Cain Still Unable: Occupy This Space

The unrelenting awesome factory of awesome that is the Herman Cain Experience Featuring Rampant Denial is now saying the fact that he exists means racism isn’t holding minorities back.  It’s all in your head.

When asked by CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley if he thought African Americans had a level playing field, Cain said he thought most of them did, using his own experience in corporations as an example.

“Many of them do have a level playing field,” Cain said. “I absolutely believe that. Not only because of the businesses that I have run, which has had the combination of whites, blacks, Hispanics – you know, we had a total diversity. But also because of the corporations whose board I’ve served on for the last 20 years. I have seen blacks in middle management move up to top management in some of the biggest corporations in America.”

As for African Americans who remain economically disadvantaged, Cain said they often only had themselves to blame.

“They weren’t held back because of racism,” Cain said. “People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve.”

I didn’t honestly think Herman Cain could be any more repugnant, but saying that racism is all in the heads of African-Americans is just ludicrous to the point of self-parody involving what people think about black CEOs running for the GOP White House ticket.

The cognitive dissonance is staggering to me.  Herman Cain was in college during the civil rights era in the 60’s.  When federal civil rights laws were codified, Cain benefited from them on the way to his lofty perch as Godfather’s Pizza CEO.  At no point have I ever heard of Cain saying he was going to pass up civil rights programs or not take advantage of them because he thought the playing field was level.  He admits in the interview that educational and economic disparity still exists, and then blames poor minorities for it.  How does one escape a hell like that, you wonder?  Through a college scholarship, perhaps?

Hell, look at the racism that spewed out when candidate Obama entered the race in 2007.  It’s only gotten worse since then, and Cain honestly believes there’s a level playing field?  Is he blind to all the assistance he received?  Did he ever turn down a position because a company had an affirmative action policy in place?  How the hell is he so damn sure that he received zero assistance from any of the civil rights measures that followed on his way to CEO?

Of course, Crowley asked none of that.  But I sure as hell want to know.

Then Cain went on Face The Nation yesterday and said this about Occupy Wall Street:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain claimed Sunday that the Occupy Wall Street protests going on in New York City and across the country were a conspiracy designed to help President Barack Obama.

“The proof is quite simply the bankers and the people on Wall Street didn’t write these failed policies of the Obama administration,” Cain told CBS’ Bob Schieffer. “So it’s a distraction. So many people won’t focus on the failed policies of this administration.”

“You’re saying that these people all got together to draw attention away from Barack Obama?” Schieffer asked.

“We know that the unions and certain union-related organizations have been behind these protests that have gone on, on Wall Street and other parts around the country. It’s coordinated to create a distraction so people won’t focus on the failed policies of this administration,” Cain replied.

“It’s anti-American because to protest Wall Street and the bankers is basically saying you are anti-capitalism. The free market system and capitalism are two of the things that have allowed this nation and this economy to become the biggest in the world.”

Yeah, it’s all Obama’s fault.  Bankers had nothing to do with the financial crisis, see.  Also, damn dirty effing hippies hate America and it’s a conspiracy to make you forget that President Obama destroyed the economy in 2007 with a time machine and an Excel spreadsheet.

Have I mentioned my strong dislike of Herman Cain in the past 37 seconds?

▲

The More This Happens

If you want to kill the Wall Street protests, ur doin’ it rong:

The more this happens, the more news it makes, the more people hear about it, the more pissed off people get, the more people show up, the more the cops over-react, the more news it makes, the more people hear about it… You get the point.

So yeah, I’m looking back at my snide post where I called the vanguard of this “trustafarians,” and once again, I feel like an idiot. This may still fizzle out without any real change, but right now, it seems to be building, and the reason it is is because a small group of people went out there and publicly voiced their displeasure with the shit I’ve been sitting on my fat ass writing dyspeptic posts about for the last year, but not really doing a god damned thing to enact change. Yeah, it was some jackasses with a drum circle, and no, they didn’t have a point by point plan or coherent media strategy like some anal retentive douchebags like me were demanding. But they went out there and did something, and it seems to be working. Let’s hope it keeps growing.

*** Update ***

Oops. Now they maced Fox News:

Tags: John Cole is an irritable crank whose first instincts will always- without exception- be wrong. ▲

Occupy Wall Street About to Go Mainstream

This is an interesting development.

▲

Your GOP Debate Primer

I follow Kelly Carlin on twitter because she’s smart, funny, cute, and GEORGE FUCKING CARLIN’S DAUGHTER. So when she said something on twitter tonight, it reminded me of something we’ve posted numerous times, but really should be recognized as the most accurate political analysis of the last three decades. This:

For three decades, the rich have been getting richer and richer, having their taxes cut, while the middle class has been getting screwed. This is no accident:

This is by policy design. And now, living up to the Shock Doctrine, when the economy is in crisis, they are clamoring for more tax cuts while preaching austerity and entitlement reform out the other side of their mouth. Their poster boy Paul Ryan, the guy Sullivan and Klein slobbered over for months for his seriousness, put forth a plan that straight out said what they were going to try to do- cut taxes for the rich, slash entitlements, and give it to the rich. Like the man said, it’s a big fucking club, and you ain’t in it.

So every time tonight when you hear them, in between the Reagan hand jobs, when they wipe the Santorum off their mouths and start talking about entitlement reform, listen to George Carlin:

They’re coming for your social security!

And the folks in the media are glad to give them an assist, all while Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie and the leather jacket/hipster glasses crowd chant about Democrats and class warfare. Entitlement reform means fucking you out of your social security and health care. Period. In their world, you’re lucky to be a Wal-Mart greeter.

▲

Green Smoothies

I’ve been having them for breakfast, and after getting used to the odd texture and the initial trauma to my digestive system as I “cleansed” (we’ll just leave it at that), I have decided I quite like them. So far I’ve been using kale, tomatoes, celery, carrot, lemon, sometimes spinach, sometimes banana, and I throw in a little flax seed and then a touch of old bay seasoning for taste. In just two weeks, in conjunction with a new exercise regime (I’m logging an hour a day on the exercise bike, walking tons, and other things), I’ve not only lost a few pounds, but my BP is down a few points (it wasn’t bad to begin with), I wake up more alert and with more energy, I find my mood is more positive (not that you would notice here), and I no longer need a nap in the afternoon. I even tried to nap the other day just BECAUSE I LIKE TO NAP, and I couldn’t.

Not sure how much to attribute to the exercise or the smoothie, but I will just assume it is a synergistic effect. Regardless, it is a rather easy lifestyle modification, and I plan to stick to it. KALE- NOT JUST FOR DINNER ANY MORE.

So share with me your green smoothie recipes. I’m thinking I might use some fennel and maybe beets tomorrow.

▲

JP Morgan, the New Dirty Fucking Hippies

Who knew:

The markets are tanking. Again. And it’s in part because they expect us to screw up. Again.

That, at least, is what J.P. Morgan is saying. Part of what’s driving the market down is that the company announced that it was cutting its global growth forecasts by a full percentage point for 2011 and 2012. Why? I’ll let them explain:

There are three main reasons for our downgrade. First, the recent incoming data, especially in the US and the euro area, have been disappointing, suggesting less momentum into 2H11 and pushing down full-year 2011 estimates. Second, recent policy errors – especially Europe’s slow and insufficient response to the sovereign crisis and the drama around lifting the US debt ceiling – have weighed down on financial markets and eroded business and consumer confidence. A negative feedback loop between weak growth and soggy asset markets now appears to be in the making in Europe and the US. This should be aggravated by the prospect of fiscal tightening in the US and Europe.

In other words: Growth is weak and policymakers are hurting rather than helping. The debt-ceiling debate hurt. The dithering response to the euro zone’s debt crisis hurt. And the expected austerity in both the United States and Europe is going to hurt even more. J.P. Morgan notes that one reason they think the United States might tip back into recession is that in the first quarter of 2012, there will be “an automatic tightening fiscal policy if, as our US team currently assumes, this year’s fiscal stimulus measures will expire.”

Someone should probably put Krugman on suicide watch, because he’s only been screaming about this forever.

▲

What Don’t You Understand?

This is another one of those days when I read the NY Times and just want to bang my head against a wall:

Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years.

Even with the economy in a funk and many Americans pulling back on spending, the rich are again buying designer clothing, luxury cars and about anything that catches their fancy. Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering — they are zooming. Many high-end businesses are even able to mark up, rather than discount, items to attract customers who equate quality with price.

“If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, and the former chairman and chief executive of Saks.

The rich do not spend quite as they did in the free-wheeling period before the recession, but they are closer to that level.

The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier, even as overall consumer spending on categories like furniture and electronics has been tepid, according to the research service MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse. In July, the luxury segment had an 11.6 percent increase, the biggest monthly gain in more than a year.

Yeah. That’s a real shock. What part of HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH SINCE THE 20’s DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? Jeebus:

As you can see, the nation’s income distribution may be quite lopsided, but its wealth distribution is even more so.

The top 1 percent of earners receive about a fifth of all American income; on the other hand, the top 1 percent of Americans by net worth hold about a third of American wealth. (Note that the top income earners are not necessarily the same people as the top net-worth Americans — after all, lots of high-net-worth people don’t work or have much else in the way of sources of new income.) Wealth-related inequality has also been relatively stable over the last few decades, whereas income-related inequality has been growing since the ’70s.

Why is there more inequality in wealth than in income, both today and yesterday?

Remember that wealth accumulates over time. The highest earners are able to save much of their incomes, whereas lower earners can’t. That means high earners can accumulate more and more wealth as time goes on (assuming they don’t blow it all, of course).

Higher-earning Americans also have the resources to pay for better tax preparation, which helps them reduce their taxes and save even more money. On the tax front, note also that people who have already accumulated wealth stand to earn a lot in capital gains, which are also taxed at a lower rate.

Our Galtian overlords have the most money they ever have, their taxes are at the lowest levels they have in many decades, and they have plenty of money to blow on luxury items. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL THE FUCKING MONEY. It’s no coincidence that luxury items are flying off the shelves while concomitantly, the middle class is slowing down their spending on food, furniture, etc. In fact, this is precisely the point many dirty hippies have been trying to make- we are never going to have an economic recovery until some people other than the Kochs and Warren Buffet have money to spend. And with unemployment at astronomical levels and with the official government policy to make things worse with austerity and then hope a magical unicorn comes sliding down a rainbow showering jobs on the middle class, it is going to stay this way. Fer fuck’s sake.

Meanwhile, while all this is going on, our elites are blowing sloppy wet kisses to wingnuts like David Frum who finally realize “Hey- Maybe Krugman knows what he is talking about and Stephen Moore and the other hacks at the WSJ are clueless.” We’re so screwed.

▲

And Now, An Update From Reality

As we head towards either the completely unforced self-immolation of default, or the almost as self-defeating response of belt tightening amidst a recession, it’s worth taking yet one more swing at the piñata:  does the US have a debt/deficit crisis?

There are lots of ways to say “no.”

Here’s Kthug, debunking yet again the myth of out-of-control federal spending.  DeLong reminds us  (yet again)that the bond market thinks our debt is nothing to write home about.  Karl Smith reminds us that the US is borrowing money at a rate that amounts to a negative real return—which is to say that right now it is cheaper for the US to borrow than to pay cash for what it buys.

Now, via Zachary Karabell writing at Time.com, we learn of a new way to parse the blunt truth:  we have real policy challenges facing us—mostly how to get sufficient—hell, any—growth going in the economy that could lead to actually getting our fellow citizens back into paying jobs.  But what we don’t have is an unsustainable debt burden, as revealed by perhaps the most direct metric of all:  how much it costs us as a percentage of GDP to service the supposedly unprecedented, unsustainable flood of red ink in which the United States is (not) drowning:

...what matters about the debt isn’t the dollar amount per se, but how much it costs us to service it. And by that measure, the debt isn’t nearly as big a problem as it’s being made out to be.

Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.

Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about 1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.

Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.

Yup…for a debt burden that in budgetary terms is about half of what Saint Ronnie dealt with, we are now contemplating dismantling the safety net and gutting the investment in education, research and infrastructure that are essential for any future economic security for our country and our kids.

The good news is that this comes from an unequivocally MSM source.  The bad news is that the Village, for the most part, has failed to convey to the American people that what we are seeing is simply the smokescreen the GOP is using to hide its pursuit of policies that it could never sustain in the full light of day.  Too much of our government has fallen into the hands of fools and knaves.  And the press—not enough of it, even now—has left it way too late to confront that fact.

And yes, as Karabell and the others have noted, the Democrats have either gone along with too much of this nonsense, or else mounted ineffective opposition to the folly, avarice and/or pure stupidity of their opponents.  But consider the alternative—and, it seems to me, we gotta work, however resentfully, as hard as it takes to hold what we have and to grab the House back fifteen months from now.  “Not that bad” may be cold comfort…but your modern GOP is terrifyingly worse.

Image:  Jacques de Gheyn (II), Vanitas Still Life, 1603.

▲

Deeper and deeper

It looks like the Dirty Fucking Hippies were right about this too:

The broadest measure of the economy, known as the gross domestic product, grew at an annual rate of less than 1 percent in the first half of 2011, the Commerce Department reported on Friday. The figures for the first quarter and the second quarter, 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent respectively, were well below what economists were expecting, and signified a sharp slowdown from the early months of the recovery.

The government also revised data going all the way back to 2003 that showed the recession was deeper, and the recovery weaker, than initially believed.

Murkins tighten their belt when times are tough, the government should too. It’s just common sense.

▲

How to rescue the recovery

I didn’t get around to linking to this earlier and I think it really deserves more attention. It’s a long and wonky post, but to the extent that I understand this stuff, I think Jon Perr has a brilliant plan:

So here is a proposal to rescue the states and protect the fragile American economy, all with only a small impact on the federal government’s long-term debt. Establish a $200 billion, two-year federal fund providing loans to those states desiring them to prevent further layoffs and to help pay for the rising, recession-induced costs of Medicaid, unemployment and other essential services. Call it the State Assistance Fund (SAF).

Or as Jon suggests, the alternate title could be “Recovery and Economic Assistance for Governments Around the Nation” – THE REAGAN ACT.

It’s purely voluntary and the states get to decide how and where to spend the money. The blustering, small government hypocrites can opt out on “principle”, while the smart governors could use the cash to stablize their budgets. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work.

▲

Pretty Much This

This comment at Gawker made me very upset because it is true:

Let’s say there’s this person called America. Now, there’s a person standing next to America named Gop. Gop is holding a loaded gun to the side of America’s head, and is demanding that you hand over fifty puppies, or he’s going to shoot America in the head.

Like any sensible person, you hand over fifty puppies, because you don’t want to see America get shot in the head. Gop takes the puppies and America lives.

Now, a couple months later, Gop and America are at it again. I guess America is Gop’s mistress or something, I don’t really know. The difference is that this time, Gop has put all the puppies in a cage and wired it with explosives.

Gop is now demanding five hundred puppies. If Gop doesn’t get five hundred puppies, he’s going to shoot America in the head, and blow up the fifty puppies you already gave him.

Now let’s say you get all five hundred puppies and deliver them to Gop, and tell Gop that in exchange for these five hundred puppies, you would really appreciate it if Gop would hand over the detonator for the fifty puppies wired with explosives, and the gun he’s holding to the head of America.

Gop refuses. Gop now has a gun against America’s temple, the hammer is cocked, and he has fifty puppies wired with explosives, with an offer for five hundred more if he’ll just put down the gun and detonator.

The problem is that Gop can’t do that, because Teaparty, his former partner, is holding his wife, Reelection, hostage too. If Gop doesn’t get all the puppies, and keeps the gun and detonator, Teaparty is going to shoot Gop’s wife Reelection in the head.

Now, for this to untangle itself, someone has to die. Either Gop blows up the puppies and shoots America in the head because you won’t give in to their completely unreasonable demands, or America and the puppies live because Gop gave you the gun and detonator, but Teaparty killed Gop’s wife, Reelection.

There is a third and fourth way. Gop turns around and shoots Teaparty, sparing his wife, mistress, and puppies, or Gop shoots himself, thus freeing America and the puppies and leaving Teaparty out in the cold.

So really, it’s a double hostage situation. The Democrats are offering the world to the GOP to keep them from blowing it all up, but the GOP can’t take the deal because if they do, the Tea Party will go fucking nuts and everyone that votes for it will face a primary challenge.

The insane people are running the party, and now morons like David Brooks and the “reasonable Republicans” are like “WTF happened” when they were the ones fluffing the nutters for years. Even assuming there are Republicans left in the house that really are not insane enough to default the government, an assumption I am simply not willing to make, they are terrified they will lose their job like the other tens of millions of people suffering from Republican policies, because the teahadists will primary them.

And anyone who still calls themselves a Republican is just an asshole. Really, you’ve had ample time to figure out your party is run by maniacs. If you’re still sticking around because the “Democrats are worse” or you think the party can turn it around or because you fancy yourself a small “c” conservative or you are a glibertarian or because you hate taxes or you think Dennis Kucinich is weird (he is), you’re just an asshole. And incredibly stupid.

▲

Even When They’re Right, They’re Wrong

So, the banks, some of them, finally figure out that (some) loan modification is better than the alternative:

Two of the nation’s biggest lenders, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, are quietly modifying loans for tens of thousands of borrowers who have not asked for help but whom the banks deem to be at special risk.

Rula Giosmas is one of the beneficiaries. Last year she received a letter from Chase saying it was cutting in half the amount she owed on her condominium.

...

Banks are proactively overhauling loans for borrowers like Ms. Giosmas who have so-called pay option adjustable rate mortgages, which were popular in the wild late stages of the housing boom but which banks now view as potentially troublesome.

Before Chase shaved $150,000 off her mortgage, Ms. Giosmas owed much more on her place than it was worth. It was a fate she shared with a quarter of all homeowners with mortgages across the nation. Being underwater, as it is called, can prevent these owners from moving and taking new jobs, and places the households at greater risk of foreclosure.

All well and good.  Option ARM’s, the particular class of loans the banks are now modifying, allowed  borrowers to pay no principal, and only part of the interest each month—with whatever interest they chose not to cover ending up as additional loan balance encumbering whatever poor structure to which it is attached.

Those are clearly financial anti-personnel devices,* and it’s probably not a bad idea to try and defuse some of them before they blow. Or at least that’s the reasoning reported: More »

▲

If I Recall, the Moonbat Left Had Plans to Address This Crap

But the money party made sure cramdowns and other procedures to help stop this from happening died in the crib:

The nation’s biggest banks and mortgage lenders have steadily amassed real estate empires, acquiring a glut of foreclosed homes that threatens to deepen the housing slump and create a further drag on the economic recovery.

All told, they own more than 872,000 homes as a result of the groundswell in foreclosures, almost twice as many as when the financial crisis began in 2007, according to RealtyTrac, a real estate data provider. In addition, they are in the process of foreclosing on an additional one million homes and are poised to take possession of several million more in the years ahead.

Five years after the housing market started teetering, economists now worry that the rise in lender-owned homes could create another vicious circle, in which the growing inventory of distressed property further depresses home values and leads to even more distressed sales. With the spring home-selling season under way, real estate prices have been declining across the country in recent months.

“It remains a heavy weight on the banking system,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “Housing prices are falling, and they are going to fall some more.”

Over all, economists project that it would take about three years for lenders to sell their backlog of foreclosed homes. As a result, home values nationally could fall 5 percent by the end of 2011, according to Moody’s, and rise only modestly over the following year. Regions that were hardest hit by the housing collapse and recession could take even longer to recover — dealing yet another blow to a still-struggling economy.

The most shortsighted people in the world are the ones giving out 30 year loans. We’re screwed. And we can blame most of it on greed.

▲

the fundamental question for the left

Trying to define relative position on a left-right political spectrum is wasted effort. It’s fair to say, though, that I have a set of beliefs that are not quite in tune with John Cole, most of the Balloon Juice crew, or what I take to be the consensus of the commenters around here. But I am consistently encouraged by the insistence around here not just on what is good for workers and the lower classes but what empowers them.

There’s a troubling form of liberalism that is increasingly found in the wonky, think-tank-and-establishment-media blogosphere that is so influential these days. I’ve called it, in the past, globalize/grow/give progressivism. Mike Konczal of Rortybomb has referred to it as pity charity liberalism. (I hope you all are turned on to Rortybomb; it’s essential reading.) Whatever you want to call it, this vision of the liberal project defines itself through the social safety net. Its orientation is towards expanding and protecting a redistributive social welfare system. Meanwhile, it is at best uninterested in (and often downright hostile towards) worker organization, unions, regulation, and other attempts to empower workers in relation to capital and poor people in relation to the rich. The idea is that, if you get the economy going well enough, you can redistribute enough money to the poor that they’ll be alright, even while you’ve undermined their ability to collectively bargain, raise the value of their labor, and exercise power.

Obviously, this tends to come with a lot of other ideological and policy baggage, usually oriented towards “free market” reforms and antipathy to regulation and unions. I don’t want to refight the neoliberalism wars. Whatever the particular content of the policy preferences that come along with this kind of purely redistributive liberalism, I think it’s a huge mistake. You can’t meaningfully divide people’s welfare from their power, and you shouldn’t ask them to.

More » ▲

We’re All Michael Moore Now

Someone fetch me a tincture of camphor and ready up the fainting couch, because I’ve just found a horrible violation of the new tone:

Here’s what I mean. Consider cutting SNAP benefits. Cutting SNAP benefits leads to more hungry children. Yet pointing out that consequence is consistently regarded as a blood libel, or crossing the line, or not engaging in substantive! respectful! debate! This is why I talk so much about the tyranny of social relationships in political commentary. It’s considered out of bounds to say things like “your proposal leads to hungry kids,” but cutting SNAP benefits leads to hungry kids. It just does. The thing is that when you’re stamping around talking about the unfairness of the question, you aren’t answering it.

***

Think about that for a little bit. All non-Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid spending reducing at that rate in that amount of time. These aren’t deep cuts. These aren’t harsh cuts. These are transformative cuts. And they will have consequences that are going to be, frankly, crazy. (I’m really going to enjoy watching the Republicans cut military pensions. Should be a winner.)

But abstraction will survive. The pundits, journalist, politicos, bloggers, and so on who advocate these cuts aren’t the people who will live with the consequences. It’s one of the most persistent and most vexing problems with our democracy: both the politicians in our country and the people who report and comment on them live in an entirely different economic station from the average American. David Brooks will never go to some poor hungry child’s home and look the kid in the eye and praise Paul Ryan’s toughness. He’s not going to be forced to live with the day in, day out consequences of cutting unemployment benefits for millions of people. Nobody’s going to be calling him, begging him to watch their kids for a couple hours because they can’t afford day care anymore. Meanwhile, he and others like him will live in the world of abstraction, where the pleasant lies of metaphor shield them from a cruelly literal world.

Moore award! So unserious! Where’s your plan?

At any rate, this post does a much better job of explaining what I was trying to get at earlier.

▲