From the New York Times:

Mr. Pandit, the head of Citigroup, pledged to cut his salary to $1 a year until the bank returned to profitability and took personal responsibility for the “mistake” of even thinking about buying a new $50 million private jet after getting government financing. “I get the new reality, and I will make sure Citi gets it as well,” he declared.

Mr. Pandit, the “new reality” as you chose to call it (in a phrase, downsizing our own finances to barely scraping by levels) is actually the life-long reality for the majority of us.

Mr. Lewis of Bank of America, who occasionally grew testy and red-faced at questions about lending, told lawmakers that his bank had “every incentive to lend.”

I have every incentive to provide a comfortable life for my family, Mr. Lewis, but, sorry, reality kicks you in the ass sometimes and it’s your ass that has the target affixed to it for once.

The final quote rings with an air of populist realism, a sentiment that most of us feel, unless we’re sure that we’re going to be “rich” in the next couple years like Joe the Plumber did, facing the disparate realities of these bankers compared to your average American:

Louann Prosack, a retiree from Jessup, Md., said she traveled to Washington to understand why Wall Street workers were being paid so much, even as their companies foundered.

“It’s coming out of other people’s pockets, the money,” Ms. Prosack said. “And they say they can’t live on their $150,000 salary. That’s more than I ever made in a year, and I managed.”

Keep crying, banking CEOs. The new reality might just mean you have to live in a five bedroom house instead of that compound you’re used too.

Cry me a river.

Today, I’ve come to my judgment and it is as such: we are fighting a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, but America’s most immediate enemies crawl in the green halls of Wall Street.

I watched the DOW tank today when the Senate finally set the stimulus package up for a vote and, judging by Wall Street’s reaction, they are not happy. I am now thoroughly convinced that since September 16, 2008, when the reality of our economy’s fragility came to fruition, Wall Street collectively has sought to usurp control of our country. They knew then that President Bush was headed out and figured that, most likely, Senator McCain was not going to win. Their reaction, mostly knee jerk, was to bail on America knowing full well that the hole they (“they” being big business, lenders, and banks) dug with Americans’ hard-earned dollars was never going to get filled and under an Obama administration it was only going to get worse. Hence, they committed the ancient practice of seppuku; they disemboweled themselves, hurtling America into such economic chaos that it seems likely that, unless President Obama’s stimulus package does indeed work, our government itself may unravel at the hands of obstructionist Republicans sitting at the wretched lap of Rush Limbaugh.

And this, my friends, is what Wall Street wants.

There is a gun pointed at our heads and we’re being held hostage by suits crying about having to make less than $500,000 a year.

Yesterday (Dec. 10, 2008) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) spoke at length on NPR’s All Things Considered about his opposition to the US automakers loan request. He used the term “antiquated” when describing unions in “today’s world.” This struck me as both naive and shortsighted.

Maybe DeMint rarely travels outside the US. Or maybe he sticks to the resort towns when venturing south-of-the-border. None-the-less, his ignorance of present day human-rights violations committed by individuals pursuing private monetary gain should automatically void his position as a US senator.

Mr. DeMint, not only have unions been responsible for creating better working conditions and fairer wages in the US, they’re also giving hope to workers around the world. Yes, unions are not free of problems and corruption. You know, unlike an under-regulated capitalist economy which favors greed over basic human rights…

¹ Change in Car Production Costs: the Effects on Dm, Dl, Oh
² Blaming the workers

EDIT (12-15): New York Times Article: $73 an Hour: Adding It Up

Barack Obama is a centrist. In his campaign he’s relentlessly focused on the middle-class without even a mention of the poor. He’s taken a hard-line stance on the side of Israel (AIPAC) and has snubbed Palestine (and Lebanon) in the process. He wouldn’t allow Jimmy Carter to speak at the DNC for fear of speaking out on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He was afraid of losing the Jewish vote, and in turn losing Florida. He’s taken more corporate campaign contributions than his Republican counterpart. The old adage “follow the money” should frighten even the most die-hard Democrat. He loosened his stance on building nuclear power plants, offshore oil drilling, and creating new coal burning facilities.

Barack Obama has consistently sacrificed his integrity for votes. Maybe he’s just pandering as a candidate for a chance to progressively lead as President. I don’t know. But these contradictions bring responsibility to America to hold Obama accountable for every decision he makes as Commander-in-Chief. Don’t be complacent. Don’t rest.

I have seen the future of the Democratic Party and his name is Barack Obama. This is a man that is sorely needed by this nation to make sure our country thrives and serves her people. A man of eloquence, intelligence, and wisdom he represents what America is truly about. If there is a person that can set the Democratic Party aflame, it is indeed this gentleman from Chicago.

This blog hasn’t been as active with political posting as in previous elections, but outside the “sphere” we’re just as (if not more) passionate.

I have to be honest with the reader. One main reason keeping me from posting was my pessimism regarding the odds of this country actually voting for (using Cas’s words) an eloquent, intelligent, and wise candidate. I didn’t want to raise hopes just for them to fall flat come 3AM Nov. 5th.

Back in February 2003 me, my wife, and a couple close friends protested against the eventual Iraq invasion. We felt solidarity surrounded by individuals of different faith, creed, color, and political affiliations. The mainstream media covered these protests closely. Mainly because of the sheer massiveness of the event. 6-10 million worldwide, 3 million in Rome alone. These weren’t crazy liberal activists, these were regular citizens, with regular jobs and regular lives. President Bush was questioned afterward whether these immense protests would alter his approach to the inevitable invasion. “I’m [not] going to decide policy based upon a focus group.” Last night as Obama gave his victory speech in front of 100,000, this is what he said: “To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president too.”

That’s the attitude the Feb. ‘03 protesters were begging for. Just listen to us. We may be “treehugging” Socialists, or “money hungry” Libertarians but that doesn’t mean the President doesn’t have a responsibility to at least listen.

Hopefully Obama will fulfill his promise.

Last Wednesday [Oct. 15th 2008], while presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain debated domestic policy issues in front of a live television audience at the Long Island campus of Hofstra University, Nassau county police faced off with a few hundred spirited but peaceful demonstrators. And using excessive force, police — on horses and in full riot gear — trampled several people including Iraq vet Nick Morgan.

Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.

There’s No Arguing With Conservatives … No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It

“Conservative estimates place the costs of the [occupation] at $120 billion a year, and some estimates–which take into account the long-term costs, chiefly care for veterans–are much, much higher.¹” The Tax Policy Center is still working on the specific numbers but it looks like most estimates place Obama’s proposed spending on par with his tax hikes on the rich (by rescinding Bush’s cuts) and an end of the occupation in Iraq. The latter being a fairly lofty goal but a goal we should all back nonetheless.

On the other hand McCain is bat shit insane to think he can balance the budget while continuing Bush’s tax cuts and the Iraq occupation. He’s lying, and the middle-class will pay if he’s elected.

If we take McCain at his word and accept that he’s going to implement all the tax cuts he’s calling for AND his promise to balance the budget by 2013, the only possible conclusion is that he will have to cut Social Security and Medicare by 60%, all but dismantling the programs.²

Back to Obama and the Republican pundits. Another line getting thrown about lately is, “McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time, but Obama votes with the Democrats 97%.” While this is true, Obama has spent far lesser time in the legislative branch of Washington than McCain (a fact we’re reminded of everytime we hear a Repub’ open his/her mouth). A slightly lower percentage (90%) of a high number versus a slightly higher percentage (97%) of a low number, equates to a higher number. Confused, don’t worry McCain is too.

Actually, when we look closer at Obama’s proposed tax policy we uncover one point where (unlike McCain’s tax policy) he sides AGAINST his party (gasp).

Congressional Democrats [--] should have the courage of their presidential nominee [...] They are wrong to try to raise taxes, but they are even more wrong to pretend otherwise by hiding behind a completely unrealistic CBO [Congressional Budget Office] baseline.³

That’s from the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing foundation). Yeah, you read that right. Here’s more from the same article.

It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Perhaps to his own surprise, Obama has apparently joined forces with conservatives to correct the CBO revenue baseline. Maybe this also demonstrates that Washington is ready to have an honest debate about tax and spending policy.³

Of course, you won’t hear anything about that from O’Reilly. One additional thing you won’t hear is this:

The true cost of Senator McCain’s tax proposals is $2.8 trillion larger than what his advisors have acknowledged. And most of that $2.8 trillion is the cost of yet more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The plan still offers very little for ordinary Americans.⁴

On the other hand the Tax Policy Center found…

little difference between what they described as Obama’s stated positions and his campaign advisors description of his tax plan.⁴

What we have is more lies, more deception, and more incorrect assumptions that the Republicans have it “right” when it comes to taxes, revenue, and spending.

In all honesty neither McCain or Obama–with their current proposals–have a chance in hell of balancing the budget within 4, 8, or even 10 years. If you really want a fiscally responsible president, voting for Bob Barr or writing-in Ron Paul is probably you’re best option. I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.

¹ _{Do Obama’s Tax and Spending Proposals Add Up?}
² _{Report from the Duel of Economic Advisors}
³ _{Obama to CBO Revenue Baseline: Nuts—and He’s Right!}
⁴ _{McCain’s tax plan is $2.8 trillion more than previously admitted (PDF)}

Here’s the breakdown:

	MCCAIN	OBAMA
Income	Avg. tax bill	Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M	-$269,364	+$701,885
$603K and up	-$45,361	+$115,974
$227K-$603K	-$7,871	+$12
$161K-$227K	-$4,380	-$2,789
$112K-$161K	-$2,614	-$2,204
$66K-$112K	-$1,009	-$1,290
$38K-$66K	-$319	-$1,042
$19K-$38K	-$113	-$892
Under $19K	-$19	-$567
Table courtesy of CNN Money

In brief, each individual for the group in question stands to gain an average of $723/year if they vote for Obama over McCain.

If money is so important to you, don’t you think it would be beneficial to research the candidates prior to assuming the Republican is always going to be better on your pocket book?

_{Here’s a second source pretty much reiterating CNN Money numbers.
And a third source…}