, feet per second, angstrom per attosecond if the denominator, the number below the slash, the devisor, is not fixed, if it can't be fixed, if it may be unknowable at all beyond a vague assumption? If it changes?

If our universe is of space-time and the cone of light speed defines causality, what happens to us if the speed of light is no longer absolute not because the distance covered is greater or less, but because the time it takes is constantly changing?

Everything happens at once.

Romney won first debate

It's hard to catch a greased pig, but Obama let one get away.

Mitt Romney made a number of claims over the last year that he disavowed on Wednesday night. Obama should have been able to point out where and when and subject Romney to the lawyer's question: "Are you lying now or were you lying then?" Obama did not and looked pained and frustrated that Romney was able to lie his way out of his own history.

Jim Lehrer stunk worse than Obama in this debate but not by a whole lot. Lehrer looked like my grandmother trying to separate fornicating dogs. How many years has it been since he has felt his own testosterone?

Romney wasn't great in the debate but he was good enough. He kept on message, hammering again and again even falsehoods like the $716 billion in cuts to Medicaid. The president addressed the issue once but let Romney repeat the claim without rebuttal a second and a third time.

A simple message is effective, even if false, because it is simple. The response has to be simple and forceful. Being forceful is part of the message. Obama failed to deliver either because he assumed that Lehrer would establish control or he felt that he had made the case and could let the facts speak.

He was wrong. Romney won the debate because a lie told over and over with passion does become true. It is the package, Mr. President, not the content. It doesn't matter if you have distaste for that, it doesn't matter if Romney changes the content and the package every time he speaks, it doesn't matter if he says he will do the impossible and you have to defend what you have done.

Take off the gloves, Mr. President. No more Mr. Harvard Law Professor.

Romney promises time travel

Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney promised yesterday that he would guarantee time travel to all Americans by the end of his first term.

"Any American who chooses to travel through time will be able to do so. This is a freedom and America was built on freedom. Only I can do this for America and I have a plan to do this for all Americans."

Asked what that plan might be, Romney said "There is no reason for me to go into the details. If I provide any detail, my opponents, who oppose me and therefore oppose time travel, will simply start picking apart my plans and prevent me from getting elected and being able to provide the time travel I have promised all Americans."

Romney went on to say that "President Obama has failed to deliver on time travel. He has held America back from exercising their freedom to travel where they want, when they want. It is time for a change."

Questioned whether time travel was even possible, Romney said "I don't believe just in the possible. I believe in the unlimited possibilities of the American people. My experience in the private sector provided me with the experience to create jobs. That is what this election is about, the jobs I have experienced and my experience creating jobs. Millions of jobs for hard-working Americans.

"My opponent, the president who some worry might not have been born in America, does not like jobs. He does not want people to have jobs. All he wants is big government, voters who want free stuff and will never vote for me so screw'em, and no time travel for them, either."

Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan was speaking to Council for American Families when told of Romney's new promise. 

Ryan said that time travel should first be offered to Americans "who want to go back and undo bad choices, make better decisions. Even in cases of justifiable rape, rather, where the claims of a raped woman can be justified after they are proven by the evidence gathered at the scene, as it were, which would be much easier with time travel, that woman can now choose whether she gets pregnant or she might even choose to keep herself out of harms way before the alleged rape even occurs."

Ryan said time travel could even result in the prevention of pregnancy when the fetus grows up to be homosexual. "No abortion and and no deviant. That's a win-win," Ryan said.

Romney did say his concept for time travel is based on the idea of "getting government out of the way of companies that will provide jobs for everyone and the safest, most cost efficient travel through time the world has ever known. Free markets provide competition that works to free markets from excessive government regulations that prevent the freedom to compete that all Americans demand and deserve," Romney said.

"The president, who once said that he favored opportunity for all Americans in a socialistic effort to redistribute wealth through progressive taxes that I never paid anyway, opposes Americans having jobs or traveling through time."

The Obama campaign was cautious in their response. "That Governor  Romney promises time travel by the end of his first term makes sense of so many things," said David Axelrod, Obama campaign spokesman. He would not elaborate.

Romney-Ryan need the week off

The Republican duopoly Romoney-Ryan has hit heavy weather, but storms have caused them to finally say what they mean. Let's look, shall we? The following came from an article today in Businessweek, hardly a left-leaning publication.

The federal government should not "take from some to give to the others," said Romney, trying to defend his dis of 47% of Americans he said think they deserve handouts.

Which means what? That he believes there should be an end to "progressive taxation" where the rich pay a higher percentage than the middle class? Or does he favor a national sales tax? Maybe the whole country should just go to user fees, pay for what you get? Toll roads, private schools, doctor's paid through your VISA card? Explain, please.

Because tax policy is already skewed in his favor, Romney paid 13%, possibly a lower percentage than his cooks, his maids and his chauffeur, certainly lower than taxes paid by people earning much less than he does. More importantly, he has much, much more left over.

He would have more left over even if he actually paid the top tax rate. Even if he wasn't hiding his income in the Cayman islands and Swiss banks accounts (we NEED to see those tax returns. I would be content with 2005 through 2010).

To add fuel to the fire, VP candidate Paul Ryan stepped up with "The point we're trying to make here is, under the Obama economy, government dependency is up and economic stagnation is up."

Well, duh! Government dependency? Mr. Ryan, we are still in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s (which was made worse still by policies like those you advocate). The federal government (you were involved in a lot of the discussion–remember?) pays unemployment insurance and (don't tell anyone in your party) there have been a lot of unemployed since your buddies over at Goldman Sachs kicked the economy in the balls and George Bush started the war in Iraq without wanting to pay for it. Yes, there is also more Medicaid going to people who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs, too.

Economic stagnation?  Two days ago you called efforts by the Federal Reserve to end "economic stagnation" nothing but a "sugar high." I will put Ben Bernanke's PhD up against your asinine Ayn Rand blather any day of the week. Economic stagnation is part of the process called debt destruction (you can look that up if you take the time from pumping up your biceps) and we need to get banks and companies to take money out of their vaults and put it to work, which will put people to work.

Private employment is actually recovering. We would have lower unemployment now than when this mess started if Republicans weren't trying to fire every other public employee in the country. And we would likely be out of this mess completely if you, Mr. Ryan, had not tried to capitalize on our hardship by blocking recovery efforts so you could create a regime change in Washington putting you in power.

Finally, Romney admitted he doesn't believe in opportunity for the rest of us.

 "…Romney referred to videotaped comments Obama made in 1998 (14 years ago!?) as evidence he favored government redistribution of wealth. As an Illinois state senator at the time, Obama said he believes in it "at least to a certain level to make sure everybody's got a shot."

What?! Remember, redistribution of wealth is another way of looking at progressive taxation. Even then, Obama was restrained. He didn't talk about fairness, he talked about opportunity.

So. Romney doesn't believe that everyone should have a shot at the American Dream? No "pursuit of happiness" if you weren't born wealthy? No need for America to pull together in this crisis, share the burden, provide an opportunity to all her citizens?

Very good. Glad we finally know where they stand.

Romney doesn't know taxation

Mitt Romney may know how to advise the Marriott Hotel Chain how to avoid taxes, and he certainly knows how to avoid them himself.

But he doesn't know much about the tax code faced by most Americans.

In saying that 47% of us don't pay income taxes and that we expect a handout and won't support him, Romney mischaracterizes statistics. Of that 47% a majority of 28% pay a payroll tax. Much of the remainder is made up of retired people.

Actually, Romney has far more support than he should have among those who don't pay income tax. Those who pay payroll tax should realize that a portion of what they pay has gone into the general fund to reduce the taxes for the rich. Retirees should know that Romney wants to cut the very social services they need most.

Mitt Romney may not be as smart as his Stanford/Harvard education led us to believe. Or he has been so insulated by his Mormon religion and inherited wealth that he has not had to learn much about the world of working men and women.

Actually, given the man's disastrous foreign tour, his misperceptions about workers, hiding his tax returns (what IS he hiding in those tax returns?), and his lack of specifics about how he would govern, may he just doesn't know how the world works. 

Oh, My God

It's official. Mitt Romney does not like you if you:

are Latino (immigrant);
are Black;
like Medicare;
believe in Social Security;
have a government job;
don't have a job;
feel responsible for others;
would like help from others when life is hard;
believe that a woman is in charge of her own body and life;
believe you are "entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

The man has no concept of community, no concept of charity beyond his Mormon Church, no concept that life can hit you with a random blow, no compassion for others hit with a random blow.

Sometimes, Mr. Romoney, shit happens to someone that ain't their fault. Americans believe that we are stronger when we pull together, extend a hand, provide opportunity for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Too bad you believe "he who grabs, gets."

Romoney is so insulated by his wealth, inherited and accumulated  by gaming the system (then shipped to Swiss Bank accounts and hidden– can you spell "tax cheat?"), that he feels anyone who is not rich doesn't have the same guarantee of opportunity that he does.

He scorns 47% of the country, saying they believe themselves to be "victims."

After his buddies at Goldman Sachs crashed the economy with dubious deals by playing "casino" with our mortgage payments, after millions of Americans were thrown out of work  because of economic forces OVER WHICH THEY HAD NO CONTOL and lost their homes and their insurance and their future, Ri¢hie Ri¢h Romoney says they consider themselves "victims" and expect handouts.

And yesterday, he and that tight-assed VP candidate, the cold, calculating narcissistic liar Paul Ryan, said the Federal Reserve shouldn't try to jump start the economy because we hadn't been hit hard enough, hadn't suffered enough over the last five years.

America! Wake up! It IS class warfare and they started it! Working men and women are losing! The 1% have contempt for the 47%! They have all the money and they own our Congressmen (that's you, Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon) and are buying our legal system.

Romney is owned by gamblers (real ones – not just Goldman Sachs) and polluters and New York bankers and drug companies and insurance companies. They want to make economic serfs out of us!

Romney has admitted it. Finally, something comes out the man's mouth we can actually believe.

Romney - Ryan use recession to enrich friends

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan call Federal Reserve efforts toward sparking economic recovery a "sugar high."

This is an abysmally poor understanding of economics or a craven attempt to capitalize on the hardship of millions of Americans. The only economic "plan" Romney - Ryan have is to allow polluters to pollute more and let Romney's banker friends pay as little as possible back into the system that made them so rich.

The Federal Reserve is trying to jolt an economy hurt by those same bankers and made worse by the crisis in Europe. The Fed is trying to force cash into the economy so people can begin to buy washers and dryers and kitchen cabinets and so other people can build them, here in Oregon and across the country. 

The Romney - Ryan "plan" is to reduce environmental controls for campaign donors who have tired to buy this election and nearly every state house in the country  (see Koch Bros). Their "plan" (see if you can find any details – ANY) would actually increase the number of people out of work  with the promise that eventually, someday, hopefully, the great capitalists of America will hire more workers and pay higher wages.

Maybe wages as high as they pay in China, where most of our jobs have gone. 

Romney - Ryan oppose the Federal Reserve effort because it might work! They call it a sugar high because they are in favor of more difficult lives – because it will be good for us.  The harder life will lead to the better life in the long term, they say. Maybe. For some people. Yes it will – if you already have a good life.

That's a lot of gall from a couple of men who were born rich and claim they deserve it.  Men who don't know what it's like facing unemployment, don't know what's it like to have a sick child and no  access to medical care, don't know what it's like having to decide between paying rent or buying milk.

Romney the huckster loses ground

Three things in the last week are turning off voters to Mitt Romney. Each in its own way shows the man has no core.  

He refers to his "plans" for the country but refuses over and over to say what those "plans" might be. He flips and then he flops and says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear as long as it doesn't mean anything.

Now his "plan" for healthcare would retain the popular parts of "Obamacare." Seriously? After months and months of slamming the new law that covers more Americans, prohibits exclusion for preexisting conditions and allows young people to stay other parents policy, Romney now says he would retain those elements?  Whatever happened to "repealing Obamacare on my first day in office?

Romney now says his "plans" for economic recovery will not lower taxes on the rich. At the same time he talks about lowering taxes. How can he do both? By closing loopholes. Which ones? He won't say. Watch Romney slip and slide around the question in this NBC Interview with David Gregory: It's at about minute 17:30, though the whole show is worth watching.

Even Businessweek  has a hard time stomaching this foolishness. 

Romney VP choice Paul Ryan admits the White House has little voice in the matter: "Mitt Romney and I, … think the best way to do this is to … show the outlines of these plans, and then to work with Congress to do this," Ryan said on ABC's "This Week." Saying "we will close loopholes" is showing the framework of a "plan?" 

Now Romney blames Obama for sequestration worked out by both parties in Congress  as part of a deal to automatically impose $1.2 trillion in budget cuts in defense and Medicare spending in exchange for raising the debt ceiling a year or so ago and keeping America from going into default. Romney VP Paul Ryan helped promote this deal that was supposed to keep a "supercommittee" from failing to find cuts. 

President Obama specifically exempted military pay and benefits. But in his "say whatever it takes" politics, Romney blames the President for something Congress did. The man has no core. He wouldn't get elected in Oregon.

Finally this week the craven Romney tried to capitalize on an attack on American embassies overseas by Muslims angered by a film. Embassy personell were trying to cool a situation that eventually resulted in the loss of life. Romney would have added gasoline to the fire. Even Republicans want Romney to shut up and stop looking like a cheap opportunist on this one.

But Romney can't stop looking like a cheap opportunist. That's who he is.

A response to this blog: big business, small business, personhood

The following was posted as a comment to my last blog.
It is so well written I decided to give it it's own title and space. 
I have no idea who the author is and even though I disagree 
in substance or detail with a number of the points made, 
I will save my retorts for the comment section. 
In the mean time, I think it should be savored 
by the widest audience possible ~ EyeonOregon.

Anonymous said...
Dear Mr. Rube:

Thematic essays, your blogs. Without the rules of essay writing in evidence, of course. Fragmented thematic essays.

Patterned themes. For instance, the ugly, tyrannical, megalomaniac Large Corporation. Villain du jour.

From sea to shining sea, the definition of ‘person’ includes business entities, in all colors, shapes and sizes. ‘Personhood’ is critical – businesses are sucked into the system along with persons covered in sweating flesh. Sucked into the basics – civil and criminal laws. The enhanced “sucking”: the ungodly stacks of Rules and Regulations, government agency oversight, regulatory hearings, investigations, inspections, reporting, record keeping, administrative officers, quasi-judicial bodies, etc.

I have a friend who steered his deep sea charter-fishing business to success, despite competition. And while newbie fishermen falling overboard are idiots, they are idiots with lawyers. And what did Ordinary Man do to protect his American Dream? Built a tower of legal defense. LLCs for each fishing boat, LCCs owned by LLP, LLP governed by a C corp. And secondary defense lines were put in play.

Clever. Applauded. And Big Business is different how?

My friend hired a local accounting firm; friends of friends; nice people. Anti-tax tactical forces fully exploited the gaps and perks of the tax laws. Hands shake again at a backyard BBQ while dogs run and kids bark.

And this is different from Big Business how? And while tax ‘efficiencies’ are legal, are they the moral choice? Temporary Aid for Needy Families is in jeopardy; unemployment compensation may be cut, education grants are reduced, funding of the arts degrades.

Small businesses are the stuff of Americana. The stuff of neighbors, friends and families. Tinkers. Tailors. Farmers. Small manufacturers. Bakeries and brothels.

Big Businesses are the stuff of high drama movies. Legendary corruption. Powered by monopolistic engines. Destroying the economy and our children’s opportunities, no compassion, no moral compass. Damn those iPhones made in Chinese sweatshops, thank god they’re pretty.

Business entities, large or small, successful or not, are driven by the best, the worst and the mediocre - just like any other human endeavor.

Small enterprises represent 99.7% of all employer firms & employ half of all private sector employees. They also represent the largest sector of tax fraud and tax evasion. Small businesses are well skilled in all sorts of wicked ways.

Label employees ‘independent contractors’ to avoid workers comp, unemployment comp, employment taxes, minimum wage laws, etc.

Don’t comply with ADA standards. (My god the costs are huge – I go to church with the disabled, I invite them to BBQs. Surely they don’t want me to coddle them at such a cost.)

Small businesses in the compliance zone of employment rights who just don’t. Small business owner knows how to do the Right Thing.

Liquidating small businesses who “sell” stuff to friends, family and neighbors before filing bankruptcy. Who don’t disclose all assets – how are they going to survive if everything but the family bible is put up for auction? Big Bank and Big Business creditors can absorb the loss; and, quite frankly, should take the hit – if BBs knifed the economy, then surely the weeping wounds have spread their puss to the innocent small business?

Small business owners are good people trying to their best survive with as much integrity as they can afford. Bless their little hearts.

What’s good for small businesses is good for the country. To hell with Big Businesses.