Oil profits riddle

Ok so we all know by now that crude oil and gas prices are both very high. I think most people have also heard that American's are driving a lot less as a result. So if people are buying less gas then how are oil companies continuing to make record profits?

While overall production dropped 8 percent the major oil companies profits rose between 13 and 33 percent for each of the major companies. Producing less, selling less, making more. Well it's good to know that their profit margins aren't hurting.

McCain doesn't speak for...McCain

I guess the Republican party is running as John McCain here and not McCain running as the republican candidate as is usually the practice in politics.

John McCain, who had previously said he would not raise taxes, now says it's not off the table. That's not the best part. McCain spokesmen Tucker Bounds says that McCain will not raise taxes...basically McCain's words do not represent McCain's views. So either he's lying, flip-flopping, or (what I think is most likely) he forgot what 'his' position (read: the party line) is. He had a brief stint of honestly and sanity and he had to be corrected by a spokesman. I'm glad republicans keep reminding me why I'm not one of them.

Bush: worst economic president ever?

So I've already done a two post series on how bad republicans are for the national economy in just about every way imaginable but I just had to mention this:

Federal Budget Deficit will reach record low of $490 billion

The previous low was $413 billion (also under Bush). Consider that Clinton left with a $236 billion SURPLUS and you come up with Bush adding $726 billion to the deficit. In an eight year presidency that's $90.75 billion a year! That's more than any president (except for Bush Sr.) has lost in the entire presidency going back through JFK (and that's only as far back as I can find records).

I think any Republican running for national office should have to admit that Bush is the worst president since Hoover (I would say he's probably worse but I want push this on them cause that's debateable) before they can get their name on the ballot. He has ruined/is ruining our country and it will be a glorious day when he leaves office.

Brian Williams talks with Ahmadinejad?

Holy cow! I hope there were pre-conditions to this interview. Doesn't Brian Williams know how international relations work? Why would NBC aid terrorism like this?

Oh wait. Those are all right wing talking points. Nevermind. Tonight Brian Williams sits down to talk with Ahmadinejad. It sounds like their nuclear program will be the primary focus. I wonder if he'll get Mahmoud to admit that he terrorist fist bumps Obama at their weekly Muslim meetings?

Politics, like comedy, is all about timing

McCain was going to give a speech supporting offshore American drilling. He was supposed to deliver this speech on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico but it was cancelled due to weather. I guess the weather was too nice.

It couldn't have anything to do with the 400,000+ gallon oil spill in the Gulf yesterday. Hmmmm, at least he has the brains to cancel it but this is just bad timing for McCain. Can we just add this to the list of reasons to diminish our dependence on oil...period (not just foreign oil).

Al-Maliki lays the smack down

Now I'm sure that the republicans will spin this in some way but this does not bode well for republicans, Bush, McCain, or anyone who criticized Obama's timetable for withdrawl. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

So yeah, Al-Maliki pretty much says Obama has a really good idea with the timetable. And since McCain himself had said we would have to respect the Iraqis request to withdraw. Um, yeah, smackdown.

My take on the New Yorker cover today

I don't intend this to be a long post but since the New Yorker cover is the topic in the news today I thought I'd just weigh in with my opinion on the topic.

I understand the satire of it and I don't particularly have a problem with it because I agree that most New Yorker readers will understand the satire but my one thought on it is that it could've been done better. Here's the issue: satire needs to have someone they're lampooning or ridiculing and they are usually, if not always, the center of the satire. Whether it's a person, a group, a system or idea I feel like the object of satire needs to be front and center. The awkwardness of the New Yorker cover is that the only thing presented is Barack and Michelle Obama. I think it would be more acceptable if it were Karl Rove or some right wing pundit describing this pictorally on the cover or a picture of the McCain camp denying helping the spread of the rumors at all.

I acknowledge the satire and can see the humor, but it's not really that well done (especially considering it's the New Yorker).

Jesse Jackson (no, it's not what you think)

I'm not using this post to comment on the recent "scandal" of Jesse Jackson's comments because, frankly, it's silly. Whatever.

What this incident reminded me of in a roundabout way is that if Obama is elected president his senate replacement will have to be appointed and this whole fiasco has reminded me that there is at least a decent chance that someone like Jesse Jackson Jr. (son of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ill congressman).

He's been an illinois congressman for 12 years, there's something to be said for replacing the only african american senator with another african american, and would be a more liberal senator than Obama. I just think he would be a great choice and I hope he gets serious consideration.

Today in the senate

So the FISA fight officially died today. There were 28 heroes who voted against FISA and for all of the amendments (a few who voted against it did actually vote for cloture and as much as I'm not a fan of the cloture vote the other votes were the important ones)

A note that Clinton was one of these heroes but Obama was not. Obama, in what can only be construed as a pandering political move, voted for all of the amendments (to appease the left) but then when they were all defeated voted for cloture and for the bill with immunity (pissing off the left but appeasing people in the middle and the right so that John McCain can't falsely accuse him of not protecting our country). It just seems like a silly move to me and ultimate capitulation to stand up and say "we should have all of these amendments to this bill" and then when told 'no' you just say "ok, nevermind, I guess the bill is fine as it is." You just rewarded their stubbornness and showed yourself to be weak. Very frustrating, although not entirely unexpected I guess.

In very uplifting news from the senate, the medicare bill that was in danger of not passing (or at least not passing with a veto-proof majority) but then Ted Kennedy made his first appearance since his diagnosis to vote for it. This argueably swayed a few fence-sitting republicans needed so that the motion passed with 69 votes.

Oh and not that these votes were important or anything but McCain couldn't be bothered to show up.

Republicans are bad with money part 2

Ok, so yesterday I used unemployment rates and the budget deficit as examples of how bad Republicans have been with money during the presidency. Although I'm sure I could find more examples I think the examples I've used and will use here cover important bases of money matters:

1) Unemployment rates - represent economic effect on the electorate. availability of jobs has direct effects on people
2) Budget deficit - how good the government/president is at budgeting, using only money that we have.
3) GDP growth - overall health of the economy. The president may not always have an extremely direct effect on the economy but Washington polices do effect economic health. So let's see if there are patterns here

President Party %GDP growth %GDP growth per year
FDR Dem 180.64 15.08
LBJ Dem 28.89 5.78
JFK Dem 13.28 4.43
Clinton Dem 33.81 4.23
Reagan Rep 30.63 3.83
Carter Dem 13.67 3.42
Eisenhower Rep 25.83 3.23
Nixon Rep 17.88 2.98
Ford Rep 5.46 2.73
Bush 2 Rep 17.82 2.55
Bush 1 Rep 8.81 2.20
Truman Dem 10.06 1.26
Hoover Rep -25.60 -6.40

What can we learn from this chart? The Depression was really bad (it killed growth during Hoover and the recovery rocketed FDR to the top of our list). What else? Democrats are much better for growth, generally except Truman, and Reagan is still pretty good for a Republican.

So what does it all mean other than Republican presidents are bad for out country economically? I don't know. Maybe that blanket tax cuts are pandering and not a viable economic plan? Maybe along with assuming Republicans are "tough on crime" we can take it for granted that Republicans are bad for the economy.

Now let us all look at McCain's financial plan and laugh

My new blog

Check out my new movie review blog "Fat Flicks" at www.fatflicks.blogspot.com

Republicans are bad with money part 1

So the title of this post probably doesn't surprise most people but every time I look at any numbers I just have to laugh. Let's look at some numbers:

First let's look at unemployment from 1950 to the present

Ok, in case you hadn't figured it out the red areas are during a Republican presidency. Notice that unemployment always goes down during democratic presidencies (except for Carter who came out even) and that the republicans always raise unemployment (except for Ronald Reagan who actually decreased it substantially). Here are some numbers broken down and sorted by unemployment percentage decrease.

President Party Beginning End Change
Clinton Dem 7.30% 4.20% -42.47%
LBJ Dem 5.70% 3.40% -40.35%
Reagan Rep 7.50% 5.40% -28.00%
Truman Dem 3.40% 2.90% -14.71%
JFK Dem 6.60% 5.70% -13.64%
Carter Dem 7.50% 7.50% 0.00%
Bush 2 Rep 4.20% 5.50% 30.95%
Bush 1 Rep 5.50% 7.30% 32.73%
Ford Rep 5.50% 7.50% 36.36%
Nixon Rep 3.40% 5.50% 61.76%
Eisenhower Rep 2.90% 6.60% 127.59%

So basically the Democrats won't do any harm and will usually create jobs and, more often than not, Republicans are going to do much more harm than good. Coincidence? Hmmm, I would tend to say no but I acknowledge I'm probably bias.

Not enough for you? How about the US budget/deficit by presidency since JFK?

Let's rank these to make them a little more visual

President Party Increase/Decrease of Deficit in Billions

Clinton Dem $526 Nixon Rep $19 Carter Dem $0 JFK Dem -$7 LBJ Dem -$18 Ford Rep -$68 Reagan Rep -$81 Bush 1 Rep -$135 Bush 2 Rep -$632

So Nixon does ok but again, you're much better off with a democrat than a republican. For those who aren't convinced I'll return with some GDP stats tomorrow.

But yeah, lesson for today Republican+government+money=bad