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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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
...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
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
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
-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?
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.
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)
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).
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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-
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
(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?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)