Thursday, September 23, 2010
Shocking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html
Monday, September 13, 2010
Shocking. Not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Hiatus
It's been a month since I have updated this blog. The reason for this has to do with my having become disgusted by the political and economic climate of these United States. While I have been sitting and watching, the country has gone from bad to worse. The country sits stagnant, while 10% of the populous, give or take, is out of work. You add the people that are no longer looking for employment and those that are under-employed, we are looking at the continuation of 20% of the populous or more that is currently incapable of contributing with any great force to the economy. While this has happened, corporate profits have returned to pre-crash levels, and we are still fighting two wars that should have either not been waged or ended long ago. There will be no second stimulus this fall, as most economists from both the left and right have called for, there will be no positive strides toward full-employment. Foreclosures are on the way up and we will shed a few hundred thousand jobs when the census finishes.
Our President continues to do half-measures to appease the right wing of this country. As opposed to going on the offensive, using his mandate to do something to change the country and send it in a positive direction- he is doing nothing more than throwing money at big companies and welcoming attacks from the right. He passed a health care bill that gives more money to the health care industry, an economic reform bill that does not stop any of the practices that caused the crash, and has yet to move forward on any of his other campaign promises. Meanwhile, the Tea Party continues its faux-populist movement, spurred on by corporatist movements, Fox News, and the crazy wing of the Republican party (which I'm pretty sure is the entire party).
Welcome to the New America. The land of the rich, the poor, and nothing in between.
Our President continues to do half-measures to appease the right wing of this country. As opposed to going on the offensive, using his mandate to do something to change the country and send it in a positive direction- he is doing nothing more than throwing money at big companies and welcoming attacks from the right. He passed a health care bill that gives more money to the health care industry, an economic reform bill that does not stop any of the practices that caused the crash, and has yet to move forward on any of his other campaign promises. Meanwhile, the Tea Party continues its faux-populist movement, spurred on by corporatist movements, Fox News, and the crazy wing of the Republican party (which I'm pretty sure is the entire party).
Welcome to the New America. The land of the rich, the poor, and nothing in between.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Proud Americans
I haven't had a lot to say for a while now. I suppose it's been caused by a combination of disgust and apathy. It's hard to feel anything but apathy as I sit by and watch as our country slowly but surely spirals into its own filth. Why? That EVIL SOCIALIST OBAMA? Are you kidding me? He's about as far left as Ronald Reagan. I feel as if I need to reiterate that our President is not a Socialist. Let's have a dictionary definition of Socialism to finish off this notion. Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. What does that really mean?The government owns the means of production. Period. He has not done any of that. Stop calling him a Socialist.
Which brings me to my point. We call him a Socialist- and all sorts of other names, mainly because of two factors: One) We have been told he's a Socialist by mainstream media Two) We as a country are not educated enough to know what this kind of social organization implies. Why? Because we are ignorant, fat, stupid, and easily led. I know this is the mantra of the erudite class, everyone else is stupid and easily led. One need only to look at the Tea Party rallies to see how easily led people are. Why? Because they want the easy way out. Our sense of work, culture, and self-worth has been so skewed and eroded that we as a country have lost sight of all that is good, real, and worthwhile. We'd rather be placated with stupid one liners that are easily replayed over the course of the day by the laughably bad TV and print media.
What should we, as Americans, be proud of? That we have an increasing number of people living in poverty? That we have more people going hungry? That we have managed to put power and money in the hands of the few rather than the many? That we still have 46 million people living without health insurance?
Americans- really, have nothing to be proud of until they fix these glaring problems. Put down the flag and pick up a book. Questioning your country and its motives, especially your government, is the most patriotic thing of all.
Which brings me to my point. We call him a Socialist- and all sorts of other names, mainly because of two factors: One) We have been told he's a Socialist by mainstream media Two) We as a country are not educated enough to know what this kind of social organization implies. Why? Because we are ignorant, fat, stupid, and easily led. I know this is the mantra of the erudite class, everyone else is stupid and easily led. One need only to look at the Tea Party rallies to see how easily led people are. Why? Because they want the easy way out. Our sense of work, culture, and self-worth has been so skewed and eroded that we as a country have lost sight of all that is good, real, and worthwhile. We'd rather be placated with stupid one liners that are easily replayed over the course of the day by the laughably bad TV and print media.
What should we, as Americans, be proud of? That we have an increasing number of people living in poverty? That we have more people going hungry? That we have managed to put power and money in the hands of the few rather than the many? That we still have 46 million people living without health insurance?
Americans- really, have nothing to be proud of until they fix these glaring problems. Put down the flag and pick up a book. Questioning your country and its motives, especially your government, is the most patriotic thing of all.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Not a Bit of Hope
So we have millions of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. And- for the last few weeks I have managed to avoid writing about it. But I feel like this BP incident is indicative of the decrepit state of America. As one of my friend's fathers said the other day "Do you know why the USA is like the real estate market? It's good for a while and then it all goes to shit." Millions and millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf will do a number on the Gulf Coast that will destroy its economy for generations. Fishing is nearly gone and will not return for the foreseeable future. Tourism- well, that's out the window too as the oil continues to turn the beaches black. Three of the poorest states in the Union will continue to wither as their economies are sapped of two of their biggest industries. On top of the fact that the ban on oil drilling that will occur will also destroy another large industry- it seems as if the entire area was just turned into pillars of salt.
The general inability of the Obama administration to deal with any of the pressing problems of this country, coupled with the general social unrest and the increasing violence of the fringes of the political sphere- well, it seems like nothing is going to get better. The militant right could indeed seize power as they become better organized and increasingly motivated to vote. As the left and the center of the country become increasingly apathetic, the natural balance to their interests will be made irrelevant.
People are reporting the potential of a double-dip recession if not a full-blown depression. That seems inevitable. The unemployment rate for people aged 14-24 is 25%, whereas it was nearly 40% a few years ago. The unemployment rate for the general populous is hovering around 10%. This does not count the nearly 10% more who are underemployed. This is not because people are not interested in getting jobs, it's because the job market is still so terrible. There has been very little borrowing, very little lending, and the financial reform was not strong enough to change the culture of Wall Street.
We are in for a bleak next few years.
The general inability of the Obama administration to deal with any of the pressing problems of this country, coupled with the general social unrest and the increasing violence of the fringes of the political sphere- well, it seems like nothing is going to get better. The militant right could indeed seize power as they become better organized and increasingly motivated to vote. As the left and the center of the country become increasingly apathetic, the natural balance to their interests will be made irrelevant.
People are reporting the potential of a double-dip recession if not a full-blown depression. That seems inevitable. The unemployment rate for people aged 14-24 is 25%, whereas it was nearly 40% a few years ago. The unemployment rate for the general populous is hovering around 10%. This does not count the nearly 10% more who are underemployed. This is not because people are not interested in getting jobs, it's because the job market is still so terrible. There has been very little borrowing, very little lending, and the financial reform was not strong enough to change the culture of Wall Street.
We are in for a bleak next few years.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Those Scary Brown People
We had it coming to us. We've had it coming to us for a long time. You know all of those immigrants that "take our jobs"? Well, besides the obvious benefit of having a hungry work force willing to do anything to drive our economy forward, well, we also were instrumental in bringing them here. Now we want them to go home? We brought them here in the first place.
Why? How? Well, first of all there's the good neighbor policy and manifest destiny that the United States has been practicing since its inception. We have always felt as if we were in control of anything south of the Rio Grande, stepping over and ignoring the aggressive ways we have acted during the 19th century. Let's deal with the 20th century alone.
Well, during the beginning of the 20th century we let our companies like the United Fruit Company dictate the policies of various countries in Central and South America. We continued a policy of power being concentrated in the hands of the few in most of South America. If people are poor and being kept down -and they see an opportunity a little ways north-- what else will they do?
I'm not even including what has happened since NAFTA began. The subsidies and tax breaks that we have given our industrial farmers has created a situation where farmers in Mexico no longer can make money by growing their produce, simply because our farmers are able to do it cheaper. When a segment of an economy, which is as prominent even in this day and age as farming, of course it will create a segment of the populous that will need to look for jobs. Coupled with the dire economic situation, the division between economic classes, and low employment- people will inevitably look for another way in which to feed their families, especially if they are available to the north.
We have even encouraged Mexican workers to come to our country- we ENCOURAGED it. There was the "Bracero Program" which began in 1942 and ended in 1964. We brought Mexican workers to the United States to work.
The laws in this country, the mindset, the archaic way in which we treat our immigrants is simply embarrassing. We have done this to the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and the Germans. But now, we are doing it with a group that has been in this country for as long as it has existed. We have alienated a group willing to work harder than any other in this country. As far as I'm concerned the people of this country, those that support the draconian laws of Arizona and those laws that remove immigrants and children of immigrants from this country should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? How? Well, first of all there's the good neighbor policy and manifest destiny that the United States has been practicing since its inception. We have always felt as if we were in control of anything south of the Rio Grande, stepping over and ignoring the aggressive ways we have acted during the 19th century. Let's deal with the 20th century alone.
Well, during the beginning of the 20th century we let our companies like the United Fruit Company dictate the policies of various countries in Central and South America. We continued a policy of power being concentrated in the hands of the few in most of South America. If people are poor and being kept down -and they see an opportunity a little ways north-- what else will they do?
I'm not even including what has happened since NAFTA began. The subsidies and tax breaks that we have given our industrial farmers has created a situation where farmers in Mexico no longer can make money by growing their produce, simply because our farmers are able to do it cheaper. When a segment of an economy, which is as prominent even in this day and age as farming, of course it will create a segment of the populous that will need to look for jobs. Coupled with the dire economic situation, the division between economic classes, and low employment- people will inevitably look for another way in which to feed their families, especially if they are available to the north.
We have even encouraged Mexican workers to come to our country- we ENCOURAGED it. There was the "Bracero Program" which began in 1942 and ended in 1964. We brought Mexican workers to the United States to work.
The laws in this country, the mindset, the archaic way in which we treat our immigrants is simply embarrassing. We have done this to the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and the Germans. But now, we are doing it with a group that has been in this country for as long as it has existed. We have alienated a group willing to work harder than any other in this country. As far as I'm concerned the people of this country, those that support the draconian laws of Arizona and those laws that remove immigrants and children of immigrants from this country should be ashamed of themselves.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Once in a While Paul Krugman Writes Something Good
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Out with the Old
I know that I should probably be writing something to express my opinion on the Greek debt crisis and its potential for destruction world-wide. It, honestly, doesn't strike me as something that needs my commentary. The countries that should have never been allowed into the Euro Zone because of their not meeting fiscal requirements that the European Central Bank stipulated. It's not exactly rocket science. If you have country's with rampant inflation and huge debts -- two things that are not allowed into the new currency zone-- well, then those countries should not be allowed in. These countries-- Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal-- they will eventually in one way or another bring the European Currency to its knees, even with the latest addition of around one trillion Euros for a bail-out safety net. The Germans are going to have pay most of that bill, they're going to become angry at their even higher taxes, and eventually that increased burden will bog down the engine that runs the Eurozone. Just give it time, it won't take too terribly long.
Anyway, the post that I really wanted to write had to do with my anger (as it often does) with what is going on in the world. Ostensibly, I would like to pose the notion of evicting the elders from control of our government. As we now have the oldest Congress in the history of the United States, I think it is time for a few procedural, or better yet, cultural notions to change.
I was struck by something that happened in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago, and I found this to be truly indicative of the way in which our government functions. One of the Justices on the Supreme Court inquired as to what the difference was between a pager and e-mail. These- one outdated and one extremely used facet of our society, and their not having knowledge about said entities, truly shows how out of touch our government is with its people.
The United States has never been a nation that put a huge amount of stock in age and experience. Although, this has changed in recent years. We have not gone the way of Italy, where people are hired and fired based solely on their being older (and thus more "knowledgeable") than other candidates. However, we have put a great deal of stock in the last few years on the age of these candidates.
I suppose this will sound fairly radical and less measured than some of my previous posts- but I believe we should rid ourselves of these people. We should be voting out members of congress not familiar with these basic notions, we should be voting out people that are not aware of what is transpiring on the ground in their home districts.
The youth are the future, right? We have been told that forever- our children are our future. Well, the actions of our elders has yet to tell me that there is any truth in that statement. Currently, we sit at around 10% unemployment. However, the under-utilization, or underemployment rate for those under the age of 30 is nearly 20%. Couple that with recent rash of unpaid internships that are being used as full-time employment without the compensation, you have an increasing class of poor, greatly indebted, and impressively frustrated youth. What do I think?
I think that our business class has a strangle-hold on the government. I think that the Republicans and Democrats alike sit in the back pocket of these interests. However, I also see a generation that has been forgotten. That which has been done to better our economic situation has been done to benefit our elders. I also see a political class that is either too young to remember the Great Depression, or so old that they have forgotten its lessons. I see the government controlled by a generation that voted to deregulate our financial system, lower taxes, and increase military spending. I see a spoiled generation, a baby-boom generation, that has taken our country into such a dire fiscal situation that I doubt we will be able to remove ourselves from it anytime in the near future.
It's time- I think, that the under-30 generation stood up as a whole and voted them out. All of them. Those which do not reflect OUR interests should be gone, out of office, sent home to see what their corruption has done.
Anyway, the post that I really wanted to write had to do with my anger (as it often does) with what is going on in the world. Ostensibly, I would like to pose the notion of evicting the elders from control of our government. As we now have the oldest Congress in the history of the United States, I think it is time for a few procedural, or better yet, cultural notions to change.
I was struck by something that happened in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago, and I found this to be truly indicative of the way in which our government functions. One of the Justices on the Supreme Court inquired as to what the difference was between a pager and e-mail. These- one outdated and one extremely used facet of our society, and their not having knowledge about said entities, truly shows how out of touch our government is with its people.
The United States has never been a nation that put a huge amount of stock in age and experience. Although, this has changed in recent years. We have not gone the way of Italy, where people are hired and fired based solely on their being older (and thus more "knowledgeable") than other candidates. However, we have put a great deal of stock in the last few years on the age of these candidates.
I suppose this will sound fairly radical and less measured than some of my previous posts- but I believe we should rid ourselves of these people. We should be voting out members of congress not familiar with these basic notions, we should be voting out people that are not aware of what is transpiring on the ground in their home districts.
The youth are the future, right? We have been told that forever- our children are our future. Well, the actions of our elders has yet to tell me that there is any truth in that statement. Currently, we sit at around 10% unemployment. However, the under-utilization, or underemployment rate for those under the age of 30 is nearly 20%. Couple that with recent rash of unpaid internships that are being used as full-time employment without the compensation, you have an increasing class of poor, greatly indebted, and impressively frustrated youth. What do I think?
I think that our business class has a strangle-hold on the government. I think that the Republicans and Democrats alike sit in the back pocket of these interests. However, I also see a generation that has been forgotten. That which has been done to better our economic situation has been done to benefit our elders. I also see a political class that is either too young to remember the Great Depression, or so old that they have forgotten its lessons. I see the government controlled by a generation that voted to deregulate our financial system, lower taxes, and increase military spending. I see a spoiled generation, a baby-boom generation, that has taken our country into such a dire fiscal situation that I doubt we will be able to remove ourselves from it anytime in the near future.
It's time- I think, that the under-30 generation stood up as a whole and voted them out. All of them. Those which do not reflect OUR interests should be gone, out of office, sent home to see what their corruption has done.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
For the Love of God, SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR TAXES
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
David Duke- You know, the KKK Guy
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/david-duke-defends-tea-parties-charg
People are Stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/leo-berman-texas-state-re_n_552239.html
This is not about him being a liberal. He's no more liberal than Bill Clinton. He's at BEST a centrist Democrat. Boo-hoo. What's he actually talking about? The guy's moaning and complaining because he's black. When Republicans say this- "he's punishment" he's a "socialist" ( I was unaware that Obama advocated state ownership of all means of production ie: SOCIALISM) -- they're actually calling him black. It's a racist ploy plain and simple.
This is not about him being a liberal. He's no more liberal than Bill Clinton. He's at BEST a centrist Democrat. Boo-hoo. What's he actually talking about? The guy's moaning and complaining because he's black. When Republicans say this- "he's punishment" he's a "socialist" ( I was unaware that Obama advocated state ownership of all means of production ie: SOCIALISM) -- they're actually calling him black. It's a racist ploy plain and simple.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Shame on You
Today is a dark day in American history. We, as Americans, should be ashamed of ourselves. The state of Arizona passed one of the most disgusting bills in its history today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/jan-brewer-arizona-govern_n_549290.html
In 90 days policemen will be able to legally ask anyone that suspect of being an illegal immigrant for their identification papers. As my little brother said, "next they'll be forcing people to wear gold stars." Civil liberties in Arizona are now out the window if you are not a WASP.
Oh, and the state of Utah will be executing someone by firing squad.
I am saddened to see the United States head toward becoming a fine and upstanding 18th century democracy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/jan-brewer-arizona-govern_n_549290.html
In 90 days policemen will be able to legally ask anyone that suspect of being an illegal immigrant for their identification papers. As my little brother said, "next they'll be forcing people to wear gold stars." Civil liberties in Arizona are now out the window if you are not a WASP.
Oh, and the state of Utah will be executing someone by firing squad.
I am saddened to see the United States head toward becoming a fine and upstanding 18th century democracy.
Credentials
I have no idea what happened between 1990 and 2000. Granted, the country went through a fairly rapid change. It was the victim or beneficiary of the dot-com bubble, depending on your point of view. We had a stable democracy, a competent, well-spoken, and educated President. Why would the country not wish to continue this trend?
When George W. Bush stole the election in 2000 and then won re-election in 2004, I was befuddled. He was not an educated man, although his degrees from Yale and Harvard would supposedly tell you otherwise, nor was he well spoken. He was not a deep thinker. Although, I concur with the general populous that he might be fun to have a beer with. How does that qualify a man to be President of the United States? Why would you not want a man with the capacity for abstract thought leading the country? Why would you want Joe Shmoe leading you? I know that I do not.
Sarah Palin, among others, would be another example of that. The conservative movement in this country is full of people like that. There are not people with the capacity for thought like William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman. These are both men that I do not agree with, but at least I can acknowledge they were intelligent men. Where did the intelligent conservatives go? I have no idea.
Which I guess brings me to the point in my rant that is truly annoying me. Sarah Palin and the rest of the conservative movement calling people "liberal elites." IE: People who have money, have been educated, and thus cannot have a clue as to how the common man thinks. Which I guess is their rationale for wanting a person "just like them" to lead the country. So how is Sarah Palin like the common man? Because she's stupid? I'd like to think that the common man is slightly more intelligent than she. Rather, what separates her from the common man is her six figure speaking fee, five star hotels, and private planes. So how does this not make her an elite? If President Obama is a limousine or caviar liberal, what does that make her? What does that make George W. Bush? What does that make Darrell Issa (approx. net worth $251 million)?
Whenever I hear that term- limousine liberal- I think of Paul Farmer. In a book I read about him, he was quoted talking about what it was like going into Haiti- and why did he not do something Che Guevaraesque and dress like the natives. Farmer said that the impoverished people he encountered- they did not want you to look like them when you came to help. They wanted you to be wearing a suit and act like you know what you are doing.
Which leads me to my conclusion- people can act and dress in all variety of manners. In the end- what really matters when it comes to helping people, when it comes to political candidates, and things of that sort- it's really about content of their character and ideology. Because someone is a liberal and believes that government is an answer to people's problems- and they happen to have an educated background,that does not make them an elitist. It does not make them anything. Their actions, their content, that is what defines them.
When George W. Bush stole the election in 2000 and then won re-election in 2004, I was befuddled. He was not an educated man, although his degrees from Yale and Harvard would supposedly tell you otherwise, nor was he well spoken. He was not a deep thinker. Although, I concur with the general populous that he might be fun to have a beer with. How does that qualify a man to be President of the United States? Why would you not want a man with the capacity for abstract thought leading the country? Why would you want Joe Shmoe leading you? I know that I do not.
Sarah Palin, among others, would be another example of that. The conservative movement in this country is full of people like that. There are not people with the capacity for thought like William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman. These are both men that I do not agree with, but at least I can acknowledge they were intelligent men. Where did the intelligent conservatives go? I have no idea.
Which I guess brings me to the point in my rant that is truly annoying me. Sarah Palin and the rest of the conservative movement calling people "liberal elites." IE: People who have money, have been educated, and thus cannot have a clue as to how the common man thinks. Which I guess is their rationale for wanting a person "just like them" to lead the country. So how is Sarah Palin like the common man? Because she's stupid? I'd like to think that the common man is slightly more intelligent than she. Rather, what separates her from the common man is her six figure speaking fee, five star hotels, and private planes. So how does this not make her an elite? If President Obama is a limousine or caviar liberal, what does that make her? What does that make George W. Bush? What does that make Darrell Issa (approx. net worth $251 million)?
Whenever I hear that term- limousine liberal- I think of Paul Farmer. In a book I read about him, he was quoted talking about what it was like going into Haiti- and why did he not do something Che Guevaraesque and dress like the natives. Farmer said that the impoverished people he encountered- they did not want you to look like them when you came to help. They wanted you to be wearing a suit and act like you know what you are doing.
Which leads me to my conclusion- people can act and dress in all variety of manners. In the end- what really matters when it comes to helping people, when it comes to political candidates, and things of that sort- it's really about content of their character and ideology. Because someone is a liberal and believes that government is an answer to people's problems- and they happen to have an educated background,that does not make them an elitist. It does not make them anything. Their actions, their content, that is what defines them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
How Does Anyone Believe Glenn Beck?
Glenn Beck is a moron. For those of us that have the capacity of "abstract thought," this probably will make you do nothing but shake your head.
"She could be the devil, she could say 'I hate America, I want to destroy America,' and that way they'll only be able to say, 'Oh, Why do you hate gay immigrant black, gay, handicapped women.' Because that's what this has to be. It must be about.. And when I say this, I mean all of it.
They must energize their base. And Their base is getting smaller and smaller. Their base is becoming unions, thugs, MoveOn.org, Huffington Post--that's their base.
And anybody who has said, 'OK, wait a minute. I wanted universal health care. This is starting to spook me.'
They must make the right and the middle-right into monsters. Because they're losing those people on the middle-left ... those people on the middle-left back into their camp. And they can't do it without hatred and fear. That's all they're doing. That's why as they get louder, we must get softer."-- Beck
"She could be the devil, she could say 'I hate America, I want to destroy America,' and that way they'll only be able to say, 'Oh, Why do you hate gay immigrant black, gay, handicapped women.' Because that's what this has to be. It must be about.. And when I say this, I mean all of it.
They must energize their base. And Their base is getting smaller and smaller. Their base is becoming unions, thugs, MoveOn.org, Huffington Post--that's their base.
And anybody who has said, 'OK, wait a minute. I wanted universal health care. This is starting to spook me.'
They must make the right and the middle-right into monsters. Because they're losing those people on the middle-left ... those people on the middle-left back into their camp. And they can't do it without hatred and fear. That's all they're doing. That's why as they get louder, we must get softer."-- Beck
Monday, April 12, 2010
Another Quick Note
Sarah Palin is an idiot. She is not even worth writing a full post over. She is uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent, and proud of all of these facts. This is not someone worthy of holding the office of the President. This not even someone that is worthy of being in the media. Her being able to draw a crowd scares me to death, which means someone out there thinks that this is someone they should aspire to emulate, or at least follow. While she has been in the public eye, she has yet to say one vaguely sensible or intelligent thing. We could do ourselves a great service by forgetting that she is around and go back to our lives.
Oh, and this is a great op-ed piece.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11rich.html
More to follow later this week about an actual substantial matter. That's all the space I'd like to give Mrs. Palin.
Oh, and this is a great op-ed piece.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11rich.html
More to follow later this week about an actual substantial matter. That's all the space I'd like to give Mrs. Palin.
Friday, April 9, 2010
And Another Thing
As opposed to my often long-winded posts, I thought I'd do something a bit easier to swallow. I'm tired and have been writing almost non-stop this week on a screenplay and a rewrite of a book.
The nuclear arms deal this week by President Obama & Russian President Medvedev is a nice step in the right direction. Call me cynical, but while a draw-down by 1/3 of each country's stockpiles is an impressive change, still having nearly 1500 nuclear weapons does not exactly put any fears I may have to rest. They are still around, some are still unaccounted for, and that amount is still enough to insure mutually assured destruction about eleven times over. So- it's a good start- but I'm not going to jump up and cheer.
Meanwhile, as Obama signals he aims for "peace" the various news sources in this country are hopping on the Bachman & Palin band-wagon and giving them voice as they spread lies about what Ronald Reagan (it's here that I would like to be able to insert a beatific picture) "would have done." Well, he called for a draw down by 1/3 of nuclear weapons too. And really? Let's be rational on this. He still has 1500 nuclear weapons- if some attack were to be perpetrated on US soil, I'm pretty sure (I'm no expert-but), he would have enough fire power in his arsenal to retaliate. So- cut the crap. There's no rationale to the argument, so I do not feel the need to dissect it any further. The USA still spends more than the next five countries combined on its military, we still have a great deal of nuclear weapons, that is not a "weak" position.
Could I just point out one other thing? While Obama signs this nuclear arms deal- we still have 100,000 soldiers in Iraq- a war that we should have never waged. We are currently building up our forces in Afghanistan, a country that was so horrific to invade and occupy that both Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great avoided. We cannot and will not ever win their hearts and minds. We're an occupying force- NO ONE likes foreigners taking control of their country and staying there. How would any American like it if a Chinese Division were sitting in downtown Los Angeles building hospitals and shooting up the place? They would not.
We seem to have forgotten that we're at war. It's war that has cost us over a trillion dollars. We could have insured everyone in this country and then some for that money. We could have rebuilt all of our decrepit roads, built high-speed rails, and improved our school system. We should be talking about this war- we should be talking about the bad things that happened, we should be trying to pull our troops out, we should be having SOME kind of dialogue about it. This IS another factor in why we are quickly bankrupting ourselves. Yes, the economy is in the toilet, but we need to be discussing all the various factors that brought us there so that we do not make the same mistakes again. The banks did their fair share, but going to war without raising taxes and simply running up a higher deficit and debt- you really think that has nothing to do with our fiscal situation now?
The nuclear arms deal this week by President Obama & Russian President Medvedev is a nice step in the right direction. Call me cynical, but while a draw-down by 1/3 of each country's stockpiles is an impressive change, still having nearly 1500 nuclear weapons does not exactly put any fears I may have to rest. They are still around, some are still unaccounted for, and that amount is still enough to insure mutually assured destruction about eleven times over. So- it's a good start- but I'm not going to jump up and cheer.
Meanwhile, as Obama signals he aims for "peace" the various news sources in this country are hopping on the Bachman & Palin band-wagon and giving them voice as they spread lies about what Ronald Reagan (it's here that I would like to be able to insert a beatific picture) "would have done." Well, he called for a draw down by 1/3 of nuclear weapons too. And really? Let's be rational on this. He still has 1500 nuclear weapons- if some attack were to be perpetrated on US soil, I'm pretty sure (I'm no expert-but), he would have enough fire power in his arsenal to retaliate. So- cut the crap. There's no rationale to the argument, so I do not feel the need to dissect it any further. The USA still spends more than the next five countries combined on its military, we still have a great deal of nuclear weapons, that is not a "weak" position.
Could I just point out one other thing? While Obama signs this nuclear arms deal- we still have 100,000 soldiers in Iraq- a war that we should have never waged. We are currently building up our forces in Afghanistan, a country that was so horrific to invade and occupy that both Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great avoided. We cannot and will not ever win their hearts and minds. We're an occupying force- NO ONE likes foreigners taking control of their country and staying there. How would any American like it if a Chinese Division were sitting in downtown Los Angeles building hospitals and shooting up the place? They would not.
We seem to have forgotten that we're at war. It's war that has cost us over a trillion dollars. We could have insured everyone in this country and then some for that money. We could have rebuilt all of our decrepit roads, built high-speed rails, and improved our school system. We should be talking about this war- we should be talking about the bad things that happened, we should be trying to pull our troops out, we should be having SOME kind of dialogue about it. This IS another factor in why we are quickly bankrupting ourselves. Yes, the economy is in the toilet, but we need to be discussing all the various factors that brought us there so that we do not make the same mistakes again. The banks did their fair share, but going to war without raising taxes and simply running up a higher deficit and debt- you really think that has nothing to do with our fiscal situation now?
A Quick Note
People on most "news sources" in the modern age are either stupid, misinformed, or just plain liars. The most egregious of these is Glenn Beck. In between his nonsensical rants and his stoking of the racist/extreme right-wing anger, he manages to also tell plain lies about the history of this country and the state of the world. I try to ignore him as much as I possibly can, but I was flipping channels the other day and was greeted by a big fat lie.
A quick note:
Glenn Beck- progressivism did not bring about prohibition. Prohibition was passed by a Republican House & Senate despite a Presidential veto from Woodrow Wilson. Look at the make-up of the 66th United States Congress, beginning in March of 1919 when the Volstead Act was passed you right-wing talk-box piece of moron. That took me about three seconds to find out on Wikipedia, you couldn’t Google it yourself before spouting your vile hate? Wilson did not want it and did not vote for it. Volstead, the guy who wrote the act, was a REPUBLICAN from Minnesota. How’s that for the government leaving you alone? Isn't that corner stone of the Republican party? Small government, letting people do what they feel like and staying out of their way? They were TELLING you whether or not you can drink alcohol. Get the facts right, you maniacal ideologue.
A quick note:
Glenn Beck- progressivism did not bring about prohibition. Prohibition was passed by a Republican House & Senate despite a Presidential veto from Woodrow Wilson. Look at the make-up of the 66th United States Congress, beginning in March of 1919 when the Volstead Act was passed you right-wing talk-box piece of moron. That took me about three seconds to find out on Wikipedia, you couldn’t Google it yourself before spouting your vile hate? Wilson did not want it and did not vote for it. Volstead, the guy who wrote the act, was a REPUBLICAN from Minnesota. How’s that for the government leaving you alone? Isn't that corner stone of the Republican party? Small government, letting people do what they feel like and staying out of their way? They were TELLING you whether or not you can drink alcohol. Get the facts right, you maniacal ideologue.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The New Fringe
The groups going under the name “Tea Parties” have been sprouting up all over America since the election of Obama. While some write these people off as simply out of work lunatics or the extreme fringe of the right wing—groups that should not be feared in the least, they utterly terrify me.
These groups began founded on a false notion that the United States has strayed from its principles, the notion that the founding fathers wanted to have small government, that the men that took part in the Boston Tea Party were some how patriotic. So, I would first like to deal with the notion that they are acting after the founding fathers.
When the Colonists threw the tea into Boston Harbor, they were acting as spoiled children, who while throwing off the shackles of colonialism, were also not acting out of anything other than self interest. In 1773 when the British Parliament passed the Tea Act, it was the only tax that was being levied upon the Colonists of the United States. Otherwise, they enjoyed what would be considered a great deal of government subsidizing by the British government, which came from British taxes and goods. Basically, the Colonists were rebelling because they were upset about having ONE tax levied against them, something that seems relatively simple considering how much money the British were pouring into the development of the colonies. In many ways, I suppose, they are like the original Colonists that took part in the tea party. They are a group of angry, spoiled people, who in a lot of ways enjoy government programs and yet complain about the size of government. The Medicare that you want us to “keep our government hands off” is- well, a government-run healthcare program, that unemployment benefit that you are receiving? That’s another government run program. Yet, this group rebels against that same government that provides them with necessities during this time of economic turmoil.
Next, I’d like to deal with the notion that the founding fathers were perfect. The founding fathers were bright men who were able to set up a good system of governance. They are worshipped in this country as perfect men, as if they were touched by the hand of God and put on this earth in order to do give the United States some kind of divine mandate. They were not. They were men; just as fallible as you or I. Blind faith in anything is bad, following something without questioning its content is stupid and the best way to get someone in trouble.
The Constitution of this country was made to have the ability to be amended for a reason. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they counted African Americans as 3/5 of a person. Women could not vote. The people that were entitled to dictate how the country proceeded forward were a group of rich, land-owning, white men who trusted the country to move forward in the right direction, as long as they were the only ones who had say in the matter. However, they UNDERSTOOD the notion that they were fallible, which would explain the necessity for amendments to the constitution. They knew that they would not be able to foresee the future and predict the Civil War, the industrial revolution, women’s suffrage, etc. so they made the constitution malleable. Thomas Jefferson even advocated rewriting the entire constitution every twenty years or so, so as to stay current with the times.
In the 1930’s during the time of the Great Depression, there were similar populist outcries about what had occurred. However, this period was greatly influenced by what had been a large wave of socialism that had been spreading all over the globe. This can be seen in the leftist movements that swept Northern Europe during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, culminating in the Russian Revolution. These people that had been put out of work advocated large government intervention and a move toward a more egalitarian society. This helped to lead to the New Deal, the period of Roosevelt, etc.
What has been born now in this time of economic unrest is some kind of bizarre populism- one that could be the dying gasp of Reaganism- or it could be the birth of some other kind of monster.
Tea Parties are largely white, male, older, and unemployed. A large number of them are old enough to be receiving social security checks and Medicare, ironically, given their opposition to big government. One need only to look at this article recently published in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html) to see the hypocrisy of their crusade. In one glance, it appears that these groups are older white men who have nothing better to do with their time. It also appears to be misguided anger; the same anger that helped to bring about the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America seems to have taken root in these people. This same, relatively impoverished populous, who have somehow been convinced that their interests lie with the richest 1% of this country, in the hopes that lower taxes and less government will somehow alleviate the economic hardship that they live with daily. It is hard for me to comprehend the anger that these people feel toward a President who wishes to re-regulate the financial industry (helping to avoid further problems), give them all healthcare, and slowly erode the class divide. This is all in their interest- why would they be so adamantly against it- calling the President a terrorist, amongst other things?
The truth of the matter, I fear, is that Tea Parties are not this organic group that people seem to believe they are. Rather, I believe them to be an instance of astro-turfing, in-organic movements, sponsored by hate groups or by the extreme right political groups and media outlets (Fox News). It is logical to be angry about the destruction of the middle class, the erosion of our financial system, and the great separation between rich and poor. There is certainly reason to be angry about all these things. But I fear that the violent and racial undertones of the movement are going to soon reach a fever pitch- the armed members of the protest, the right wing militia groups that have been associated with the Tea Parties, the racial slurs that have been thrown during the parties, even the violent language that Sarah Palin uses to support the Tea Party rallies. The findings on how many fringe groups exist is enough to make someone’s head spin: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/index.html , or one can look at the Hutaree Militia to see what kind of groups right-wing extremists breed.
Rebel groups- fringe groups- largely tend to peter out. Yet, we can look through history at examples of fringe groups that have been successful and see the danger that can come from taking them lightly. The first one that comes to mind came from a boat called the Granma in 1956. It landed in Cuba, a country that had a dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who was in firm control of the country and was also backed by the American government. Eighty-two, count them, eighty-two men and women landed in Cuba with the intent of overthrowing the government. They were intending to take on an organized fighting force, among other things. On January 1st, 1959 the remnants of that fighting force marched into Havana Cuba to install a new government. From their beginnings they were nothing more than a fringe group, a bunch of radicals with an idea. But radicals can be very persuasive, persistent, and extremely difficult to defeat.
I can already hear the clamoring from the Fox News talking points. Yes, the July 26th Movement was a left wing movement. Well, it has nothing to do with political ideology. It has to do with fervent belief in an ideal, especially when it is a radical notion. Am I saying that the latest upshot in right-wing extremist militia groups means that they could overthrow the government? Well, I hope not. But given the growing Tea Party movements, not unlike the way in which Castro & Che Guevara were able to drum up support in the highlands of Cuba, I fear that something similar to that could spread like wild fire.
The Tea Parties are such an odd hodge-podge of ideologies that is hard to deconstruct them head-on. But I fear that they will cause a gigantic rift in our society, and only hope that something can be done to quell their anger in the near future. I fear that these people that are involved in the Tea Parties are a stupid people, a silly people, and not only that- they are a smug people. One need only to listen to one interview with one of the movement’s co-founders, Nicole Loesch, to see how sure she is in her views and how wrong others are, or look at enormous Rush Limbaugh to see how sure these people are in what they believe and how wrong everyone else is. As these Tea Party movements become increasingly violent, increasingly supported by entities like Fox News and other right wing talk-boxes, I worry about what will come of this country.
These groups began founded on a false notion that the United States has strayed from its principles, the notion that the founding fathers wanted to have small government, that the men that took part in the Boston Tea Party were some how patriotic. So, I would first like to deal with the notion that they are acting after the founding fathers.
When the Colonists threw the tea into Boston Harbor, they were acting as spoiled children, who while throwing off the shackles of colonialism, were also not acting out of anything other than self interest. In 1773 when the British Parliament passed the Tea Act, it was the only tax that was being levied upon the Colonists of the United States. Otherwise, they enjoyed what would be considered a great deal of government subsidizing by the British government, which came from British taxes and goods. Basically, the Colonists were rebelling because they were upset about having ONE tax levied against them, something that seems relatively simple considering how much money the British were pouring into the development of the colonies. In many ways, I suppose, they are like the original Colonists that took part in the tea party. They are a group of angry, spoiled people, who in a lot of ways enjoy government programs and yet complain about the size of government. The Medicare that you want us to “keep our government hands off” is- well, a government-run healthcare program, that unemployment benefit that you are receiving? That’s another government run program. Yet, this group rebels against that same government that provides them with necessities during this time of economic turmoil.
Next, I’d like to deal with the notion that the founding fathers were perfect. The founding fathers were bright men who were able to set up a good system of governance. They are worshipped in this country as perfect men, as if they were touched by the hand of God and put on this earth in order to do give the United States some kind of divine mandate. They were not. They were men; just as fallible as you or I. Blind faith in anything is bad, following something without questioning its content is stupid and the best way to get someone in trouble.
The Constitution of this country was made to have the ability to be amended for a reason. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they counted African Americans as 3/5 of a person. Women could not vote. The people that were entitled to dictate how the country proceeded forward were a group of rich, land-owning, white men who trusted the country to move forward in the right direction, as long as they were the only ones who had say in the matter. However, they UNDERSTOOD the notion that they were fallible, which would explain the necessity for amendments to the constitution. They knew that they would not be able to foresee the future and predict the Civil War, the industrial revolution, women’s suffrage, etc. so they made the constitution malleable. Thomas Jefferson even advocated rewriting the entire constitution every twenty years or so, so as to stay current with the times.
In the 1930’s during the time of the Great Depression, there were similar populist outcries about what had occurred. However, this period was greatly influenced by what had been a large wave of socialism that had been spreading all over the globe. This can be seen in the leftist movements that swept Northern Europe during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, culminating in the Russian Revolution. These people that had been put out of work advocated large government intervention and a move toward a more egalitarian society. This helped to lead to the New Deal, the period of Roosevelt, etc.
What has been born now in this time of economic unrest is some kind of bizarre populism- one that could be the dying gasp of Reaganism- or it could be the birth of some other kind of monster.
Tea Parties are largely white, male, older, and unemployed. A large number of them are old enough to be receiving social security checks and Medicare, ironically, given their opposition to big government. One need only to look at this article recently published in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html) to see the hypocrisy of their crusade. In one glance, it appears that these groups are older white men who have nothing better to do with their time. It also appears to be misguided anger; the same anger that helped to bring about the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America seems to have taken root in these people. This same, relatively impoverished populous, who have somehow been convinced that their interests lie with the richest 1% of this country, in the hopes that lower taxes and less government will somehow alleviate the economic hardship that they live with daily. It is hard for me to comprehend the anger that these people feel toward a President who wishes to re-regulate the financial industry (helping to avoid further problems), give them all healthcare, and slowly erode the class divide. This is all in their interest- why would they be so adamantly against it- calling the President a terrorist, amongst other things?
The truth of the matter, I fear, is that Tea Parties are not this organic group that people seem to believe they are. Rather, I believe them to be an instance of astro-turfing, in-organic movements, sponsored by hate groups or by the extreme right political groups and media outlets (Fox News). It is logical to be angry about the destruction of the middle class, the erosion of our financial system, and the great separation between rich and poor. There is certainly reason to be angry about all these things. But I fear that the violent and racial undertones of the movement are going to soon reach a fever pitch- the armed members of the protest, the right wing militia groups that have been associated with the Tea Parties, the racial slurs that have been thrown during the parties, even the violent language that Sarah Palin uses to support the Tea Party rallies. The findings on how many fringe groups exist is enough to make someone’s head spin: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/index.html , or one can look at the Hutaree Militia to see what kind of groups right-wing extremists breed.
Rebel groups- fringe groups- largely tend to peter out. Yet, we can look through history at examples of fringe groups that have been successful and see the danger that can come from taking them lightly. The first one that comes to mind came from a boat called the Granma in 1956. It landed in Cuba, a country that had a dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who was in firm control of the country and was also backed by the American government. Eighty-two, count them, eighty-two men and women landed in Cuba with the intent of overthrowing the government. They were intending to take on an organized fighting force, among other things. On January 1st, 1959 the remnants of that fighting force marched into Havana Cuba to install a new government. From their beginnings they were nothing more than a fringe group, a bunch of radicals with an idea. But radicals can be very persuasive, persistent, and extremely difficult to defeat.
I can already hear the clamoring from the Fox News talking points. Yes, the July 26th Movement was a left wing movement. Well, it has nothing to do with political ideology. It has to do with fervent belief in an ideal, especially when it is a radical notion. Am I saying that the latest upshot in right-wing extremist militia groups means that they could overthrow the government? Well, I hope not. But given the growing Tea Party movements, not unlike the way in which Castro & Che Guevara were able to drum up support in the highlands of Cuba, I fear that something similar to that could spread like wild fire.
The Tea Parties are such an odd hodge-podge of ideologies that is hard to deconstruct them head-on. But I fear that they will cause a gigantic rift in our society, and only hope that something can be done to quell their anger in the near future. I fear that these people that are involved in the Tea Parties are a stupid people, a silly people, and not only that- they are a smug people. One need only to listen to one interview with one of the movement’s co-founders, Nicole Loesch, to see how sure she is in her views and how wrong others are, or look at enormous Rush Limbaugh to see how sure these people are in what they believe and how wrong everyone else is. As these Tea Party movements become increasingly violent, increasingly supported by entities like Fox News and other right wing talk-boxes, I worry about what will come of this country.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
One Year In
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States with a gigantic mandate. He rode into office with a gigantic approval rating, with a great percentage of the popular vote and the electoral college, and had captured part of the nation’s psyche which pined for a change to the way in which things were being done in Washington.
When he came into office he could have done anything that he wanted. And we wanted him to. There were so many things that he was elected to do, and I am perfectly capable of understanding that he is not a miracle maker and that things are difficult to accomplish in government. However, he did not come into office with the goal of changing things as he had promised. There was no change. He promptly put people in charge of regulating and fixing the financial system who had helped to destroy it in the first place (deregulating fans Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.)
As opposed to changing the discourse, coming at the opposition with fire and brimstone, he tried to hold hands and sing kumbayah. Ronald Reagan spent the first four years of his presidency painting the Democrats as the party of economic disaster, ineptitude, and weakness. When FDR came into office referred to the Republicans and the banking industry as “Economic royalists.” Barack Obama tried to start an age of “bipartisanship.” There is no bipartisanship; there has never been bipartisanship. There is one side and the other side, and the one that is able to get things is able to paint the other side as the party of evil. He should have come into office with a wider and more radical mandate, he should have been angry, and directed that anger at those that brought us to this economic condition.
President Obama came into office with the direst economic situation since the Great Depression. Yes, the unemployment rate is hovering around 10% of the population, which is incredibly high for the United States. However, the underemployed, ie: those who are working part-time jobs is nearer to 20%. That would qualify as something similar to a Depression. That would mean that something as radical as the New Deal is warranted. The reasons, among others, have been listed in previous pieces posted to this site.
Yet, when President Obama began, he instantly spent political capital by beginning what could have been the crowning jewel of his Presidency and one of the greatest national achievements in our history: universal healthcare. Instead, he came to the table with an already compromised bill. He did not start at an extreme and work toward a compromise; he came with a compromise and worked toward an even worse version of the bill. We are about to have a healthcare bill. One that is a payout to the health insurance industry, one that will not give universal healthcare, and one that will increase profits for the insurance companies.
President Obama has yet to accomplish anything that he came into office with the intention of doing. He has not closed Guantanamo, brought home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, taken steps to re-regulate the financial industry, taken steps to decrease the disparity between economic classes (the greatest since the Gilded Age), increased gay rights, abortion rights, or anything else that he was elected to do. Our infrastructure is crumbling; we drive on roads that were built in the 1950’s, there’s a reason that a bridge collapsed in Minnesota. Yet, President Obama has done nothing to address our infrastructure. Rather than giving us an economic stimulus package that concentrated on jobs, public works, and improving infrastructure, he gave us a package that concentrated on tax cuts.
I understand that President Obama has only been in office for a year. But, a year is a long time in office. One year into his Presidency, FDR had start most of the New Deal. He had given the country the WPA, the NRA, Banking Reforms, the FDIC, and many other things which changed the way the country functioned. These were all measures that put the country back onto good footing, that decreased unemployment and the extreme nature of our economy during that period.
An extreme time, a desperate time, calls for radical moves by a President. It calls for a strong President, one that is willing to call out the wrong and help shape new institutions. President Obama, so far, has been one of the greatest let downs that we have ever had. I only hope that this changes in the next three years to come.
When he came into office he could have done anything that he wanted. And we wanted him to. There were so many things that he was elected to do, and I am perfectly capable of understanding that he is not a miracle maker and that things are difficult to accomplish in government. However, he did not come into office with the goal of changing things as he had promised. There was no change. He promptly put people in charge of regulating and fixing the financial system who had helped to destroy it in the first place (deregulating fans Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.)
As opposed to changing the discourse, coming at the opposition with fire and brimstone, he tried to hold hands and sing kumbayah. Ronald Reagan spent the first four years of his presidency painting the Democrats as the party of economic disaster, ineptitude, and weakness. When FDR came into office referred to the Republicans and the banking industry as “Economic royalists.” Barack Obama tried to start an age of “bipartisanship.” There is no bipartisanship; there has never been bipartisanship. There is one side and the other side, and the one that is able to get things is able to paint the other side as the party of evil. He should have come into office with a wider and more radical mandate, he should have been angry, and directed that anger at those that brought us to this economic condition.
President Obama came into office with the direst economic situation since the Great Depression. Yes, the unemployment rate is hovering around 10% of the population, which is incredibly high for the United States. However, the underemployed, ie: those who are working part-time jobs is nearer to 20%. That would qualify as something similar to a Depression. That would mean that something as radical as the New Deal is warranted. The reasons, among others, have been listed in previous pieces posted to this site.
Yet, when President Obama began, he instantly spent political capital by beginning what could have been the crowning jewel of his Presidency and one of the greatest national achievements in our history: universal healthcare. Instead, he came to the table with an already compromised bill. He did not start at an extreme and work toward a compromise; he came with a compromise and worked toward an even worse version of the bill. We are about to have a healthcare bill. One that is a payout to the health insurance industry, one that will not give universal healthcare, and one that will increase profits for the insurance companies.
President Obama has yet to accomplish anything that he came into office with the intention of doing. He has not closed Guantanamo, brought home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, taken steps to re-regulate the financial industry, taken steps to decrease the disparity between economic classes (the greatest since the Gilded Age), increased gay rights, abortion rights, or anything else that he was elected to do. Our infrastructure is crumbling; we drive on roads that were built in the 1950’s, there’s a reason that a bridge collapsed in Minnesota. Yet, President Obama has done nothing to address our infrastructure. Rather than giving us an economic stimulus package that concentrated on jobs, public works, and improving infrastructure, he gave us a package that concentrated on tax cuts.
I understand that President Obama has only been in office for a year. But, a year is a long time in office. One year into his Presidency, FDR had start most of the New Deal. He had given the country the WPA, the NRA, Banking Reforms, the FDIC, and many other things which changed the way the country functioned. These were all measures that put the country back onto good footing, that decreased unemployment and the extreme nature of our economy during that period.
An extreme time, a desperate time, calls for radical moves by a President. It calls for a strong President, one that is willing to call out the wrong and help shape new institutions. President Obama, so far, has been one of the greatest let downs that we have ever had. I only hope that this changes in the next three years to come.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Quick Note
Glenn Beck- progressivism did not bring about prohibition. Prohibition was passed by a Republican House & Senate despite a Presidential veto from Woodrow Wilson. Look at the make-up of the 66th United States Congress, beginning in March of 1919 when the Volstead Act was passed you right-wing talk-box moron. That took me about three seconds to find out on Wikipedia, you couldn’t Google it yourself before spouting your vile hate? Wilson did not want it and did not vote for it. Volstead, the guy who wrote the act, was a REPUBLICAN from Minnesota. How’s that for the government leaving you alone? Telling you whether or not you can drink alcohol. Get the facts right, you maniacal ideologue.
Rewriting History
I am constantly being told how much fiscal constraint Republicans show. It is a talking point on talk shows; it is what the party is “known” for. I am, quite frankly, sick of hearing these lies. They have been billing themselves as the party of fiscal restraint since the early 1900’s. They want a small government, one that would not interfere in the lives of other people. They preach that they will keep the government and the country out of debt. Lies. The history of the party does not match the rhetoric- and why no one has been able to bring this to a head and make this a talking point is beyond me.
The National debt increased greatly to $260 billion dollar during the FDR years, with the social programs to dig us out of the Great Depression and the build-up to World War Two. This is natural, the country was in a crisis, it would not have emerged from the Depression without a great deal of government spending, although Friedman adherents would differ with me, it is not particularly relevant to my argument. However, after this point, the debt held steady as a percentage of the GDP until 1980. During this period, the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats who spent according to what was available, while there were no great changes in the way that money was spent no matter if a Republican or Democrat was sitting as President.
In 1980 that changed. The 97th United States Congress had a Democratic House, but a Republican Senate. As we have seen, the United States House is a fairly good representation of the people of this country, while in the Senate a small minority can destroy any kind of legislation. They wield an enormous amount of power that generally can override anything that the House wishes, no matter the sentiment. It was during this time that the first great tax cut was instituted, first of the many that was instituted during the Reagan Presidency (a Republican for those of you that forgot). The ERTA Tax Cut corresponds with the beginning of the end of fiscal prudence being shown in this country. Between 1980 and 1990, the National Debt quadrupled. During this time, yes, various services were cut to the people of the United States. However, the spending did not end. Taxes were cut increasingly, but this did not lead to increased revenue for the United States Government. Is this fiscal responsibility? No. This is not rocket science, it is simple math, in order for an organization like the government to spend money they have to have money to spend. If they are spending money they do not have, then they are going to have to borrow money from elsewhere. If they do this, the debt will increase unless the revenue increases. This all occurred while Republicans controlled both the White House and the Senate. Is this fiscal prudence?
But what about the 1990’s Jacob? What about the 1990’s? The budget was balanced, the spending was decreased, and the entire time Republicans were controlling the House and the Senate. Hm. Interesting thought. Well, if there is a boom occurring in the economy, like the one that was occurring between 1994-1999, what would happen? Well, investment from other countries would increase the revenue in the country. Even with the low taxes, the increase of money that was flowing to technological companies and web companies during that period would increase the amount of money going to the government. Is this because of Republican pressure? No. This is because of a technological bubble, a bubble that usually and did lead to a bust in 2000-2001.
What happened AFTER that? Republicans were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency between 2000-2006. During that time the National Debt doubled. Taxes were cut to the wealthy, some services to the poor were cut, but otherwise nothing changed. Spending increased. Is this being fiscally prudent? No. This is teaching the American people a sense of entitlement, one which says you can have all the services you want but you do not have to pay taxes for them, you do not have to do much of anything other than borrow borrow borrow.
The Republicans have given us a delightful legacy of selling horse manure to the American people. They preach being fiscally conservative, cutting taxes, and downsizing the government. What do they actually do? Cut taxes to the wealthy, cut services to the poor, and keep spending like there’s no tomorrow. The size of the government under both Reagan and Bush increased more than it had been previously. Is this being responsible? No. The Republicans are liars, ones that rewrite history as they see fit, and then wrap it up into a nice tight package to sell to the American people. Fiscally conservative? Liars, all of them.
The National debt increased greatly to $260 billion dollar during the FDR years, with the social programs to dig us out of the Great Depression and the build-up to World War Two. This is natural, the country was in a crisis, it would not have emerged from the Depression without a great deal of government spending, although Friedman adherents would differ with me, it is not particularly relevant to my argument. However, after this point, the debt held steady as a percentage of the GDP until 1980. During this period, the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats who spent according to what was available, while there were no great changes in the way that money was spent no matter if a Republican or Democrat was sitting as President.
In 1980 that changed. The 97th United States Congress had a Democratic House, but a Republican Senate. As we have seen, the United States House is a fairly good representation of the people of this country, while in the Senate a small minority can destroy any kind of legislation. They wield an enormous amount of power that generally can override anything that the House wishes, no matter the sentiment. It was during this time that the first great tax cut was instituted, first of the many that was instituted during the Reagan Presidency (a Republican for those of you that forgot). The ERTA Tax Cut corresponds with the beginning of the end of fiscal prudence being shown in this country. Between 1980 and 1990, the National Debt quadrupled. During this time, yes, various services were cut to the people of the United States. However, the spending did not end. Taxes were cut increasingly, but this did not lead to increased revenue for the United States Government. Is this fiscal responsibility? No. This is not rocket science, it is simple math, in order for an organization like the government to spend money they have to have money to spend. If they are spending money they do not have, then they are going to have to borrow money from elsewhere. If they do this, the debt will increase unless the revenue increases. This all occurred while Republicans controlled both the White House and the Senate. Is this fiscal prudence?
But what about the 1990’s Jacob? What about the 1990’s? The budget was balanced, the spending was decreased, and the entire time Republicans were controlling the House and the Senate. Hm. Interesting thought. Well, if there is a boom occurring in the economy, like the one that was occurring between 1994-1999, what would happen? Well, investment from other countries would increase the revenue in the country. Even with the low taxes, the increase of money that was flowing to technological companies and web companies during that period would increase the amount of money going to the government. Is this because of Republican pressure? No. This is because of a technological bubble, a bubble that usually and did lead to a bust in 2000-2001.
What happened AFTER that? Republicans were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency between 2000-2006. During that time the National Debt doubled. Taxes were cut to the wealthy, some services to the poor were cut, but otherwise nothing changed. Spending increased. Is this being fiscally prudent? No. This is teaching the American people a sense of entitlement, one which says you can have all the services you want but you do not have to pay taxes for them, you do not have to do much of anything other than borrow borrow borrow.
The Republicans have given us a delightful legacy of selling horse manure to the American people. They preach being fiscally conservative, cutting taxes, and downsizing the government. What do they actually do? Cut taxes to the wealthy, cut services to the poor, and keep spending like there’s no tomorrow. The size of the government under both Reagan and Bush increased more than it had been previously. Is this being responsible? No. The Republicans are liars, ones that rewrite history as they see fit, and then wrap it up into a nice tight package to sell to the American people. Fiscally conservative? Liars, all of them.
Education
I had the good fortune to graduate from a reputable school without accruing any debt from student loans. My grandparents had the foresight and my family had the luck of being able to provide me with such an education. When I graduated from school my credit was good. This cannot be said for most students who will graduate from public universities in this country, let alone those will graduate from private universities.
Education is a gateway to a better life. Those who receive a college degree will make nearly twice as much money (average $51,554) as those who graduate with a high school degree (average $28,645), according to the US Census Bureau. From this income increase one can assume less likelihood of one’s being incarcerated and also increases the likelihood of one being able to contribute to society.
Now, in order to understand what one needs to spend even at the cheapest institution for a higher education it will require a small amount of math. The University I attended for my degree was the University of Texas at Austin, one of the less expensive public universities in the country. For one academic year the cost will be around $9,500. That means that for four years the student is already looking at $38,000. The average American makes $43,000 a year. Once you factor in other costs while attending the University, the notion of paying for university becomes truly daunting. A University of that size (nearly 55,000 students) means that housing is limited. At best a student can live on campus for two years. But the cost of housing is not included in the tuition. Let’s ignore that for a moment and concentrate on the last two years.
So, once a person has finished their first two years they have to look for an apartment off-campus. That means that they, at best, will be paying $500/month for rent. That, if living in a bad neighborhood, will include water, electricity, gas, etc. But, because of living in a bad neighborhood, which is far from campus, they are going to have to have a car in order to get around because of the sorry state of most pubic transportation systems in this country. So, let’s do the math on that: $500x 9 months = $4500. That means for the last two years of college, that person is paying $9,000 to live. Add in a car, which at best would be a few thousand dollars. Car insurance is in Texas averages to about $1,809 a year which is slightly above national average. That means the insurance will be $3,618 for two years. Now let’s add in food that someone is going to have to pay for as they are going through school. At best, someone can probably get by on $100/week. So, nine months of school is 36 weeks, so that’s another $3,600. That’s not even including a computer which has become an obligatory item while in college, nor does it include the costs for entertainment on the weekends and things of that sort. Nor does it include gas money. But let’s forget all those costs while doing these calculations.
For the last two years of college someone is going to have to pay $19,000 for school tuition. $9,000 will go to rent. $2,000 for a car. $3,618 for insurance, and another $7,200 for food. That gives us a grand total of $40,818 for two years of college at a public university. Sure, there are partial scholarships that people can receive, there are work for tuition programs, which will inevitably cut that amount of time that one can spend studying and preparing themselves for class, GRE, LSAT, MKAT, and GMAT tests. There are grants given by the state, Pell Grants, which have been frozen at $4,050 a year since 2003. In 2006 $12.5 billion was cut from the Pell Grant system. There are private student loans that one can take out which can take as many as thirty years to repay because of the high rate of interest on the loan.
So what does this do? It creates a system where ambitious young people that wish to be educated in any number of fields are strapped with debt for most of the rest of their lives. They are required to repay debts for improving themselves; they are required to repay someone for becoming an even greater contributor to society. It is odd to me that ostensibly society penalizes anyone that wishes to ascend socio-economic classes through education. It strikes me as odd that college has become an inaccessible avenue by which one can change his or herself. The education system is broken; the math that I have just demonstrated easily displays this. No one can afford to become educated any longer, and that is one of the many reasons why the United States is broken.
Education is a gateway to a better life. Those who receive a college degree will make nearly twice as much money (average $51,554) as those who graduate with a high school degree (average $28,645), according to the US Census Bureau. From this income increase one can assume less likelihood of one’s being incarcerated and also increases the likelihood of one being able to contribute to society.
Now, in order to understand what one needs to spend even at the cheapest institution for a higher education it will require a small amount of math. The University I attended for my degree was the University of Texas at Austin, one of the less expensive public universities in the country. For one academic year the cost will be around $9,500. That means that for four years the student is already looking at $38,000. The average American makes $43,000 a year. Once you factor in other costs while attending the University, the notion of paying for university becomes truly daunting. A University of that size (nearly 55,000 students) means that housing is limited. At best a student can live on campus for two years. But the cost of housing is not included in the tuition. Let’s ignore that for a moment and concentrate on the last two years.
So, once a person has finished their first two years they have to look for an apartment off-campus. That means that they, at best, will be paying $500/month for rent. That, if living in a bad neighborhood, will include water, electricity, gas, etc. But, because of living in a bad neighborhood, which is far from campus, they are going to have to have a car in order to get around because of the sorry state of most pubic transportation systems in this country. So, let’s do the math on that: $500x 9 months = $4500. That means for the last two years of college, that person is paying $9,000 to live. Add in a car, which at best would be a few thousand dollars. Car insurance is in Texas averages to about $1,809 a year which is slightly above national average. That means the insurance will be $3,618 for two years. Now let’s add in food that someone is going to have to pay for as they are going through school. At best, someone can probably get by on $100/week. So, nine months of school is 36 weeks, so that’s another $3,600. That’s not even including a computer which has become an obligatory item while in college, nor does it include the costs for entertainment on the weekends and things of that sort. Nor does it include gas money. But let’s forget all those costs while doing these calculations.
For the last two years of college someone is going to have to pay $19,000 for school tuition. $9,000 will go to rent. $2,000 for a car. $3,618 for insurance, and another $7,200 for food. That gives us a grand total of $40,818 for two years of college at a public university. Sure, there are partial scholarships that people can receive, there are work for tuition programs, which will inevitably cut that amount of time that one can spend studying and preparing themselves for class, GRE, LSAT, MKAT, and GMAT tests. There are grants given by the state, Pell Grants, which have been frozen at $4,050 a year since 2003. In 2006 $12.5 billion was cut from the Pell Grant system. There are private student loans that one can take out which can take as many as thirty years to repay because of the high rate of interest on the loan.
So what does this do? It creates a system where ambitious young people that wish to be educated in any number of fields are strapped with debt for most of the rest of their lives. They are required to repay debts for improving themselves; they are required to repay someone for becoming an even greater contributor to society. It is odd to me that ostensibly society penalizes anyone that wishes to ascend socio-economic classes through education. It strikes me as odd that college has become an inaccessible avenue by which one can change his or herself. The education system is broken; the math that I have just demonstrated easily displays this. No one can afford to become educated any longer, and that is one of the many reasons why the United States is broken.
Taxes
Money is a divisive, corrosive power. It breaks up relationships, starts wars; it has the power to seduce and to destroy. It has stirred innovation. It is only natural that someone would want to keep their money; one feels as if they earned it because of their hard work. But everyone works hard. Did the janitor who cleaned that public building today not deserve his salary as much as the lawyer who defended the white collar criminal? When anyone is able to accumulate any amount of wealth they are doing it at the behest of society. They are, inevitably, the product of the populous as a whole, helping to push some of those people justly or unjustly to the top. No matter if one person went to private school or public school, used their city’s public or private power company, the people that have accumulated great wealth inevitably have benefitted from all of society’s contribution and it is their job to give back.
Taxes, yes, that oh-so-evil word is that which leads to one’s being able to give back. Taxes are what pay for those roads they drove on every day on the way to school, paid for those poor children to attend preschool through senior year of high school, taxes are what created this country’s great public university system that taught the teachers that then went and taught more students, taxes are what pay for that army that defends us in our time of need, and it is what creates the entire social structure in this country. You have to have all of these pieces of infrastructure in order to function as a society. Without a leveled society, done so by taxes, you inevitably end up with a third-world like structure where the poor are large in number, un-educated, and with no chance of ascending the social ladder while the rich maintain their wealth and continue to harness control of society.
Countries with low tax rates on the wealthiest have greater inequality. For instance: Brazil’s top tax bracket is 27.5%, Mexico is 28%, Peru with 27%, Russia at 13%, and the list goes on. One need only look at these countries to see the inequality between classes. While at the same time countries with less inequality between economic classes have high tax rates on the wealthy. These are places like Sweden at 59.09%, Denmark with 59%, or Japan with 40%. The United States is now experiencing the greatest income difference since the gilded age, and strangely enough the upper tax bracket is now at its lowest levels as well. Income tax helps to redistribute wealth and create a more equal society.
Government is not perfect, but the private sector is no better at taking people’s money and spending it. It is stupid and idealistic to not be incredibly suspicious of both the public and private sector, putting blind faith in either one is just as naïve, all institutions are inevitably flawed. People do not vote with their dollars, as so many conservatives will tell you. Rather, people are compelled to spend money, vote with their dollars, for their very survival. Free market capitalism, that unregulated, “magic hand” of the market, is a bullshit notion.
To look at how deeply flawed the notion of “voting with one’s dollar” is, one need only look at how food consumption works in this country. People spend money on food because they need to eat. They do not spend that dollar at McDonald’s because they enjoy eating it; they spend that dollar at McDonald’s because they cannot afford $100 to buy decent groceries to feed their family for a few days. When one creates a situation like that, the notion that somehow the market will regulate itself flies out the window.
The idea that people’s voting with their dollar also flies out the window because of the nature of free market capitalism. A corporation is only accountable to its bottom line, its profit margin. It is not accountable to the common good. We can look at many practices to see this.
When a company outsources a job to India, it is because of two things: low cost and high profits. This deals with two great flaws in our society, a sense of entitlement to have cheap products, and being accountable to a bottom line. When a company sends a job out of the country it puts another person out of work. This forces that person (if they can afford it) to become skilled in another job through education. It removes that taxpayer from society until they can become employed again, degrading the revenue for various projects the state could fund for the benefit of society. It creates a higher revenue for the boss of the company, which is fine, but it also removes accountability from the scheme. The country that the job is transported to could be and often is a place like China, where there are different laws on what can be put into a product. When this happens, yes, the price of a product goes down. But this practice has become universal, thus driving down the quality of a product. When this happens, people are forced to pick a lesser of evils as opposed to a superior product. When this occurs lead paint is used in children’s’ toys, you reach a help center operator that can barely speak English, or have a car that is known to be defective for nearly fifteen years. All of these practices may be good for one country’s economy, but they destroy the fabric of another society as well as not contributing in the least to the common good.
The notion that people will “donate” money to the poor to help solve our social ills and help with the gradual redistribution of wealth in this country is also simply untrue. They do not inherently know better where to put their money to solve said ills. After all, the United States government (which has some very smart people working for it in some cases) has entire administrations to do such things. One need only look at the data to see how incorrect this notion is. According to the US Bureau of Labor, the poorest 5th of the country’s households contributed 4.3% of their income to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest 5th gave less than half of that, at 2.1%. That means those who made between $10,000-$20,000 dollars were giving away between $430-$860 or the equivalent of two weeks pay. The wealthiest 5th, who make more than $100,000, or ten times as much are giving away $2,100 or less than a week’s worth off their salary. Shouldn’t they be donating ten times as much of their money since their income is ten times higher?
It is clear that the rich do not give back to society, and why should they? Money is unchecked power. Money is what allows them to buy elections and change the structure of society so as to meet their needs. The poor man on the street can vote in the Presidential election, but the rich man can pick the candidate that will be one of the two options on the ballot.
A woman at a dinner once told me a story about why she became a Conservative. She told me about how she saw a woman in the projects using a mobile phone back in the mid 1980’s, when cell phones were very expensive. She became convinced that her taxes had been used to pay for said cell phone because of welfare. Now, this woman did not stop her car as she was passing, walk up to the woman who was holding the enormous grey plastic behemoth and then inquire “excuse me, ma’am, did you use welfare money to purchase that device?” Which leads me to think two things: 1) I doubt everyone in public housing who happens to be black is on welfare 2) Furthermore, assuming that a black woman who is on a cell phone is on welfare is simple racism through and through. This woman claimed she gave back to the community by donating money to charity. The facts and figures stated previously dispute that statement. People on welfare, on unemployment benefits, are not running about town spending the money on frivolous items, as she was so sure of.
There are certainly people that take advantage of the system, that is the nature of humanity. There will and has always been a group of people attempting to game the system. The wealthy have been gaming the system as long as people have been able to walk. People who are receiving those social benefits are by and large hard-working people who have fallen on bad times. A woman like the one who told me that story has clearly never spent a day working in a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. And if she has, then she never bothered to take the time out of her day to actually converse with the people who were living or eating there. People should help each other out, they should donate money to charity, but there should also be programs set up to help this process along.
Economic growth is another factor that people cite as a reason not to raise taxes, that somehow having a higher tax rate will decrease the economy’s growth. Well, for one, most economists no longer look at GDP growth as a measure of a country’s well-being, so much as per capita income and unemployment. Secondly, the United States’ periods of greatest economic growth were when the upper tax bracket was between 92%-72%. Eliot Spitzer wrote a simple piece about this on Slate a few days ago, which should make the argument for higher tax rates when it comes to economic growth. http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/ . Growth is not everything. A country should be measured by the well being of its people, the employment rate, the size of the middle class, as opposed to the simplistic growth rate of a country. Growth does not equal common good.
Somewhere along the line Ronald Reagan convinced the country that government was not the solution, it was the problem. This was also the man that told the American public that when he found out he would reach the top income bracket and have to pay 90% of his income; he stopped working as a B-movie actor in Hollywood. That does not strike me as a motivated, hard-working American. That sounds like an unmotivated lazy person with little interest in what he is doing. People constantly give me that argument: “if you cut my taxes, I work harder because I will get more money?” Well, why wouldn’t you work harder if your taxes were higher. The more you work, the more money you are going to make. It is not as if we have installed a ceiling as to how much people should be paid, you just have to have a higher salary to make more of it. It works the same as if taxes were lower; only, the person is benefitting the common good and being given more incentive to work harder. It seems to me that higher taxes are a better incentive.
Yet, Reagan convinced everyone that they could have everything for free. He cut taxes and did not cut services, creating the beginning of the enormous national debt we are facing. He convinced everyone that they were part of the extreme upper class, and in turn, should be treated as such. He removed the notion of hard work from the American psyche. It created this idea that greed is good. No, greed is not good. It does not drive our society. Greed is what got us to the present situation in the first place. When Oliver Stone wrote that line for Wall Street back in 1988, he was writing it as a warning not as a mantra. Gordon Gekko was a villain, not a hero. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. When people tell me I will not feel this way once I am truly being taxed, all that I can think of is slugging that person in the head. That part that the government taxes from your salary is what pays for the road you are driving on, the clean water you drink, the education that allows all of those people around you to read, those taxes make it so our country does not resemble Somalia. If people were less greedy and had not decided they were “entitled” to everything, the world would be a much better place. I do not think our grandparents’ generation felt this great sense of entitlement when they made it through the Great Depression or the Second World War.
So, what is the point of what I am getting at? Taxes are a necessary evil. Does this mean that the man who makes $50,000/year should lose half of that to the government? Absolutely not. But should the man that makes $40,000,000/year lose 50% to the government? Absolutely. The top earners in the United States averaged $400,000,000/year in income and were taxed less than 20% of it in income tax. Yes, I do know that there are other taxes they inevitably pay, but ostensibly they will pay very little because of the majority of their income being invested and thus taxed through capital gains. This maintains power and money concentrated in the hands of the very few, something that America has never been about. I was always under the impression that America was about fighting for the underdog, the little man, and creating a fair situation where the cream of the crop can rise to the top.
What will that extra money give the man that earns $400,000,000? A fifth house? A $10,000 umbrella rack? Half of that money could pay for health insurance for children, pay a teacher in a public school, build a road, build a bridge, it could contribute to society in so many ways that his spending on the luxury or service sector does not. Taxes are necessary; they are necessary to help build a better society.
Taxes, yes, that oh-so-evil word is that which leads to one’s being able to give back. Taxes are what pay for those roads they drove on every day on the way to school, paid for those poor children to attend preschool through senior year of high school, taxes are what created this country’s great public university system that taught the teachers that then went and taught more students, taxes are what pay for that army that defends us in our time of need, and it is what creates the entire social structure in this country. You have to have all of these pieces of infrastructure in order to function as a society. Without a leveled society, done so by taxes, you inevitably end up with a third-world like structure where the poor are large in number, un-educated, and with no chance of ascending the social ladder while the rich maintain their wealth and continue to harness control of society.
Countries with low tax rates on the wealthiest have greater inequality. For instance: Brazil’s top tax bracket is 27.5%, Mexico is 28%, Peru with 27%, Russia at 13%, and the list goes on. One need only look at these countries to see the inequality between classes. While at the same time countries with less inequality between economic classes have high tax rates on the wealthy. These are places like Sweden at 59.09%, Denmark with 59%, or Japan with 40%. The United States is now experiencing the greatest income difference since the gilded age, and strangely enough the upper tax bracket is now at its lowest levels as well. Income tax helps to redistribute wealth and create a more equal society.
Government is not perfect, but the private sector is no better at taking people’s money and spending it. It is stupid and idealistic to not be incredibly suspicious of both the public and private sector, putting blind faith in either one is just as naïve, all institutions are inevitably flawed. People do not vote with their dollars, as so many conservatives will tell you. Rather, people are compelled to spend money, vote with their dollars, for their very survival. Free market capitalism, that unregulated, “magic hand” of the market, is a bullshit notion.
To look at how deeply flawed the notion of “voting with one’s dollar” is, one need only look at how food consumption works in this country. People spend money on food because they need to eat. They do not spend that dollar at McDonald’s because they enjoy eating it; they spend that dollar at McDonald’s because they cannot afford $100 to buy decent groceries to feed their family for a few days. When one creates a situation like that, the notion that somehow the market will regulate itself flies out the window.
The idea that people’s voting with their dollar also flies out the window because of the nature of free market capitalism. A corporation is only accountable to its bottom line, its profit margin. It is not accountable to the common good. We can look at many practices to see this.
When a company outsources a job to India, it is because of two things: low cost and high profits. This deals with two great flaws in our society, a sense of entitlement to have cheap products, and being accountable to a bottom line. When a company sends a job out of the country it puts another person out of work. This forces that person (if they can afford it) to become skilled in another job through education. It removes that taxpayer from society until they can become employed again, degrading the revenue for various projects the state could fund for the benefit of society. It creates a higher revenue for the boss of the company, which is fine, but it also removes accountability from the scheme. The country that the job is transported to could be and often is a place like China, where there are different laws on what can be put into a product. When this happens, yes, the price of a product goes down. But this practice has become universal, thus driving down the quality of a product. When this happens, people are forced to pick a lesser of evils as opposed to a superior product. When this occurs lead paint is used in children’s’ toys, you reach a help center operator that can barely speak English, or have a car that is known to be defective for nearly fifteen years. All of these practices may be good for one country’s economy, but they destroy the fabric of another society as well as not contributing in the least to the common good.
The notion that people will “donate” money to the poor to help solve our social ills and help with the gradual redistribution of wealth in this country is also simply untrue. They do not inherently know better where to put their money to solve said ills. After all, the United States government (which has some very smart people working for it in some cases) has entire administrations to do such things. One need only look at the data to see how incorrect this notion is. According to the US Bureau of Labor, the poorest 5th of the country’s households contributed 4.3% of their income to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest 5th gave less than half of that, at 2.1%. That means those who made between $10,000-$20,000 dollars were giving away between $430-$860 or the equivalent of two weeks pay. The wealthiest 5th, who make more than $100,000, or ten times as much are giving away $2,100 or less than a week’s worth off their salary. Shouldn’t they be donating ten times as much of their money since their income is ten times higher?
It is clear that the rich do not give back to society, and why should they? Money is unchecked power. Money is what allows them to buy elections and change the structure of society so as to meet their needs. The poor man on the street can vote in the Presidential election, but the rich man can pick the candidate that will be one of the two options on the ballot.
A woman at a dinner once told me a story about why she became a Conservative. She told me about how she saw a woman in the projects using a mobile phone back in the mid 1980’s, when cell phones were very expensive. She became convinced that her taxes had been used to pay for said cell phone because of welfare. Now, this woman did not stop her car as she was passing, walk up to the woman who was holding the enormous grey plastic behemoth and then inquire “excuse me, ma’am, did you use welfare money to purchase that device?” Which leads me to think two things: 1) I doubt everyone in public housing who happens to be black is on welfare 2) Furthermore, assuming that a black woman who is on a cell phone is on welfare is simple racism through and through. This woman claimed she gave back to the community by donating money to charity. The facts and figures stated previously dispute that statement. People on welfare, on unemployment benefits, are not running about town spending the money on frivolous items, as she was so sure of.
There are certainly people that take advantage of the system, that is the nature of humanity. There will and has always been a group of people attempting to game the system. The wealthy have been gaming the system as long as people have been able to walk. People who are receiving those social benefits are by and large hard-working people who have fallen on bad times. A woman like the one who told me that story has clearly never spent a day working in a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. And if she has, then she never bothered to take the time out of her day to actually converse with the people who were living or eating there. People should help each other out, they should donate money to charity, but there should also be programs set up to help this process along.
Economic growth is another factor that people cite as a reason not to raise taxes, that somehow having a higher tax rate will decrease the economy’s growth. Well, for one, most economists no longer look at GDP growth as a measure of a country’s well-being, so much as per capita income and unemployment. Secondly, the United States’ periods of greatest economic growth were when the upper tax bracket was between 92%-72%. Eliot Spitzer wrote a simple piece about this on Slate a few days ago, which should make the argument for higher tax rates when it comes to economic growth. http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/ . Growth is not everything. A country should be measured by the well being of its people, the employment rate, the size of the middle class, as opposed to the simplistic growth rate of a country. Growth does not equal common good.
Somewhere along the line Ronald Reagan convinced the country that government was not the solution, it was the problem. This was also the man that told the American public that when he found out he would reach the top income bracket and have to pay 90% of his income; he stopped working as a B-movie actor in Hollywood. That does not strike me as a motivated, hard-working American. That sounds like an unmotivated lazy person with little interest in what he is doing. People constantly give me that argument: “if you cut my taxes, I work harder because I will get more money?” Well, why wouldn’t you work harder if your taxes were higher. The more you work, the more money you are going to make. It is not as if we have installed a ceiling as to how much people should be paid, you just have to have a higher salary to make more of it. It works the same as if taxes were lower; only, the person is benefitting the common good and being given more incentive to work harder. It seems to me that higher taxes are a better incentive.
Yet, Reagan convinced everyone that they could have everything for free. He cut taxes and did not cut services, creating the beginning of the enormous national debt we are facing. He convinced everyone that they were part of the extreme upper class, and in turn, should be treated as such. He removed the notion of hard work from the American psyche. It created this idea that greed is good. No, greed is not good. It does not drive our society. Greed is what got us to the present situation in the first place. When Oliver Stone wrote that line for Wall Street back in 1988, he was writing it as a warning not as a mantra. Gordon Gekko was a villain, not a hero. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. When people tell me I will not feel this way once I am truly being taxed, all that I can think of is slugging that person in the head. That part that the government taxes from your salary is what pays for the road you are driving on, the clean water you drink, the education that allows all of those people around you to read, those taxes make it so our country does not resemble Somalia. If people were less greedy and had not decided they were “entitled” to everything, the world would be a much better place. I do not think our grandparents’ generation felt this great sense of entitlement when they made it through the Great Depression or the Second World War.
So, what is the point of what I am getting at? Taxes are a necessary evil. Does this mean that the man who makes $50,000/year should lose half of that to the government? Absolutely not. But should the man that makes $40,000,000/year lose 50% to the government? Absolutely. The top earners in the United States averaged $400,000,000/year in income and were taxed less than 20% of it in income tax. Yes, I do know that there are other taxes they inevitably pay, but ostensibly they will pay very little because of the majority of their income being invested and thus taxed through capital gains. This maintains power and money concentrated in the hands of the very few, something that America has never been about. I was always under the impression that America was about fighting for the underdog, the little man, and creating a fair situation where the cream of the crop can rise to the top.
What will that extra money give the man that earns $400,000,000? A fifth house? A $10,000 umbrella rack? Half of that money could pay for health insurance for children, pay a teacher in a public school, build a road, build a bridge, it could contribute to society in so many ways that his spending on the luxury or service sector does not. Taxes are necessary; they are necessary to help build a better society.
Welcome
This is my blog, “The Rant.” It began because I was tired of hearing lies on TV and amongst people I know. I wanted to have a forum in which to air my views. I was tired of Glenn Beck, Jim Bunning, John Boehner, and the rest of them. I was tired of there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and I was tired of how greedy everyone had become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)