McConnell wants credit for economic turnaround

Over the weekend, for example, the Kentucky Republican insisted a “regulatory onslaught” was “the principal reason” the economic recovery isn’t stronger. It prompted Danny Vinik to explain, in persuasive detail, “McConnell is betraying his ignorance on economic issues.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) probably has a variety of strengths as a politician. A familiarity with the basics of economic policy isn’t one of them.

Three days later, McConnell shifted gears. As of this morning, the GOP leader is not only impressed with the improved economic conditions, he also wants credit for them (via Sam Stein).

“After so many years of sluggish growth, we’re finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope; the uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama Administration’s long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. So this is precisely the right time to advance a positive, pro-growth agenda.”

This would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.

We just saw an election cycle in which Mitch McConnell argued every day that President Obama is destroying the economy. In fact, his indictment was specific: the combination of “Obamacare,” higher taxes, Dodd-Frank, and federal regulations were a “wet blanket,” holding the country back.

All the while, even as McConnell whined, economic conditions just kept getting better and U.S. job growth reached a 15-year high last year. Which apparently led to an amazing rhetorical detour: never mind all that stuff McConnell said in 2014; in 2015 he wants credit for the recovery’s unexpected strength.

It’s worth emphasizing that McConnell took his time to come up with this rhetorical trick. Two days before Christmas, Americans learned that GDP growth in the third quarter of 2014 reached an 11-year high. And what did the Republican Senate leader have to say about it at the time? Literally nothing.

In fact, when the economic data was released, Republicans – from McConnell to Speaker Boehner to the RNC – apparently couldn’t think of anything to say at all. Two weeks later, however, Team McConnell wants acclaim for the growth he was previously inclined to ignore.

In case this isn’t obvious, that GDP report that was so impressive referred to economic growth in July, August, and September of last year – before anyone could say with confidence what would happen in November’s elections. McConnell is now effectively arguing that businesses and other employers were so excited – over the summer – by the mere possibility of a Republican Senate that economic growth soared. It wasn’t the result of Republican policies, so much as the broad anticipation of McConnell & Co. passing bills for President Obama to veto.

What’s worse: the notion of McConnell actually believing this nonsense or McConnell expecting Americans to buy it?

Kiss the Economy Goodbye: Republicans Plan to Kill Obama’s Wall St. Reform – Meltdown On The Way!

The GOP nomenklatura has never stood for the poorest of Americans. Being little more than an apparatchik for the wealthy oligarchs who run the country, they will stop any attempt to rein in their masters. As further proof of where their loyalties lie (because proof was needed), in the waning days of 2014, they managed to score their biggest victory so far. Bundled in a spending bill that passed the House were measures to rollback new regulations on derivatives as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.

And they hope to make a bigger impact once they’ve got both houses of Congress. This is just the opening salvo.

Behold, what monster hath GOP gerrymandering and apathetic voters wrought. If you thought 2014 sucked, wait until 2015 and 2016. Nothing is going to get done, and things will be worse off for it.

Well, not nothing. Obama will probably end up with a record of more vetoes than any president in recent memory, but when you’re stopping individuals incapable of expressing themselves beyond violent temper tantrums and public martyrbation, that record is for a good cause.

Speaking to Bloomberg shortly after the spending bill passed, GOP Rep. Kevin Yoder uttered five words nobody ever wants to here a member of Politburo say: “We have created a model.” He went onto add that: “This bipartisan success shows a pathway to solving other issues in the financial services area.”

With zero debate and a looming deadline, Congress shoved through the bipartisan spending bill in December that gutted new regulations on complicated financial instruments called “swaps.” Then, days later, the feds announced that a core element of the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from speculative trading, is going to be delayed until 2017.

This is a neat little example of how the parasites of Wall Street are fighting back. Their new strategy includes fighting for a delay, buying time and buying bipartisan support from the more “moderate” democrats for legislative rollbacks. Lisa Donner, executive director for Americans for Financial Reform, noted that the “attacks are nothing new, but they’ll harder and faster.”

The Republicans have their potential targets already lined up, and have been laying them out through dozens of hearings and bills that the House has passed. Thought the potential for a full repeal probably isn’t on the table, but death by a thousand cuts is almost certainly the endgame. In the process of targeting new oversight for “systematically important” institutions that could threaten the entire economy if they were in trouble, attempting to repeal new rules for unwinding failing banks, and trying to alter the funding, structure, and oversight of the new consumer watchdog group supported by President Obama, the GOP is trying to shift as much attention away from the parasites on Wall Street as possible — and they’ve gained more traction in the recent months.

They’ve allied themselves with smaller banks, Main Street companies, and others outside of Wall Street who have been deluded into thinking Dodd-Frank unfairly burdens them. This notion that it hurts “Main Street” is how the Nomenklatura framed their case against the Volcker Rule, and the successful push to repeal the swaps regulations in December only picked up speed once regional banks joined those vocally opposing the regulations.

Senate Majority Leader Turtle McConnell (R-Galapagos) said after the election that, “The big guys are doing just fine under Dodd-Frank. The community bankers are struggling,” and that, “I do think the Banking Committee will want to take a look at how much damage it’s done to the little guys who had nothing whatsoever to do with the meltdown in 2008.”

The backlash against the move to dismantle it, though, is promising. According to former Senator Barney Frank, who helped laid the ground work for the Dodd-Frank legislation, “I was worried about this happening, but I have been encouraged by the angry reaction…I was afraid that they would do this, and nobody would fight back. It’s now clear the president is going to be much tougher in resisting it.”

President Obama has promised to support his reform, come hell or high water: “If they try to water down consumer protections that we put in place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, I will say no.”

The Republican Party and the Great Conservative Long Con

Something I often like to do in my interactions with Republicans is make them defend their ideologies. It’s like a recent piece I wrote where I asked conservatives what the Republican party has actually done for them. It’s easy for conservatives to regurgitate talking points that have been spoon fed to them by the right-wing media, but to quantify those talking points is much more difficult.

But what the Republican party is really doing is selling their voters a “long con.” The truth is, nearly everything they promise will happen based on their ideological stances, never does.

This is the party that constantly claims to be “fiscally conservative,” yet hasn’t had a president from their party balance the budget since Eisenhower in the 1950′s. Even their “conservative icon” Ronald Reagan, the man on which modern day conservatives seem to validate their conservativeness, nearly tripled our national debt during his eight years. George W. Bush, who promised Americans his tax cuts would balance the budget within a decade, not only destroyed a budget surplus that he inherited (from Democrat Bill Clinton) – but he doubled our national debt during his administration.

So where’s this “fiscal responsibility”? It’s been nearly 60 years since a Republican president balanced the budget. To the conservative voter I ask, how many decades need to pass where a Republican president doesn’t balance the budget, before you’ll admit your party is full of crap?

It’s Official: President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times

A new economic report, published by Forbes.com on September 6, 2014, clearly shows that President Obama is the best economic president in modern times. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, based on all of typical the economic indicators, including jobs, investments, growth and expansion, even the rate of inflation. In all of these areas President Obama’s record outperforms that of every other modern president, including conservative idol, Ronald Reagan.

Under President Obama’s leadership, the unemployment rate has now decreased to 6.1 percent, the lowest it’s been since 2007, when the economy began gushing jobs under the failed leadership of then president George W. Bush.

Typically, republicans have tried to detract from the president’s accomplishments. When it comes to the falling unemployment rate, they claim that it is somehow related to large numbers of people just dropping out of the workforce. This would almost be believable if the economy wasn’t creating new jobs at a rate that coincides perfectly with the falling employment rate, but it is. There have been six consecutive months with more than 200,000 new jobs created, with only a slight dip in that number in August. Additionally, there have been 63 straight months of economic expansion and more than two solid years of manufacturing expansion.

Study: Texas Would Make Millions On Gay Marriage

A new study released Wednesday from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that Texas could make $180 million if it granted same-sex couples the right to marry. KENS-5 San Antonio reports that part of the boon that could hit the Lone Star State would be attributed to an influx of couples from neighboring states where same-sex marriage is illegal:

The study predicts that more than 23,000 same-sex couples in Texas would marry within three years if the state allowed them to. The legalization of gay marriage would mean a surge in gay weddings, the study estimates, creating a nearly $15 million boost to sales tax revenue over three years. The economic impact would likely be greater if Texas extended marriage rights to gay couples ahead of neighboring states like Louisiana and Oklahoma, because the state could become a wedding destination for same-sex couples, said Christy Mallory, one of the study's authors. But chances are slim that conservative Texas lawmakers would allow same-sex marriage unless the courts force states to do so.

The Williams Institute previously found that Utah could add over $15 million to its economy by legalizing same-sex marriage. Other studies have looked at the cost of anti-gay laws and homophobia, including one recent study that estimated homophobia costs India $31 billion annually.

Still, some conservatives in Texas argue against the logic from the UCLA study:

Jonathan Saenz, executive director of the socially conservative group Texas Values, said the study used a model that wouldn't apply to Texas. 

"For 10 straight years, Texas has been ranked as the top state for business. It's no surprise that Texas has also defined marriage as between one man and one woman in its constitution during these same 10 years, since 2005," Saenz said. "California, a state that performs homosexual marriages, is ranked as one of the five worst states for business in 2014. Case closed."

Mallory, however, cautioned against this reading of the statistics, saying,

“[business rankings’ take into account a variety of factors that contribute to the state's overall economy, and do not negate our findings that marriage would boost spending in the wedding and tourism industries.”

Regardless of the case for equality, the likelihood of Texas voluntarily legalizing same-sex marriage is unfortunately bleak. Just this year, the state’s Republican party (which has essentially had a monopoly on all elected statewide offices for the past twenty years) decided the best way to mitigate anti-gay language enshrined in the state party’s platform was to endorse gay conversion therapy.

Still, gay marriage may yet come to Texas despite Republican opposition. A recent poll showed that a majority of Texans support marriage equality and three judges have found that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage (passed in 2005) to be unconstitutional.

Pennsylvania Auditor General To Anti-Gay Governor: You Are Costing Us Millions

Pennsylvania’s Auditor General, Eugene DePasquale, has released a statement taking Governor Tom Corbett (R) to task for costing the Commonwealth millions by continuing to defend its unconstitutional ban on marriage equality. Pennsylvania currently holds the dubious distinction of being the last remaining state in the Northeast with no legal recognition of same sex unions, and no statewide civil rights protections or LGBT citizens.

“It is unquestionably unfair to have people pay higher taxes on health benefits, or higher anything for that matter, simply because they are in a legally recognized same-sex marriage from another state,” DePasquale said.

He estimates that under the current law, a legally married same-sex couple living and working in Pennsylvania with a combined income of $100,000, where one partner works for the commonwealth, is taxed on the employer-provided portion of health benefits and annually pays approximately $1,600 more than a heterosexual couple.

“Now, with the state facing an estimated $1 billion budget shortfall, we cannot afford to pay $300-400 per hour to fight for an unfair law that denies recognition of, and penalizes, legally married same-sex couples,” DePasquale said. “We can’t afford legal bills like this when the administration is looking at making additional budget cuts. We’ve already seen the financial devastation from previous education cuts.”“It is not right that simply because they do not meet Pennsylvania’s legal definition of ‘married,’ the same-sex couple is forced to pay more in taxes because of the health care benefits that they receive from their commonwealth-employed partner.

In the past two years the commonwealth spent more than $10 million on outside law firms and legal counsel for the failed Lottery privatization effort, nearly $1 million more to defend the Voter ID law that was ruled unconstitutional and approximately $5 million wasted on the unnecessary ad campaign.

“Throwing away tens of millions of dollars in legal fees with a $1 billion budget hole looming is bad fiscal policy and bad public policy,” DePasquale said.

“Cutting out the millions of dollars in outside legal expenses won’t solve the budget shortfall, but it would be a step in the right direction.”

Despite his move to stop defending Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional voter ID law, which never went into effect after it was halted by a lawsuit, Corbett remains steadfast in his continued attack on LGBT equality. No matter the results of tomorrow’s primary elections, Corbett, the least popular governor in the nation, will face a pro-equality Democratic challenger in November.

An Economist With 2 Minutes And A Marker Explains The Greedy, Selfish Things Some Rich People Do

Only thing I would add is the only reason the rich don't want to reinstate slavery is because it's cheaper to pay workers $2 an hour than to feed, house and clothe slave laborers.

Razor Industry: We're Suffering Because Men are Growing Beards Beard

Beards are killing razor sales, Bloomberg reports:

P&G’s grooming business, which includes shaving cream, razor blades and deodorant, generated $2.12 billion in revenue during the quarter ended Dec. 31 and accounted for 9.5 percent of the company’s sales. Though the division’s sales rose 3 percent, excluding currency effects, John Faucher, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in a Jan. 13 note that sales of non-disposable razors and blades fell 7.8 percent in the 12 weeks through Dec. 21.

The reason: “Increased interest in facial hair,” he said.

So I guess there's one more way to protest P&G's sponsorship of Sochi.

Here’s Your Undeniable Evidence that Supply-Side Economics is a Catastrophic Failure!

It’s increasingly difficult for most conservatives to truly defend the concept known as ‘trickle down’ economics these days. Granted, most wealthy, orthodox capitalists don’t bother or care to quite often, short of when they can label themselves ‘job creators’ in the process. But throughout the debate over just how best to cater to an economy’s needs rages between those in the corners of concentrated wealth versus those of a more shared prosperity thinking, the phrase “supply side economics,” seems to consistently remain something thought as viable.

Now despite these two ideas being technically different, the idea that cutting taxes for the top earners and wealthiest individuals to spur private investment and keep the economy growing remains the same no matter what you call it, and proponents of the models in the midst of their ongoing continuing victory in pushing such, continue to press for more. However, recent data which analyzed economic activity under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II, is beginning to cast serious doubt as to the effectiveness of this top-down economic model.

Contrary to the market-enthusiast’s rhetoric, the strongest periods of economic growth since Ronald Reagan’s proposition of the trickle-down model, have come not when taxes on the financier and investor classes have been reduced, but to the contrary — when taxes have been increased.

A strange contradiction to the lines espoused by supply-side enthusiasts is that cutting taxes is the single, central and most crucial aspect to encouraging economic growth. However following President Clinton’s 1993 tax increases on corporate entities and wealthy individuals, the US saw substantial economic growth which came and lasted relatively until the end of the respite from supply-side policy models. Once George W. Bush assumed the office and pushed for a return to the wealth-favoring tax policies, the stagnation experienced under Reagan and Bush Sr. resumed its course.

There’s no shortage of complicated, often contrived answers in support of supply-side thinking, which are trotted out to explain away the findings of such data. Market regulation isn’t taken into account, innovation in the tech sector spurned the growth of the 90s regardless of tax models, the housing bubble resulting from a broken home lending system…the numbers of externalities in play make it impossible to truly point to a singular policy or set of policies as ultimate evidence of the theory’s potential or failure.

Yet to take something from the playbook of those who typically favor socio-economic Darwinism to managed economic models, it could be argued that the cushy tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate elite, simply failed to provide the incentive they needed to properly invest. With low marginal tax brackets and endless series’ of loopholes and shelters for those of substantial wealth and resources to enjoy, the motivation and incentive to put their money back into the economy by way of investment simply wasn’t there.

Their wealth, which was protected from taxation, could accumulate and amass without the additional need for investing such as venture capital, hence causing markets to struggle, placing additional incentives on them to augment their stalled investment revenue by streamlining everything from labor costs to the end value of their products or services. In effect, the entirety of the market economy suffered because those at the top became ‘lazy’ with their money.

While much of the right wing, which itself is heavily dominated by corporate interests in one form or another these days, continues to bang on the drum of low taxes driving strong economies. Whereas once taxes were said to result in economic stagnation (now proven to be wrong on its own), they are now quite commonly referred to as a form of totalitarian slavery, perhaps in an attempt to distract from the demonstrated failure of their policies in practice.

So could it be that as these old models and their inherent failures become more obvious, those who support such are simply getting desperate? Its possible, though with a congress comprised of so many corporate spokespeople and privately wealthy individuals, it’s unlikely that the U.S. is going to see any real reversal of this failed theory any time soon.

Utah Business Sees Sales Boost from Marriage Equality

As one of the closest jewelry stores to the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office, Stroud Jewelers saw a bump in business when a federal judge cleared the way Friday for same-sex marriage in Utah.

"It’s been pretty awesome," said Zealand Stroud, adding his store always has done good business with same-sex couples. "We’ve had quite a few come in and want to commemorate their love for each other. It’s pretty neat."

Some jewelers, florists and bakeries in the heart of Salt Lake City reported surges in their already busy holiday-season business when the Salt Lake County clerk began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby declared Utah law prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Ashley Jacobsen of Granite Bakery said her business received a number of calls ordering wedding cakes that day.

"We can’t do the big three-tier cakes, but we did quite a few fancy or single-tier [cakes]," she said. "The first day caught us by surprise but we were ready for the next two."

Gary Notwell of Art Floral saw an unexpected jump in business. So, too, did Cindy Haskins at Huddart Floral.

"We saw some very excited people coming in and we’re really happy for them," Haskins said.

Joe Maughan, known as "Joe the Jeweler" at 9th and 9th Jewelers, said his store was already popular with the LBGT community, and he has benefited from the weddings.

"We’ve definitely seen a few more than normal. They were all heading to the courthouse," he said of about helping gay couples get ready for their weddings.

Chris Howard of Fankauser Jewelry in Sugar House said his store was closed Sunday and Monday. But he was greeted with a text this morning from a customer asking him if he would be open Tuesday to sell a wedding ring.

Not all businesses saw a spike, however. Williams Jewelers had not seen any jump due to gay marriages. Neither had Bennion’s Jewelers in downtown Salt Lake City.

"Wedding rings have been real slow so far," said Kathy Lawrence at Bennion’s. "I thought we’d see a jump, but we didn’t."

Watch Economist Richard Wolff Destroy Bill O’Reilly’s Obamacare Derangement

In less than 3 minutes, economist Richard Wolff eviscerated FOXNews host Bill O’Reilly’s ridiculous argument that Obamacare will lead to a bankrupt “nanny state”.

Bill O’Reilly cynically used Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Cyprus as examples of the dark, bankrupt road that Obamacare will need America down, but as Wolff makes clear, O’Reilly “gets away with saying things that no no Undergraduate in the United States with a responsible Economics professor could ever get away with.”

Our trusty economist then proceeds to give Bill O’Reilly and FOXNews a lesson on history, economics, and journalistic integrity that you do not want to miss.

He ends it with this gem, “He’s just making it up as he goes along to conform to an ideological position that is harder and harder for folks like him to sustain, so he has to reach further and further into fantasy.

Please watch the video below and share the good word on social media forums so that everyone will know the truth about Bill O’Reilly’s Obamacare derangement syndrome.

General Motors is alive

When drawing up a list of President Obama’s accomplishments, I tend to think the rescue of the American auto industry – the backbone of the nation’s manufacturing sector – is too easily forgotten.

 

As Obama himself said in a statement yesterday, “When I took office, the American auto industry … was on the verge of collapse. Two of the Big Three – GM and Chrysler – were on the brink of failure, threatening to take suppliers, distributors and entire communities down with them. In the midst of what was already the worst recession since the Great Depression, another one million Americans were in danger of losing their jobs.”

 

But the administration intervened and the results continue to be impressive.

The government bailout of General Motors ended on Monday with the Treasury Department’s announcement that it had sold its final shares of G.M. stock.

 

The sale closes a tumultuous chapter in the history of the American auto industry, and allows the nation’s largest automaker to continue its comeback free from the stigma of being known as “Government Motors.”

 

Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said the government sold the last of what was once a 60 percent stake in G.M. Taxpayers lost about $10 billion on their $49.5 billion investment in the Detroit automaker. “With the final sale of G.M. stock, this important chapter in our nation’s history is now closed,” Mr. Lew said. In all, taxpayers have ended up in the black on the crisis-related bailouts, Treasury officials said. It has recovered $433 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program after initially investing about $422 billion.

In July 2010, NBC News’ First Read said, “As the GM bailout goes, so goes the Obama presidency.” More than three years later, the White House probably thinks that sounds pretty good.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, Obama’s rescue of the industry may seem like a no-brainer – of course intervention was the smart move; of course the rescue prevented an even more severe crisis; of course the president couldn’t allow another million job losses with the economy already teetering on the edge of collapse.

 

But in 2009, this seemed a lot less obvious. Indeed, this was a real policy gamble, which the public didn’t necessarily like, and which Republicans insisted would be a complete disaster. At the time, among conservatives, failure was a foregone conclusion – government intervention in the marketplace always fails, they said, and Obama big-government solution to the auto industry’s crisis simply couldn’t work.

 

Consider the predictions made at the time, as pulled together by ThinkProgress.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?” [6/1/09]
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “It’s basically going to be a government-owned, government-run company…. It’s the road toward socialism.” [5/29/09]
RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “No matter how much the President spins GM’s bankruptcy as good for the economy, it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.” [6/1/2009]
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?” [6/2/09]
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): “Unfortunately, this is just another sad chapter in President Obama’s eager campaign to interject his administration in the private sector’s business dealings.” [6/2/09]
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): The auto company rescues “have been the leading edge of the Obama administration’s war on capitalism.” [7/22/09]
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” [7/22/09]

A guy by the name of Mitt Romney said we could “kiss the American automotive industry goodbye” if the administration’s policy was implemented.

 

Republicans were completely, unambiguously wrong. The U.S. auto industry has been a bright spot on the economic landscape in recent years, and hasn’t been this strong in recent memory.

 

It’s likely pointless to expect accountability for those whose predictions failed miserably, but when it comes to credibility on the economy, folks should keep this story in mind.

Cartoons of the Week

 

How Three Decades of Reaganomics Destroyed the American Economy

The current economy is not moving along fast enough for most Americans and both political parties are pointing their finger and playing the blame game. Mitt Romney and other prominent Republicans continue to blame President Obama and what they call his, "failed policies," while the president and Democrats remind everyone of the financial situation that the Bush administration handed the president when he came into office. To truly understand the economic problems of the country, you have to go back over 30 years.
When Reagan came into office in 1980, the top tax rate was 70 percent. After his first term, the top tax rate had been cut to 50 percent and by the time he left office in January of 1989, the top tax rate was down to only 28 percent. Revenue into the federal government was cut so significantly, basic programs could no longer be funded. Even with less money for the country to spend, Reagan decided to increase military spending. In projected 2005 dollars, defense spending hit $456.5 billion by 1987, compared to only $325.1 billion in 1980, the year Reagan was elected. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the United States was hoping for real change. Carrying 44 out of 50 states, Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent president, Democrat Jimmy Carter, in a landslide. In addition to Reagan moving into the White House, Republicans gained control of the United States Senate for the first time in 28 years, signaling the start of the "Reagan Revolution." During his first inaugural address in 1981, Reagan said those famous words that would lay the foundation for future conservative arguments: "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
While Reagan cut taxes drastically on the top income earners, the wealth didn't "trickle down" like Republicans had promised. In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Act which was said to reduce revenues by $749 billion over the next five years. After Reagan signed the massive tax cut, unemployment began to increase. In 1982, Reagan needed to gain additional revenue and signed the largest tax increase in American history, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. As 1982 came to the close, November and December shared an unemployment rate of 10.8 percent, the highest unemployment since 1948.

A Lesson in Economics from Roseanne

I thought it an unlikely place for a lesson in economics too, but wait until you see how Roseanne handles a politician soliciting votes door-to-door by promising new jobs.

From Youtube:

Roseanne has an enlightening conversation with her local state representative. A guy who can’t wait to offer her the chance to get a low-paying job which will also increase her taxes. Sweet deal, huh?

7 Ways the U.S.A. Benefits From the Legalization of Gay Marriage

The legalization of same-sex marriage benefits both LGBT people and America as a nation. As two major Supreme Court decisions about same-sex marriage (Proposition 8 and DOMA) loom on the horizon, it's an opportune time to refocus attention on the many advantages associated with the pursuit and achievement of marriage equality.

There are at least seven ways in which the legalization of gay marriage is beneficial for LGBT Americans and the United States of America.

1. Promotes Equality and Non-Discrimination in Society

Millions of LGBT people contribute daily to American life in a multitude of ways culturally, socially, financially, politically, vocationally, and spiritually. We are fundamental to this nation's continued growth and evolution and the U.S.A. would suffer greatly from the withdrawal of our many contributions. The legalization of same-sex marriage affirms the inherent worthiness of LGBT people as valued American citizens deserving of equal rights under the law.

This promotion of equality and non-discrimination plays an extremely important role in reducing homophobia and in affirming a minority group in society which has for so long endured significant discrimination and stigmatization. Legalizing same-sex marriage communicates to millions of people across the country that gay relationships are of equal value to straight relationships, thereby helping to reduce intergroup prejudice and supporting cultural diversity.

2. Fosters Psychological, Physical, and Social Wellbeing Amongst LGBT People

Same-sex couples are excluded from the institution of marriage in 38 states. Furthermore, the federal government denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1000 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage. This discrimination and institutional exclusion negatively impacts LGBT people in a variety of tangible and practical ways. It can also cause psychological distress, social conflict and ill-health. Equal allocation of marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples assists LGBT people in a practical sense and the elimination of relationship discrimination helps promote psychosocial and physical well-being.

It is to America's benefit when LGBT people are given the freedom to achieve their full potential in life without having to waste precious time and resources battling for basic equality. The act of discrimination is an essentially destructive societal behavior which, ultimately, brings negative consequences both to the oppressors and the oppressed. Ending discrimination in marriage laws goes some way to correcting this.