Today I really wanted to find fault with Donald Trump and all his unrealistic ideas, but what I really wanted to do was to find fault with Bernie Sanders for all his unrealistic plans, but what I need to do is to is find fault with Hillary Clinton for all her missteps, but what I need do is find fault with the U'S. Congress for all its inability and ideological unwillingness to work together for the good of all the people.
But what I really need to do is to find fault with a news media that is more interested in high ratings (profits) than in giving to the American people the truth and asking all the hard questions and none of the softballs, but what I really need to do is to find fault with an electorate that doesn't read, or listen intently and doesn't try to understand what candidates are promising, but what I really need to do is to point out that our political parties don't represent the people of America, only their own agendas and how to bamboozle the people into believing them.
What I'd really like to say is that its time to start thinking smart, even, in fact especially, when it goes against the party, and no it doesn't mean a Tea Party or an Occupy Wall Street. What we really need is a thoughtful decision to work together for the good of the country and all the people, and I do mean all the people, even if they can't vote.
If we were to start with the premise that everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (say, where have I heard that before?), if we started with that premise, we just might get somewhere we'd like to be.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Monday, May 23, 2016
Now They Can Claim They're # One.
According to an article in the National Memo today, our current Congress is the worst Congress ever. Possibly next to the 112th Congress for the honor (?) of being the worst in all of American history. The 112th threatened, and in fact did, hold the country hostage so long that for the first time in American history our credit rating was lowered.
But what gave our current Congress the new title? The article mentions five reasons, and they're big ones. Zika starts us off, or rather the non-funding for three months before funding the fight against Zika and then only by taking the funding away from other infectious diseases and then only one third of the funds needed.
Second reason is Paralysis. About the only thing that's been getting passed by the Congress is naming new Post Office buildings. Third reason is the Voting Rights Act, that even Reagan called the "crowned jewel of American liberties." But this Congress has hacked it apart. Forth is Abandoning its Duty to Confirm Appointments. Important and even critical positions in Homeland Security, National Security and the judicial, at all levels, have been purposely ignored.
Fifth reason is the "biggest dereliction of duty of all - the Supreme Court." Republicans decided to rewrite history rather than do their job by refusing to even consider any candidate to fill the empty seat left by Justice Scalia's passing. Taken as a whole, just these five reasons appear enough to impeach Congress. Unfortunately you won't find this Congress voting to impeach itself. That's because way too many actually think they're doing the right thing. Naw, they just want us to think they're doing the right thing.
America deserves better than this. We deserve a Congress that sees a job worth doing and goes out and does it, that understands fairness and begins to play by the rules of fairness, that stands up to those who would deny others their rights and provides everyone the same rights. The best way to impeach Congress is to vote them out. Remember, Freedom Caucus is a misnomer.
But what gave our current Congress the new title? The article mentions five reasons, and they're big ones. Zika starts us off, or rather the non-funding for three months before funding the fight against Zika and then only by taking the funding away from other infectious diseases and then only one third of the funds needed.
Second reason is Paralysis. About the only thing that's been getting passed by the Congress is naming new Post Office buildings. Third reason is the Voting Rights Act, that even Reagan called the "crowned jewel of American liberties." But this Congress has hacked it apart. Forth is Abandoning its Duty to Confirm Appointments. Important and even critical positions in Homeland Security, National Security and the judicial, at all levels, have been purposely ignored.
Fifth reason is the "biggest dereliction of duty of all - the Supreme Court." Republicans decided to rewrite history rather than do their job by refusing to even consider any candidate to fill the empty seat left by Justice Scalia's passing. Taken as a whole, just these five reasons appear enough to impeach Congress. Unfortunately you won't find this Congress voting to impeach itself. That's because way too many actually think they're doing the right thing. Naw, they just want us to think they're doing the right thing.
America deserves better than this. We deserve a Congress that sees a job worth doing and goes out and does it, that understands fairness and begins to play by the rules of fairness, that stands up to those who would deny others their rights and provides everyone the same rights. The best way to impeach Congress is to vote them out. Remember, Freedom Caucus is a misnomer.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Must Be Scrambled!
I got an email from a relative today that shocked me. I don't know who the author is, but the story is something we should all consider. The title is "NFL vs NBA." 36- accused of spousal abuse, 7 - fraud, 19 - writing bad checks, 117 directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 - served time for assault, 71 - cannot get a credit card, yep 71, 14 - arrested on drug related charges, 8 - arrested for shop lifting, 21 - are defendants in lawsuits, 84 - have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
"So which is it? The NFL or the NBA? Neither. Give up? It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The Same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. REMEMBER, MOST OF THEM ARE UP FOR ELECTION THIS YEAR!"
A lot of people talk about replacing the whole bunch. Well isn't this enough to make you do more than just talk? Look I know its hard to admit you might have voted for the wrong people before, but ya just hate to bump the fool out, especially if the fool is in your party. Party affiliations are strong, but they're what makes our government so screwed up. Neither party is the problem, it's the inability to see through the mistakes of the past. But a bad egg ain't never gonna smell better no matter how ya cook it. And that egg ain't never gonna hatch into a harmless chick. So get over it.
What we need in Congress are men and women who are smarter than an egg. So far our choices haven't always been good ones. So if you voted for a fool, stand up and prove you care more about our country than you do that egg.
SORRY, JUST FOUND OUT THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.
"So which is it? The NFL or the NBA? Neither. Give up? It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The Same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. REMEMBER, MOST OF THEM ARE UP FOR ELECTION THIS YEAR!"
A lot of people talk about replacing the whole bunch. Well isn't this enough to make you do more than just talk? Look I know its hard to admit you might have voted for the wrong people before, but ya just hate to bump the fool out, especially if the fool is in your party. Party affiliations are strong, but they're what makes our government so screwed up. Neither party is the problem, it's the inability to see through the mistakes of the past. But a bad egg ain't never gonna smell better no matter how ya cook it. And that egg ain't never gonna hatch into a harmless chick. So get over it.
What we need in Congress are men and women who are smarter than an egg. So far our choices haven't always been good ones. So if you voted for a fool, stand up and prove you care more about our country than you do that egg.
SORRY, JUST FOUND OUT THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.
Friday, May 13, 2016
What's Wrong With His Base?
Basically the basis for the ideology of the Trump base is a basest view of all our basic rights. It is, in short, the denial of American history and the rights proffered upon all citizens. It, the Trump base, seems to be suggesting that only WASPs need apply. The herculean efforts to deny voting to millions of legitimate American citizens, and the suggestions and attempts to keep multiple races from entering by every or any efforts, is in itself proof.
When people speak of our founding fathers, their are often those who speak through the misconception that no one but people just like the actual men who were there at the beginning of the country should be welcome. The thing is though, what the early formers of our country wanted most was a welcoming society where many ideas could be heard and considered without fear of reprisal. In order to have that kind of society we must continue to offer an open and welcoming immigration policy.
The Trump base does not represent that societal outcome. It doesn't matter whether you are a strict Capitalist or a firm Socialist, so long as you allow room for the opinions of others our country can prosper. The only way America can fail is if we allow a Fascisti style movement to gain control. And while I am not calling Donald Trump a Fascist, I will say that many of the pronouncements by him seem to lead very many in his base to act in ways unacceptable to a nation of rules and rights and liberties. They ignore the fact that we are all interlopers here.
We all have the right to be heard without fear of violence and if such violence occurs, it is incumbent upon all leadership, in solidarity, to confront that violence. Mr. Trump appears to lack the courage to face that violence, in or out of solidarity. As do many other leaders.
(Fascisti- The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists, and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following) New Century Dictionary
When people speak of our founding fathers, their are often those who speak through the misconception that no one but people just like the actual men who were there at the beginning of the country should be welcome. The thing is though, what the early formers of our country wanted most was a welcoming society where many ideas could be heard and considered without fear of reprisal. In order to have that kind of society we must continue to offer an open and welcoming immigration policy.
The Trump base does not represent that societal outcome. It doesn't matter whether you are a strict Capitalist or a firm Socialist, so long as you allow room for the opinions of others our country can prosper. The only way America can fail is if we allow a Fascisti style movement to gain control. And while I am not calling Donald Trump a Fascist, I will say that many of the pronouncements by him seem to lead very many in his base to act in ways unacceptable to a nation of rules and rights and liberties. They ignore the fact that we are all interlopers here.
We all have the right to be heard without fear of violence and if such violence occurs, it is incumbent upon all leadership, in solidarity, to confront that violence. Mr. Trump appears to lack the courage to face that violence, in or out of solidarity. As do many other leaders.
(Fascisti- The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists, and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following) New Century Dictionary
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Climate Truth
Who wouldn't want to protect our homes, the air we breathe and the water we drink? Who wouldn't want to protect our planet for our children and grandchildren? Well of course the answer is simple. Everyone wants these things. The problem comes in when doing these things bumps up against the needs and desires of we the people, the adults here and now. The voters, and jobs.
We're none too keen on giving up our way of life for our grand and great grandchildren just because a few people say its necessary and that it won't cost us our jobs. It's easy to say that, but how can we be sure? After all, when compared to the entire population, a tiny almost infinitesimally few people claiming to know for sure (scientists), assure us it's true, while a large portion of the deniers claim it's untrue.
How in the world do we reconcile these two groups and their differences? It's true about 3% of climate scientists and about 3% of all scientists are convinced it is untrue and unnecessary that we should do anything to preserve an already safe environment. What more do we need? Well, insofar as our Congress is concerned, we need no more than to know that many voters are concerned about their jobs more than some distant potential tragedy. And after all, it still gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And what if the ocean levels rise a tiny bit? I won't be here a hundred years from now, but my job will be if you leave it alone.
Thing is, your job is unlikely to be here in a hundred years if climate change doesn't worry you now. And as for Congress, when they get a bug in their heads, they'll say anything to get you to stand behind them. Even if it's against your best interests. You know that as well as I do. I wish it weren't true, but come campaign time these folks will lie, cheat and even steal just to get your vote.
Of course once the election is over watch to see how many politicians dig tornado cellars, build water storage facilities, and dikes around their homes. Because they mostly know better than what they tell you. 97% of all scientists know and believe climate change is real and that human activity is the major cause. And nearly all who are involved with industry know that jobs in new fields will replace those lost in old, its just that owners of old technology industries hate to admit it. Remember, horses gave way to internal combustion engines and they'll give way to the next technology. But technology will only help if we admit the truth.
We're none too keen on giving up our way of life for our grand and great grandchildren just because a few people say its necessary and that it won't cost us our jobs. It's easy to say that, but how can we be sure? After all, when compared to the entire population, a tiny almost infinitesimally few people claiming to know for sure (scientists), assure us it's true, while a large portion of the deniers claim it's untrue.
How in the world do we reconcile these two groups and their differences? It's true about 3% of climate scientists and about 3% of all scientists are convinced it is untrue and unnecessary that we should do anything to preserve an already safe environment. What more do we need? Well, insofar as our Congress is concerned, we need no more than to know that many voters are concerned about their jobs more than some distant potential tragedy. And after all, it still gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And what if the ocean levels rise a tiny bit? I won't be here a hundred years from now, but my job will be if you leave it alone.
Thing is, your job is unlikely to be here in a hundred years if climate change doesn't worry you now. And as for Congress, when they get a bug in their heads, they'll say anything to get you to stand behind them. Even if it's against your best interests. You know that as well as I do. I wish it weren't true, but come campaign time these folks will lie, cheat and even steal just to get your vote.
Of course once the election is over watch to see how many politicians dig tornado cellars, build water storage facilities, and dikes around their homes. Because they mostly know better than what they tell you. 97% of all scientists know and believe climate change is real and that human activity is the major cause. And nearly all who are involved with industry know that jobs in new fields will replace those lost in old, its just that owners of old technology industries hate to admit it. Remember, horses gave way to internal combustion engines and they'll give way to the next technology. But technology will only help if we admit the truth.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Some Days Are Better Than Others.
Remember when Goldman Sacks was fined $5 billion for their part in the meltdown of our economy? Well, an article in the National Memo today, by Jim Hightower, titled "Who Says Crime Doesn't Pay?" he points out just how much $5 billion really is. "If you paid $100,000 per day, every day for 28 years, you'd have paid out $1 billion." (that's paraphrased). That's a hundred thousand. Every single day . For 28 years.
Well, the thing is, Goldman Sacks got so many loopholes and discounts in the settlement, in the fine print, that the bank is responsible for only a fraction of that amount. Whoops, that's wrong. Actually Goldman Sacks doesn't have to pay anything. Because the Goldman Sacks stockholders have to pay it. And to boot, Goldman Sacks' CEO managed to get himself a $23 million paycheck for negotiating this settlement.
Never let it be said that I'm down on anybody for getting paid a fair days pay for a fair days work, but isn't $23 million somewhat more than a fair days pay? Apparently not for folks like Lloyd Blankfein the CEO. And who knows better what Lloyd should be paid than, well than, Lloyd himself. Oh yes. The one who decides how much to pay the CEO is apparently ------the CEO.
To be fair, the compensation is mostly for negotiating the deal that left the bank pretty much free and clear because, after all, banks don't break the laws and cause people to lose their jobs and homes and savings, its the bankers that do that sort of stuff. But I guess its not the Goldman bankers who broke those laws either. That's because none of those folks got jailed or fined. Well it looks like the real culprits have been fined, namely the stockholders, although I can't quite figure out how they managed to do it.
But again, remember this point. No Banker was jailed and no banker was fined. If you or I had pulled off something that caused so much hardship to so many people, they'd figure out some way to send us to Gitmo, in other words, lock us up and throw the key away.
Well, the thing is, Goldman Sacks got so many loopholes and discounts in the settlement, in the fine print, that the bank is responsible for only a fraction of that amount. Whoops, that's wrong. Actually Goldman Sacks doesn't have to pay anything. Because the Goldman Sacks stockholders have to pay it. And to boot, Goldman Sacks' CEO managed to get himself a $23 million paycheck for negotiating this settlement.
Never let it be said that I'm down on anybody for getting paid a fair days pay for a fair days work, but isn't $23 million somewhat more than a fair days pay? Apparently not for folks like Lloyd Blankfein the CEO. And who knows better what Lloyd should be paid than, well than, Lloyd himself. Oh yes. The one who decides how much to pay the CEO is apparently ------the CEO.
To be fair, the compensation is mostly for negotiating the deal that left the bank pretty much free and clear because, after all, banks don't break the laws and cause people to lose their jobs and homes and savings, its the bankers that do that sort of stuff. But I guess its not the Goldman bankers who broke those laws either. That's because none of those folks got jailed or fined. Well it looks like the real culprits have been fined, namely the stockholders, although I can't quite figure out how they managed to do it.
But again, remember this point. No Banker was jailed and no banker was fined. If you or I had pulled off something that caused so much hardship to so many people, they'd figure out some way to send us to Gitmo, in other words, lock us up and throw the key away.
Monday, May 2, 2016
All Taxes Ain't The Same.
There was an article in yesterday's New York Times about state taxes and how rich people affect all the states. If the wealthiest person in any given state decides to move to a state with lower or no income taxes, how does that affect the home state's revenues? Here's what I know about it and I admit I don't have all the answers. When that richest guy moves out, likely everybody that stays will have to pay a little more in taxes. Now some taxes like income taxes and taxes on investments and estate taxes cost the wealthy more than the middleclass. But taxes like sales taxes cost the middleclass a heck of a lot more than the millionaire or billionaire.
So if a state has no income tax, but has a high sales tax instead, that's inviting to a wealthy person. But for a less fortunate person its a lot more costly to live there. For the wealthy its obvious, but for the poorer guy, not so much. See both the poorer and the rich guy have to eat, own a car, own or rent a home and so on, but with less income to provide those necessities, the poorer guy has to struggle a whole lot more than the rich guy. That's why rich guys like to move to the no income tax states and if the poorer guy knew this and could afford to give up his job and the cost of moving, he'd move to the lower sales tax states.
The thing is though, pretty much every state needs an average and equal amount per resident to operate. But if every resident moved to the states that better suited them then we'd have all wealthy and all poor states. The rich states would all do well, but the poor states would struggle and would outnumber the rich states about 45 to 5 or maybe 49.8 to .02. Plus those five would have a lot fewer residents. So while it would make it somewhat harder for the wealthy to buy elections in the 45 states, they'd have an easier time in the 5. Imagine a .02 state.
I think rich folks might want to consider that before they make the move and the poorer folks might want check the bankbook first. Now as for the retired folks, that's a whole different set of questions and answers. That's because a lot of retirees have a 'don't give two hoots attitude.'
So if a state has no income tax, but has a high sales tax instead, that's inviting to a wealthy person. But for a less fortunate person its a lot more costly to live there. For the wealthy its obvious, but for the poorer guy, not so much. See both the poorer and the rich guy have to eat, own a car, own or rent a home and so on, but with less income to provide those necessities, the poorer guy has to struggle a whole lot more than the rich guy. That's why rich guys like to move to the no income tax states and if the poorer guy knew this and could afford to give up his job and the cost of moving, he'd move to the lower sales tax states.
The thing is though, pretty much every state needs an average and equal amount per resident to operate. But if every resident moved to the states that better suited them then we'd have all wealthy and all poor states. The rich states would all do well, but the poor states would struggle and would outnumber the rich states about 45 to 5 or maybe 49.8 to .02. Plus those five would have a lot fewer residents. So while it would make it somewhat harder for the wealthy to buy elections in the 45 states, they'd have an easier time in the 5. Imagine a .02 state.
I think rich folks might want to consider that before they make the move and the poorer folks might want check the bankbook first. Now as for the retired folks, that's a whole different set of questions and answers. That's because a lot of retirees have a 'don't give two hoots attitude.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)