Since 9/11 we've spent a trillion dollars on homeland security. We make everyone take off their shoes and buy special three ounce bottles of shampoo to get through airport security, where people wait hours at the checkpoints. Yet a Somali teenager can just hop a fence, hide in the wheel well of a jet plane and fly to Hawaii.
Apparently, it is trivial to walk on to the tarmac and plant a bomb on a plane's landing gear. Apparently, anyone can walk up to a chemical tank, punch a whole in it and poison a river (check it out on Google Earth). Apparently, anyone can put an obstacle on a train track, cause a derailment and a major fire. Apparently, anyone can walk into a fertilizer plant, start a fire and destroy several city blocks. Apparently, anyone can buy a gun, go to a school and shoot dozens of kids. Apparently, anyone can intentionally wipe out on a freeway during a snowstorm and hurt dozens of people.
These incidents weren't acts of terrorism, per se. But all of them could be. There's an infinite number of ways to cause deadly mayhem. We spend billions trying to prevent terrorists from repeating the same old tricks on airplanes, while totally ignoring equally deadly threats that we know exist but have completely ignored because terrorists haven't tried them yet.
Is all this homeland security stuff just a CYA exercise for government officials and a trillion dollar payout to the security industrial complex for a false sense of safety? Are we just pasting a happy face over an insoluble, intractable problem and pretending we're actually able to do something about it?
Or is the threat of terrorism really that much less than the security industrial complex wants us to think?
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
The Piketty Plan
With his book, Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty has engendered a series of dueling op-eds in The New York Times (The Piketty Panic and The Piketty Phenomenon), the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The National Review, and so on.
The basic thrust of the book is that capital grows faster than the economy: examining historical data, Piketty found that return on capital is historically about 5%, while economies grow at less than half that rate. That means that the rich will get richer much faster than people who actually have to work for a living, because salaries are limited to the growth of the economy. It also means that, in today's global economy, middle-class and poor Americans will get poorer.
I haven't read the book, but I understood its core message back in the 1980s with two simple calculations: 50,000 x 20 = 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 x 0.05 = 50,000.
That is, if you saved $50,000 a year you could have a million bucks in 20 years -- not even counting compounded returns. If you get a modest return on a million bucks -- I picked 5% back then, which happens to be Piketty's historical average -- you could make enough to live on through investment returns alone: you can retire in 20 years. In reality you wind up with $2 or $3 million because you're earning returns on your investments the whole time, even considering the ups and downs in the markets.
Let's call this "The Piketty Plan."
I made this calculation during the Reagan administration when IRA accounts were being debated. Later, laws were passed to allow companies to set up 401Ks. I was wondering whether these accounts were a good deal, because they had three serious limitations: you weren't taxed when you put the money in, but when you took it out; you were limited to contributing a few thousand a year; and you couldn't get at that money until you were old (unless you paid the taxes, plus a stiff penalty).
Since I planned on being rich when I took the money out, the tax rate "feature" was just a dumb gimmick -- returns on some investments are taxed at a lower rate (zero for tax-free bonds). Also, during the Bush II administration taxes on capital gains were drastically lowered, but money withdrawn from IRAs is still taxed as regular income, at the much higher rate. Which means that since we avoided IRAs and 401Ks, investing like rich people, we pay much lower taxes on our investment income than if we had socked all our cash in those programs, which we still wouldn't be able to get at yet. Thank you, George Bush!
All these "investment" vehicles for the common man were pushed by the finance industry, who wanted to get their hands on more of our money. Company pensions disappeared almost overnight. Instead of investing in their employees' retirements, companies outsourced the management of retirement funds to Wall Street, which took hefty fees for "managing" everyone's retirement accounts.
Companies like Enron put their employees' 401Ks into their own company stock, with disastrous results. Other companies raided employee 401K funds, or played tricks with employee contributions, hanging on to the money for months before transferring it, "legally" stealing millions of dollars of interest from their employees. Over time, companies have cut back or stopped contributing to employee 401Ks, leaving most Americans up to their own devices -- and Social Security -- for retirement.
IRAs and 401Ks were sucker bets. Rich people would almost never use them: they diversified, put their money in T bills, stock, tax-free bonds, real estate, and so on. And it only got better for rich people during the Bush years, when taxes on capital gains were reduced to less than half the tax rate of people who do real work.
Because my wife and I both worked and had no kids, we were able to follow the Piketty Plan. We invested the way rich people do. We eschewed debt and all the trappings of wealth -- no boat, no vacation home, no ostentatious jewelry or fancy clothes. After the house we didn't buy anything we couldn't pay for outright. Then we paid off our mortgage years early. We never paid a nickel of interest on our credit cards. Still, we regularly bought new (never used) cars, took regular vacations, bought TVs and VCRs and computers and horses, and other Stuff. But we always saved one of our salaries (the "two can live as cheaply as one" trope). We were therefore able to retire in our forties, after putting up with corporate BS for 20 years.
The vast majority of middle-class Americans simply cannot do this, mostly because they have kids. They have to house and feed and clothe them, and pay for their daycare. They have to pay back student loans. They have to save for their kids' college. They bow to nattering children, social pressures and advertising, buying houses that are too big for them and too far from their jobs, and expensive cars that waste gas, and cell phones and cars for all the kids. They waste hours a day idling their cars in long lines waiting to drop off and pick up their kids from school and shuttling them to soccer practice and music lessons and the mall. They eat fattening fast-food and pizza instead of cooking their own food, because they have no time.
I mean no insult to these people: that's just the way life is here. Most people cannot do what my wife and I did, because the country needs people to have kids. And the fact is, our economy depends on that mass consumption. If everyone followed the Piketty Plan, the American economy would collapse. The problem is, that lifestyle never leaves any money for the future: it's all going into the pockets of the rich heirs who are selling us Stuff at Walmart, or the rich heirs who drill the oil that fills our gas tanks, or the rich Wall Street bankers who mortgage our houses and fondle the money in 401Ks and IRAs.
Six of the ten richest Americans got their wealth from daddy (the Waltons and Kochs). Most of the richest Americans are elderly and will be leaving their money to their heirs any day now. A lot of them are in the oil and pipeline business (I can't imagine why they're denying climate change...).
I don't have it in for rich people in general, because I'm one of them. But the kids of today deserve the same shot that I had. Fighting against them are the Kochs and Waltons and Adelsons, who are using their vast fortunes to buy laws and regulations that entrench inherited wealth, enhance capital formation and denigrate labor.
Everyone should have a shot at the Piketty Plan. Every kid in America should be able to start at the same point: a good education, college if they can hack it, and clear of debt, regardless of how rich their parents are. We should be working to secure the economic futures of all American kids, not just the heirs of the wealthy few.
The basic thrust of the book is that capital grows faster than the economy: examining historical data, Piketty found that return on capital is historically about 5%, while economies grow at less than half that rate. That means that the rich will get richer much faster than people who actually have to work for a living, because salaries are limited to the growth of the economy. It also means that, in today's global economy, middle-class and poor Americans will get poorer.
I haven't read the book, but I understood its core message back in the 1980s with two simple calculations: 50,000 x 20 = 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 x 0.05 = 50,000.
That is, if you saved $50,000 a year you could have a million bucks in 20 years -- not even counting compounded returns. If you get a modest return on a million bucks -- I picked 5% back then, which happens to be Piketty's historical average -- you could make enough to live on through investment returns alone: you can retire in 20 years. In reality you wind up with $2 or $3 million because you're earning returns on your investments the whole time, even considering the ups and downs in the markets.
Let's call this "The Piketty Plan."
I made this calculation during the Reagan administration when IRA accounts were being debated. Later, laws were passed to allow companies to set up 401Ks. I was wondering whether these accounts were a good deal, because they had three serious limitations: you weren't taxed when you put the money in, but when you took it out; you were limited to contributing a few thousand a year; and you couldn't get at that money until you were old (unless you paid the taxes, plus a stiff penalty).
Since I planned on being rich when I took the money out, the tax rate "feature" was just a dumb gimmick -- returns on some investments are taxed at a lower rate (zero for tax-free bonds). Also, during the Bush II administration taxes on capital gains were drastically lowered, but money withdrawn from IRAs is still taxed as regular income, at the much higher rate. Which means that since we avoided IRAs and 401Ks, investing like rich people, we pay much lower taxes on our investment income than if we had socked all our cash in those programs, which we still wouldn't be able to get at yet. Thank you, George Bush!
All these "investment" vehicles for the common man were pushed by the finance industry, who wanted to get their hands on more of our money. Company pensions disappeared almost overnight. Instead of investing in their employees' retirements, companies outsourced the management of retirement funds to Wall Street, which took hefty fees for "managing" everyone's retirement accounts.
Companies like Enron put their employees' 401Ks into their own company stock, with disastrous results. Other companies raided employee 401K funds, or played tricks with employee contributions, hanging on to the money for months before transferring it, "legally" stealing millions of dollars of interest from their employees. Over time, companies have cut back or stopped contributing to employee 401Ks, leaving most Americans up to their own devices -- and Social Security -- for retirement.
IRAs and 401Ks were sucker bets. Rich people would almost never use them: they diversified, put their money in T bills, stock, tax-free bonds, real estate, and so on. And it only got better for rich people during the Bush years, when taxes on capital gains were reduced to less than half the tax rate of people who do real work.
Because my wife and I both worked and had no kids, we were able to follow the Piketty Plan. We invested the way rich people do. We eschewed debt and all the trappings of wealth -- no boat, no vacation home, no ostentatious jewelry or fancy clothes. After the house we didn't buy anything we couldn't pay for outright. Then we paid off our mortgage years early. We never paid a nickel of interest on our credit cards. Still, we regularly bought new (never used) cars, took regular vacations, bought TVs and VCRs and computers and horses, and other Stuff. But we always saved one of our salaries (the "two can live as cheaply as one" trope). We were therefore able to retire in our forties, after putting up with corporate BS for 20 years.
The vast majority of middle-class Americans simply cannot do this, mostly because they have kids. They have to house and feed and clothe them, and pay for their daycare. They have to pay back student loans. They have to save for their kids' college. They bow to nattering children, social pressures and advertising, buying houses that are too big for them and too far from their jobs, and expensive cars that waste gas, and cell phones and cars for all the kids. They waste hours a day idling their cars in long lines waiting to drop off and pick up their kids from school and shuttling them to soccer practice and music lessons and the mall. They eat fattening fast-food and pizza instead of cooking their own food, because they have no time.
I mean no insult to these people: that's just the way life is here. Most people cannot do what my wife and I did, because the country needs people to have kids. And the fact is, our economy depends on that mass consumption. If everyone followed the Piketty Plan, the American economy would collapse. The problem is, that lifestyle never leaves any money for the future: it's all going into the pockets of the rich heirs who are selling us Stuff at Walmart, or the rich heirs who drill the oil that fills our gas tanks, or the rich Wall Street bankers who mortgage our houses and fondle the money in 401Ks and IRAs.
Six of the ten richest Americans got their wealth from daddy (the Waltons and Kochs). Most of the richest Americans are elderly and will be leaving their money to their heirs any day now. A lot of them are in the oil and pipeline business (I can't imagine why they're denying climate change...).
I don't have it in for rich people in general, because I'm one of them. But the kids of today deserve the same shot that I had. Fighting against them are the Kochs and Waltons and Adelsons, who are using their vast fortunes to buy laws and regulations that entrench inherited wealth, enhance capital formation and denigrate labor.
Everyone should have a shot at the Piketty Plan. Every kid in America should be able to start at the same point: a good education, college if they can hack it, and clear of debt, regardless of how rich their parents are. We should be working to secure the economic futures of all American kids, not just the heirs of the wealthy few.
Getting Behind the ACA
It looks like Democrats are taking my advice and getting behind the ACA. Check out this ad from "imperiled" Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska.
The Times has a piece on how more Democrats are jumping on board with the ACA.
The Times has a piece on how more Democrats are jumping on board with the ACA.
Real Men!
I look at the photo below and have to wonder...just how much of an inferiority complex to conservatives have?
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Cliven Bundy, Revealed
Why is it that so many people who claim to be real Americans and true patriots, who clothe themselves in the American flag and spend their every waking moment railing against the injustices of big government, just turn out to be crooks and racists?I'm talking about Cliven Bundy, the darling of Sean Hannity. In an interview with the New York Times Bundy had the following to say:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.If Bundy doesn't believe that the US government doesn't exist, why is he hiding behind the US flag? As Jon Stewart pointed out in last night's episode of The Daily Show, the Founding Fathers would approve of going after Bundy with armed federal agents for non-payment of grazing fees: they sent 13,000 militiamen against farmers who failed to pay excise taxes on whiskey they distilled during the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Bundy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thousands of ranchers pay fees to graze their cattle on federal land in the West, including Glenn Beck. Even people like Raymond Yowell, a Shoshone Indian, can't skip out on the fees, according to Fox News. If anyone has a legitimate claim to "ancestral grazing rights" it's Yowell, whose ancestors made treaties with the federal government over land use more than a century and a half ago. Where was Bundy when the BLM took Yowell's cattle? And I wonder, in light of what Bundy said about "the Negro," what he would say about Yowell's people?
Cliven Bundy is just a thief and a racist. He's using the guise of patriotism to clothe his greed in the finery of "principle" and his racism with the magic words of "states rights."
I also noticed that Bundy's got a lot of guys just sitting around on his ranch with nothing to do buy play with their guns. Don't they have jobs? Or can they afford to diddle away the days playing rebel because they're on government assistance? Does Bundy, who's 67, draw Social Security checks?
But since they're white, I guess it's all good.
Republican Victory in 2014?
The recent New York Times Kaiser Family Foundation Poll illustrates that the Republican "victory" seven months ahead of the 2014 elections may be a bit premature. It looks like Mark Pryor isn't as much on the hot seat anymore. And Kay Hagan is holding her own in North Carolina. As expected, Mitch McConnell is on the hot seat in Kentucky and it will be interesting to see if this race stays as deadlocked into the fall.
So, why is this happening? I thought that the GOP was going to be able to cruise to victory on the evils of Obamacare. The numbers from Arkansas and Kentucky, where two Democratic governors embraced Medicaid expansion, say otherwise. Kentucky also ran its own exchange which did very, very well so if I were ol' Mitchie, I'd lay off the anti-Obamacare talk. Does he (and other Republicans, for that matter) really want to stand for taking away people's health care?
The key for the Democrats, as Dan Balz notes, is to get the same level of turnout in a presidential year. It's helpful that the president's approval ratings are on the rise to the mid 40s from the lower 40s where they have been stuck for quite some time. But his good news isn't getting across and that needs to happen ASAP. Oddly, he seems to be doing a better job with the ACA than with the economy.
Democrats need to take heart that some of the worst nightmares for the Republicans are coming true. The ACA is working and will help the Democratic vote in the tossup states. The economy is growing at a 3 percent rate. Even if just these two issues coalesce in November, nothing will change in the Senate and the Democrats may surprise a few people in the House.
So, why is this happening? I thought that the GOP was going to be able to cruise to victory on the evils of Obamacare. The numbers from Arkansas and Kentucky, where two Democratic governors embraced Medicaid expansion, say otherwise. Kentucky also ran its own exchange which did very, very well so if I were ol' Mitchie, I'd lay off the anti-Obamacare talk. Does he (and other Republicans, for that matter) really want to stand for taking away people's health care?
The key for the Democrats, as Dan Balz notes, is to get the same level of turnout in a presidential year. It's helpful that the president's approval ratings are on the rise to the mid 40s from the lower 40s where they have been stuck for quite some time. But his good news isn't getting across and that needs to happen ASAP. Oddly, he seems to be doing a better job with the ACA than with the economy.
Democrats need to take heart that some of the worst nightmares for the Republicans are coming true. The ACA is working and will help the Democratic vote in the tossup states. The economy is growing at a 3 percent rate. Even if just these two issues coalesce in November, nothing will change in the Senate and the Democrats may surprise a few people in the House.
Thinking Beyond Keystone
The anti-Keystone people need to think beyond the TransCanada pipeline they are so vehemently against. Take a look at this graphic from a recent piece in the Times. Honestly, what Keystone would represent in terms of carbon emissions is a sliver compared to everything else. So, what does this mean and what is being done about it?
Experts say that to make a serious dent in American carbon emissions, Mr. Obama’s administration would have to enact policies that would force the two most polluting sectors of the nation’s economy — cars and coal plants — to slash their emissions. Mr. Obama has already signed a United Nations accord pledging that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050; there is simply no way to hit those targets, experts say, other than by going after cars and coal. And he then would have to make the case to other nations that the United States had taken action — and that they must, too.
He is making some headway on those fronts.
In his first term, Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. used the authority of the Clean Air Act to issue tough new vehicle fuel-economy standards of 54.5 miles a gallon by 2025. The regulations forced automakers to build fleets of fuel-sippers, and according to the E.P.A. they will lead to a cut of about 180 million tons of carbon a year by 2020, rising to 580 million tons by 2030 and 1.1 billion tons annually by 2050.
The agency is now drafting a regulation, expected in June, to slash pollution from existing coal-fired power plants. Details aren’t yet available, but experts estimate that it will cut an average of 200 million to 500 million tons of carbon emissions annually within a decade. And the E.P.A. estimated that regulations on building and appliance efficiency have cut or prevented the annual emission of 350 million tons of carbon. That means the combined impact of the current and forthcoming E.P.A. regulations could lead to cuts of over one billion tons of emissions annually.
So, if the anti-Keystone people really want to make a dent in carbon emissions, they should support and help the president to reach his goal. I'm very tired of liberals who say the president has done nothing for the environment. His actions speak for themselves.
Experts say that to make a serious dent in American carbon emissions, Mr. Obama’s administration would have to enact policies that would force the two most polluting sectors of the nation’s economy — cars and coal plants — to slash their emissions. Mr. Obama has already signed a United Nations accord pledging that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050; there is simply no way to hit those targets, experts say, other than by going after cars and coal. And he then would have to make the case to other nations that the United States had taken action — and that they must, too.
He is making some headway on those fronts.
In his first term, Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. used the authority of the Clean Air Act to issue tough new vehicle fuel-economy standards of 54.5 miles a gallon by 2025. The regulations forced automakers to build fleets of fuel-sippers, and according to the E.P.A. they will lead to a cut of about 180 million tons of carbon a year by 2020, rising to 580 million tons by 2030 and 1.1 billion tons annually by 2050.
The agency is now drafting a regulation, expected in June, to slash pollution from existing coal-fired power plants. Details aren’t yet available, but experts estimate that it will cut an average of 200 million to 500 million tons of carbon emissions annually within a decade. And the E.P.A. estimated that regulations on building and appliance efficiency have cut or prevented the annual emission of 350 million tons of carbon. That means the combined impact of the current and forthcoming E.P.A. regulations could lead to cuts of over one billion tons of emissions annually.
So, if the anti-Keystone people really want to make a dent in carbon emissions, they should support and help the president to reach his goal. I'm very tired of liberals who say the president has done nothing for the environment. His actions speak for themselves.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The Heart and Soul of Russia
I always have a copy of Roberts and Westad's History of the World handy whenever I need it. It's a great source for a basic overview of...well...everything in human history. I was thumbing through it yesterday for some information on the crusades when I came across this on page 378.
Half a century or so after the legendary Rurik, Rus was a reality: a sort of river-federation centered on Kiev and linking the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was pagan, but when civilization and Christianity came to it, it would be because of the easy access to Byzantium which water gave to the young principality, which was first designated as Rus in 945. Its unity was still very loose. An incoherent structure was made even less rigid by the Vikings adoption of Slav principle which divided an inheritance. Rus princes tended to move around rulers among the centres of the principality, of which Kiev and Novgorod were the main ones. Nevertheless, the family of Kiev became the most important.
This summarizes why Ukraine is so vital to Russian interests. It is their origin point as a culture and the very foundation of their identity in the world. Beyond mere economic reasons, it is their heart and soul and they will fight for as much of it as possible.
Half a century or so after the legendary Rurik, Rus was a reality: a sort of river-federation centered on Kiev and linking the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was pagan, but when civilization and Christianity came to it, it would be because of the easy access to Byzantium which water gave to the young principality, which was first designated as Rus in 945. Its unity was still very loose. An incoherent structure was made even less rigid by the Vikings adoption of Slav principle which divided an inheritance. Rus princes tended to move around rulers among the centres of the principality, of which Kiev and Novgorod were the main ones. Nevertheless, the family of Kiev became the most important.
This summarizes why Ukraine is so vital to Russian interests. It is their origin point as a culture and the very foundation of their identity in the world. Beyond mere economic reasons, it is their heart and soul and they will fight for as much of it as possible.
Humanism From Stephen Fry
Some interesting ideas here but is he really anti-God or is he anti-organized religion? Humanists seem to always pick the wrong enemy...
The NRA Finally Backs Off
It looks as though the NRA is finally backing off domestic abusers right to carry guns. Whew! I, for one, am very relieved that people that beat the shit out of their wives. But why?
Bassett and Wilkie speculate that the change may in part be a reaction to the involvement of a former NRA official, Richard D’Alauro, in a domestic abuse case; a judge ordered the seizure of all 39 of D’Alauro’s innocent guns. Needless to say, the NRA had no comment on that. Bassett and Wilkie also cite polling that shows 80 percent of respondents favor judges removing weapons from those involved in domestic violence, but we’re not terribly persuaded that the NRA would find that very convincing, considering that similar percentages of Americans support universal background checks.
Because if affected them personally. Hmm...:)
Bassett and Wilkie speculate that the change may in part be a reaction to the involvement of a former NRA official, Richard D’Alauro, in a domestic abuse case; a judge ordered the seizure of all 39 of D’Alauro’s innocent guns. Needless to say, the NRA had no comment on that. Bassett and Wilkie also cite polling that shows 80 percent of respondents favor judges removing weapons from those involved in domestic violence, but we’re not terribly persuaded that the NRA would find that very convincing, considering that similar percentages of Americans support universal background checks.
Because if affected them personally. Hmm...:)
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
John Paul Stevens v The Gun Cult
Well, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens went and done did it. He has taken on the Gun Cult. Here is how he would change the 2nd Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
Holy SHEEEIT! Look out!!! Here comes that boiling pit of sewage frothed with a fresh set of bowels blown!!!
Props out to him for having the guts to go that far and shine a spotlight on the people in this country who have very serious control and authority issues. The link above should also be noted for this passage.
He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRA’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Completely agree. I would not go as far as to ban private ownership of guns as Stevens suggests but I do think it is way past time in allowing the assholes of the Gun Cult free reign on the 2nd Amendment. Just like Republican Jesus believers, they are not the sole interpreter of the Constitution simply because they act like the biggest dicks.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
Holy SHEEEIT! Look out!!! Here comes that boiling pit of sewage frothed with a fresh set of bowels blown!!!
Props out to him for having the guts to go that far and shine a spotlight on the people in this country who have very serious control and authority issues. The link above should also be noted for this passage.
He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRA’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Completely agree. I would not go as far as to ban private ownership of guns as Stevens suggests but I do think it is way past time in allowing the assholes of the Gun Cult free reign on the 2nd Amendment. Just like Republican Jesus believers, they are not the sole interpreter of the Constitution simply because they act like the biggest dicks.
We All End Up In The Same Place
There has been some talk over the years that the reason I talk so much about inequality is that I am really envious of the wealthy. Some of it is clearly projection by those who believe in the "haves and soon to haves" lie. There's also the adolescent chiding angle as well.
The photo below sums up exactly how I feel about money and there is honestly no need to comment on it further.
The photo below sums up exactly how I feel about money and there is honestly no need to comment on it further.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The President's Victory Lap
Last week, the president announced that 8 million people had enrolled in the online exchange during the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act. Juxtaposed with the CBO's data which details how the ACA will be $100 billion dollars lower than expected and that 35 percent of the enrollees are under 35 this is remarkably good news that no one thought was possible after the botched roll out of the web site.
So, it's understandable that the president took a victory lap and wondered, “I find it strange that the Republican position on this law is still stuck in the same place that it has always been. They still can’t bring themselves to admit that the Affordable Care Act is working. They said nobody would sign up; they were wrong about that. They said it would be unaffordable for the country; they were wrong about that.”
Well, Mr. President, it's because they are 12 year old boys who can't stand to be wrong. Worse for them, we are starting to see stories like this.
And even bolder ones like this.
Of course, these are the same folks who predicted just a few weeks ago that the Senate would fall to the GOP so take it all with a boulder of salt. It's going to all depend who the candidates are and we don't know that yet. If the GOP can't dampen the far right fervor of the base that decides the candidates in the primaries, they will lose their chances at the Senate.
In addition, I think there has been sufficient warning given to the Democrats to use the same get out the vote mechanisms that helped the president win in 2012. Combine this with the realities of millions of newly insured people who will vote this fall and all the doom predicted for the Democrats washes away. I think it's time to ask a serious question of the Republicans.
Are they really going to run on a platform of taking away people's health care?
So, it's understandable that the president took a victory lap and wondered, “I find it strange that the Republican position on this law is still stuck in the same place that it has always been. They still can’t bring themselves to admit that the Affordable Care Act is working. They said nobody would sign up; they were wrong about that. They said it would be unaffordable for the country; they were wrong about that.”
Well, Mr. President, it's because they are 12 year old boys who can't stand to be wrong. Worse for them, we are starting to see stories like this.
And even bolder ones like this.
Of course, these are the same folks who predicted just a few weeks ago that the Senate would fall to the GOP so take it all with a boulder of salt. It's going to all depend who the candidates are and we don't know that yet. If the GOP can't dampen the far right fervor of the base that decides the candidates in the primaries, they will lose their chances at the Senate.
In addition, I think there has been sufficient warning given to the Democrats to use the same get out the vote mechanisms that helped the president win in 2012. Combine this with the realities of millions of newly insured people who will vote this fall and all the doom predicted for the Democrats washes away. I think it's time to ask a serious question of the Republicans.
Are they really going to run on a platform of taking away people's health care?
Common Core Kerfuffle
Only conservatives could take voluntary guidelines passed by the Governor's Association with plenty of Republican support and turn it into the federal government coming to gin' ya! Sadly, that's just what they've done with Common Core State Standards for public schools and this link clears up all the absolute fucking lies that are being told about this policy.
I don't get it. For years, all we here about is how our schools are failing and the states and local school districts (not the federal government) need to set better and more rigorous guidelines for students. Common Core does that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All they can do is criticize. It's second nature to them now. And they've gotten themselves so hysterical over anyone else solving problems better than they can that there first reaction is to hate, vilify, and appeal to fear.
I don't get it. For years, all we here about is how our schools are failing and the states and local school districts (not the federal government) need to set better and more rigorous guidelines for students. Common Core does that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All they can do is criticize. It's second nature to them now. And they've gotten themselves so hysterical over anyone else solving problems better than they can that there first reaction is to hate, vilify, and appeal to fear.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
There God Dwells Among Men
Take a look at the photo below.
Compelling, isn't it?
This actually a sculpture at St. Alban's Episcopal, in Davidson, N.C titled "Jesus the Homeless." It's caused quite a bit of controversy, particularly due to the fact that St. Alban's is in such an affluent area and people either think it's a real person scumming up their town or they believe in Republican Jesus who worshiped money.
I think it sums up this verse perfectly..
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Compelling, isn't it?
This actually a sculpture at St. Alban's Episcopal, in Davidson, N.C titled "Jesus the Homeless." It's caused quite a bit of controversy, particularly due to the fact that St. Alban's is in such an affluent area and people either think it's a real person scumming up their town or they believe in Republican Jesus who worshiped money.
I think it sums up this verse perfectly..
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Stronger Capital Required
Liberals can't seem to let go of the "Obama is really a corportist" meme just in the same way that conservatives can't let go of the "Obama is a commie" meme. Neither are right, of course, which means the president is doing exactly what he should be doing.
Yet this recent story on FDIC and the Treasury Department's new rule on capital should torpedo the idea that the president is secretly doing the bidding of our financial sector.
Regulators are acting to require U.S. banks to build a sturdier financial base to lessen the risk that they could collapse and cause a global meltdown. The eight biggest banks will have to meet stricter measures for holding capital – money that provides a cushion against unexpected losses – under a rule that regulators are adopting Tuesday.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency voted to require those banks to raise their minimum ratio of capital to loans to 5 percent from the current 3 percent. The Federal Reserve will vote at a public meeting later Tuesday. The banks’ deposit-holding subsidiaries will have to achieve a ratio of 6 percent. Because the deposits are insured by the government, the subsidiaries are subject to a stricter ratio requirement.
The new regulation won't take effect until 2018 but it is progress. More importantly, it is exactly what I wanted to see in terms of a return to Glass Steagal-type regulation on the financial sector. The banks should not be gambling with my fucking money. Period.
Yet this recent story on FDIC and the Treasury Department's new rule on capital should torpedo the idea that the president is secretly doing the bidding of our financial sector.
Regulators are acting to require U.S. banks to build a sturdier financial base to lessen the risk that they could collapse and cause a global meltdown. The eight biggest banks will have to meet stricter measures for holding capital – money that provides a cushion against unexpected losses – under a rule that regulators are adopting Tuesday.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency voted to require those banks to raise their minimum ratio of capital to loans to 5 percent from the current 3 percent. The Federal Reserve will vote at a public meeting later Tuesday. The banks’ deposit-holding subsidiaries will have to achieve a ratio of 6 percent. Because the deposits are insured by the government, the subsidiaries are subject to a stricter ratio requirement.
The new regulation won't take effect until 2018 but it is progress. More importantly, it is exactly what I wanted to see in terms of a return to Glass Steagal-type regulation on the financial sector. The banks should not be gambling with my fucking money. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)