working together to move a log

So the house republicans and democrats are in a room and there is a large log in the middle that needs to be lifted.  The log is called the economy.  The dems pick up their side and say, "hey, help us lift this thing."
Reps:  No
Dems:  Why?
Reps:  Because you want it. 
Dems:  OK, what do you want?
Reps:  A bunch of unrelated shit.  Like an oil pipeline through the heartland and the removal of authority of the EPA to restrain our polluting buddies.
Dems:  Well, that has nothing to do with the ecomony, but this is so important, we will agree.  Now will you please pick up your side of it?
Reps:  No.  We won't work with you on anything.  Whatever you want, we will kill, even if its something that we want too.  Then you'll get blamed and we'll get rewarded.  So fuck off.
And the media reports read, "Congress Unable to Work Together"

Unintended consequences

So congress just passed a bill that will reward employers for hiring unemployed veterans.  Now, I am all for helping the troops, but I find this particular tactic interesting.  They say that the returning vets have a disproportionately high unemployment rate?  Why is that?  Rather than paying employers to hire them, why don't we find out what's holding them back.  Maybe we need to do more to make sure that they are not broken (physically and emotionally) when they return to civilian life. 

I will not go so far as to say that this is a grand conspiracy, but I will allow that it could just be a fortuitous (for some) unintended consequence.  If there is an angry mob at your ivory tower, which are the ones who are the greatest threat?  The big guys, the tough guys, the ones with combat experience, the professional soldiers.  With this Occupy Wall Street movement starting to scare the 'haves', getting the soldiers out of the masses will help neuter the mob. 

example for regulation

If I own a gas station, I sell 3 grades of gas for 3 different prices.  One day per week, I could switch the tanks and sell 87 octane at the 93 octane price, and no one would ever know.  If I can get away with it, shouldn't I?  Is this someplace where the government could regulate and try to prevent this sort of fraud from occurring?  Or should we all have to test all the products we buy ourselves to ensure their purity? 

Question for the Free Marketeers

"The government that governs best is the government that governs least."  That means that the best situation would be no government at all.  "The free market will take care of things if the government would just get out of the way.  Everything would be fine (and much better) if the government would just stop interfering in the market."  These are common sentiments I hear from my friends who advocate the free market.  So how far does that go?

The Free Market is unregulated.  If you have an advantage, you should use it.  If you are publicly traded you MUST use it.  So if I have extra cash (which must be deserved, because wealth proves worth- those with money are better than the rest of us because that money proves that they are smart, innovative, hard working, risk-takers and job creators (while having a lack of cash proves that you are none of those things)).  So if I have the advantage of extra cash, what should prevent me from giving a bribe to public officials to direct public tax dollars towards my company?  I can use my money to buy commercials to sway public opinion, but that is very inefficient.  It is much cheaper and more direct to give that money directly to a politician to ensure that he votes in my favor, regardless of public sentiment (or impact).   Should that be allowed in a Free Market arrangement?  If not, how do you prevent it if not through government regulation? 

What kind of world do you want?

If you were able to create your ideal society, how would it be?

In terms of economy, would it be an Oligarchy, where a small ruling class controls most of the wealth and industry and the majority of the people were serfs, or would you prefer a society with a strong middle class?  How many poor people would exist in your ideal world?

Would public policy be determined by everyone who was affected by it, or should it be written by whoever pays the most for it?

Would you prefer a market where companies can compete freely with one another, or would you create a system where companies can buy up all their competition and hold effective monopolies?

Would you want a place that preserved its natural beauty for future generations, or would you prefer to cash in as much as you could of the Earth's natural resources in as little time possible?

Would you want an economy where everyone had to work 40-80 hours/week, or would you prefer a system where one wage earner could make enough to provide for his or her family, leaving the other parent to supervise the kids?  In your perfect world, how much free time should parents have to spend with their kids.   If they should be working all the time, then who should raise and instruct our kids.   Would you even care if kids other than yours were supervised/instructed?

In your setup, should everyone be self-made millionaires?  Or should some people create industries and other people staff them?  If the latter, how much credit (money) should go to the people who have the dream and how much to the people who make it happen?

In your perfect world, would you live in a gated community or would you prefer a world where you did not need a gate to protect you?

How many people do you want to have access to education and opportunity?  Would you like everyone to be able to maximize their potential, or only those born into privilege?

How many years do you think a  person should have to work to pay off a 4-year education?

How many of your neighbors do you want to be healthy?

How many of your neighbors do you want to be happy?  How many do you want to be desperate?

Would you like a place where people could take risks and know that they will still be OK if they fail?  Or do you want everyone to know that they are on their own and to not risk anything unless they are guaranteed success?

Would you like a world where science and knowledge are pursued, or shunned?

How many wars would be going on in your ideal world?

How polluted do you want your water, air, and food to be?



I think that this libertarian ideal is forgetting that we all must live together and that we do benefit from the well-being of those around us.  No one exists in a vacuum, and I would not like it if we did.  Shared work, shared reward. 

Republicans for torture

last night's RNC Presidential debate showed some interesting things.  The most interesting to me was that all the front-runners are OK with torture.  I wonder how one can pursue the far-right Christian bloc and advocate torture.  I guess it's not so much a commentary on the incongruity of the candidates but of the voting bloc themselves.  The voters they are trying to woo are NOT good Christians.  They are self-righteous, judgemental, hypocritical, fearful, and hateful people.  Are these the people that our whole country's policies should reflect?  I hope not.

Torture is wrong.  It does not usually get good information.  It always incites more violence against us, and it justifies the torture of our soldiers (and civilians if God forbid they ever get captured).   It is easy to be moral when there is no problem.  The test of our morals and beliefs comes when it is hardest to adhere to them.  I am so disappointed with Perry, Cain, Romney, and Bachmann.  I thought we were done with being the brutal thugs of the world and wanted to show our moral high-groundedness.  Thanks for lowering us, jerks.

Props to Huntsman and Paul for showing civility and intelligence in this area.        

Class Warfare

So a group of rich and powerful people got together and said, "wouldn't it be great if we were even richer?  How can we do that?  Well, 150 million people collectively own as much wealth as the 400 of us, let's go after their money." 

So they decreed, "hey middle class, we're going to ship your jobs away.  Then when you get in trouble with your mortgage, we won't refinance, we'll just take your house.  We'll charge you extra fees to use our banks (unless you have $20,000 in our banks, then these fees won't apply to you).  We'll raise your health insurance premiums to the point where you either go bankrupt paying the insurance, or go bankrupt when you need medical care.  Don't try going to the legislature.  We have used our wealth to silence your voice and buy their votes.  We've used our influence to suppress your ability to vote.  Hell, we even own the courts and are trying to make it so you can't sue us when we screw you. 

We'll dump our toxic chemicals in your backyard.  We'll remove your ability to collectively bargain.  We'll make it so that you are indebted to our big banks for 30 years just to get a college education.  We'll award ourselves huge bonuses with the cash that you give to us as a bailout when we trash the economy.  And we'll use some of that money to make sure that you do not have access to opportunities to advance. 

And when the middle class realizes what's been done to them and declare, "Hey, we're getting screwed.  Yo, rich A-holes, stop screwing us."  Then that is class warfare. 

Another Analogy for the Occupiers

Wall street is a 2-year old who has never had any limits placed upon it.  It is a wild child.  Now it is in our house, tearing up the place.  Now the child does need to be redirected, but the real problem lies with the parents.  The kid will not and can not control himself.  That is the job of the parents.  A corporation will not and can not control itself (how much proof do you need?)  That is the job of society.  We band together and let them know what behaviors are and are not acceptable.  We use our government to formalize and enforce those rules.  Our protests need to be directed towards the parents.  Just like DCFS, if they cannot parent correctly, that responsibility/privilege will be taken from them.  Occupy your government.  Write all your representatives (not just the Democrats or Republicans, but ALL of them) and let them know they need to be responsible and control these kids.  Re-institute Glass-Steagel, abolish corporate personhood with a constitutional amendment that also states that money is not speech.  Put restrictions on lawmakers taking jobs or money from industries that they affected (even after they leave office).  Our democracy has been taken away from us and is now going to the highest bidder.  We need to get the money out of politics and put the power back in the people's hands- the way the founders intended.  Yelling at the corporations will not affect these necessary changes.  Yell at your representatives.  Boycott the companies. 

Every man for himself Utopia

So what I gather from some of the hard-core Libertarians and Ayn Rand devotee's is that ours should be a society where everyone is only out for him or herself.  As long as you can prop yourself up, then you can remain.  But if you fall down, that is your own fault; and to expect society to pick you back up would be an unfair drain to the rest of us.  So if you fall down, either get yourself back up or die. 

This has in it the belief that misfortune can always be avoided and that when it occurs it is always deserved.  But, we should all know that Shit Happens.  Your home could catch fire through no fault of your own.  Your retirement savings could be wiped out by unscrupulous traders or unethical companies.  Any of us is just one misfortune away from needing help.  You can get hit by a bus while dining at a cafe, then the insurance company can drop you and suddenly you're bankrupt.  So if we insist that help is for the weak and should not be something that we as a society want to provide, then we must all live in fear.  We should be terrified every day that we might fall down (or be knocked down), blamed for it, and then left to die.  I don't know about you, but I don't want a world where everyone is terrified.  I thought that is why we developed societies- so we can work together and help each other out.  The Any Rand model seems pretty anti-society to me and is not a worldview that I want to cultivate.  I am not suggesting that there should be no consequences for bad decisions.  There needs to be a balance.  And the hard-core Libs and Ayn Randers are calling for 100% individual, which would be anarchy.

The occupiers have the wrong focus

We (well, most of we) are angry with the unrestrained power of big business and their overtaking of our political system, country, and economy.  So there have been a bunch of people who have taken this anger and fear and begun camping out around the financial centers of the country (wall street, the federal reserve, etc).  We are angry with Wall Street and big business, but we have absolutely no recourse against them.  The purpose of a business it to make money.  The objective of Wall Street is to take our money.  They figure out ways around the rules in order to maximize their gain.  They have even managed to re-write the rules to even further increase their advantages.  They are horrible, greedy, despicable people. 

But that is their job.  The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation's first duty is to maximize profits.  Wall Street is out of control and they CANNOT and WILL NOT control themselves.  That is what government is for.  We have no recourse to Wall Street.  They do not have to listen to the public- only their shareholders.  The government has to listen to us.  So while it is fine to be upset with the greed, occupying Wall Street is not the answer.  We need to OCCUPY CAPITOL HILL and all our local government buildings.  We need to insist that they create rules to protect the public from the greed of Wall Street, or else we'll kick them out of office and put in others who will do that.  It worked for the Tea Party. 

Being angry at Wall St is like being angry at the basketball player who gets to the free throw line too many times on bad calls.  That player is not going to say, "you're right, I forfeit my free throws because they are not earned".  In that scenario, we need to be mad at the referee's.  Our government is supposed to ensure the level playing field.  It is they who have let us down.  It is towards them that our anger and protest should be directed.  And I think some politicians like the fact that we are distracted away from their culpability. 

OCCUPY YOUR GOVERNMENT!

Herman Cain's advice for the economy

If you worked for a company and they screwed you over, that is your own fault.  If you believed that they would protect your job, your pension, your retirement, etc, then it's your own fault when those things are taken away from you.  If you were the CEO, then you'd get to make the calls.  Everyone in the country should be a CEO.  No one should ever work for anyone else.  And if they are lazy and stupid enough to work for someone else, then they should not be surprised when they get screwed.  Hell, they deserve it.

And if you are a CEO and you are not screwing your employees, shame on you too.  That is the responsible thing to do.

Changing the story on Trickle Down

"I'm rich.  But everyone should let me keep more of my money.  That will do the most good because the more I have, the more will naturally trickle down to the lower spectrum of the economy.  If you let the poor keep more, then it may not ever benefit me.  But if you let me keep more, it will benefit everyone." 
- Years Later-
Q: "Why didn't that money ever trickle down"
A: "Those lazy-ass, good-for-nothing moochers at the lower spectrum of the economy didn't deserve it."

Trickle down is an excuse to hose the middle and lower class.  It hasn't worked and I can't believe they are still trying to sell us this bullshit.   

If the economy does not recover, there is no one to blame but Obama

Obama is running this country right?  He makes all the decision, therefore he gets all the blame and all the credit.  The republicans in congress have steadfastly said, "we don't think that this is a good idea, but you're the President, so we'll try it out.  If it fails, though, then that will show that your policy did not work."  Really, everything that the President has suggested has been green-lighted by congress and implemented.   Everything from the public option, to the full-sized stimulus, to the raising of the debt ceiling, to the jobs plans have been passed.  Oh wait, that's not quite true.  Actually, most of what Obama has tried to do has been stalled by the Republicans in congress.  And short of proposing more tax cuts for the wealthy and less protection for the people, the Republicans have not introduced any legislation to try and fix the economy.   So maybe the economy is not a true reflection of Obama's policies.  You may argue that things would be much worse if Obama's policy's were implemented, but you can't say that this current situation is because of him.  

The EPA kills jobs?

So I guess the argument is that the only way to create jobs is by killing the environment.  There is no way that a big company like Georgia Pacific (a division of Koch Industries) could do business without destroying the environment and causing cancer for those who live around their plants.  So that is your choice, either you can have jobs or you can have a liveable planet.  It is absolutely impossible for Koch to exist if they had to safeguard the environment (well, it's not quite impossible, but it would cost them a small percentage of their HUGE profits, and that is unacceptable, so for all intents and purposes, it is impossible).

The EPA kills jobs just like the police kill jobs by arresting the drug dealers in my neighborhood.  Those are some good paying jobs, similar to bank robbing.  But the cops kill the industry.  But, you say, that's different.  We don't need to protect the drug dealers or the bank robbers because they don't pay taxes on that money.  Well, the same goes for GE.    

My apologies (sarcastic title)

I got laid off because the CEO of my company wanted to take 4 million more dollars out of the US economy.  2 million went to workers in China, 2 million went into his Swiss bank account.  So although I want to work, and have worked hard for 25 years, I lose my job.  I thought that just sucked for me.  But now I am told that I amd the problem with the US economy because I am not paying taxes.  So I'm sorry to my fellow citizens for being so selfish as to be laid off and being so poor as to not be able to contribute.

The Republicans and the right wing pundits love to rail about how 50% of US citizens pay no federal income tax (they say no tax because they intentionally ignore sales, property, and payroll taxes; the things that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income towards).  But they never point out how many of those people don't pay taxes because the current economic climate has pushed them down so far that they have nothing left to tax.  It's like you stab me in the chest and then complain that I am ruining your carpet.  You break my legs and then complain that I am not running fast enough.  You defund my school and then call me ignorant.  You steal my money and call me poor.  When I ask for it back, you accuse me of class warfare.    \
This is bullshit.

last thoughts

I graduated with a bachelors degree and took a job with a union shop knowing that I would have the job for the 30 years that it would take me to pay off my student loans.  I bought a house and had some kids.  But then my company's CEO learned that he could get tax breaks if he moved the company overseas, I got laid off.  So I got my unemployment insurance to tide me over while I found another job.  I applied to 300 different companies and could not find anything.  I couldn't even get a minimum wage job.  My state's governor called me and other like me "lazy" and signed a bill to shorten the weeks that my unemployment would last.  I got 26 weeks of assistance, but it was not near what I had been making, so I had to dip into my savings to keep up my mortgage and student loan payments (and everything else).  We asked the bank to reconfigure our loan.  They asked for a bunch of paperwork and took six months to say "no".  When I could not find a job, it became apparent that we could not afford to stay in our house so we put it on the market.  We dropped our asking price to below what we owed, but none of the people who were interested could secure a loan to buy it.  My 401k had been healthy, but my investment worth disappeared due to deregulation and risky behavior of the banks.  So eventually I could not make the payments and we were put out on the streets.

Then I learned that because of the EPA and department of energy's lack of concern, the chemical plant in town had been spewing carcinogenic chemicals into our air.  The doctors don't know if it was the chemicals or the tainted groundwater due to the fracking that caused my cancer.  Because I had no health insurance, I could not get treatment, and now I will soon die.  But on my deathbed, I will not be sad or angry.  The only thought I will have is "thank god that gay's can't marry".    

Seriously North Carolina?  With all the terrible things happening to American's you are going to focus on gay marriage? 

How we measure value

We have a way that we can measure and judge someone's relative worth as a person- it's called wealth.  If someone is rich (according to Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the uber-class-defenders) that that means that they are DE FACTO producers.  That they are the greatest influences on our economy, and the rest of us are completely dependent on them.  Their wealth is proof that they are necessarily more intelligent, motivated, and deserving.  And the more you have, the more deserving you are of that.  If you get rich by stealing all of my money, that makes you an even better person and me a worse one, because only an undeserving, lazy, weak, dumb, non-contributing member of society would be fool enough to let his money be stolen.  This is why Bernie Madoff should not be imprisoned, he should be enshrined. 

This is the same old "Manifest Destiny" argument that American imperialists tried to float back during the Westward expansion.  Just because someone is rich, does not mean that they are deserving.  Just because someone is poor, does not mean that he is not.   Anyone, if given the opportunity, could be a producer.  That does not mean that everyone will choose that.  But it is pretty hard to become a producer if you don't have the opportunity to try because all the resources are concentrated in the hands of the few. 

And I am NOT anti-capitalist.  I think the hoarding of wealth is killing our capitalism. 

Henry Ford was The Man. He got it.

from Wikipedia:

By 1916, the Ford Motor Company had accumulated a capital surplus of $60 million. The price of the Model T, Ford's mainstay product, had been successively cut over the years while the cost of the workers had dramatically, and quite publicly, increased. The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically grow the output of production, and numbers of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars. In public defense of this strategy, Ford declared:

"My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

When money is all that matters

In our current climate:
If a corporation can make one million dollars by helping people and supporting the environment, then that's all good.  But if that same corporation could make one million and one dollars by killing people and poisoning the environment, then that's what they should do (assumuing they may incur some fines and lawsuits from the damage, the one million and one is what is left over).  In fact, that's what the supreme court said they HAVE to do.  Their primary goal must be to maximize profits; and that one dollar is more important than the social or environmental impact.  Does anyone else see a problem with this configuration?

You can't raise taxes on the rich!

As we keep being told, if you tax the "producers", the "job creators", the "achievers", then they will stop doing what they do.  If taxes are too high, then it is not worth your time to try and be productive.  You are better off collecting welfare and living off the state.  This is especially true if welfare is robust and generous, like it is now.

So lets assume I make 1 million dollars.  Right now, if that is all on regular income and not capital gains, I will have to pay 36% to the government in income tax.  That is the lowest percentage that has been required form the top top bracket in over 50 years.  So I am pretty happy with that.  I get to keep $640,000.  But if you raise my taxes to 39% (like they were under Bill Clinton, when job creaton and economic growth were MUCH stronger), then I will only get to bring home $610,000.  What's the point?  I might as well not work if I only get to keep $610,000.  I'll quit and go on welfare. I mean, really.  With welfare, I get $1,000 a month for doing nothing.  Or I can work hard and only make an additional $49,000 per month.  Why bother.

So maybe the "producers" won't go on welfare, but they'll leave the country.  The free-market devotee's should know that this will produce a void that someone else will fill.  That's the magic of the free market, baby.  And the social Darwinists should know that nature abhors a  vacuum.  Someone else will step up and "produce".  If all the employers left America, guess what?  Other people would become employers.  They seem to argue that there exists a ruling class of elite "producers" who must be courted or else they will leave our poor country of losers to wither and die.   If we educate our masses, any of us could become the next Bill Gates.  If we educate our masses, we will have more Bill Gates's, more "producers", and more things to sell to the rest of the world.

Andrew Carnagie made his fortune when taxes were as high as 90%.   So don't tell me that people won't produce unless they get to keep it all.  I think that if the top tax rate was returned to what it was in the Clinton era, that the "producers" would keep working.  If they pack it up and leave, others will take their place.  They are crying that "the sky is falling" because of greed.  They get to keep more than ever before, and it's still not enough.

Now, I do not assert that raising taxes alone will fix our financial mess.  We need to reign in spending.  We need to cut waste, fraud, and abuse.  But the #1 culprit for waste is the Pentagon, which is the one place that the conservatives refuse to look at.  Don't be fooled.  Those who are arguing loudest are not concerned with fiscal responsibility, fairness, nor sustainability.  They are concerned with getting theirs.

Protecting the status quo really helps those at the top

Those at the top will always say whatever they can to protect their position. It's "class warfare", it's "stifling job creation", it's "punishing entrepreneurialism", "manifest destiny", "God's will", the "social contract", whatever.  Even Confucious was used to convince the masses that they had a societal obligation to never question why some people were the haves and others were not.  So we should not be surprised that, while they are amassing and keeping more than ever before, that they argue like hell that things need to never change or change only in ways that will benefit them alone. 

The Keystone Oil Pipeline

The less-than-stringent EPA did not think this was a good idea.  So the Obama administration took it away from them and put the State department in charge of it. 

What the administration is about to approve is a 36-inch pipeline to carry tar sand oil from Canada to Houston, Tx.  It will cost 13 billion dollars to build and will then transport the tar sand oil to Houston for refining and distribution.  Tar sand oil is solidified petroleum that requires about 5-6 barrels worth of oil to heat up enough to produce one barrel of new oil.  The sand has to be heated to melt and extract the oil, and this requires a lot of energy (they are debating whether to build a nuclear or coal plant to do the heating).  Then the oil that is produced is the dirtiest-burning oil possible.  So it costs a lot of carbon to produce and releases a lot of carbon when burned. 

But the biggest problem is that these pipelines leak.  In May of 2011, a leak sprayed 60 feet into the air and leaked 21,000 gallons of this toxic material in just nine minutes.   There was another leak in Kansas just 20 days later. 

Now, I am all for creating jobs in America, but I don't understand why we want this vulnerable pipeline going all the way across our country.  If we want to transport it to the US for refining, why not build a refinery in Washington or Oregon?  Can't we build a refinery for under 13 billion?  And after the initial construction, Texas will be the sole beneficiary.  Rick Perry's main selling point is that Texas has created a lot of jobs (although he rightfully does not deserve credit for most of them).  Jeopardizing the rest of the country so that Texas can have more jobs does not seem like a good idea to me. 

It's bad for the planet, bad for the country, and good for your political rivals.  Mr. Obama, please do not approve this project.  Instead, lets spend 13 billion on renewable energy sources like wind, solar, etc. 

The problem with low interest rates

Interest rates are at historic lows.  And the Federal Reserve has pledged to keep them low for another two years.  What does that do? 

That encourages borrowing.  That encourages living beyond your means.  That discourages savings.  I grew up being told to put my money in the bank.  Right now, savings accounts pay 0.1% interest.  There is no reward- there is no reason to put your money in the bank. 

So what happens to a populace that has no savings?  They become vulnerable.  Then they can be manipulated.  Then they can be enslaved (financially).  There needs to be spending for our consumer-based economy to exist.  But that should be balanced by savings.

I don't think the low interest rates have helped our recovery.  I think we should consider raising them a little and see what that does.  It would encourage me to put some more in the bank.   

Striking a balance

Communism and Socialism focus on the good of the masses; sometimes to the detriment of the individual.  Capitalism and Libertarianism focus on the good of the individual with no regard to the impact on the rest of society.   As humans, we are both A PART OF the group and APART FROM it.  Both idealogies cannot work sustainably if implimented 100%.  So there has to be a balance between what is good for me and what is good for the rest of my fellow human beings (who I consider to be extended family).  The functioning and prospering societies in the world right now strike a balance somewhere between 30/70 and 70/30 Capitalist/Socialist.  I think that we can tinker with the balance between those benchmarks.  But to go too far in either direction is ridiculous.  I hear a lot more talk about moving to 100% capitalism than I do about eliminating it completely.   Those who say there should be no regulation, no safeguards, no taxation, no public services, etc. are really saying that there should be no community.  I feel sorry for them and would not want to live in their world.   The ideal balance may never be found, and it should probably change with the times and needs.  But we need a mix of both Capitalism and Socialism.

2 visions of utopia

Imagine that technology has progressed to the point where all our basic needs can be taken care of at no cost.  Clean and renewable energy powers the machines that farm the land, clean the water, build our shelters, cut our lawns, and transport our people and goods.  Medicine has evolved to the point where major illnesses are obsolete.  No one has to work.

Now, would it be great if this technology was freely available to everyone in the whole world?  If everyone was taken care of and were free to pursue their passions?  There would be much less motivation to commit crimes and wage war.  Everyone would be safe and secure.

Or would it be better if only you owned this technology and could withhold it?  Then you could control people.  Make them do what you want or else they die (or steal).  

Which vision is more appealing to you?  

It takes courage

So I wanted to remodel my house.  I brought in a designer who took one look and said, "we'll knock out all the interior walls and open up all the space.  It'll be great, trust me."  So he drew up some plans and I had them evaluated by an architect.  The architect said, "you can't knock out these walls, they are load-bearing.  If you follow this plan, your whole house will collapse."  So I said to my friends, "This designer is an idiot.  He doesn't know what he is doing and should not be in this position.  Who is this guy anyway?"  But then Fox News said, "Hey, that's Paul Ryan.  At least he had the courage to draw up a plan.  All he deserves is credit and our admiration."   

What kind of society do you want?

My man Thom Hartmann breaks the difference between the Liberal agenda and the Conservative agenda as a question of: Do we want to live in a ME society or a WE society.  I think this is a great way of understanding and explaining it, but I have come up with a different way of framing it.

Are we, as a society, better served when our primary focus is that we should be competitive with each other or that we should be cooperative?  In the former view, there are limited resources and everything you have takes away from what I could/should have.  I have no responsibility to you and you have none to me.  Might makes right and only the strongest should survive.  The only reason why you would not break into my house, kill me and take all my stuff, is that the combined strength of society is stronger than you and could punish you.  So you play by the rules and defer your gratification because you have to.

In the latter view, we recognize that 1) there are enough resources to go around for all of us and 2) that we can accomplish much more and better things when we combine our strength towards a common goal.  We all chip in some money (taxes) and build a road, from which we all benefit.

I benefit from everyone being healthy, productive, fed, and educated.   It might seem to benefit me if I were the only one with an education and therefore no one could compete with me for jobs; but that is very short-sighted.  I heard a radio interview with a man from India; and the topic was: the emerging superpowers.  The Indian man asserted that India would never be a superpower because of the caste system.  When only 1/5th of society is allowed to maximize their potential, it cripples the growth.  How many Einsteins are we missing out on because college has become prohibitively expensive?   Too many, and the problem is getting worse.

I think there is enough to go around, and that people should view some of our success by the quality of life of our neighbors, not just ourselves.   People talk about running our county like a corporation.  Well, the profits of that corporation should be viewed in terms of health and education and happiness of its citizens, not just GDP, taxes, and military prowess.

This does not mean, as some people like to twist it, that I think we should all have the same regardless of effort or talent.  I do believe (as do 99% of liberals) that hard work, innovation, and risk should be rewarded.  I want there to be incentive for people to contribute.   But I would like all of us to (minimally at least) take care  of all of us.    I want to live in a society where we work together, care for each other, and help each other out when necessary.  Of course there will be some who abuse the system, but I believe that most people do want to contribute.  I do not believe that everyone who is unemployed is happy and lazy.

If we didn't cooperate, the human race would never have accomplished such great things.  We would never build bridges, aquaducts, ships, phone lines, etc.  We are all one big family; and we should start respecting each other as such. 

Send back your social security

When I talk with conservatives about raising taxes, I am often told, "If you want to pay more, then you can send in your money to the government.  But don't try and take mine."  Upon reflection, I think this could apply to the tea partiers.  A lot of the tea partiers are senior citizens who are complaining about government spending.  To them I would say, "If you think the government is spending to much, then feel free to send back your social security checks.  But don't threaten the benefits due to other people."  

hoarding

If, in a society, a small percentage of people hoarded all the food, took way more than they would ever need and just socked it away, took so much that there was not enough food to feed the rest of society, then that society would die.  That is what is happening to our economy and the super-rich hoarding all the money.  If it happened with food, the people would either all starve, or at some point they would kick in the gates of the hoarders and take what they all need.  Since you can't buy food without money, the super-rich hoarders may be driving America to a revolt.  It's about sustainability people, and all this wealth drifting (being taken) from the middle to the top of our strata is not sustainable.  I am not a communist and don't think everyone should have the same regardless of effort or talent, but we now have a small number of people gaming the system and breaking it.  You can be rich, but not so rich that no one else can eat.

Sarah Palin will not run

As the kicks off her bus tour with all the vague references to changing the world and all the coyishness of saying "this is not a political tour," there is a lot of speculation as to whether or not she will run for President.  If not, why then is she touring the Eastern states, and why did she say yesterday that her tour would go to Iowa?  I'll tell, ya why- It's for money and power.  She does not want to run for President.  Don't get me wrong, she would love to be President, but she does not want to do all the work involved in preparing a campaign, like being able to answer questions.  She just wants to threaten to run so she can get offers to NOT run. 

She wants the RNC to promise her an ambassadorship, or the other candidates to pay her handsomely to bow out of the race.  That is why she is being as vague as she is.  We need to stop covering her like a celebrity and just let her be the joke that she is. 

responsibility to life

As a conserviative, I have the responsibility, and the moral authority, to require that every child conceived in this country is carried to term and given a live birth.  I care about life, and even if it will kill the mother to deliver this baby, that baby is the most important thing in the world and I must ensure its well-being.  That is, until the moment it is born.  I have to make sure the baby makes it to the world, but once here, I have no responsibility to help make usre that child is fed, clothed, housed, educated, nor have health care.  Once you're born, you are on your own.  And if you can't feed, clothe, house, educate, and insure yourself, well that is just because you are a lazy, undeserving loser.  It's the free market baby. 

"Government does not create jobs"

Every politician who spews this tired, old talking point should relinquish their salary and all their staff.  Government created your job and those of the people in your office.  I know you get a lot more money taking under-the-table contributions from the private industry, so why not just make it official and declare that you are really working for them and give up your public salary? 

The Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is constantly decried by the right.  I wonder how the Liberal Media came into existence.  I guess a few poor, welfare recipients got together and bought up a bunch of tv, radio, and print outlets.  Then they sold millions of dollars worth of advertising to their other poor, drain-on-society, good-for-nothing, waiting-for-a-handout friends.  And they use this power to fight the haves and give back to their kind- the have-nots. 

Who owns the stations?  Millionaires and Billionaires. 
Who pays for the advertising that keeps the stations operating?  Companies that make millions or billions. 
Who do these stations work for?  Bleeding heart liberals who want to steal from the rich?  I don't think so. 

questions for my conservative friends

I do not believe that any extreme position is good and that proper governance is a delicate balance.  Our nation is not perfect; we are an experiment and a work in progress.  So I have some questions.

1.  Should there be rules regarding the economy?  For example, should there be protections against monopolies, minimum wage laws, taxes, tariffs, etc?  Should those who use more of the commons pay more, or those who benefit more from the commons share more of their wealth back with the commons?  I am not asking for answers to these specific questions, just to the greater one:  Should there be rules at all?
2. If there are rules, then is there ever truly a "free market"?  Or is it always influenced somewhat by the rules that govern it? 
3. If there should be rules, would it be possible that the rules could be written in such a way that they wealthy were unjustly over-taxed and burdened?
4. If that is the case, could it also be possible that the rules could unfairly favor the haves at the expense of the have-nots?
5. Realizing that the rules are not set in stone and have changed over time, how would we know if the current configuration was working or if it was in need of some adjustment.
6. Realizing that our government is supposed to be of and for the people, should it intervene to adjust the rules if they are found to harm most of the people? 
7. If our current balance results in the producers and job-creators being overly burdened to the point where it is no longer profitable to create jobs, then should the government change the rules so that job-creators have enough reward to incentivize them to remain innovators?
8. If our current trend results in greater disparity of wealth and greater unemployment, then should we push the pendulum back a little towards a balance that favored more of the people?
9. Assuming that we are all somewhat dependent on this economy, do we all have an interest in making sure that whatever system we use is sustainable?

If our current balance is causing problems, then should we (through the government) adjust that balance?  Look at the data.  George W's own Comptroller, Comptroller Walker, said that 70% of our current deficit is from reducing the tax rates on the super-rich (in the form of income tax rates, estate tax, and capitol gain rates).  We lowered the rates, and we quickly ran out of money.  We need to swing the pendulum again.  

Raise taxes on the rich and kill the economy

If you tax the rich, they will not create jobs.  That is why from Washington to Clinton there was no job growth in our country.  It was only after George W Bush lowered the top marginal tax rate from 39% to 36% that we have seen such robust growth in our economy and such fiscal well-being.

This is, of course, bullshit.  This argument assumes that the rich create jobs out of comfort and benevolence.  "I have enough money and confidence that I can keep all my money that I now feel comfortable giving some of my money away to workers."  This is not what creates jobs.  The rich do not create jobs to share their wealth; they do so to increase their wealth.  The only reason they add employees is to meet demand so that they can make even more money. 

What makes demand?  Middle class people having money to spend.  Trickle down does not work.  If you give me 10 million dollars, I will put 9 million in the bank (likely off-shore) and will only spend 1 million.  If you give 10 million middle-class people 1 dollar, they will spend it and keep it moving through the economy. 

The rich are not stalling on job creation because they are worried about the future tax rates.  They are stalling because no one can afford to buy more products.  Share the wealth, improve the economy.  A rising tide lifts all boats right?  Instead of focusing on lifting 1% of boats and hoping that it will bring the other 99% with it, why not try to lift 99% of boats and know that the other 1% will benefit as well. 

Joe the plumber complained that Obama's proposal to raise taxes on those making over 250k/year would cost him money.  Obama did not answer this correctly.  The right answer to Joe would be, "Who pays you?  You don't make your money in a vacuum; you need people with disposable income to hire you.  So if we spread out the money, there will be more people to hire you, and your net will be greater."  If we just let people like you, Joe, who make over 250k/year to hold on to all their money, the rest of America won't be able to hire you and soon you'll be among the poor as well.  (The great irony with him was that he was A) not named Joe, B) not working as a plumber, and 3) not making nearly 250k/year.  But that is another story. 

a voice in favor of collective bargaining

"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
...freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
You and I must protect and preserve freedom here, or it will not be passed on to our children, and it will disappear everywhere in the world." - Ronald Reagan

Good news and bad news in the layoffs

Well, it's time to downsize and send some of your jobs overseas.  I was making 7 figures as your CEO, but I really want 8 or 9, so we have to maximize profits at all costs.  So to you, my employees, I have some good news and some bad news.

Half of you are losing your jobs. 

For those of you who are staying on, the good news is that you still have a job.   The bad news is that you now have twice the work to do and a bunch of people who are willing to do your job if you don't like it.  So you can forget about ever getting a raise.

For those of you who are being laid off, the good news is that you will receive unemployment compensation for a while.  The bad news is that you are all now lazy, unmotivated, undeserving people who are destroying America.  You should be ashamed of yourselves. 

Don't complain.  When you all become CEO's, you can treat people like this too. 

Glen Beck vs. Fox

So there is this speculation now that Glen Beck will be leaving Fox and starting his own media empire.  It's true, he is very popular with the Fox News viewers.  Pundits talk about how this will fail because there are some 400 advertisers who have pledged to not give him any money.  Although I heard one opinion today that stated Glen wants to leave because he feels restrained at Fox.  And that if he were on his own, he would say even crazier s#1t.  There may be some fringe groups that would be willing to give him their advertising dollars (the KKK, Orly Taitz, etc).  So he may get advertisers.

But he won't get viewers.  Glen's audience is the Fox News watchers.  And studies have shown that most of the people who watch Fox only watch Fox.  They do not change the channel.  They will not leave the drone of the echo chamber to check in with their old friend Glen.  So leave at your own peril.  But please, do leave.

quothe Jesus

"I was hungry and you fed me. I was sick and you made me well". His followers asked, "When did we do this?" and He answered "Whenever you did this to the least of us, you did it to me. And when you did, you were being communist socialists, working against the Divinity of the free market and taking away people's choice to die. Our Father wants us all to look out for number one, and you people just don't get it! If someone is sick, they deserve to be sick; and the best thing they can do is to die quickly and without racking up a lot of medical bills. God has rewarded your virtue with good health and fortune; it would be a smack in the face to God if you were to share those gifts with the unworthy".

-Reading between the lines with the help of the Conservative Bible Project

diversionary tactics for elections

Our trade policy encourages the outsourcing of jobs, so I became unemployed.  I applied for other jobs for 100 weeks, but since there are 5 people looking for every one job available, I could not land one.  Even though I had unemployment for many weeks, it was not enough and I lost my home; so now I am homeless and have terrible credit.  Because of the unregulated banks, all of my retirement money has been lost, although those who lost it still get million-dollar bonuses.  Because of the unregulated industry, my ground water is polluted and my air and food are toxic.  Because of this, I contracted a life-threatening but curable disease, but since I have no health insurance, I cannot afford the treatment and will now soon die.  

But none of that matters.  Our government is doing what it should.  When I die, all I will think is "Thank God the gays can't marry", and "Thank God there will not be another mosque in Manhattan", and Thank God for that fence along the border".

Please remember what is really important in this upcoming election.  Some people are trying to distract us from the huge problems we face by baiting our fear and hatred.  Don't fall for it and don't fall into the trap of fear.  It's a diversion because they have no answers to the problems; so they make up imaginary problems to distract us.  If the above was your story, what would you want the government to be doing?

Let the tax cuts expire

Let the Bush Tax cuts for the very wealthy expire.  This mantra of "you can't raise taxes in a weak economy" is total BS and is rooted in the discredited "trickle-down theory".  Giving more money to those that already have it does not feed the economy, it only feeds their bank accounts (I'm sure Morgan Stanley doesn't mind).  And I think we should always point out that this is not a tax increase, it is the end of a very generous tax break.  The tax break was supposed to stimulate the economy- it did not.  Why would we extend a failed policy?

who benefits most from Citizen's United?

There has been much talk lately about the impact of Citizen's United.  This is the Supreme Court activist decision that stated that, like people, corporations have the right to freedom of speech which includes giving money to political candidates.  But unlike people, they can give unlimited amounts of money, and unlike people, they do not have to let the public know who is donating nor how much.   The problem with the anonymity is that we can easily have foreign parties using their money to influence our policies.  In the run-up to the election,  the Chinese Chamber of Commerce was very concerned that the Democrats do not retain power because they are not as comfortable with outsourcing, and the Chinese depend on the exportation of our jobs to them.  

The general consensus is that will benefit the Republican Party more, because they tend to have stronger ties with big business and big business are the ones who can afford to spend millions of dollars to support particular candidates or parties (I know I  can't donate millions to affect an election, but a CEO could).

So we talk about on whose behalf the money is being paid.  And we talk (and speculate) about who is paying the money.  But who is the money being paid to?  This last election saw about 4 Billions dollars spent (much more than any election prior).  Where did that money go?  Media buys.  The Media is the greatest beneficiary of this new buy-the-election culture.  And no one's talking about that.  Well, at least no one in the media.  

There is much concern about the consolidation of power in the media.  The vast majority of stations and newspapers are owned by a very small number of companies; all of which can filter the news to push whatever agenda they have.  All are owned by billionaires and their agenda is naturally to benefit themselves.  So the dominant message in the media was "you need to spend a lot of money to win an election".  This really worked out great for them.

The real kicker is that it is true.  All you need is a lot of media, and you can change public opinion.  Especially these days when reporters no longer investigate, pry, and follow-up; candidates can say whater they want.  Especially when our population is less educated than more of the developed world (in terms of educational standardized testing).  Thomas Jefferson wrote that An Educated public is the best defense against tyranny (or something like that).  The flipside is that the Ignorant are easliy manipulated.  So those in power should want us uneducated and docile.

In the purely capitalist society, the biggest dogs will always win.

we must lower wages, right?

We have a jobs crisis in America.  I heard a quote (don't know who said it) that "America does no have a work-ethic problem, we have a work problem."  I hear opinions from some that the American worker is overpaid.  We ship our jobs overseas why?  Because we get cheaper labor.  Some are calling for a lowering of wages to remedy this.  "The job gets shipped because we can get a Chinese worker to do the work for $ 0.50/hour.  You American workers should accept $0.50/ hour and we'll bring the jobs back." 

I also hear that it is our tax policy that keeps jobs out of America.  "Why would a company want to work here when we tax them so heavily?"  

So if we are not the cheapest workforce in the world, and we do not have the most corporate-friendly tax policies, why should anybody set up shop in the US?

How about, we've got the best infrastructure in the world?  (if this is not truly the case, me must make it so).  How about, we've got the most educated workforce (if we figure out a way to lower the cost of higher education and improve our educational system overall).  How about, we'll have the happiest, and therefore most-productive workforce?   (which we could have if we respected them more and allowed them to organize)  And what about the fact that America is the greatest consumer in the world?  If you make the products here, you do not have to ship them.  Plus we have greater quality control.  I am a big fan of many things Asian, but industrialization and unrestrained capitalism have allowed that some Asian products came to market that did harm to some people and animals.   Manufacturing in America can ensure greater quality control; increasing public safety and limiting company's liability.  

There are two options in this wage war.  Either accept a lower value for ourselves, or make ourselves more valuable.  I vote that our policies be geared to making our whole country more competitive.   Do we want to be the Nieman Marcus of the world, or the Wall-Mart?
(no offense meant to Wall-Mart)

deficit reduction committee

The way to reduce the deficit is to take more away from the poor and the middle class and give it to the richest among us.  That's the plan from the deficit commission?  OMG, I can't believe these tainted people are even allowed to be on the commission.  Many are paid by big-business interests.  Of course they are going to be looking out for the rich. 

Trickle down economics does not work.  It's not lack of extra money that keeps businesses from creating jobs (reports show they have plenty of cash on hand)- it's lack of demand.  Putting more money in the middle class lets it circulate around and create demand for all sorts of products.  Give it tot the super rich and a little will trickle down to the gardeners, but most of it will go to the big banks, or worse to the offshore banks. 

Bush put the tax cuts in place when we had a record surplus.  Now we have record deficits.  The tax cuts have to go!  Especially for the super rich.  We can raise the threshold to 500k, (so it only affects 1.7% rather than 2%), but to let them continue while we borrow money from China to pay for them is insane.  Politicians, PLEASE fight for the middle class (and for America as a whole, because we are seeing America falling apart as our wealth disparity deepens).

Things to remember this election

This is borrowed from a huffingtonpost blogger and moderator RobtChristian

I remember the party that blocked health care for our nation's 9-11 first responders
I remember which party was in power during every single banking crisis since 1900.
I remember which party was in power during 17 of the 23 recessions since 1900, and 9 of the last 10 since 1950
I remember which party brought us the Wall Street bailout
I remember which party defended tax breaks for corporations that moved their operations and your jobs overseas.
I Remember which party started a needless trillion dollar war in Iraq
I Remember the party that took a record budget surplus, and turned it into a record budget deficit.
I remember the party which dismantled the government agencies that protect our food supply.
I remember the party that has worked tirelessly to destroy Social Security, Medicare, public education, civil rights, and equal pay for women.

I remember which party cannot hear the screams of the people, but can hear the whispers of big business

Who's behind Palin?

You know how there are conspiracy theories about how Alvin Green, the least electable man in South Carolina, won the primary Democratic nomination?  There are those who feel that the Republicans had a hand in getting him elected just because he was un-electable in the General.  I wonder if the Democrats have anything to do with keeping Sarah Palin in the public spotlight.  And if so, is that brilliant? or dangerous?

why we need a living wage

I have contact with some conservative, Ayn Rand types, who argue that their good position in life is earned.  They got theirs, and anyone who did not get theirs is just lazy and does not deserve anything.  My question to them is, "how did you get yours?  and would it be possible for that same mechanism to work today?"

Most of these people were born into families of affluence.  Should they get credit for that?  Should those born to poor parents be punished for that?

Some were born into more modest means.  But most had one working parent and a stay-at-home mom.  The father was able to support the family on one income.  Is that still possible today?  If the parents were able to, they paid for college for them and their siblings.  Is it still possible today for a middle-class wage earner to afford tuition for 2-6 children?  Is it possible for the middle-class wage earner to let his wife supervise the children and take care of the domestic duties and still afford a house?

My father was a psychiatrist.  He worked 40 hours/week and was able to live in a very nice community and raise 6 children.  Although we did not all take advantage of it, he could have afforded to send us all to college.  His wife did not have to work.  My father would not be able to do that today. 

Why do we need a living wage?  Because I want the kids in my neighborhood being brought up by their parents, not by TV and street gangs.  The more involved the parents are, the less likely the child will drift into crime.  The fewer kids involved with crime, the safer our communities and the less money we have to pay for incarceration.  The increased time at work means less time with the family.  Family is important to the health of the individual and the community. 

And, because I want people educated.  College tuition is turing our society into a Caste system.  If your parents don't have $100k per child, then you can't get a college education (by the time my daughter is 18, it'll probably require $200k per child).  It used to be that a high-school grad could still get a manufacturing or labor job paying $15-$25/hour.  Now college grads are competing for $9/hour jobs.  America will never be its greatest if only 10% of the children are allowed to fulfill their potential.  How many Einsteins are we missing out on because they were not able to go to college?

The period of greatest economic growth in this country was in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's.  During that time, a single-wage earning family could afford to buy a house and send their kids to college.  Now we need two wage earners working overtime just to pay rent.    As we neglect our children, we all pay the price.  It does benefit ME for YOU to make a good living.  I don't want to be the only one on top of the hill.  I want prosperity (or at least the opportunity for prosperity) for all.

(And to be clear, I am nowhere near the top of the hill.  Right now, I make a good living, but as more and more wealth drifts up to the top 2%, I am going to have to struggle more).  Even my very-wealthy Ayn Rand folks do not realize that they are not safe.  Billionaires can eat Millionaires for lunch.  And when there is nothing left to squeeze out of the middle class, they will come after the millionaires.

The fundamental problem in our culture is that we value Greed.  In some societies, it is socially embarrassing to have much more than your fellow citizens.  I think we need to have a shift in our value system and start valuing the things we give to society more than the things we take from it.  

thoughts on the disappearing middle class

So the rich are getting richer and the middle class is drifting ever more into poverty.  Public policy seems to more and more favor the haves over the have-nots (or at the expense of the have-nots).  The libertarian view seems to be very much slanted towards survival of the fittest.  "I got mine on my own, you go get yours.  If you don't have as much as me then that means that you did not try hard enough or were not deserving."  If hard work were the criteria for financial gain, then the Mexican day laborers should be millionaires, because they work as hard as anyone in this country. 

And when you talk about taxing the haves to give to the have-nots, the response is "why should you take away what I have earned all on my own and give to those who did nothing"  As though anyone actually earns his or her fortune independent of everyone else.  Sure, Bill Gates developed the software, but who's phone lines and communication outlets did he use to advertise them?  Who built the roads upon which they were shipped?  Who made those trucks?  Who ran the stores and checkout lines?  Who managed the banking system?  Who collected the trash, supplied the water, paper, electricity, food, etc?  And who actually gave him the money?  Consumers.  Where did they get their money?  From other employers.  So Bill Gates is a great benefactor of all the work that OTHERS have done.

No one makes their living without depending on the rest of society.  So I think it is fair that, when one benefits more from the work of others, that they can contribute a little more to others. I think it's bullshit to give yourself all the credit for your success; and it's selfish to want to keep it all.

So Bill Gates got his (and I don't mean to pick on him because he is actually doing a good job of sharing his wealth).  But if the middle class disappears, who will feed the corporate coffers?  People can't afford computers working on minimum wage (hear that Comcast?).  People can't buy cars when they are unemployed (hear that Exxon and BP?).  Destroying the middle class is so short sighted.  We need a sustainable economy, and crafting policy to take more and more from the middle class to give to the uber-rich will not be sustainable.

And I am not suggesting that we pay people for doing nothing.  That is another Libertarian defense -"If you help people then they won't contribute.  People are inherently lazy and they need to be starved in order to motivate them."  I think this is an extreme position.  Most of the people who are out of work WANT to work.  The folks who have been out of work for 99 weeks and are running out of unemployment- most of them have been looking for work for 99 weeks and have applied for hundreds of jobs.  There is not enough opportunity because the corporate overlords have decided that a 100 million dollars is not sufficient- they can make 200 million if they outsource.  And it's because the banking overlords have decided that no one without a lot of money can get any to start a business.  This is killing our economy, our middle class, and our innovation.  With the outsourcing, closing of factories, and inhibition of innovation there are simply not enough jobs. 

And you know, a lot of people say that Obama is anti-business.  They claim that the big corporations funneled money to the Republicans in the last election because the Republicans are more favorable to big business.  But big business is doing better than ever before under Obama.  Why would they want to change?  I think that it does not matter who is in charge, they are the ones really running the show.  They allow the appearance of a two-party struggle to keep the focus off of them.   Whether its a Republican or Democrat in charge, their profits, market share, and influence continue to rise.

We need a revolution.  When enough people get desperate enough, even the uberrich won't be safe.

problems with the tax deal

Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.

The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. ¹

Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.

Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.²

Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts. 

In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.³

Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.

While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.⁴ It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.

Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year⁵ and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.⁶

We've got to stop this deal and make sure everyone understands what's really in it. Can you share this list now?

Companies are hiring again!

This is from Thom Hartman's blog

Good news! Companies are hiring again. Bad news - they're hiring overseas. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that Americans businesses created more than 1.4 million jobs overseas in 2010 - that's compared to fewer than one million created here in the United States. Had those 1.4 million jobs been created here - the unemployment rate could have dropped by nearly a full percentage point. But as long as profits are up for CEOs and other millionaires and billionaires in the country - no worries right? According to Reaganomics - we just need to wait for that money to trickle down. It's been more than 30 years though - still no trickle. Starting to feel like a peon?

part-owner of a multi-million dollar company

So my friend and I decided to start a company.  I put in $4,900 and he put in $5,100 (so was a 49% share holder and he was 51%).  We named him President of the company and I remained a stockholder.  We made 10 million dollars last year profit.  For being President of the company, he is paid a salary of 80k/year.  But he decided at the last minute to reward his performance with a 10 million dollar bonus to him.  So the company made nothing and I got 49% of nothing.

If this happened in your life, you would be screaming FOUL.  But isn't this what happens on Wall Street every year?  Do all the stockholders realize that their dividends are paid out according to the bottom line of the company; and that the exorbitant bonuses paid to the executives directly lowers their return on investment?  The stockholders should be able to vote, not just the ivory-tower board of directors.

I want to invest for my and my family's future.  I would be happy to find a company that I believe in and invest in it.  But I don't want my money going to the executives.  I want it going back in to the company or out to me.  Big business is so corrupt.

everyone already has access to health care

I hear pundits and callers on talk radio argue that "Everyone already has access to health care- it's called the Emergency Room.  They cannot turn you away and have tot treat you."  There are several problems with this argument.  It is true in an acute condition, for example if you get hit by a car, they do need to "stabilize" you.  But it is not true for chronic, ongoing conditions.  You cannot get your chemotherapy, or physical therapy, or occupational therapy, or ongoing dialysis at an ER.

The second problem is that the ER is the MOST EXPENSIVE place for anyone to get treatment.  So if the hospital has to eat that cost, they pass it on to the rest of us paying consumers.

But most importantly, in acute conditions they hospital has to treat you, but they do not do so for free.  So if you have no insurance, you will get taken to the closest ER where they will stabilize you.  But then in a few weeks, you'll get a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.  When you can't pay that, you will have to declare bankruptcy, lose your house, and ruin your credit rating.  Medical bills are now the #1 cause of bankruptcy.

I want universal health care.  Critics complain of it being "socialism".  Well, we already have several socialized systems in our country.  It's like association dues in a condominium.  We all chip in for things that benefit us all.  We all benefit from having viable roads, so we all contribute taxes to build and maintain them.  Having a police force benefits us all.  Having an educated populace benefits us all.  And I argue that it benefits ME to have YOU be healthy.

There will always be someone in the middle between you and your health care provider.  Would you rather that entity be one that is not allowed to make money, or one who's sole purpose is to make as much money as possible?  I would gladly pay another 5-10 thousand per year in taxes if it meant I would not have to pay the 18 thousand that I pay in health insurance premiums.  I am also an employer, and every employee I bring on will cost me up to 10 thousand dollars just in health care.  So it'll cost me 40ko to hire someone and pay them 30k.  There is no reason that our health care should be tied to and dependent on our employers. 

So the existing health care system sucks.  We are the only country that does not have some form of universal care, and we are the only one that allow primary insurance companies to be for-profit.  My premiums just went up 20%, my benefits went down, and my risk factors and health are NO DIFFERENT.  We are getting screwed.  Medicare for all!  At least give me the option.

Attn Women: Are you Republican? If so, why do you support these measures?

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Please share this email today. Just click the links to post on Facebook and Twitter.

Sources:

1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=6

"Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=7

2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=8

3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206102&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=9

4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206103&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=10

5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=11

6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/

7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206104&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=12

8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-

9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206122&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=13

"GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206105&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=14

10. Ibid.

Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206106&id=26177-17272260-NZ5MRyx&t=15

everyone is overpaid

Who deserves to be well-paid?  Who should make enough to buy a house and send their kids to college?   What factors are important?  Does it matter how undesirable the job is?  Does it matter how long it takes and how expensive it is to prepare for that career?  Does it matter how hard the person has to work?  Does it matter how beneficial their service is to the rest of society?  Does it matter how few people would have the skills, talent, or patience to do that particular job?

Teachers in Wisconsin average 50k/year.  Is that enough to buy a house and save 200k+/child for college?  OK, maybe they don't deserve to send their kids to a private college, so lets say 80k/kid at a state school (assuming that tuition will continue to rise and that the teacher has small children).   Remember, normal folks pay around 25% income tax, so that 50k is really only a take-home pay of $37,500.  Is that enough to buy a house and save 160k for your two childrens' state school education.  And let's not forget that this teacher may have his or her own student loans to pay off.  But some people are saying that they make too much money.   So apparently we value teachers and the work that they do, but they should not be able to partake of the American dream.  What do you think they should make?  A maximum of 40k/year?

What about policemen?  They risk their lives to keep us safe, work odd hours, and have to deal with situations from which the rest of us would run.  Firefighters too.  They don't have student loans to pay off, so perhaps we should cap them at 30k.  They'll just have to rent an apartment and give up on the prospect of sending their kids to school.

So what about the gardener.  He works hard doing manual labor that you and I don't want to do.  The physical toll his work exacts on his body means that he will have less productive years.  But it is relatively unskilled labor and not very dangerous, so perhaps they should be capped at 20k/year.  They will need to share an apartment with another family. 

How about your local store clerk?  Unskilled, no student loans, not a dangerous environment.  They certainly don't deserve more than 12k/year.  They will need dormitory living arrangements, and forget about procreating.   

So who does deserve to partake of the American dream of home ownership and education for their kids.  Should that be reserved for only those born into wealth?  Only those who own companies?   Really, who do you think should have these opportunities, and what is the basis upon which you decide that one is deserving and another is not?  Please share.

does national health care help corporations?

The government seems to be so focused on appeasing big business.  We need to lower their costs so they will continue to do business in America and not move operations overseas.  Well, I know a way that we can greatly reduce their costs.  Give everyone health care.  At my business, it costs around $1000 to insure an employee and one child.  If I had 50 employees, that would be $50k.  If there was a national health care program, employers would be free of this expense.

The only problem with this is that giving people health care would release them from their employer.  People would not be beholden to their employer and would be free to leave if the employer abused their employees. 
So is it worth $50k to make all of my employees indentured servants?  I guess I can just reduce their salaries by $1000 and it'll be a wash.  Hell, I'll reduce it by $3000 and come out $150k ahead.  If they don't like it, they can quit and risk bankruptcy if they should happen to get hit by a car or have some other medical emergency.  

More crap from Wisconsin that the media is not covering

This from my man Thom Hartmann

Governor Walker...but Wait! There's More...
ThinkProgress has pointed out some lesser-known provisions that Scott Walker and his Republican colleagues are trying to slip through the state legislature that should worry many Wisconsinites. Even if protestors successfully defend their rights to collectively bargain - they still have to deal with a GOP-led assault on the several health, environmental, and economic programs including a bill that will allow the state's uber-conservative Health and Human Services Secretary to override state Medicaid laws to make deep cuts into the critical health care program.

There's also legislation that will exempt local governments from having to disinfect their waters - and a similar bill that exempts large tracts of wetlands from environmental oversight. It just so happens that many of those wetlands are owned by a rich Republican donor...talk about cronyism.

And finally - there are two bills that drastically increase Governor Walker's powers, including giving him authority to write rules for the state's ethics watchdog agency - and allowing Walker to turn 37 state civil servants into political appointees thus politicizing critical social services.

What we're seeing in Wisconsin is not the agenda of a Republican governor - it's the agenda of a radical autocrat. And if Walker is successful - Wisconsin is screwed.

-Thom

trickle-down economics works

This has been told to us so much that it must be true.  Why then, people ask, has it NOT worked?  This is because we have not gone far enough with it.  The financial waters are too muddy to see the effect.  I say we should give ALL of the money in the country to the top 1%.  Let them lay claim to all our properties, possessions, 401k's, investments, etc.  That way, if you ever do receive any money, you will be absolutely sure that it has trickled down.

(btw, A lot of Republican operatives like Tim Pawlenty assert that corporate taxes are still too high, although they are lower than they have been in the past 50 years.  He asserts that Bank of America pays too much in taxes and needs more relief.  Bank of American paid NOTHING last year, but saw record profits and doled out record bonuses.  Did that money trickle down?  No, it got invested overseas and in off-shore banks).

The problem with trickle down is that: if you give me 100 million dollars, I will spend 5 and save 95.  Then that money is removed form the economy.  If you give 100 million people one dollar, they will all spend it, keeping it circulating in the economy and creating jobs.  I am not suggesting that we punish those with wealth.  The rich are still getting richer.  Returning us to the tax rates of the 1990's will not reverse their gains, it'll just slow them down a little and give the rest of the economy a chance to stay afloat.

more from Thom Hartmann

Have Republicans made a Faustian bargain with the rich and don't know how to get out of it?

Who's screwed? America's children. There are 16 million children living in poverty right now - and if trends continue - a quarter of all the kids in our nation will be living poverty. There haven't been numbers this troubling since the Great Depression. And what do Republicans want to do?? Cut services to low-income children. Programs in the Republicans crosshairs include the Head Start programs, the Child nutrition assistance program, and an array of other education, healthcare, and support programs for disadvantaged children. So in a time of unprecedented child poverty - Republicans cut programs aimed at preventing child poverty. Just like last year in a time of historically high unemployment - Republicans wanted to cut off unemployment insurance. Just like when facing an all time high of uninsured Americans - 50 million - Republicans wanted to repeal health reform. Just like on the heels of a financial crisis - Republicans wanted to stop Wall Street reform legislation. Just like in response to the environmental catastrophe of the BP oil spill - Republicans wanted to kill alternative energy legislation and keep giving the oil industry $3 billion a year in welfare payments. And finally - just like at a time of record high budget deficits - Republican lapdogs wanted to give their millionaires and billionaire buddies a tax cut that could have paid for all the services I just described. Are these guys REALLY that tone-deaf...or have they made a Faustian bargain with the rich and don't know how to get out of it?

-Thom

Corporations hate Obama, right?

I don't get it. They say that Corporations hate Obama, and will finance the Republicans to get him out of office. But under Obama, they have the highest profits ever; and lower taxes than they have had in 50 years. Why do they want him out? I don't believe they do. I think it's all theater. Big business is calling all the shots & want us they have an adversary. But they don't. At least not in Washington.

Intro

Hello and eslcome to the blog.  No one ever knows of the first post, no one ever reads it, so it doesn't matter what I write here, right?  RIGHT???  Is there anyone there?  Of course not.

Well, since I am only writing to myself, allow me to say how nice you look today.  Well, thank you.

But seriously, I have some strong opinions and need a place to express them.  Sometimes they are well-informed, sometimes not so much.  I welcome your feedback, but not your vitriol.  I am re-posting some of my old posts from my other blog here, just to keep them on the record.

I'll be back.  Be well, be nice, and be progressive.

J