President Obama's statement on the debt ceiling, which I posted yesterday, says quite a bit about the guy. First, it demonstrates that he's not spend crazy. The fact he knows that this is large problem should give people around the country, regardless of their political stripe, hope.
Second, the statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. One has to look at why he said it and what happened afterwards. He said it at a time when President Bush was essentially not vetoing a single bill from Congress. Clearly, he has the foreknowledge to see that this was going to create a problem. And it has.
The problems we have today were caused by the actions of the GOP led Congress and President Bush. Contrary to the catechisms of the anti spending hysterics, the crash of 2008 gave us only one, albeit pretty crappy, option: bail out/stimulus. Without both, the world economy would have collapsed. The world in 2006 was a much different place than it is in 2011.
My point in all of this was to show that people (especially true believers) have to think outside of the box when seeing a statement like this. In other words, critically think about it. In many ways, this illustrates what the president told Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl a few months back. He said that by the time something gets to his desk, it's so FUBAR (my words, not his:)) that every solution really stinks. So which do you want to have-vomit or diarrhea?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Width of Vision
Let's illustrate what I mean by "true believer." Check out this quote:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem.
No, this wasn't a Tea Partier that said this. It was then Senator Barack Obama who said it back in 2006. So, what do you think? Be honest.
My analysis tomorrow.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem.
No, this wasn't a Tea Partier that said this. It was then Senator Barack Obama who said it back in 2006. So, what do you think? Be honest.
My analysis tomorrow.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
True Believers
A while back, I renounced using the term "Cult" to describe the conservative movement in this country. I did so because my neighbor informed me that Barack Obama was the anti-Christ and had the number of the beast tattooed on a hidden skin flap on his arm. This neighbor, incidentally, is now stockpiling water for the coming apocalypse. How long has the world been ending again?
But I was wrong for a whole host of other reasons regarding my use of the word "Cult" to describe the current form of the GOP. For example, being in a cult implies small numbers. That's not true at all. The conservative movement is quite large and, more or less, dictates the policy of this country. This happens when they are in power or not. Why? Because the Democrats are, for the most part, incompetent when it comes to dealing with them.
Give the Dems a break, though, because there's not much they can do.Because when it comes to the conservative base of this country, one has to take into account that they are true believers. Essentially, the only thing cult like about them is summed up simply in one word: Faith. And, man oh man, do they have it in abundance. As Kevin Smith wisely wrote, "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief."
On the surface, you notice this right away. Their perceptual framework sees everyone as being true believers. I, along with many liberals/Democrats/progressives, are accused daily of having religious fervor when it comes to our ideology. I am constantly taken aback by this because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm certain that nearly everyone else on the left is as well. I have my ideas regarding religion and morality but beliefs? Nope. Beliefs about politics? Economics? Sociology? Psychology? History?
Nope. No beliefs. I deal with what actually happened and what actually works. Aside from a few micro examples here and there, none of the ideas that conservatives offer have ever worked. Nearly all of them have actually made things worse in our country on a number of levels. It's why we are at the position we are in today. The true belief of deregulation...the true belief of realism in the international arena...the true belief of
All this has dawned on me over the course of the last six years that I have been friendly with an evangelical minister at the gym where I work out. I've written about him before. He takes his religious beliefs and uses that framework as his basis for politics. Michelle Bachmann, for example, is his choice for president in 2012. Why? Because like him he is a believer and she can be trusted. Never mind that she is completely incapable of being president. She believes and that's all that is needed. Yet, look at the Democrats. You won't catch the Democrats rallying behind Dennis Kucinich or Hank Johnson any time soon.
Another way to notice what I am talking about is how the true believers on the right react to political discussions. I make it a point to not attack people personally yet they take everything personally. Why? It's their faith and they are clearly insecure about it. What other reason would they have for insisting upon the fact that they are right about everything? So, they respond in kind with personal attacks because their faith is weak. I've seen many insults directed towards me on this blog and during my time over at Kevin's blog. As time has gone on, these attacks bother me less and less. Some of you have wondered politely if I like being abused. Not true at all. It's because I don't have a true believer mind set so the personal doesn't really enter into it.
Likely, the right will never get this. I know that the chances of changing their perception on this are about as likely as a conservative admitting that tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. But true believers it is, folks, and not a cult. We see it in how they look at the Constitution, the Bible, the ever increasing control of power and money in this country by the wealthy, the focused effort to strip average Americans of power, economics, cultural diversity, education, climate change, and health care. Check out any of Bill Whittle's videos (links of which have been posted lately in comments) for excellent illustrations how true believers practice their faith.
All of this is deeply frustrating to me because their beliefs put them on the wrong side of most issues...fighting angrily against what would actually benefit them in the long run and give them more freedom. Even saying something like this evokes shrieks and howls of protests. How dare I know what is best for them? How dare I this...how dare I that....blah blah blah...all of these protestations are also illustrative of how ingrained their belief is and how insecure they are about it.
As I have said recently, managing the fantasies of the true believers is a waste of time. I'm more or less finished with it. I'm hoping that other people in the country--either in the media or ordinary citizens like me--cease paying attention to people who think, for example, that is absolutely nothing wrong with less people having more and more money every day. You're not going to see me coddling the worship of CEOs any longer, pampering the auto debunk of climate change skeptics, and gently reminding people that the Democratic Party won't lead us to this:
Paranoid Fantasy. Absolute Lie.
True believers, get some fucking ideas...new ones would be nice...and lose the back and forth between 8 year old boy temper tantrums and adolescent power fantasies. Start being part of the solution and cease being part of the problem. I know it's a lot to ask but you are going to have to change your beliefs. Not only have they damaged, are damaging, and will damage this country but they are holding us back from taking an action vital to our future.
Moving Forward.
But I was wrong for a whole host of other reasons regarding my use of the word "Cult" to describe the current form of the GOP. For example, being in a cult implies small numbers. That's not true at all. The conservative movement is quite large and, more or less, dictates the policy of this country. This happens when they are in power or not. Why? Because the Democrats are, for the most part, incompetent when it comes to dealing with them.
Give the Dems a break, though, because there's not much they can do.Because when it comes to the conservative base of this country, one has to take into account that they are true believers. Essentially, the only thing cult like about them is summed up simply in one word: Faith. And, man oh man, do they have it in abundance. As Kevin Smith wisely wrote, "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief."
On the surface, you notice this right away. Their perceptual framework sees everyone as being true believers. I, along with many liberals/Democrats/progressives, are accused daily of having religious fervor when it comes to our ideology. I am constantly taken aback by this because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm certain that nearly everyone else on the left is as well. I have my ideas regarding religion and morality but beliefs? Nope. Beliefs about politics? Economics? Sociology? Psychology? History?
Nope. No beliefs. I deal with what actually happened and what actually works. Aside from a few micro examples here and there, none of the ideas that conservatives offer have ever worked. Nearly all of them have actually made things worse in our country on a number of levels. It's why we are at the position we are in today. The true belief of deregulation...the true belief of realism in the international arena...the true belief of
All this has dawned on me over the course of the last six years that I have been friendly with an evangelical minister at the gym where I work out. I've written about him before. He takes his religious beliefs and uses that framework as his basis for politics. Michelle Bachmann, for example, is his choice for president in 2012. Why? Because like him he is a believer and she can be trusted. Never mind that she is completely incapable of being president. She believes and that's all that is needed. Yet, look at the Democrats. You won't catch the Democrats rallying behind Dennis Kucinich or Hank Johnson any time soon.
Another way to notice what I am talking about is how the true believers on the right react to political discussions. I make it a point to not attack people personally yet they take everything personally. Why? It's their faith and they are clearly insecure about it. What other reason would they have for insisting upon the fact that they are right about everything? So, they respond in kind with personal attacks because their faith is weak. I've seen many insults directed towards me on this blog and during my time over at Kevin's blog. As time has gone on, these attacks bother me less and less. Some of you have wondered politely if I like being abused. Not true at all. It's because I don't have a true believer mind set so the personal doesn't really enter into it.
Likely, the right will never get this. I know that the chances of changing their perception on this are about as likely as a conservative admitting that tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. But true believers it is, folks, and not a cult. We see it in how they look at the Constitution, the Bible, the ever increasing control of power and money in this country by the wealthy, the focused effort to strip average Americans of power, economics, cultural diversity, education, climate change, and health care. Check out any of Bill Whittle's videos (links of which have been posted lately in comments) for excellent illustrations how true believers practice their faith.
All of this is deeply frustrating to me because their beliefs put them on the wrong side of most issues...fighting angrily against what would actually benefit them in the long run and give them more freedom. Even saying something like this evokes shrieks and howls of protests. How dare I know what is best for them? How dare I this...how dare I that....blah blah blah...all of these protestations are also illustrative of how ingrained their belief is and how insecure they are about it.
As I have said recently, managing the fantasies of the true believers is a waste of time. I'm more or less finished with it. I'm hoping that other people in the country--either in the media or ordinary citizens like me--cease paying attention to people who think, for example, that is absolutely nothing wrong with less people having more and more money every day. You're not going to see me coddling the worship of CEOs any longer, pampering the auto debunk of climate change skeptics, and gently reminding people that the Democratic Party won't lead us to this:
Paranoid Fantasy. Absolute Lie.
True believers, get some fucking ideas...new ones would be nice...and lose the back and forth between 8 year old boy temper tantrums and adolescent power fantasies. Start being part of the solution and cease being part of the problem. I know it's a lot to ask but you are going to have to change your beliefs. Not only have they damaged, are damaging, and will damage this country but they are holding us back from taking an action vital to our future.
Moving Forward.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Our Little Plutocracy
A fine example of where we could be headed if we don't wake up. Class war, indeed. But are we too apathetic and/or deeply ingrained in the belief that we'll make it just like Charlie Sheen and Lloyd Blankfein? Here's to hoping not.
Friday, April 08, 2011
An Illustrative Slice
The following question was asked of me recently in comments.
How do you manage to get such a undeservedly high opinion of your own judgement?
In order to answer this one, let's take a look at the recent fight over the budget. As I am writing this, it seems like the sticking point is Planned Parenthood. Let's take a look at what each side has to say about it.
The Democrats say that the GOP is holding out so they can prevent poor women from getting cancer screenings.
It's a spin filled way to make a point and takes a page from the fear mongering play book. But it is technically true. The GOP wants to defund Planned Parenthood and PP does provide health care for people with lower incomes.
The GOP says that the Democrats want to use taxpayer money to fund abortions.
Not only is this statement filled with fear mongering, it's also inaccurate. They Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions. But, being the scorched earth paranoids that they are, the GOP want Planned Parenthood destroyed.
As you can see, it doesn't take a genius to make a judgement call on which of the two parties lives in a fantasy land. We (as in our entire country) could move forward if we didn't have to spend time managing their fantasies.
This would be one of the primary reasons I have this blog: to call them on their bullshit. Democrats have bullshit too but it's not anywhere at the level of the GOP these days. Liberals, by their very nature, are more reflective. I certainly am. I think Dennis Kucinich is naive, nuts and completely full of shit. Hank Johnson is really off his rocker and Barney Frank is a dick. Most of the left think so as well. These are all opinions, of course, but they honestly are true. Yet I would these same words to describe Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Other than a stray comment here or there (juris would be one, although he is not a conservative), conservatives won't rip those two or anyone else (see: Donald Trump of late) who say crazy shit because they know that's how they appeal to their base.
Essentially, liberals have better judgement than conservatives, generally speaking, because of the very meanings of each word.
LIBERAL: Open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
CONSERVATIVE:a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; conformist. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
People that are that reluctant to change, admit when they are wrong, refuse to consider new ideas, and protect their own regardless of how batty they are demonstrate a clear lack of good judgment.
In other words, it's that my judgment is perfect. It's that their judgment, by their very nature, is so incredibly bad.
How do you manage to get such a undeservedly high opinion of your own judgement?
In order to answer this one, let's take a look at the recent fight over the budget. As I am writing this, it seems like the sticking point is Planned Parenthood. Let's take a look at what each side has to say about it.
The Democrats say that the GOP is holding out so they can prevent poor women from getting cancer screenings.
It's a spin filled way to make a point and takes a page from the fear mongering play book. But it is technically true. The GOP wants to defund Planned Parenthood and PP does provide health care for people with lower incomes.
The GOP says that the Democrats want to use taxpayer money to fund abortions.
Not only is this statement filled with fear mongering, it's also inaccurate. They Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions. But, being the scorched earth paranoids that they are, the GOP want Planned Parenthood destroyed.
As you can see, it doesn't take a genius to make a judgement call on which of the two parties lives in a fantasy land. We (as in our entire country) could move forward if we didn't have to spend time managing their fantasies.
This would be one of the primary reasons I have this blog: to call them on their bullshit. Democrats have bullshit too but it's not anywhere at the level of the GOP these days. Liberals, by their very nature, are more reflective. I certainly am. I think Dennis Kucinich is naive, nuts and completely full of shit. Hank Johnson is really off his rocker and Barney Frank is a dick. Most of the left think so as well. These are all opinions, of course, but they honestly are true. Yet I would these same words to describe Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Other than a stray comment here or there (juris would be one, although he is not a conservative), conservatives won't rip those two or anyone else (see: Donald Trump of late) who say crazy shit because they know that's how they appeal to their base.
Essentially, liberals have better judgement than conservatives, generally speaking, because of the very meanings of each word.
LIBERAL: Open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
CONSERVATIVE:a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; conformist. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
People that are that reluctant to change, admit when they are wrong, refuse to consider new ideas, and protect their own regardless of how batty they are demonstrate a clear lack of good judgment.
In other words, it's that my judgment is perfect. It's that their judgment, by their very nature, is so incredibly bad.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Three For Thursday
Wisconsin Election
This would be an example of something that I "won" but really lost. Am I the only one that feels sorry for both candidates? What a mess. Let the recount dance begin...again....barf. There's no victory in this for anyone and I'm really beginning to question the election of judges. Shouldn't they just be appointed like they are at the federal level? The whole thing has become so partisan with both sides screaming activism. I am happy that voter turnout was high, though. It needs to stay that way but I doubt it will considering our culture can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. Speaking of which...
Happy Trails, Glenn
Glenn Beck and Fox News have parted ways. His show will end at the conclusion of this year. I've received some emails and a few posts in comments wondering what I thought so I thought I'd at least mention it. First of all, it was only a matter of time. The same thing happened to Rush and then he went back into his niche on radio. That's where Glenn will be and he will do quite well. Second, I think we may have seen the zenith of short wave radio fantasy peddlers. They'll still have their core audiences and will make zillions of dollars off of fear, anger and hate but it's not going to be as mainstream anymore. After all, you can only say the country is going to be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage by evil communists for so long. When it doesn't happen, then what do you say? It works in the right wing blogsphere (cue the photos of skulls) with so many true believers there but not in the more widespread media where the public, thankfully, isn't that moronic.
An interesting tandem to this is the decline of Sarah Palin. As soon as the "liberal" media stopped covering her, she suddenly didn't seem to matter much anymore. Maybe she should do another interview with Katie Couric to rile up the base again.
Ryan's Road Map
Paul Ryan has some good ideas in his long term plan. Restructuring Social Security and Medicare certainly has to happen. As is always the case with folks like him, he didn't stop to think and realize that the under 55 crowd, if they are paying more for health care, probably won't be much of a revenue generator for the government. Essentially, his ideas are very one sided and they will likely make our deficit worse. Surprise, surprise!
I have noticed of late that every word from the right has been about spending cuts. Honestly, it's become such an obsession that I doubt they are thinking clearly at all. They have to confront the revenue question seriously. We are wasting too much time managing their anti tax fantasies. Of course, that's what you get when the John Birch society takes over your party. When they start to talk about revenue and honest cuts in defense, I'll start to take them more seriously. But for right now, they are not thinking rationally.
This would be an example of something that I "won" but really lost. Am I the only one that feels sorry for both candidates? What a mess. Let the recount dance begin...again....barf. There's no victory in this for anyone and I'm really beginning to question the election of judges. Shouldn't they just be appointed like they are at the federal level? The whole thing has become so partisan with both sides screaming activism. I am happy that voter turnout was high, though. It needs to stay that way but I doubt it will considering our culture can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. Speaking of which...
Happy Trails, Glenn
Glenn Beck and Fox News have parted ways. His show will end at the conclusion of this year. I've received some emails and a few posts in comments wondering what I thought so I thought I'd at least mention it. First of all, it was only a matter of time. The same thing happened to Rush and then he went back into his niche on radio. That's where Glenn will be and he will do quite well. Second, I think we may have seen the zenith of short wave radio fantasy peddlers. They'll still have their core audiences and will make zillions of dollars off of fear, anger and hate but it's not going to be as mainstream anymore. After all, you can only say the country is going to be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage by evil communists for so long. When it doesn't happen, then what do you say? It works in the right wing blogsphere (cue the photos of skulls) with so many true believers there but not in the more widespread media where the public, thankfully, isn't that moronic.
An interesting tandem to this is the decline of Sarah Palin. As soon as the "liberal" media stopped covering her, she suddenly didn't seem to matter much anymore. Maybe she should do another interview with Katie Couric to rile up the base again.
Ryan's Road Map
Paul Ryan has some good ideas in his long term plan. Restructuring Social Security and Medicare certainly has to happen. As is always the case with folks like him, he didn't stop to think and realize that the under 55 crowd, if they are paying more for health care, probably won't be much of a revenue generator for the government. Essentially, his ideas are very one sided and they will likely make our deficit worse. Surprise, surprise!
I have noticed of late that every word from the right has been about spending cuts. Honestly, it's become such an obsession that I doubt they are thinking clearly at all. They have to confront the revenue question seriously. We are wasting too much time managing their anti tax fantasies. Of course, that's what you get when the John Birch society takes over your party. When they start to talk about revenue and honest cuts in defense, I'll start to take them more seriously. But for right now, they are not thinking rationally.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Wrong Adversary
I'm continually amazed that many folks on the right are still a feared of the gubmint. In their minds, we are getting closer every day to jack booted thugs coming to all our homes and seizing the fruits of our labors. Many think this is already happening (see: taxes). At least they are right about it already happening...and it isn't the government.
Banks Accused of Illegally Breaking Into Homes
The culprit, Ms. Ash soon learned, was not a burglar but her bank. According to a federal lawsuit filed in October by Ms. Ash, Bank of America had wrongfully foreclosed on her house and thrown out her belongings, without alerting Ms. Ash beforehand.
Huh. Would this be another example of a private corporation forcing their way into someone's home? Yes. Yes, it would.
In Texas, for example, Bank of America had the locks changed and the electricity shut off last year at Alan Schroit’s second home in Galveston, according to court papers. Mr. Schroit, who had paid off the house, had stored 75 pounds of salmon and halibut in his refrigerator and freezer, caught during a recent Alaskan fishing vacation.
“Lacking power, the freezer’s contents melted, spoiled and reeking melt water spread through the property and leaked through the flooring into joists and lower areas,” the lawsuit says. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
Bank of America had the locks changed? Not the government? Well, they must have used the government as a tool, right?
In Florida, contractors working for Chase Bank used a screwdriver to enter Debra Fischer’s house in Punta Gorda and helped themselves to a laptop, an iPod, a cordless drill, six bottles of wine and a frosty beer, left half-empty on the counter, according to assertions in a lawsuit filed in August. Ms. Fisher was facing foreclosure, but Chase had not yet obtained a court order, her lawyer says.
Nope. Contractors, huh. Where is the government in all of this? Oh yeah, I forgot. Neutered by the conservative movement in this country.
These would be (more) specific examples of a private corporation fucking people over, Not only did they seize Schroit's house but they ruined his food! Now, I'm not an expert but, in addition to food being required for nourishment, was the fish not the "fruit of his hard earned labor?"
Wrong adversary, Tea Partiers. Wrong adversary. But I suppose, in the end, it's OK, though because Bank of America has a lot of money. And we all know that if you have a lot of money, Jesus loves you more and you can do whatever you want.
Banks Accused of Illegally Breaking Into Homes
The culprit, Ms. Ash soon learned, was not a burglar but her bank. According to a federal lawsuit filed in October by Ms. Ash, Bank of America had wrongfully foreclosed on her house and thrown out her belongings, without alerting Ms. Ash beforehand.
Huh. Would this be another example of a private corporation forcing their way into someone's home? Yes. Yes, it would.
In Texas, for example, Bank of America had the locks changed and the electricity shut off last year at Alan Schroit’s second home in Galveston, according to court papers. Mr. Schroit, who had paid off the house, had stored 75 pounds of salmon and halibut in his refrigerator and freezer, caught during a recent Alaskan fishing vacation.
“Lacking power, the freezer’s contents melted, spoiled and reeking melt water spread through the property and leaked through the flooring into joists and lower areas,” the lawsuit says. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
Bank of America had the locks changed? Not the government? Well, they must have used the government as a tool, right?
In Florida, contractors working for Chase Bank used a screwdriver to enter Debra Fischer’s house in Punta Gorda and helped themselves to a laptop, an iPod, a cordless drill, six bottles of wine and a frosty beer, left half-empty on the counter, according to assertions in a lawsuit filed in August. Ms. Fisher was facing foreclosure, but Chase had not yet obtained a court order, her lawyer says.
Nope. Contractors, huh. Where is the government in all of this? Oh yeah, I forgot. Neutered by the conservative movement in this country.
These would be (more) specific examples of a private corporation fucking people over, Not only did they seize Schroit's house but they ruined his food! Now, I'm not an expert but, in addition to food being required for nourishment, was the fish not the "fruit of his hard earned labor?"
Wrong adversary, Tea Partiers. Wrong adversary. But I suppose, in the end, it's OK, though because Bank of America has a lot of money. And we all know that if you have a lot of money, Jesus loves you more and you can do whatever you want.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Perks Are Fun! (10, 11 and 12 of 20)
As I have demonstrated repeatedly on here, many people in our country don't like the rules. One such rule is taxes. They may say they simply want to pay their fair share and moan about how if our taxes were lower, businesses wouldn't leave to go elsewhere but really that's a crock of shit. Unless there were zero taxes, they would still move offshore. Why? Because they are human and people are pretty greedy.
The best part about being wealthy, though, are the perks. And the priority status, of course.
Banks, credit-card companies, wealth managers, airlines, and hotels all fiercely compete for the business of the super-rich, and the result is perks and deep discounts their other customers never know about.
Recall the Citigroup Plutonomy document.
Further examples of this can be seen in my home state of Minnesota.
Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing.
In Minnesota, dozens of top executives continue to get free medical benefits, access to private jets, country club memberships, free financial planning services, generous hiring bonuses and other rewards, in some cases even as they cut costs elsewhere.
Flourishing, you say? In an economic downturn? Of course, making any derisive comments about this automatically means I must be jealous. Or a socialist. Or Hitler. Right? It can't possibly be that I want to warn of the lessons of history regarding societies that were too stratified. It REALLY can't be that I want the middle class to be the engine of the economy again because that is what has been proven to actually work. Nah, none of that pinko shit. I'm jealous/a socialist/Hitler...pick whatever one you want.
Even firms that have dramatically downsized their workforces are keeping perks intact for senior managers. Hutchinson Technology Inc., a disk drive component maker in Hutchinson that has downsized three times since 2008 and just announced plans to shed 30 to 40 percent of its workforce over the next year, last year paid about $430,000 in perks to seven senior executives. CEO Wayne Fortun received an $11,770 car allowance and free financial planning services, on top of his salary and stock.
Hey, that sound great! One simple question, though. Who is going to buy stuff when no one, save a few, has any money?
Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."
But wait, I thought corporate taxes were too high? WTF?!!??
"It's not good for morale when employees see their executives living in a world of their own, while the guy next to them just lost his job," said Eleanor Bloxham, founder and CEO of the Value Alliance, a board advisory firm in Columbus, Ohio.
No shit.
Funny, though, they aren't simply living in a world of their own. They are being supported by some of my readers who are under the (very) mistaken impression that either none of this matters or someday they will be rich too if they just work hard.
At least United Health Care learned their lesson.
Minnetonka-based health insurer UnitedHealth Group got rid of most of its executive perks after revelations emerged in late 2006 that former CEO William McGuire and others at the company had been granted stock options "backdated" to a day when the stock price was at a low price. Prior to the change, McGuire and four other top executives were collecting more than $600,000 a year in freebies, on top of millions of dollars in stock options and other compensation.
In last year's proxy statement, UnitedHealth stated, "We do not believe that providing generous executive perquisites is either necessary to attract and retain executive talent or consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy."
I wonder what it will take for more companies to adopt this attitude. Maybe some new thinking on the part of the Tea Party and its supporters who seem to feel that the wealthy need their welfare. Any chance it will happen soon?
The best part about being wealthy, though, are the perks. And the priority status, of course.
Banks, credit-card companies, wealth managers, airlines, and hotels all fiercely compete for the business of the super-rich, and the result is perks and deep discounts their other customers never know about.
Recall the Citigroup Plutonomy document.
Further examples of this can be seen in my home state of Minnesota.
Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing.
In Minnesota, dozens of top executives continue to get free medical benefits, access to private jets, country club memberships, free financial planning services, generous hiring bonuses and other rewards, in some cases even as they cut costs elsewhere.
Flourishing, you say? In an economic downturn? Of course, making any derisive comments about this automatically means I must be jealous. Or a socialist. Or Hitler. Right? It can't possibly be that I want to warn of the lessons of history regarding societies that were too stratified. It REALLY can't be that I want the middle class to be the engine of the economy again because that is what has been proven to actually work. Nah, none of that pinko shit. I'm jealous/a socialist/Hitler...pick whatever one you want.
Even firms that have dramatically downsized their workforces are keeping perks intact for senior managers. Hutchinson Technology Inc., a disk drive component maker in Hutchinson that has downsized three times since 2008 and just announced plans to shed 30 to 40 percent of its workforce over the next year, last year paid about $430,000 in perks to seven senior executives. CEO Wayne Fortun received an $11,770 car allowance and free financial planning services, on top of his salary and stock.
Hey, that sound great! One simple question, though. Who is going to buy stuff when no one, save a few, has any money?
Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."
But wait, I thought corporate taxes were too high? WTF?!!??
"It's not good for morale when employees see their executives living in a world of their own, while the guy next to them just lost his job," said Eleanor Bloxham, founder and CEO of the Value Alliance, a board advisory firm in Columbus, Ohio.
No shit.
Funny, though, they aren't simply living in a world of their own. They are being supported by some of my readers who are under the (very) mistaken impression that either none of this matters or someday they will be rich too if they just work hard.
At least United Health Care learned their lesson.
Minnetonka-based health insurer UnitedHealth Group got rid of most of its executive perks after revelations emerged in late 2006 that former CEO William McGuire and others at the company had been granted stock options "backdated" to a day when the stock price was at a low price. Prior to the change, McGuire and four other top executives were collecting more than $600,000 a year in freebies, on top of millions of dollars in stock options and other compensation.
In last year's proxy statement, UnitedHealth stated, "We do not believe that providing generous executive perquisites is either necessary to attract and retain executive talent or consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy."
I wonder what it will take for more companies to adopt this attitude. Maybe some new thinking on the part of the Tea Party and its supporters who seem to feel that the wealthy need their welfare. Any chance it will happen soon?
Monday, April 04, 2011
It's Official: I Love Science
"Here, let me show you."
After a few minutes, he did.
"Cool. Or warm, actually," I said smiling.
Mr. Cunningham, the science teacher in our building, had just demonstrated to me how carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.
"So, what about all this business that carbon dioxide isn't really warming the atmosphere?" I asked
"Well, what did you just see, Mark?"
I've mostly avoided the science areas of the school in the past but something tells me I should hang around there more often. As I have been told many times on this blog, reason, logic, and facts are great things. I must admit fault in avoiding math and science over the years. I didn't have the greatest teachers in either subject and that, combined with my horse shit attitude about the subjects, were why I chose to pursue other subjects with greater inspiration and motivation.
Now, though, I'm pretty inspired because, as some of you have been telling me, I've discovered that if one invests some time in looking at the facts and the evidence through science and math, one can see clear evidence in support of all sorts of things. Like....massive inequality in the United States, for example. Or climate change. As soon as one sets their mind to science, they start to notice information like this:
Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument.
We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
Really? Well, hey, that's pretty cool. Or warm, actually. Check out the graph, too. So much for the skepticism on that one.
There's also information like this:
Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain
Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.. Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.
What an interesting article. Gosh, science can be fun!
Honestly, I have to say that I've been such a fool. If I'd only had better teachers and paid attention more in science and math, imagine where I could be today. Well, I'm still a young man and there's no time like the present, eh?
Mr. C (not his real name btw:)) has said that I'm always welcome in his room during my prep block.
After a few minutes, he did.
"Cool. Or warm, actually," I said smiling.
Mr. Cunningham, the science teacher in our building, had just demonstrated to me how carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.
"So, what about all this business that carbon dioxide isn't really warming the atmosphere?" I asked
"Well, what did you just see, Mark?"
I've mostly avoided the science areas of the school in the past but something tells me I should hang around there more often. As I have been told many times on this blog, reason, logic, and facts are great things. I must admit fault in avoiding math and science over the years. I didn't have the greatest teachers in either subject and that, combined with my horse shit attitude about the subjects, were why I chose to pursue other subjects with greater inspiration and motivation.
Now, though, I'm pretty inspired because, as some of you have been telling me, I've discovered that if one invests some time in looking at the facts and the evidence through science and math, one can see clear evidence in support of all sorts of things. Like....massive inequality in the United States, for example. Or climate change. As soon as one sets their mind to science, they start to notice information like this:
Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument.
We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
Really? Well, hey, that's pretty cool. Or warm, actually. Check out the graph, too. So much for the skepticism on that one.
There's also information like this:
Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain
Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.. Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.
What an interesting article. Gosh, science can be fun!
Honestly, I have to say that I've been such a fool. If I'd only had better teachers and paid attention more in science and math, imagine where I could be today. Well, I'm still a young man and there's no time like the present, eh?
Mr. C (not his real name btw:)) has said that I'm always welcome in his room during my prep block.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Always a Winner (8 and 9 of 20)
A few readers are under the assumption that I have forgotten about Steverman's Secret Financial Weapons of the Super Rich. Rest assured, I have not. Let's take a look at the next two shall we?
Lower Fees
Rich investors "should be able to get the absolute maximum discount," says Paul Sutherland, president of Financial and Investment Management Group, a wealth manager. They can wind up paying only 15 percent of a mutual fund's maximum fees, he says.
Financial Advice
The super-rich can afford the best advice. They can hire lawyers and accountants to lower their tax bills, insurance experts to get them the best deals and protection from losses, and personal financial advisers to scrutinize each investment.
So, yet another answer to the question, "How do the wealthy fuck people over?" is that the game is rigged in their favor. They always win. No wonder the right loves them so much!
Lower Fees
Rich investors "should be able to get the absolute maximum discount," says Paul Sutherland, president of Financial and Investment Management Group, a wealth manager. They can wind up paying only 15 percent of a mutual fund's maximum fees, he says.
Financial Advice
The super-rich can afford the best advice. They can hire lawyers and accountants to lower their tax bills, insurance experts to get them the best deals and protection from losses, and personal financial advisers to scrutinize each investment.
So, yet another answer to the question, "How do the wealthy fuck people over?" is that the game is rigged in their favor. They always win. No wonder the right loves them so much!
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Rand Paul's Potty Mouth
In a recent congressional hearing where incandescent light bulbs were being discussed, Rand Paul went a tirade about his toilets.
“Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house,” Paul said. He added, “I find it insulting.”
Instead of blaming the company that built his defective toilet, Paul is blaming the government. We have low flow toilets in our house, and have had them for ten years, and they work just fine. Now, I suppose it's possible that Paul is so full of it that he needs an extra-high capacity toilet, but he could adapt his flushing technique to accommodate his great . . . needs.
Why do we have low-flow toilets? To save water, obviously. Why should we save water? If you live in LA, or Phoenix, or Las Vegas or pretty much anywhere in the southwest, or you live in Atlanta, where they recently suffered from a years-long drought, you know how wretched it is to not have enough water.
Big, thirsty toilets are just about the worst possible use for clean, fresh water: does it really make sense to waste 3.5 gallons of water to wash away a few ounces of urine? (Low-flow toilets use 1.6 gallons or less.) The average person flushes 5 times per day. With 300 million Americans, that comes out to 5.25 billion gallons a day. Using low-flow toilets reduces that to 2.4 billion gallons.
Water-wasting toilets require local governments to build extra large sewer systems and sewage treatment plants. They require development of larger water supplies, more municipal water towers for storage, and on and on. Wasting things costs money, and wasting common resources costs everybody money. Higher demand for a commodity raises its price, especially when it's in short supply -- that's Econ 101. Why should I pay more for water just so Rand Paul can waste it?
We use water for things other than toilets and showers and watering the lawn: industry needs a lot of water for fabricating ICs, generating power, making aluminum, etc. In California alone, low-flow toilets can save more than 100 billion gallons of water a year: water that farmers could use to feed the city folks who are literally pissing away the water farmers need.
Government regulations such as these save money and save lives. Those pesky government regulations for seat belts, air bags, crumple zones in cars, and so on, have saved thousands of lives. Those annoying regulations that require lead-free gas, catalytic converters, mercury capture in coal-plant emissions have saved millions of lives since they were enacted. They have lifted many of the ugly gray-brown clouds of filth that used to mar every city's skyline.
And who was that vile bureaucrat who signed the low-flush toilet act into law in 1992? Well, it was that commie pinko tree-hugging George H. W. Bush. The enviro-fascist who enacted the light-bulb law that Paul and Michele Bachmann were bitching about? George W. Bush (the Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted in 2007).
It used to be that Republicans were actual conservatives, wanting to conserve the past, our natural resources and our heritage. Now they seem to only be interested in conserving the right to be wastrels, and corporate profits that require ever-increasing rates of consumption to keep the stock market mavens and corporate take-over artists happy.
Why is it that every conservative these days has to trot out their petty grievances about every possible inconvenience in life and blame it on the government? Grow up, Rand Paul. You're embarrassing your kids with all this toilet talk.
Friday, April 01, 2011
House of Cards
Here is the entire House of Cards documentary from CNBC. It's an excellent bookend piece to Inside Job.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Rules They Don't Live By
A while back, Vann Jones (former climate guy for President Obama and current socialist/fag lover/grandma plug puller/statist who wants to rape all of our children) was asked why the Republicans get to behave the way they do. His answer?
"Because they are assholes."
He got fired over the remark by President Obama.
Gotcha right winger James O'Keefe captured former NPR exec Ron Schiller saying that the Tea Party was racist and generally slamming conservatives. He was fired along with Vivian Schiller (no relation) from NPR for his comments.
Sensing a pattern here? Other than the fact that Jones and Schiller were both accurate, of course:)
It's pretty simple. Generally speaking, the right wing of America does not have to live by the rules. They are, in fact, assholes and get to do pretty much whatever they want. They can call Barack Obama "the magic Negro" and it's not racist. They can sting other people in heavily edited videotapes but refuse to allow themselves to be videotaped as is the case with Mr. O'Keefe (so much for him being the right's answer to Michael Moore as Moore can wait to have his mug anywhere people will have him). Or they can say things like this:
Pussy. And YOU ARE STILL WRONG. NPR is run and produces nothing but liberal drivel. Pussy.
Yet I am the one with "voices in my head."
Democrats, liberals, and progressives have to live by the rules. Conservatives don't. And the more the left lives by them, the less the right does. This has lead to the right trying to "catch" the left in not living by them so they can (in typical school yard bully fashion) point and say, "See? They do it too!! N'yah N'yah!" See, when people like Schiller or Jones say things like they did, they get fired. When Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin says it, they get more money and supporters cheering them. Understand the difference between conservatives and liberals these days? It gets worse.
Governor Walker and the rest of the GOP in Wisconsin ignored a judge's ruling and are moving ahead with the bill they passed anyway. Starting on April 21st, union dues will no longer be collected from workers paychecks. The state of Wisconsin will also begin deducting more money for health benefits from each state worker's check. They had the law published already which basically means they are already in contempt. If they actually take this next step, they will have defied a judge's ruling twice. But, hey, she's a fucking commie so fuck her!
Will they do it? They say they are going to but I'm more interested in their frame of mind which is pretty much how most conservatives around the country think. They are under the (quite mistaken) impression that liberals cheated when they passed health care. Libs shoved it down their throats and rammed it through (time out for a chuckle on the penis metaphors) and, in their very warped minds, they can now do the "same" thing. Except it's not the same but they don't really know the difference. We are dealing very low emotional intelligence after all.
I'm curious to see how far they will get-both with the law and the American voter-but one thing is very, very true and I've said it all along. It's not that they don't like government. That's just their t 8 year old boy temper tantrum talking and looking for something to pick on. It's that they don't like certain laws and think that they don't all apply to them. Out of this comes a general attitude and perception-which is hilariously ironic when you think about it but perfectly consistent with their interaction and behavior with people on the left. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, given how they continually flaunt the rules, that they feel this way and it's one simple word.
Entitled.
"Because they are assholes."
He got fired over the remark by President Obama.
Gotcha right winger James O'Keefe captured former NPR exec Ron Schiller saying that the Tea Party was racist and generally slamming conservatives. He was fired along with Vivian Schiller (no relation) from NPR for his comments.
Sensing a pattern here? Other than the fact that Jones and Schiller were both accurate, of course:)
It's pretty simple. Generally speaking, the right wing of America does not have to live by the rules. They are, in fact, assholes and get to do pretty much whatever they want. They can call Barack Obama "the magic Negro" and it's not racist. They can sting other people in heavily edited videotapes but refuse to allow themselves to be videotaped as is the case with Mr. O'Keefe (so much for him being the right's answer to Michael Moore as Moore can wait to have his mug anywhere people will have him). Or they can say things like this:
Pussy. And YOU ARE STILL WRONG. NPR is run and produces nothing but liberal drivel. Pussy.
Yet I am the one with "voices in my head."
Democrats, liberals, and progressives have to live by the rules. Conservatives don't. And the more the left lives by them, the less the right does. This has lead to the right trying to "catch" the left in not living by them so they can (in typical school yard bully fashion) point and say, "See? They do it too!! N'yah N'yah!" See, when people like Schiller or Jones say things like they did, they get fired. When Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin says it, they get more money and supporters cheering them. Understand the difference between conservatives and liberals these days? It gets worse.
Governor Walker and the rest of the GOP in Wisconsin ignored a judge's ruling and are moving ahead with the bill they passed anyway. Starting on April 21st, union dues will no longer be collected from workers paychecks. The state of Wisconsin will also begin deducting more money for health benefits from each state worker's check. They had the law published already which basically means they are already in contempt. If they actually take this next step, they will have defied a judge's ruling twice. But, hey, she's a fucking commie so fuck her!
Will they do it? They say they are going to but I'm more interested in their frame of mind which is pretty much how most conservatives around the country think. They are under the (quite mistaken) impression that liberals cheated when they passed health care. Libs shoved it down their throats and rammed it through (time out for a chuckle on the penis metaphors) and, in their very warped minds, they can now do the "same" thing. Except it's not the same but they don't really know the difference. We are dealing very low emotional intelligence after all.
I'm curious to see how far they will get-both with the law and the American voter-but one thing is very, very true and I've said it all along. It's not that they don't like government. That's just their t 8 year old boy temper tantrum talking and looking for something to pick on. It's that they don't like certain laws and think that they don't all apply to them. Out of this comes a general attitude and perception-which is hilariously ironic when you think about it but perfectly consistent with their interaction and behavior with people on the left. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, given how they continually flaunt the rules, that they feel this way and it's one simple word.
Entitled.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Free!
Thanks to Last in Line for this link which has the film "Inside Job" in its entirety for no charge. If you haven't seen it, check it out!
How Does This Play Out?
I had a very enjoyable exchange with one of the many anonymous posters in comments. I'm not sure who he or she was but even though we were ideologically in different places, we actually had a reasonable and substantive debate.
The poster said something which stuck with me and left me curious.
I submit to you and your readers, that most people could handle the complexities of life if they were just allowed to do so. At some point, your mother 'cut the apron strings' and allowed you to 'sink or swim'. Unless we are all still breast-fed, adversity was overcome starting at an early age.
Conservative vs. Liberal seems to disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should be allowed to experience before 'the system' provides for that individual.
I enjoy this person's optimism and agree that people in our culture need to handle the complexities of life in a more diligent and effective way. They are very emotionally retarded about it now and I see it every day. I constantly pummel my own kids with "Figure it out yourself." In the end, it will help them.
Yet this comment evokes several questions. First, who is not "allowing them" to manage complexities? Second, what is meant by "cutting the apron strings and allowing you to sink or swim?" I would assume the latter means cutting or eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Is that correct? I'm not just asking the poster. I'm asking all of you because that seems to be a general sentiment.
By intimating that some people will "sink" (sort of Darwin's survival of the fittest thing), how do any of you envision that will play out? Social Security, for example, has been proven to have reduced poverty in the elderly. So when the plug is literally pulled on grandma, are you going to be alright with that?
As the poster said, conservatives and liberals do disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should have to face before aid steps in. I'm just wondering if the conservatives have really thought how "sink or swim" works as a practical application in reality. We're talking about the elderly in our population here and they are already treated like crap by a culture trapped in the hubris of worshiping youth.
So, I'm hoping that the poster clarifies his comments because I could easily have misinterpreted them. Anyone else should feel free to offer their slant...as always:)
The poster said something which stuck with me and left me curious.
I submit to you and your readers, that most people could handle the complexities of life if they were just allowed to do so. At some point, your mother 'cut the apron strings' and allowed you to 'sink or swim'. Unless we are all still breast-fed, adversity was overcome starting at an early age.
Conservative vs. Liberal seems to disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should be allowed to experience before 'the system' provides for that individual.
I enjoy this person's optimism and agree that people in our culture need to handle the complexities of life in a more diligent and effective way. They are very emotionally retarded about it now and I see it every day. I constantly pummel my own kids with "Figure it out yourself." In the end, it will help them.
Yet this comment evokes several questions. First, who is not "allowing them" to manage complexities? Second, what is meant by "cutting the apron strings and allowing you to sink or swim?" I would assume the latter means cutting or eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Is that correct? I'm not just asking the poster. I'm asking all of you because that seems to be a general sentiment.
By intimating that some people will "sink" (sort of Darwin's survival of the fittest thing), how do any of you envision that will play out? Social Security, for example, has been proven to have reduced poverty in the elderly. So when the plug is literally pulled on grandma, are you going to be alright with that?
As the poster said, conservatives and liberals do disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should have to face before aid steps in. I'm just wondering if the conservatives have really thought how "sink or swim" works as a practical application in reality. We're talking about the elderly in our population here and they are already treated like crap by a culture trapped in the hubris of worshiping youth.
So, I'm hoping that the poster clarifies his comments because I could easily have misinterpreted them. Anyone else should feel free to offer their slant...as always:)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
GE's Bright Idea: No Taxes
Recently General Electric announced that it made $14 billion in profit last year ($5.1 in the US). Its tax bill? Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. In fact, it claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
Some people don't find anything wrong with this, and think that corporations should pay any taxes at all. "It's double taxing," they'll say. Or, "They'll just pass it on to the customer."
It did this through a maze of loopholes and tax breaks, and by not moving profits back to the United States. According to the Times article:
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.
In other words they're playing a shell game to avoid paying taxes. This has serious implications for the rest of us:
Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation's tax receipts -- from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
This is not the first time GE has done this sort of thing:
As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.
“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.
First, it's not double taxing: corporations deduct all their expenses -- including salaries they pay to workers, cost of materials, local and state taxes, cost of production, even hotel stays and meals for CEOs -- to calculate profit.
As for passing the cost on: since taxes are only on profits, that price increase may be insignificant. Let's say I buy a blender for $100 and the company's profit is $10. Let's say the manufacturer's effective tax rate is 6%, or 60 cents on that blender. If the company's tax rate goes to 30% it will pay $3.00 in taxes. If it passes every penny of that on to me -- which is not a given for many reasons -- the blender will cost $2.40 more, or 2.4%.
But more importantly, if I don't buy a company's products, they won't be passing the cost on to me at all. If I save my money instead of buying big sailboats, and giant TVs and $500 tickets to football games, I won't be paying the taxes for those companies.
The money to pay for things like roads and the military has to come from somewhere. By reducing corporate tax burdens we are increasing the tax burdens on regular people. If corporations pay more, citizens can pay less.
But when you come right down to it, most everything the government spends its money on -- weather satellites, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, highways, bridges, harbors, ports, the military, education -- is for the benefit of business. Yes, individuals benefit from these things, but they would have never happened without business demanding them.
For example: if you're like most people, the majority of the time you spend driving is between home and work. The highways are filled with trucks delivering stuff to businesses. Almost every time a new highway is proposed the argument is, "it'll be good for business."
Our military is used to "protect our interests" abroad. Those interests are entirely business interests. We invaded Iraq to ensure a stable supply of oil from a volatile region. We need oil to run our businesses. Shouldn't businesses help pay the salaries for the men and women in uniform who are protecting their interests?
Even the education system is essential for business. Without a system of free public education the United States would be totally uncompetitive in the world marketplace.
To be honest, there are some taxes that corporations already do pay their fair share of: Social Security and Medicare, the biggest part of the federal budget. Corporations should contribute their fair share to the rest of the federal budget as well.
Finally, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the political process they declared that a company is a person for the purposes of free speech. If a corporation has the same right to free speech as a person, it should have the same responsibility as a person to pay taxes.
I'm not talking about sticking it to big corporations: I'm just talking about restoring effective corporate tax rates to the reasonable values they had under Eisenhower and Reagan. Is it right for companies like GE to turn their backs on America and avoid taxes by shipping all their profits off to the Caymans?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Holy Hell!
As soon as I read about Rob Bell's new book, I knew what would happen right away.
"Satan is having a field day," Ruth Ward commented on Love Wins.
In other words, a giant shit storm would be unleashed. Because if there's one thing I know about old school evangelicals these days, they need to have the threat of burning in hell for eternity. Otherwise, it's meth amphetamine fueled gay sex morning, noon, and night.
Bell is one of a new wave of ministers who have seen the writing on the wall. The "All Fags will burn in Hell" meme isn't playing so well with the younger crowd and they are losing followers to other denominations at alarming rates. His ideas in the book are actually quite sound when you think about it. You can't have a loving God and an angry god at the same time. It makes no sense. Even the Bible itself says that God will remember our sins no more (Heb 8:8) and that the sacrifice of Christ propelled us into a period of grace. Why many Christians refuse to accept this is very frustrating. Honestly, I don't think they like themselves very much.
But what absolutely slayed me about the Bell flap was this article containing an all too familiar talking point/tactic.
It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.
Now where have I heard those lines before?
Setting aside the fact that this discussion is about faith, not logic, did all you guys go to some sort of seminar or something? I can just see the notes in the course syllabus...
When liberals, progressives or RINOS have a new idea, all of which threaten our way of life, attack first on reason and logic. Continue with a merciless attack on their courage. Make their argument look flawed and their person cowardly so we can maintain our support base of frightened and angry people whose ignorance we so desperately need to cling to power.
Maybe I should go undercover and sign up for the next class. When does Spring Session start?
"Satan is having a field day," Ruth Ward commented on Love Wins.
In other words, a giant shit storm would be unleashed. Because if there's one thing I know about old school evangelicals these days, they need to have the threat of burning in hell for eternity. Otherwise, it's meth amphetamine fueled gay sex morning, noon, and night.
Bell is one of a new wave of ministers who have seen the writing on the wall. The "All Fags will burn in Hell" meme isn't playing so well with the younger crowd and they are losing followers to other denominations at alarming rates. His ideas in the book are actually quite sound when you think about it. You can't have a loving God and an angry god at the same time. It makes no sense. Even the Bible itself says that God will remember our sins no more (Heb 8:8) and that the sacrifice of Christ propelled us into a period of grace. Why many Christians refuse to accept this is very frustrating. Honestly, I don't think they like themselves very much.
But what absolutely slayed me about the Bell flap was this article containing an all too familiar talking point/tactic.
It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.
Now where have I heard those lines before?
Setting aside the fact that this discussion is about faith, not logic, did all you guys go to some sort of seminar or something? I can just see the notes in the course syllabus...
When liberals, progressives or RINOS have a new idea, all of which threaten our way of life, attack first on reason and logic. Continue with a merciless attack on their courage. Make their argument look flawed and their person cowardly so we can maintain our support base of frightened and angry people whose ignorance we so desperately need to cling to power.
Maybe I should go undercover and sign up for the next class. When does Spring Session start?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Nary a Peep
So, let me see if I have this straight. Schaeffer Cox, Lonnie and Karen Vernon (along with others) conspired to kill an IRS employee as well as a US District judge and Peter King isn't investigating? It seems to me this is terrorism, right? Given that the Vernons are part of the "Sovereign Citizens" Group I would think hat there should be some sort of committee set up to investigate some of these very clear threats. Oh, and I guess they wanted to kill some state troopers as well. And the family members of the IRS agent, the judge and the troopers.
I'm surprised, readers. We had a lot of links pointing to plots that evil Muslims were about to carry out yet nary a peep on this one. Hmm...
I'm surprised, readers. We had a lot of links pointing to plots that evil Muslims were about to carry out yet nary a peep on this one. Hmm...
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Polarization and Condescension
I find very little with which to disagree in Syl Jones' latest piece in the Strib. He really hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. I've been a fan of his opinion pieces for awhile but this one should be put in the hall of fame.
Major Garrett, former national correspondent for Fox News and once with CNN, has now added an additional wrinkle. Garret told MSNBC viewers that Fox thrives on polarization: "Fox actually wants to keep that polarization. ... That is an embedded part of the marketing that surrounds what happens in the news division at Fox. It's been incredibly successful."
The fact that Fox both creates and exploits polarization says a lot about today's world and those who spin it. Across America, many seem to enjoy the trauma of loose cannons firing in every direction. The folks at Fox recognized this long ago and now, when it suits them to do so, they wrap themselves in the American flag,
It's not just Fox, though. It's all of the right wing information sources especially the blogsphere. Like all bullies, they are lost without an adversary to pick on. It's how they define themselves in the world.
Of course, we know all this. So, Jones takes it a step further by bringing in the Juan Williams incident from last fall and making a most excellent point.
Williams and other black journalists have long understood that a liberal is someone who thinks he or she knows your history better than you do. A conservative doesn't know your history and doesn't care to know it.
Both sides of the political spectrum have a galling habit of trying to exploit people of color to justify their rather narrow interests.
Indeed. As many of you can probably imagine, I've experienced the liberal side of this quite a bit in the various schools I have either worked in or my children have attended. The yearly battle regarding Huck Finn is one example of this. It's white liberals, not blacks, who want to ban the book because that word makes sick.
Too bad.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the greatest American novels ever written. Being a big fan of Loewen, I have to say that the controversy surrounding this book smacks of that avoidance of laying blame that he talks about frequently. The same white liberals that want to ban Huck Finn also fall all over themselves like idiots during Black History Month. Every year, I receive astonished looks and (very fake) loud gasps when I suggest that we do away with Black History Month and integrate its content into the course of the entire year. I do it anyway and the new social studies standards for our state will as well but something tells me BHM will be around for quite some time. It actually is worse, as Jones aptly points out...
Conservative and liberal media outlets are too busy slinging mud to pause and listen to what we know so well. Privileged interests are depriving people of the right to know the truth, to earn a living wage and to make truly informed decisions about the world in which they live.
We can see that neither side is right and that both sides are wrong.
Yep.
Major Garrett, former national correspondent for Fox News and once with CNN, has now added an additional wrinkle. Garret told MSNBC viewers that Fox thrives on polarization: "Fox actually wants to keep that polarization. ... That is an embedded part of the marketing that surrounds what happens in the news division at Fox. It's been incredibly successful."
The fact that Fox both creates and exploits polarization says a lot about today's world and those who spin it. Across America, many seem to enjoy the trauma of loose cannons firing in every direction. The folks at Fox recognized this long ago and now, when it suits them to do so, they wrap themselves in the American flag,
It's not just Fox, though. It's all of the right wing information sources especially the blogsphere. Like all bullies, they are lost without an adversary to pick on. It's how they define themselves in the world.
Of course, we know all this. So, Jones takes it a step further by bringing in the Juan Williams incident from last fall and making a most excellent point.
Williams and other black journalists have long understood that a liberal is someone who thinks he or she knows your history better than you do. A conservative doesn't know your history and doesn't care to know it.
Both sides of the political spectrum have a galling habit of trying to exploit people of color to justify their rather narrow interests.
Indeed. As many of you can probably imagine, I've experienced the liberal side of this quite a bit in the various schools I have either worked in or my children have attended. The yearly battle regarding Huck Finn is one example of this. It's white liberals, not blacks, who want to ban the book because that word makes sick.
Too bad.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the greatest American novels ever written. Being a big fan of Loewen, I have to say that the controversy surrounding this book smacks of that avoidance of laying blame that he talks about frequently. The same white liberals that want to ban Huck Finn also fall all over themselves like idiots during Black History Month. Every year, I receive astonished looks and (very fake) loud gasps when I suggest that we do away with Black History Month and integrate its content into the course of the entire year. I do it anyway and the new social studies standards for our state will as well but something tells me BHM will be around for quite some time. It actually is worse, as Jones aptly points out...
Conservative and liberal media outlets are too busy slinging mud to pause and listen to what we know so well. Privileged interests are depriving people of the right to know the truth, to earn a living wage and to make truly informed decisions about the world in which they live.
We can see that neither side is right and that both sides are wrong.
Yep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)