I’ve always kept a list of all the battles I created and I posted it as a blog at the end of my first and second years on the Vine. At that point I made an average of a hundred battles a year. Since then I’ve fallen off some but I’m somewhere over 250 now, and I wanted to re-do my list so I can keep track of it more easily.

There are now two versions of the list. One is in another blog page and this one is broken down into multiple blog pages (it's too long to fit in one entry).

The first one (which is in another entry by itself) lists all my battles, categorized by power level: Streetlevel(ish), Mid-Tier, and Cosmic, plus separate categories for my Bracket Battles and for battles that are themed or intentionally goofy. In this list, each battle is listed only once.

The second one (which is on this page and continues on other pages) is categorized by character. It lists every character I’ve ever used in a battle, and under each character is a list of all the battles I’ve used them in. So for instance all the battles that I made using Devil-Slayer are listed under Devil-slayer. This file lists each battle multiple times, since each battle is listed separately under each character in that battle. So for instance "Darkdevil vs Devil-Slayer" is listed under both Darkdevil and Devil-slayer.

This page goes from H to L.

In this second list, I occasionally put listed battles under teams or universes rather than characters. So for instance, all battles involving a member of Power Pack can be found under Power Pack, all Grendel-related battles are under Grendel Universe, etc.

I’ll be updating these lists periodically for my own use. I hope you enjoy perusing them and please consider commenting on or bumping a battle. Thanks!

H-L

Links to the other lists:

Battles by Power Level

Battles by Character, A-C

Battles by Character, D-G

Battles by Character, H-L

Battles by Character, M-Q

Battles by Character, R-S

Battles by Character, T-Z

I’ve always kept a list of all the battles I created and I posted it as a blog at the end of my first and second years on the Vine. At that point I made an average of a hundred battles a year. Since then I’ve fallen off some but I’m somewhere over 250 now, and I wanted to re-do my list so I can keep track of it more easily.

There are now two versions of the list. One is in another blog page and this one is broken down into multiple blog pages (it's too long to fit in one entry).

The first one (which is in another entry by itself) lists all my battles, categorized by power level: Streetlevel(ish), Mid-Tier, and Cosmic, plus separate categories for my Bracket Battles and for battles that are themed or intentionally goofy. In this list, each battle is listed only once.

The second one (which is on this page and continues on other pages) is categorized by character. It lists every character I’ve ever used in a battle, and under each character is a list of all the battles I’ve used them in. So for instance all the battles that I made using Devil-Slayer are listed under Devil-slayer. This file lists each battle multiple times, since each battle is listed separately under each character in that battle. So for instance "Darkdevil vs Devil-Slayer" is listed under both Darkdevil and Devil-slayer.

This page goes from D to G.

In this second list, I occasionally put listed battles under teams or universes rather than characters. So for instance, all battles involving a member of Power Pack can be found under Power Pack, all Grendel-related battles are under Grendel Universe, etc.

I’ll be updating these lists periodically for my own use. I hope you enjoy perusing them and please consider commenting on or bumping a battle. Thanks!

D-G

Links to the other lists:

Battles by Power Level

Battles by Character, A-C

Battles by Character, D-G

Battles by Character, H-L

Battles by Character, M-Q

Battles by Character, R-S

Battles by Character, T-Z

I’ve always kept a list of all the battles I created and I posted it as a blog at the end of my first and second years on the Vine. At that point I made an average of a hundred battles a year. Since then I’ve fallen off some but I’m somewhere over 250 now, and I wanted to re-do my list so I can keep track of it more easily.

There are now two versions of the list. One is in another blog page and this one is broken down into multiple blog pages (it's too long to fit in one entry).

The first one (which is in another entry by itself) lists all my battles, categorized by power level: Streetlevel(ish), Mid-Tier, and Cosmic, plus separate categories for my Bracket Battles and for battles that are themed or intentionally goofy. In this list, each battle is listed only once.

The second one (which is on this page and continues on other pages) is categorized by character. It lists every character I’ve ever used in a battle, and under each character is a list of all the battles I’ve used them in. So for instance all the battles that I made using Devil-Slayer are listed under Devil-slayer. This file lists each battle multiple times, since each battle is listed separately under each character in that battle. So for instance "Darkdevil vs Devil-Slayer" is listed under both Darkdevil and Devil-slayer.

This page goes from A to C.

In this second list, I occasionally put listed battles under teams or universes rather than characters. So for instance, all battles involving a member of Power Pack can be found under Power Pack, all Grendel-related battles are under Grendel Universe, etc.

I’ll be updating these lists periodically for my own use. I hope you enjoy perusing them and please consider commenting on or bumping a battle. Thanks!

Second List:

A-C

Links to the other lists:

Battles by Power Level

Battles by Character, A-C

Battles by Character, D-G

Battles by Character, H-L

Battles by Character, M-Q

Battles by Character, R-S

Battles by Character, T-Z

I’ve always kept a list of all the battles I created and I posted it as a blog at the end of my first and second years on the Vine. At that point I made an average of a hundred battles a year. I've slowed down somewhat since then, and I wanted to re-do my list so I can keep track of it more easily.

There are now two versions of the list. One is in this blog and the other is broken down into multiple other blog entries (they're too long to fit in one entry).

This thread lists all my battles categorized by power level: Streetlevel(ish), Mid-Tier, and Cosmic, plus separate categories for my Bracket Battles and for battles that are themed or intentionally goofy. In this list, each battle is listed only once.

The second set of threads (which is on other pages, linked to below) is categorized by character. It lists every character I’ve ever used in a battle, and under each character is a list of all the battles I’ve used them in. So for instance all the battles that I made using Devil-Slayer are listed under Devil-slayer. This file lists each battle multiple times, since each battle is listed separately under each character in that battle. So for instance "Darkdevil vs Devil-Slayer" is listed under both Darkdevil and Devil-slayer.

In this second list, I occasionally listed battles under teams or universes rather than characters. So for instance, all battles involving a member of Power Pack can be found under Power Pack, all Grendel-related battles are under Grendel Universe, etc.

I’ll be updating these lists periodically for my own use. I hope you enjoy perusing them and please consider commenting on or bumping a battle. Thanks!

Streetlevel(ish) Battles

Mid-tier Battles

Cosmic Battles

Bracket Battles:

Fun/Themed

Links to the other lists:

Battles by Character, A-C

Battles by Character, D-G

Battles by Character, H-L

Battles by Character, M-Q

Battles by Character, R-S

Battles by Character, T-Z

I want to talk about the ethics involved in the whole Incursion situation in New Avengers.

For those who don't know, this is how the Incursions work: 2 parallel universes come into contact with each other, with the contact point being Earth. This process takes 8 hours. If the 2 Earths touch, both Earths, and both of their entire universes, are destroyed. But, if one Earth is destroyed, then the other Earth, and both universes, are saved (until the next Incursion, which will take place between the saved Earth and a new parallel universe).

The Illuminati (currently Reed Richards, Dr Strange, Black Bolt, Black Panther, Namor, Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, and Beast) fully understand this situation. They have, just in case, built a bomb that can destroy another Earth, but have avoided using it. They have managed to save our Earth several times without having to destroy another Earth directly by themselves, and so have avoided the crux of the ethical question at hand: is it worth it to destroy another planet in order to save your own planet as well as your universe and the other universe?

However in New Avengers 21 they finally have to decide whether to destroy another Earth. They now have no other choice: either destroy the other Earth, using their bomb, or do nothing, in which case both universes are destroyed.

After lots of hand-wringing throughout the series, all the Illuminati say they can't actually pull the switch to set off the bomb, offering various ethical arguments for why they can't. Finally Namor says he'll do it, and in fact he does, thus destroying the other Earth, but saving our Earth, our universe, and the other universe.

I believe Namor made the correct ethical decision, and the rest of the Illuminati are fooling themselves and even being selfish. Here I'd like to examine their arguments, and point out a classic case from ethics and philosophy that is a very similar situation.

The classic case is called the Trolley problem, and you can read about it here. Also, This American Life did a great piece on it, here.

The original version goes like this: a trolley is going down the tracks. If it keeps going on the same track, it will run over 5 people who are tried up on the track. However, if you turn a switch so it runs down a different track, then those 5 people will all survive--but instead it will run over 1 person who is tied up on that alternate track. Do you turn the switch and run the trolley down the alternate track?

An alternate version goes like this: The trolley is going down the track, and there are 5 people tied up like before. But, you can stop the trolley by dropping a large weight on it. As it happens there is an enormously fat man next to you. If you drop the fat man on the trolley, it will stop the trolley and save the 5 people, but kill the fat man. Do you throw the fat man off the bridge and stop the trolley?

In surveys, most people choose to flip the switch in the first example, but less people choose to throw the fat man over the bridge in the second example, even though in both cases they are making a choice to sacrifice one life instead of 5 lives. This is usually because people feel much more active and involved in the second case, like they are doing the killing, whereas in the first problem they are just flipping a remote switch and they feel less personally responsible for the single death.

I would argue that the Illuminati don't see that these two problems are basically the same problem. Let's look at what they say:

Reed says, "I don't think I can. I know it's a necessary evil. I know I would be saving hundreds of trillions of live at the cost of mere billions....But even with all things hanging in the balance...there is a line." So Reed is basically looking at the Trolley question directly through the lens of the Fat Man version, and saying that he won't flip the switch/push the fat guy: he would rather have 5 people die than be part of killing the one, or to put it in the case he's actually facing, he'd rather both universes die than be part of killing the one earth and saving the other earth and both universes.

Stark, Beast, and Banner all agree they don't want to use it without explanation. Beast and Banner have in the past however agreed that they feel like using the bomb would somehow make them lose their humanity. Beast says in 19: "What if this isn't an exercise in survival, but a question of humanity? You tell me--who here knows better than you and I the reality of that struggle...and how easily the human gives way to something less moral and more primal."

Strange won't do it, but only because he had already tried to destroy the planet through magical means, and the Illuminati stopped him, so he's mad at them.

Black Bolt doesn't say, but the implication is that he won't do it.

Then Black Panther, an ethical utilitarian if ever there was one, says he'll do it. He is backed by the spirits of past Black Panthers who say that he needs to do whatever it takes to keep his own Wakanda alive. This is a different argument than the trolley question; it's saying that our Earth, with our Wakanda, is actually more deserving of life, regardless of the numbers question. That's a whole different point and less defensible.

However Panther balks. He says, "The horror of it--the inhumanity. Murdering all those people. Killing a world. ...It's wrong." Then: "Shouldn't such [an act] be beneath us? The very nature of it...the ignobility of it."

Reed follows up with him: "When we got to the end of ourselves, we found that there were things we would not do. And you know, I am not ashamed of that. You shouldn't be either....It matters."

However, Namor counters: "'It matters.' The way you people talk about your lives---like they mean something. 'It matters.' I am the greatest man I know...but compared to this, I'm nothing. Just as you...are nothing...."

Reed tells him "it's not worth it."

Namor returns, "These lines you won't cross...these things you won't do..they SHAME you. How dare any of you put yourself--your damned morals--above the lives of every living thing? The truth is, you people aren't worth that...and neither am I. Our lives are a pittance." Then he sets off the bomb.

I would argue that Namor sees this problem correctly. (As he says, hilariously, next issue, they should thank him for doing it.) Among the others, Richards, Panther, Beast, and Banner are all arguing that their own personal feeling of sin/shame/humanity/self-worth are more important than the lives of everyone in both universes. In other words, they don't want to kill everyone on the one earth, thereby saving the rest of both universes, because they would feel bad--for the ten remaining minutes before they themselves are destroyed!

Namor explicitly points this out--he says they're putting their morals over others' lives. What would all the dead people in both universes care about how badly one person feels, compared to the fact that their own lives are ended?

And note that the other Illuminati aren't even necessarily trying to stop one of their compatriots from setting off the bomb for most of this conversation--Reed keeps trying to pass it on to someone else for a while. No one tries to stop Black Panther, for instance, although they do tell Namor to stop. By implication, they are OK with the other Earth dying, they just don't want to be the one to pull the trigger themselves.

I believe the Illuminati in this situation are completely off their ethical rocker, and Namor is the only one of sound mind. Basically I'm annoyed because Hickman is trying to present this as a legitimate ethical dilemma for the heroes, and I don't think it is. If the situation was, you kill one earth to save just your own earth, I could see it. That could seem selfish, although selfishness can still be defensible. But it not only saves your earth, it saves both universes. The choice is obvious. And for making it, Namor gets attacked by Panther and blamed for his actions by all the Illuminati in the next issue.

Anyway. Thoughts on the ethics of the Incursions? Does anyone agree with Reed/Panther/Beast/Banner? Any thoughts on the Trolley problem?

I've noticed that on the "how old are you" thread and in other places, the old folks on the Vine (like me) often seem a little embarrassed about saying exactly how old they are. Usually they just describe themselves as "more than twice your age" or something like that. Sometimes it seems like there's only a few of us in an ocean of teenagers, which can make it feel like we're old fogeys crashing a youngster's game.

But hey, we like comics too. Nothing to be ashamed of, fellow ancient ones!

So, here's a thread for old folks to represent! Be proud! Come out of your old-age closet!

When did you start reading comics? How do you feel about being an old guy with all these youngsters around (what with their horseless carriages and all)?

Myself, I just turned 40 today, and I'm proud to be a firmly middle-aged man who loves comics. I've been reading off and on since the 80s, but I've probably never read as much as I do right now. I'm in a happy, comics-laden phase of my life, and I think it's actually a lot of fun to mix it up with people of all ages here.

How about you?

OK, I'm going to see if I can do a short one for my last one (I'm also sneaking it in right after midnight because I'm too busy to write it tomorrrow!).

My previous topics were: GOP obstructionism/Romney shape-shifting, the importance of science, pragmatism vs ideology, health care, the Supreme Court, and the economy.

Today's theme is the 99%. By which I mean that Obama is basically out to help the average person, and the underprivileged, the minorities, the powerless. He's doing this economically, but also through a lot of other means. I think this is honestly one of the most important things government can do.

Here's a basic list:

The Consumer Protection Bureau has already come out with several major decisions and investigations that have helped everyday people protect themselves against corporate giants that normally take advantage of them. For whatever reason, the Republicans think this agency has TOO MUCH power. How is it possible for consumers to have too much power to protect themselves against mega-corporations?

Obama has helped the gay community by appointing more openly-gay people to the government than ever before, by repealing don't-ask-don't-tell, by endorsing gay marriage, by giving benefits to same-sex government employees, and by no longer arguing for DOMA in court.

Obama has helped women by passing the Lilly Ledbetter act, which helps women finally attain pay disparity (and which again is really important for everyone, because there are a lot of families headed by single women, so an increase in their salaries leads to an improvement in the lives of their kids), by expanding the availability of contraceptives and woman-centric health care, by increasing the funding for the Violence Against Women Act, and by promoting women throughout the government, including the Supreme Court.

Obama has regulated various companies that have taken advantage of normal people in the past, including banks, the real estate industry, health insurance companies, and polluters. By regulating pollution and other climate-change issues, he has helped everyone in the world.

Obama has helped immigrants by focusing on deporting criminals rather than otherwise innocent people.

Obama has helped veterans by improving the VA and all kinds of post-military programs.

Obama has vastly improved government transparency, putting up websites that let you track the stimulus and the budget in general, as well as releasing records of government visitors.

Obama has helped low-income people go to college by increasing Pell Grants, and made student loans cheaper by getting rid of the middlemen and making loans directly to the students.

Obama has increased funding for people with disabilities.

Basically Obama has worked hard to make life easier and less oppressive for everyday people who don't have a lot of power for themselves, who are often-discriminated-against minorities, and who need a leg up to make it in a world that is stacked against them. He lived the life of the underprivileged himself, as a biracial son of a single mom with a foreign dad, who lived in a third-world country (Indonesia) for a while as a kid, who quit a job working on Wall Street to be a community organizer in Chicago. I think he understands and empathizes with everyday, hardworking people in a way that his opponent can't even conceive. He stands for the 99%.

Obama is the guy. Vote for him!

Today's theme is, yes, the economy. The economy which a lot of people think is Obama's greatest weakness, but in fact is one of his strengths.

Please don't show up and just make a comment like "but the economy sucks right now" without reading the rest of this.

How the Recession Started

The Housing Bubble and the Investment Banks

First, let's recall the story of the economy leading up to Obama's election. The housing market was in a bubble, meaning that it was making tons of wealth for tons of people because housing prices kept going up. Everyone knew this was a bubble, and that it would break sometime soon. Every real estate person and every economist said it would. But while it was going on, it was great. Everyone was making money hand over fist. In many ways, it was like the internet bubble under Clinton, except even more intense and even more widespread, in the sense that not everyone had internet stocks, but almost everyone with a house saw their assessment rise.

This bubble was enabled in part by mortgages that were given to people who could not pay for them. The banks who gave these mortgages certainly knew the mortgage-holders were going to default eventually, and certainly some of the mortgage-holders knew that too. Some other people were essentially tricked into taking the mortgages and told they would be fine. I believe both the banks and some of the people were to blame for this. However, this was not the biggest problem.

Investment banks took these mortgages and bundled them into investments that people could buy and trade. Then they took those investments and bundled them together. And then they bundled them together. This went on until the people at the investment banks literally didn't understand what they were selling any more. They were enormously risky investments, because they were built on mortgages that would eventually default, but barely anyone realized the extent to which that was true. The stock market kept going higher.

Then, eventually, the mortgages started to default, and the investments started to tank. The stock market tanked, and huge banks like Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. The economy basically crumbled. The banks had put way too much money in these investments, and lost it all, and had nothing left, and in fact they were massively in debt. But, we still need these banks in order to keep our modern economy running, so when they went down, so did the economy. Plus, housing prices all tanked at the same time. This meant that not only was our economic infrastructure down, but all the individual everyday members of the economy lost a ton of money too. Many people who thought they were doing great were in huge debt within a week. Tons of businesses went under, and tons of people lost their jobs.

I can offer a personal story here. I was trying to sell a house at the beginning of the housing recession. It took two years to sell it. It was basically a $100,000 house, and I lost $50,000 on it before I sold it. And compared to a lot of people, I got lucky.

Lessons

Now, why did this happen and what lesson can we learn from it? Basically the mortgage banks and the investment banks screwed up--they took too much risk. And they did this because in America its the law that any publicly held company has to maximize its profits, which leads to risk taking. They are in a sense required to take risks. The only ethical standards they are kept to, in terms of their customers or the other people they affect, come from government regulations. Both of these industries were highly unregulated at the time. This is because the Republicans controlled the government for most of the preceding years, and they are ideologically against regulation. They believe the free market should be free, not regulated. However, when something is not regulated, it does not necessarily act responsibly or ethically. It may make more money, but it won't be better for the people of the country. This is what happened to the mortgage and investment banks. The mortgage banks made mortgages they knew were bad mortgages. The investment banks made investments they knew were bad investments. But because they were not required to take anything into account other than their bottom line, they were allowed to do this.

So, the economy crashed essentially due to a lack of regulations, and due to the presence of risk-taking incentives, on the mortgage and investment banks.

President Bush then signed the TARP law which bailed out the banks and essentially saved the economy from even further collapse. No one wanted to do this but the banks were so inextricably tied into the rest of the economy that if they tanked, there would have been no credit in the system and literally almost no financial transactions could have taken place. So it was a good thing to do pragmatically, however distasteful to everyone. This money has mostly been recouped, incidentally.

Obama Takes Office

The Stimulus

In January Obama took office. He passed a stimulus bill made up of about one-third tax cuts and the rest was investment-based spending, including a lot on infrastructure--which the country needs whether or not it's part of a stimulus bill, since our roads and bridges usually get rated D or F by the engineers.

The stimulus bill worked pretty well, contrary to most people's belief. Here's just one analysis. It's an interesting bill, because the vast majority of every-day people think it didn't create any jobs, while the vast majority of economists think it did create millions of jobs. Was it perfect? No. But it did a pretty good job at what it was supposed to do, considering the context.

When Obama took office, we were losing a staggering number of jobs per month. We kept losing jobs for a while, but we lost less each month, and eventually began gaining jobs each month. Have we gained as much as we'd like? No. For three reasons, essentially: one, the Republicans have blocked pretty much every other one of Obama's attempts to fix the economy because they wanted to be able to say Obama failed. Essentially they preferred a political victory to fixing the country. This is not something they really deny, they make the case that the short-term loss during Obama's term will be offset by later gains under a GOP president.

Two, the economy can't really be fixed until the housing market has been dealt with, and this has been a real bear to do. Partly because the Republicans have blocked pretty much every attempt to do so, first because they don't want Obama to have any success, and second because they are ideologically against regulation, and it would take regulation to do it. Obama did get some regulation through, and that has worked to some extent, but not enough. This is also partly due to the banks' recalcitrance. Obama hoped that the banks, having destroyed the economy, would accept some responsibility for it and make it easier to fix the housing market. They have not, and it has ended up being a real problem. Now I do actually think Obama could have done more here, partly to force the banks to act, and partly to make house refinancing easier; I believe the process is too complicated (which I say as someone who has recently refinanced his house). But, it was a super-complex situation and nobody was going to get it perfect.

Three, Obama has been trying to put the economy back on a non-bubble path. No more internet bubbles, like the 90s, and no more real estate bubbles, like the 00s. This means slower, but more solid growth.

Eventually the stimulus money ran out, which was unfortunate. The now-Republican-controlled congress wouldn't accept another round of stimulus, because they were too focused on the long-term debt, which was not a real issue, and were ideologically against spending (although they weren't when they were in control of congress).

What's interesting is that you can actually track the effect of the stimulus by the schedule for when it ran out of money. Essentially, as it ran out of money, the growth of the economy slowed. It still grew, but not as fast. There's a pretty direct correlation between the stimulus and economic growth. A lot of the stimulus went to the states, and when they stopped getting the federal money, they started really having financial problems. The states, unlike the federal government, can't have a budget deficit, so they had to cut their budgets like crazy. This meant firing a lot of people. Now Obama tried to pass a jobs bill that would provide money to rehire a lot of these people, but the Republicans blocked it, so the decrease in the unemployment rate slowed down. Actually, if you just rehired all the government workers, like teachers, cops, and firefighters, that lost their jobs due to state budget cuts over the last few years, the unemployment would go down by about a full percentage point, which is another argument for more stimulus.

False Republican Arguments

Now Republicans currently argue against the stimulus for two reasons: that it increased the deficit, and that government doesn't create jobs.

The deficit is an issue, but it is a long term issue and pretty much every serious economist says that the first job is to improve the economy in the short term, so that the economy is healthy enough to deal with the deficit later. Obama has solid, moderate plans for dealing with the debt that includes both spending cuts and raising revenue. Pretty much every economist agrees that you need both to deal with the debt. If you just cut spending, the economy will tank. If you just raise revenue, you won't get enough money. Obama has the most responsible plan here.

Incidentally, when it comes to the debt, Obama has not added nearly as much as many people believe:

Gallery

The charge that government doesn't create jobs is silly. Government creates jobs by hiring teachers, fire fighters, and police. It creates jobs by starting building projects for roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure that wouldn't happen unless the government paid for it. It creates jobs through the military and the defense industry. It creates jobs by running the national parks. It creates jobs in scientific research and development, both directly and by giving grants to other entities. The list goes on and on. Some of these are state jobs, but they only exist because the federal government gives the states the money so they can hire the teachers, etc.

Of course, they had a hard time arguing against the part of the stimulus that was tax cuts, because the entire Republican economic plan is based on tax cuts, so they partly tried to pretend they weren't in there. But they also said that the tax cuts that were in the bill were the wrong kind. The tax cuts in the bill basically went to everyday people and small businesses. Almost every economist will tell you this is exactly where you want tax cuts to go for a stimulant effect, because when a relatively poor person gets a tax cut, they spend it right away, and it goes back out into the economy. Poor/middle class people spend the money right away because ether don't have a choice--they are continually spending all their money just to take care of basic stuff like housing and food and college and whatnot. Whereas when the rich get tax cuts, they are much less likely to spend it. They save it instead, because they can. So it has no stimulative effect. Yet the Republicans thought the rich and the big businesses should get the tax cuts. They like to call the rich and big business the "job creators," but in reality they're just not the start of the job-creation train. They can't create jobs until there's demand, and there's no demand unless everyday people can afford to buy stuff. And they can't afford to buy stuff unless they get jobs, or they get tax cuts like the ones in the stimulus.

Now the Republicans used to believe this too. Bush worked his way out of the far-smaller recession in the early 00s through tax cuts. Economically speaking, tax cuts and spending are fairly similar. They both put money out into the economy. There's some benefit to spending because it doesn't last forever, while tax cuts are hard to get rid of once the emergency is over. There's also some advantage to tax cuts because they get into the hands of consumers immediately. Both of these techniques are part of what's called Keynesian economics. Basically the idea is that if you put more money out there, it stimulates the economy. So both the early Bush tax cuts and Obama's stimulus are Keynesian, and essentially the same economically. But now many Republicans are suddenly anti-Keynesian, and just don't believe government can do anything about the economy. Which is strange because the government certainly affected the economy when Bush tried it, and also in the New Deal, etc. It's pretty much obvious that it works. So this is another absurd reason why they are against it, even though it goes against almost all modern economic theory, not to mention almost all of the Republicans' actual history in congress.

Other Economic Strategies

Now one difference between the Bush and Obama tax cuts was how they gave the money back. Bush sent everyone a check, whereas Obama just took less money out of everyone's pay check each week. This was because a recent branch of economics called behavioral economics said it would work better--basically if you get a little bit of extra money each week, you'll spend it on essentials, whereas if you get one big check, you'll buy something random like a new TV. This makes a lot of sense. But unfortunately it also means that no one realized they were getting a tax cut, because they didn't look at the details of their paycheck. So tons of everyday people got a lot of money back--a family with an income of $50,000 got $3600 in cuts--and it helped the economy, but the stimulus bill didn't get the credit for all the positive effect it was having.

Another important tactic was the car company bailout. This saved General Motors and Chrysler, and in the process saved millions of jobs--not just the ones for the car companies themselves, but all the auto businesses that are related to it. They've gotten most of the money back from this, and it was a huge success. The companies are doing better than ever, which is great for American manufacturing and industry in general. This was originally portrayed as controversial, but now it's acknowledged as a great move on Obama's part.

Obama has also been trying to close the gap between the rich and the poor. The gap is far larger than it has ever been before. This causes a huge amount of social friction, but also means that the economy is less dynamic. This is partly due to the stagnant wages people get; people have not had true wage increases in some time, due to Republican blocking of any bills that attempt to fix that, because Republicans are against regulating the free market. Of course, when the free market gets the chance, it does what happens in any power system: the powerful take advantage of the powerless, and the everyday people get screwed. The free market is rarely good for everyday people. Unions, on the other hand, which Obama has supported--although not blindly--are basically responsible for all the improvements the modern worker has over his counterpart a hundred years ago--decent hours, decent pay, decent working conditions.

The gap between rich and poor has increased for a variety of reasons, but deregulation of corporations, leading to increased CEO salaries, and huge tax cuts for the rich, are certainly part of it. The tax rate for the rich used to be much, much higher in the recent past, as you can see below.

Taking this into consideration, it's ridiculous that the GOP is trying to say that increasing the rates on the top tier from the mid-thirties to the high-thirties is going to somehow hurt the economy. There is all kinds of data that shows that high taxes don't hurt the economy, and can actually help it. See here for a very in-depth look.

This gap is hard to close, but making the tax code more fair, trying to create higher-paying jobs in areas like energy and science, supporting unions, and raising the minimum wage are all things that he's been working on, and which are often antithetical to the GOP, which talks a good game when it comes to the education needed for high-tech jobs, but actually spends most of its time cutting education budgets and attacking science as a discipline. Obama has also created the Consumer Protection Bureau, which I'll talk about more tomorrow, which has already helped many many people against predatory lenders and credit card companies, which helps the finances of ordinary Americans. By working to improve the health care system, he's also reducing the amount most Americans will spend on this expensive part of everyone's budget. He's even signed a financial reform law that allows shareholders to vote on CEO pay, which was unheard of before.

He has also been working to make this a non-bubble economy, as I said before. A big part of this is his push for green energy. Green energy is clearly the long-term future for energy. It may become the majority of energy in 10 years, or 20, or 50, but eventually it's going to take over. We need to be on the ground floor of this if we want to take the lead in its production and science patenting in the future. It will not only help our position in the energy market, which is very important, but it will also help make jobs that are here in the US. Energy is a bubble that doesn't break; it's not like we'll ever need less energy. He's also tried to put an emphasis on infrastructure improvement, as in the stimulus. Our roads, internet communication pathways, and energy lines are all substandard compared to the past and to other countries. High speed rail is just one of the examples of something that can really improve this country's transportation, and which the GOP is against for god-knows-why. All of this investment is a place where government involvement is really needed, and the Republicans are ideologically against such investment. In fact, by putting in place new fuel efficiency standards for cars, the average family will save $8200 in gas over the life of a car!

I should point out that in general, Democrats have a better record for creating jobs than Republicans. In fact, Obama has created more jobs than Bush's entire 8 years (net). Here's a chart, and check out here for more info.

Today

In the long run, Obama has done as much with the current economy as anyone could. He approaches the economy by dealing with experienced, pragmatic experts, not ideologues who just advocate random tax cuts whether the economy is doing well or poorly. He greatly increased job growth from what it was when he started, he has gotten the economy out of recession, he has improved the real estate market and car companies, he has regulated the mortgage banks and investment banks so they don't cause such havoc again, he has invested in the future of our energy and physical infrastructure, and tried to make the country's tax policies more fair. On top of that he's made it easier for women to get paid equally with men, which helps entire families out, not just women in particular.

In terms of Romney, let me just quote this week's Doonesbury: "You know, it just amazes me that only a few years after the economy was brought to its knees by a gang of predatory Wall Street plutocrats, that the GOP would nominate a predatory Wall Street plutocrat!" I mean, this is a guy whose entire job that he's basing his run for the presidency for was based on buying companies, then firing a bunch of people in order to make more money for the CEOs and shareholders. This is a guy who is somehow going to help get people jobs?

Anyway. Obama has done a very solid job with this economy. I know it's not great yet, but it is much better than it was, much better than it might have been under other hands, and it is clearly going in the right direction. If he gets another term, he can stop fixing Bush's problems and actually move us in the direction of a long-term, non-bubble prosperity with well-paying jobs and a reasonably-regulated financial system.

EDIT: I should also point out that Obama was just endorsed by the Financial Times, which is probably the most-respected financial media outlet, as well as by Michael Bloomberg, who is also very well respected for his economic knowledge.

Today's theme is the Supreme Court. It's a little different from the last few, because this is one where "reasonable people can disagree," as they say, depending on your view of the Court's philosophy.

Wednesday's theme was Republican Congressional obstructionism and Romney's shape-shifting, Thursday's was the importance of preserving the position of science, Friday's was pragmatism vs ideology, and Saturday's was health care.

The Supreme Court has a huge effect on the nation's laws and culture, and the presidents who select its members have a huge effect on the Supreme Court.

Right now, the court is composed of 5 conservative members and 4 liberal members. One of the conservative members, Kennedy, is known as a swing-vote justice, and sometimes votes with the liberal members, but generally he votes on the conservative side, as in the health care case.

The members of the court are fairly old and it is reasonable to believe that one or more may retire during the next presidential term. From youngest to oldest, they are (L or C indicates liberal or conservative):

Elena Kagan, 52, L

John Roberts, 57, C

Sonia Sotomayor, 58, L

Samuel Alito, 62, C

Clarence Thomas, 64, C

Stephen Breyer, 74, L

Antonin Scalia, 76, C

Anthony Kennedy, 76, C

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79, L

Supreme Court Justices serve until they choose to retire, sometimes lasting for over 30 years, so any appointment can have a lasting influence on the country. For instance, Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Ronald Reagan!

Ginsburg is generally understood to be considering retirement in the next term, especially if Obama is elected. Kennedy and Scalia may also retire soon, but probably wouldn't under an Obama administration unless they really had to for health reasons. But depending on what happens, the next president may pick one to three new justices. If a liberal justice retires under a liberal president, or a conservative justice retires under a conservative president, there's no real net change, but if a liberal retires under a conservative or vice versa, that president would have the opportunity to reshape the balance of the court, since it is so closely split.

Recent cases have included a handgun ban in Chicago, the healthcare law, censorship on TV, early voting in Ohio, campaign finance (Citizens United), and Arizona immigration enforcement.

Upcoming cases may/will include DOMA and gay marriage, more issues related to healthcare, abortion, affirmative action in university admissions, the trials of arrested terrorists, immigration, the Voting Rights act, and challenges to wiretapping.

To give an example of how the Supreme Court can influence the country, one obvious example is the health care case. I don't think I really need to explain why this was important, whether you are in favor of the ACA or not. Another case that has been extremely influential is the Citizens United case. In this, the Supreme Court basically said that groups can donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. This led to the current SuperPACs that are making most of the political ads you see today. These groups are largely unregulated, largely anonymous, and since they don't report to the candidate, largely irresponsible. These groups used to be illegal and now they are some of the main funders of political ads, especially for the Republicans (they have just recently become factors for the Democrats in the last few weeks). So this is a great example of how the court has hugely impacted your everyday life (by creating an environment where you see so many of these ads) as well as the political landscape (since political advertising is now so unregulated and anonymous), which in turn could affect your life by electing presidents based on that advertising--not just now, but for the foreseeable future.

If issues like abortion, gun control, immigration, surveillance, war crimes trials, gay marriage, and anything else mentioned above (plus a host of other things) are important to you, you should make sure to vote for the candidate that represents those views, because the president that gets elected will probably get to influence them by his choice for the next couple Supreme Court Justices.

Personally, I believe in abortion rights, in moderate gun control, in immigration policies that don't involve the harassment of innocent people, in gay marriage, in the continuance of the Voting Rights act, and in limitations on wiretapping and surveillance, so I am in favor of the kinds of Justices that President Obama has chosen so far. You may disagree here. I'm not going to even get into the philosophy behind liberal and conservative interpretations of the Constitution in the abstract, because that could take a long time. I tend to have a view half-way between the liberal and conservative interpretations.

I believe that the Justices Obama has chosen so far (Sotomayor and Kagan) are, while liberal, also somewhat moderate and pragmatic in their liberalism, so they don't vote predictably in every situation, while the Justices that conservatives tend to demand their Presidents choose are more ideological and radical in their approach to the constitution. Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are all believers in radical constitution theories that had almost no hold in the court before they became members, and if they got a stronger majority would truly change the country by negating much of our past legal and governmental structures. Roberts is not quite so ideological, and Kennedy is much less so. Ginsburg is an example of strong ideology on the left, which I am not a huge fan of either, but in general the left-leaning Justices right now are no so extreme to the left as the right-leaning Justices are extreme to the right.

Of course, Obama has also made a mark on the court by appointing two women, one of whom is Hispanic. This may not seem important to everyone, but I think it is, for a host of reasons, from acting as examples to young kids thinking about joining the legal profession to the greater breadth of viewpoints that come from a greater breadth of kinds of life experiences. (Just as an aside, Obama has also appointed more openly gay people to his administration than anyone else.) (Also as an aside, the court is currently comprised of six Catholic and three Jewish Justices, which is a fairly unrepresentative sample of American religions, and they all have an Ivy League degree of some kind, which is hardly an example of diversity, so the court could in many ways use some more demographic shaking-up.)

In the end, I trust Obama to make good choices to the Supreme Court. He was a lawyer and taught constitutional law, and I think he has important insights into what qualities a Justice should have. I trust him to select people that are pragmatic and respectful of the Constitution and American jurisprudence.

Today's theme on why you should vote for Obama is health care.

Friday's was on pragmatism vs ideology, Thursday's was on the importance of supporting science, and Wednesday's was on the Republicans' strategies of obstructionism and shape-shifting.

Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, has obviously been an extremely polarizing topic. A lot of the reason for the controversy around it has been due to the Republicans' extensive misinformation campaign about it. "Death panels," anyone? To see the effect of bad publicity on the ACA, consider this simple fact: when people are surveyed about the act itself, they are often against it. But when they are surveyed about its individual components, they are usually very in favor of it.

The act itself is really not that radical. I'm going to describe its basic components, then go over some of the standard complaints about it.

Consumer Rights

First and foremost, I see the ACA as a consumer rights bill. I don't understand how anyone can be against this idea. Basically what it does is keep the insurance companies from screwing you over. For anyone who thinks this is not a big deal, you really need to look up how the insurance companies have acted in the past. It has been a widespread practice of the insurance companies to drop people from their plans whenever the people end up having some major medical problem. Basically they're happy to take people's premiums every month, then when it's time to pay out for an expensive, long term hospital bill, they drop the people. They look for technicalities in how the forms were filled out, they say it was a pre-existing condition, they do anything they can. They often just make stuff up. It has been an incredible abuse of power and there is an extensive track record of it. It's the kind of thing you'd think was made up until you read the stories. I personally know multiple people who have been treated like this.

So the ACA says that the companies can't do this any more. No more randomly dropping people. This is incredibly important to consumers, and would NEVER happen unless it was made into law.

It also allows people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they're 26. This is very important because many people don't have the money to pay for insurance until they're older. Myself, I didn't have health insurance between the time I graduated college until I was 29. Because health care in this country is basically dependent on having a salaried job (which is dumb in the first place), lots of people have to wait a long time before they get it. This helps close that donut hole of no insurance for many people in their 20s.

It also requires the companies to no longer have annual or lifetime limits for coverage. Right now, companies can say that once they pay out a certain amount of money to you per year, or over your lifetime, you can no longer get any more coverage. They won't pay for anything else. You're out of luck. The law makes this practice illegal--they must continue to pay for your health care over your lifetime no matter how expensive it is.

It also has a few other general benefits:

It requires the companies to say how much of your monthly premiums go to actual health care, and how much to random stuff like CEO salaries and profits. If the insurance companies don't spend 80% of their money on health care, they have to send you some of your money back! This has already started to happen--over 12 million people's plans required rebates this year.

It gets rid of the Medicaid Prescription Drug Program's donut hole, which was very costly to many seniors.

It also expands Medicaid to people whose incomes are up to 133% of the federal poverty level. This is important because right now, the states get to decide what percentage of the poverty level you have to be at to get Medicaid. For some states, it's 133%, or about $26,000 for a family. For other states, you can't get Medicaid if you make more than just $5000 for your whole family! Ironically, the states that use the lowest percentages are almost all traditionally Republican, so the people who would get the most benefit from this provision are largely Republicans. Here are more details.

In terms of cost-control, it has a few different mechanisms.

The first is the requirement that everyone has to get health insurance or pay a fine. The basic reason for this is that since more people will have health insurance, the insurance companies will have a greater overall pool of money, and they will be able to more easily pay off their payments to sick people. Right now, many people only get health insurance when they are already sick, or in a risky age etc. This means that the people the companies currently cover are more likely to cost the companies money. When more healthy people get insurance, there is more money in general, but less payouts as a percentage. So the system is more financially stable.

Second, the way a lot of people pay for their medical issues right now is emergency rooms. It is the law that emergency rooms have to cover people in trouble. So people go in, and they get help. But emergency rooms are about the most expensive form of health care, and also many of the people who go there can't pay, and default, raising the costs for the hospitals even more. So, by getting these people health insurance, they will go to actual doctors and not emergency rooms, and their overall medical costs will go down, and the hospitals won't lose a lot of defaulted bills.

Third, the bill creates places ("exchanges") where self-employed people can check out a bunch of insurance plans at once and compare them to each other easily. They're basically pools made for making it easy to compare and select plans. This creates competition and will lower costs for people who are self-employed, who right now have the highest costs. The pools are also required to charge no more than 9.5% of your annual salary in premiums.

Fourth, the bill puts a lot of emphasis on free preventative care. This means that doctors will try to get you help for small things before they become large things. They will do this for a lot more people than they used to, because there will be more people who are insured. Studies have shown that preventative care dramatically lowers the long term costs for an individual, because even though there are some small costs up front, they prevent the big expensive things down the road.

Fifth, there will a board of medical experts who study the use of health care and will make decisions about what kinds of care is unnecessary. This is one of the most demonized parts of the plan and is often described as rationing health care. This is not the case. One of the biggest reasons health care today is so expensive is that many people actually get more care than they need. Basically many doctors require all sorts of tests that medical experts know they don't need, they buy equipment that doesn't help, etc. Essentially, a lot of health care money goes to stuff that doesn't actually improve people's health. It's a huge problem. See here for details.

The bill also provides tax credits for small businesses so that they can afford to get the health care plans for their employees. Remember that not all companies need to get their employees a plan, only those with 50 or more workers, so super-small companies don't have to deal with the costs. People who work for these super-small companies get their insurance through the insurance pools described above. The people also get tax credits to do so.

There are a few arguments that people make against the ACA.

First is that it is a government takeover of health care. This is simply not true at all. The government will not be taking over the actual health care industry or doctors or hospitals or anything like that. The law mostly just controls the insurance companies and makes them act in a more civilized fashion. It doesn't do anything to affect your doctor or hospital. So it is not in any way, shape, or form a government take over of health care. It will just protect you from abuse by the health care insurance industry, and will lower prices (it could go farther in this department, which will hopefully be addressed in the future).

The second incorrect argument is that middle class people will now be paying for the health care of poor people. This is not true either. By making everyone get insurance plans, there will be more people paying for health care, and more people not using emergency rooms, which will actually lower premiums for everyone.

Another complaint is that people just don't like being forced to get health care insurance. Honestly, is this really an issue? Most people already have insurance, so it won't affect them at all. For those who don't, I just can't see the problem. Sorry to force you to be covered against possible catastrophic loses. This is pretty much exactly the same issue as seat belts. We make everyone wear seat belts because if they don't, then the people who get in accidents while not wearing them incur huge emergency and medical costs, which are then passed along to the rest of us via our insurance premiums. People used to think it was an important thing to be "free" to not wear a seatbelt because it didn't hurt anyone else, but it does--when you end up in the hospital, it costs everyone else money. The same is true for health care insurance.

Another manufactured complaint is that many people will lose their plans. In actuality, almost no one will lose their plans, and for the small minority that do, it's only because you will be getting a better plan. Some of the existing plans don't live up to the law's requirements, so they will be phased out and replaced by ones that do live up to the law. I can't see this as a problem.

There are often assertions that the ACA will add to the deficit. Actually, it will reduce the deficit; the exact numbers depend on how many states accept the Medicaid expansion.

There are often assertions that it will "kill jobs." This is not true, see here.

Romney has said he'll repeal the ACA, although he has also said that he would keep almost every aspect of it, because they're all very popular, except for the mandate. Now first of all, the mandate is mostly what pays for it, so if you keep all the benefits but cut the mandate, it's not financially viable. Second, he was perfectly happy to include the mandate in his Massachusetts version of the law, so what's the problem now? Third, when the Republicans wrote a healthcare bill to act as a contrast to the one Hillary Clinton proposed in the early 90s, what they wrote was pretty much exactly the same as Romney's Massachusetts bill and Obamacare, including the mandate. So it is utterly absurd for them to be against it now. They invented it!

Basically, I think the ACA is a huge benefit to the country. It protects us from the insurance companies, which are otherwise overwhelmingly powerful and have screwed over millions of people. It lowers costs. And it's paid for. I'm incredibly glad it's happening, and am incredibly fearful as to what would happen if they tried to repeal it. Do the Republicans honestly want people to be vulnerable to insurance companies again? On this issue, it's clear that we need to re-elect Obama and the Democrats in Congress if we want to avoid the horrors of the past when it comes to health care.

See this link to see exactly how the ACA will benefit someone in your exact demographic: http://www.barackobama.com/health-care/

Questions or comments?