“Her view is, it’s just not appropriate to accept a pay raise in the middle of the term.”

Oh, so she will accept it in 2010 (if she is re-elected) then? Of course when you consider the hockey mom Governor, charged the State $16,951 to work from home, and another $43,490 on travel for her children and husband that $25,000 raise would probably seem like a pay cut if she lost that in the process.

Of course, when you consider that Alaska takes $1.83 return for every federal tax dollar they put in to the system you could say it is time for us to stop subsidizing Alaska and make them “evolve or die” as the GOP says all non-profitable businesses must do. (Why no, I am not picking on the GOP Senators that are trying their best to force the U.S. Automakers into bankruptcy to benefit the foreign automakers in their States, why do you ask? Actually more on that in a separate post).

Yes I am talking about all of you that liked to quote and believed financial “expert” Dave Ramsey who “knew better” like in this CBS interview back in January where when answering questions said:

“WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON A WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE? IS IT JUST TALK?” asks John, from New York.

“I’m 47-years-old,” Ramsey replied, “and every year in my memory, there’s been some sort of talk like this … but I’ve never seen it happen.

OK — but how can we be so certain that the world’s not going to fall apart this time around?

“The U.S has the most robust economy in the history of man, and it’s the most sophisticated it’s ever been; there are lots of checks and balances and safety nets,” Ramsey explained.

Except, under pressure from banking industry, U.S. government eased lending rules. So, those “checks and balances were not there (more on that later separately), and the banking industry was playing Russian Roulette with the economy… and lost.

Hey Dave, remember when your arrogance was in full steam calling Ted an idiot because he said we were in a recession back after the Bear Sterns bailout? Remember how ignorant you said he was for his lack of knowledge, and how you knew better and more? Ummm…. guess you were ignorant, because you were “lacking the knowledge” that we were in fact already in a recession. Are you ready to eat some crow now Dave? Idiot!

Aside: Now allow me to point out that there were certainly valid reasons to listen to Dave Ramsey in the past. He is quite correct in stating how Credit Cards and debt are a problem in this country. His teaching about fiscal responsibility and control were (and are) worth noting in a day and age where not enough people are saving for the future and are far too instant gratification orientated. That being said, his push to deny this recession was monumentally stupid, and he lost a lot of (if not all) credibility in the process.

It is tiring already to hear about how Obama was critical of Clinton in the past. Yes, during the primaries. Is this any surprise? Don’t candidates normally go through this process of knocking each other during the primaries and then “reconcile” once it is done? Why is this a bigger deal? This team of rivals concept is taking on a life far greater than it needs to be.

We seem to be forgetting that the man with the vision is in charge, and just because our current President was seemingly lead around by those who told him what to do, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “Personnel Is Policy” has to be true in every case, and that he can have opinions that will help temper his own while still holding on to his own policy standards. I don’t expect that now that Ms. Clinton is Secreatary of State that Obama will be any more “pro-war” than he was before, nor do I expect it to be a problem for Clinton to put Obama’s policies into action. If either of them saw this as an issue, I don’t think this would have gone through.

Can we just get to January now before deciding what everything “means” and stop guessing? Please.

Eric Boehlert covers one of the most obvious (to me), that seems to be playing out with those against providing support to Detroit, The media myth: Detroit’s $70-an-hour autoworker.

That of course dovetails in nicely with Mark Phelan’s article in the Free Republic about the 6 myths about the Detroit 3.

I of course have been saying for a while that the big reason for stalling aid to the automakers is a concerted effort to bust the unions, but Crooks and Liars’ David Neiwerthas has Rick Berman on Faux News explicity blaming the unions for Detroit and the desire to bust the unions.

And of course there are those that simply think the difference going on is that White Collar work get the money while the blue collar jobs are left to twist in the breeze. Rachel Maddow has more on that:

“I want to bring Michigan back,” said Mitt Romney. “I am not willing to sit back and say ‘too bad for Michigan, too bad for the car industry, too bad for the people who lost their jobs, they are gone forever.’ I will not rest when I am president of the United States until Michigan is brought back.”

Or is he the guy that penned in the NYTimes, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”?

Perrspectives has much more on the evil twin Mitt Romney’s.

Should taxpayers in Alabama be required to bail out automakers whose plants are concentrated in Northern states like Michigan and Ohio?

And I am sorry, if that is the question being asked, it is soundly wrong in the way it is being reasoned. Was anybody asking, should people from northern States be forced to pay for the reconstruction of southern States after Katrina? After all, they should have planned ahead, so why should I have to pay part of the $105 billion (which unlike the automaker loan was a hand-out for reconstruction)? Why should States like Michigan have a negative return on Federal Tax dollars, when States like Alabama take in considerably more than they pay in?

The answer should be quite simple, because we are supposed to be the UNITED States. I know, I am silly like that. Because being against spreading the wealth only works when States like Alabama have to actually pay into something. They are more than happy to take though as the Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on the Federal Tax Dollar clearly shows. But instead, they see it as a potential boom to their economy (conflict of interest) since non-union shops like Hyndai have set up shop in Alabama. This boom even comes to the detriment of the people of Alabama.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R- Ala., told reporters Wednesday, “I can not imagine a real justification for a worker in Alabama who does not have any health insurance at his company to be taxed to maintain a Cadillac health care plan for somebody in Detroit.”

So, tell me why isn’t Sen. Sessions fighting to make corporations provide healthcare for the people of Alabama. I guess it is OK if the people of Alabama toil with no healthcare so long as it helps fill State coffers.

But pure greed isn’t the only negative force at play here. There is also the union busting efforts as well. Listen to Sen. Jim Bunning, (R- Ky) speak and it becomes clear that his idea of a good business model is one that throws healthcare, employee benefits and retirees to the wolves. When asked about a potential bankruptcy of GM or Chrysler he said (emphasis added):

“I think that’s probably the best thing that can happen,” Bunning replied. “Then there will be a reorganization and they’ll be able to jettison things they couldn’t ordinarily jettison, like health care benefits, like pension benefits and there will be someone to pick those up like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. And then they will be able to restructure their salaries to get more in line with foreign producers and they may come out of bankruptcy a heck of a lot better off than they go into it.”

So lets recap. Toss out healthcare benefits, let insurance pick up the pension plan (and who pays for that? Those premiums come from other pension plans.), and while he can’t actually say bust the union, “restructure their salaries” is clear enough a statement, in other words take away the benefits and pay less.

Yes, there are concessions that will probably have to be made (and some that have already been made by the UAW). I have already pointed out that the UAW has not exactly handled this well (though certainly no worse that the Big 3 execs flying in on Private Jets to ask for money), but do we really need to strip every worker of protection in this country? Is that the sole answer to every problem?

There seems to be a hangover from the days when the unions in this country probably did have too much power. However that was quite some time ago, now it is just a myth pushed (predomininatly by the GOP) to justify a “Wal-Mart style” of maximizing corporate profits at the expense of employees. We have returned to a time where employees are “expenses” rather than “assets” of a company. Nobody says that corporations are entitled to make money, but let us be clear, the employee should be entitled to a reasonable living as well. After all, if they want the United State to be a “consumer society” we actually have to have money to buy those items they are selling. America is over extented, we faked it the past 20 years or so, extending credit to everybody and anybody to keep consumption up, while income only went to the top. And this is what they want to continue and exacerbate by attempting to bust up the unions.

The Big Three, Bunning said, “overpromised and couldn’t deliver. They overpromised benefits, they overpromised and didn’t have the product to produce the amount of money necessary to pay them.”

Economists and auto industry experts might or might not agree with Bunning’s assessment, but what matters is that he has a vote.

So regardless of whether economists or auto experts agree, it comes down to those like Bunning and Sessions with a clear agenda are the ones calling the shots of what is “best” for America. If it is not the right decision to be made, that is fine. But lets not make this decision for all the wrong reasons.

Well as it turns out (and of course nobody but wingnuts will be surprised by this, and I guess Rep. Bachmann will try to say it is an urban legend), but in their latest video release, it seems that is just not the case, as Al-Qaida No. 2 insults Obama with race epithet.

“You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America,” he said.

“It appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims,” he said.

Do you think this is enough to stop the wingnuts from suggesting idiocy as Obama wants to gas the Jews? Nah, I doubt it. Reality hasn’t been their strong suit.

“We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid” (dramatic pause) “and they are condemned.”

“I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad.”

“They’re not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion … they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.”

“We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein’s soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly.”

“I speak better English than this villain Bush”

(OK, so maybe sometimes he had a point)

We watched, and laughed, knowing that nothing he was saying was anything but propaganda (and not very good propaganda at that).

So, now tell me this… How is this any different than listening to Dana Perino? I mean especially for those living outside this country, is this any different? How? She continues to push forth lies as instructed by the Bush administration. Things that are so incredibly inane, that you can’t help but laugh, because she can’t honestly believe any of the crap she puts forth can she?

“This president has said that we did interrogate terrorists, and we did so to protect the country from possible imminent terrorist attack. We did not torture.”

“Unfortunately, the president’s position on stem cells has been misconstrued over the years, with the suggestion that President Bush put a ban on research for embryonic stem cell research. That is not true.“

When asked if we were in a recession back in October:

“You know I don’t think that we know. … So I couldn’t say. The classic definition of a recession is not something that we could determine now, or forecast. It’s something that people look back on.”

“I’ve been fortunate to work for a president who I consider to be the first gender blind president.”

(As Bush was threatening to veto the Paycheck Fairness Act)

So, is there a difference? Does being an unbelievable liar just come with the position? Or did they actully believe anything they were saying?

Near as I can figure, President Bush seems to believe that he can attach a signing statement along with the Iraqi pact, saying that the dates are only aspirational.

But this isn’t true. According the The Independent:

The US had originally wanted some of its troops to stay beyond 2011 for training purposes and for withdrawal to be conditional on the security situation. The Iraqi government resisted and has prevailed. The deal still needs the approval of Iraq’s parliament, but if granted, it will spell the beginning of the end of the US occupation of Iraq.

…

The fact that the US has committed to pulling out with no strings attached should ease political and sectarian tensions in the country. After all, the vast majority of Iraqis want the American military out.

So, in other words, if going forward we actually withdraw troops according the pact hammered out by the current administration, actually removing the troops on the stated schedule can be blamed on President-Elect Obama, because this dates aren’t “firm” according to the President that will no longer be in charge at the time these dates come up.