There was an editorial in my local newspaper complaining about how jobs can't be created because of too much regulation on employers, "Mountain of Regulation." While I am not an employer, considering the "mountain" that the author reports, it sounds a lot more like a molehill. He says his electrician refuses to hire an employee because of "regulatory and tax hassles." The author goes on to explain the regulations a prospective employer has to deal with. I have to believe that this was just a partial list, because frankly, I found the complaint ridiculous.
The author states that in hiring just one employee, an employer must fill out a whopping four forms, obtain worker's compensation insurance, calculate Fica tax (here, I'll help, my paycheck took out 5.8% after my 401k or 5.46% if before 401k - wow, that took me 2 minutes to figure out), and follow regulations such as paying above minimum wage, hiring someone above a certain age (i.e. not a child) and paying overtime (time and a half) for hourly employees working more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. Wow, that's so hard. They have to keep their workplace safe. Somehow, I feel that if the author's electrician had enough work, or too much work, he'd be more than willing to be "burdened" with spending 30 minutes filling out a few forms and knowing a few rules so he could make a lot more money with an employee.
If an employer hires more than 10 employees, the author reports they have to put up posters about worker rights and keep records. I'm just flabbergasted at the burden. A few more employees and wow, they have to treat people, women, blacks, older people, all the same. Can't you just see the hassle to be a decent human being? But no, the author wants employers to have no regulations, to be "flexible." Presumably, this "flexibility" will allow the employer to pay workers as little as possible (hey, be happy you have a job), to not worry if their workplace injures an employee, to treat women, older people, non-white people differently than other employees. Wouldn't we all be so happy to have such "flexible" employers?
Maybe it is more complex to hire employees. But if the author wants to persuade people that these regulations are wrong, he needs to come up with more than let's pity the employer who has to follow the Civil Rights law and pay minimum wage. With the possible exception of some taxes, the vast majority of regulations are put in place to protect workers and consumers. Excuse me for wanting to eat food that isn't exposed to bacteria that requires a restaurant or food truck to be inspected by a health inspector. Excuse me for wanting my children to work in a place that follows worker safety laws.
So until you show me some real overly burdensome and irrelevant regulations, I'm going to support them and continue to believe that the only reason more jobs are not created is because us consumers are so overly burdened in our debts and low wages, that we don't have the money to eat out every night (or even every week) or run out and buy an old iPad, let alone the new iPad.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
"Free" Time
Been busy over the holidays and such. December had hubby's parents visit, which is always nice. But work was incredibly busy with a huge case scheduled for trial Jan. 4. It mostly settled, but not until after I'd done pretty much all pre-trial work. At least my billings are good. January continued about the same, with the big case going to arbitration, plus two other biggish cases that needed briefs.
What free time I have is spent either doing cheerleading stuff with my oldest, or my computer games. Hubby doesn't really care for C's "sport of choice" so its pretty much up to me to take her to all practices and competitions. Sure, its not soccer or some other "sport", but its very much like gymnastics, plus it promotes a team spirit. Whatever she likes that keeps her active, and while not necessarily cheap, its less expensive than some other activities. And at least the times of her practices are workable with my work schedule. So many other kids activities start right after school, 4pm and such. Still, hopefully E will chose some activity S likes more, so he won't mind chauffering her to practices and programs.
I've been splitting my computer time between raiding in Rift and leveling in SWTOR. SW has been a lot of fun, the story line is, imo, far superior to the fantasy story lines, or at least a lot more engaging and involved. Likely having a known backstory is a big help. From what I understand, there's so many different ways to play the game, even doing some of the same quests will provide a good variation in how the stories play out. For probably the first time in years, I'm actually looking forward to running several alternate characters.
Hopefully there will still be others doing the same, so I'll have people to group with for the heroic quests. That's one problem a lot of games have, after the initial few months, the lower level areas become ghost towns and difficult to get groups for certain quests. I play SW mostly on the weekends, when not rushing around at cheer stuff. Haven't yet seen or heard much about the end game, I don't know if SW has the raids comparable to the fantasy games. Guess we'll see.
My weeknights are mostly spent raiding with my guild in Rift. I wish some of my old guildies had kept at it. I do like the new people I've met in the game, but I miss a lot of my old friends as well, both from LoD/EQ/WoW and my old Rift guild. Its pretty ironic that my old Rift guild, Penumbra, broke up because a couple of key players were unsatisfied with our slowish progress, so they joined DHB to "raid better." Yet only a few months later, after I too had joined DHB, they all quit playing Rift completely.
The new guild is pretty fun, but sometimes I still feel like the new person. And it gets frustrating sometimes when bad luck in a fight means I have to sit out a 10 man raid in favor of someone else who didn't have the bad luck.
For the most part, at least, there's been little "guild drama" that I experienced a lot in EQ. But then, I'm not part of the officer crew as well (for at least partly that reason). We did have one, when another guild merged with ours, and one of its officers got upset when she wasn't told about a problem over another merged member who was trying to set up weekend raids outside our established guild loot guidelines.
The merged officer threw a fit, and threatened to quit taking her 15+guildies with her. When our guild leader called her bluff, she did leave, but only 3 others followed. The rest remained with our guild. This officer and her 3 friends ended up transferring to another server to find a guild to join. In applying to another guild, they said how their former guild hadn't progressed more in Hammerknell because some members had "issues with following instructions and game mechanics." Yet, the first raid night we have after those people left, we downed the next two bosses in Hammerknell that we were stuck at when they were here. Hah!
At least by playing two games, I'm not getting bored with either one. While I certainly could do more stuff in Rift to improve my character (I'm behind most other players in getting the ton o'planarite needed for resist cores, factions for the extra stat boost food/runes and attunement experience), I know I'd get bored if I had to grind for all that several days a week, when not raiding. As it is, I try to do some of that a few hours a week, its slow, but at least it doesn't bore me.
So what have I given up with no other free time? Reading books mostly. I read some on the train, but usually with my kindle. I have a good dozen books at home that I had bought (some were pre-kindle, some were after but far cheaper bought used than through kindle) and I wonder if I'll ever get through them. I've gotten spoiled with my kindle so I don't want to carry around a big book, so that limits reading them at home. But I don't have much time for that anymore. Takes me a good month to get through a book these days.
I need to find some new authors soon. Some of my old-favs seem to be running out of a lot of steam in their series. I suppose after 20 books with the same characters, it all starts to get very repetitive. Hopefully ASOFAI will finish up in another two books or so, before that becomes stale.
At least I don't have to waste time watching the news these days. Its all politics, presidential primary/campaigns. I don't have time, or need to hear that stuff. I don't think anything will change my mind on my votes, so I'd rather just fastforward to November, please. All this money in politics just makes the whole process so extended, I can't wait for it to be over. Please, give us our TV/media "free" time back.
What free time I have is spent either doing cheerleading stuff with my oldest, or my computer games. Hubby doesn't really care for C's "sport of choice" so its pretty much up to me to take her to all practices and competitions. Sure, its not soccer or some other "sport", but its very much like gymnastics, plus it promotes a team spirit. Whatever she likes that keeps her active, and while not necessarily cheap, its less expensive than some other activities. And at least the times of her practices are workable with my work schedule. So many other kids activities start right after school, 4pm and such. Still, hopefully E will chose some activity S likes more, so he won't mind chauffering her to practices and programs.
I've been splitting my computer time between raiding in Rift and leveling in SWTOR. SW has been a lot of fun, the story line is, imo, far superior to the fantasy story lines, or at least a lot more engaging and involved. Likely having a known backstory is a big help. From what I understand, there's so many different ways to play the game, even doing some of the same quests will provide a good variation in how the stories play out. For probably the first time in years, I'm actually looking forward to running several alternate characters.
Hopefully there will still be others doing the same, so I'll have people to group with for the heroic quests. That's one problem a lot of games have, after the initial few months, the lower level areas become ghost towns and difficult to get groups for certain quests. I play SW mostly on the weekends, when not rushing around at cheer stuff. Haven't yet seen or heard much about the end game, I don't know if SW has the raids comparable to the fantasy games. Guess we'll see.
My weeknights are mostly spent raiding with my guild in Rift. I wish some of my old guildies had kept at it. I do like the new people I've met in the game, but I miss a lot of my old friends as well, both from LoD/EQ/WoW and my old Rift guild. Its pretty ironic that my old Rift guild, Penumbra, broke up because a couple of key players were unsatisfied with our slowish progress, so they joined DHB to "raid better." Yet only a few months later, after I too had joined DHB, they all quit playing Rift completely.
The new guild is pretty fun, but sometimes I still feel like the new person. And it gets frustrating sometimes when bad luck in a fight means I have to sit out a 10 man raid in favor of someone else who didn't have the bad luck.
For the most part, at least, there's been little "guild drama" that I experienced a lot in EQ. But then, I'm not part of the officer crew as well (for at least partly that reason). We did have one, when another guild merged with ours, and one of its officers got upset when she wasn't told about a problem over another merged member who was trying to set up weekend raids outside our established guild loot guidelines.
The merged officer threw a fit, and threatened to quit taking her 15+guildies with her. When our guild leader called her bluff, she did leave, but only 3 others followed. The rest remained with our guild. This officer and her 3 friends ended up transferring to another server to find a guild to join. In applying to another guild, they said how their former guild hadn't progressed more in Hammerknell because some members had "issues with following instructions and game mechanics." Yet, the first raid night we have after those people left, we downed the next two bosses in Hammerknell that we were stuck at when they were here. Hah!
At least by playing two games, I'm not getting bored with either one. While I certainly could do more stuff in Rift to improve my character (I'm behind most other players in getting the ton o'planarite needed for resist cores, factions for the extra stat boost food/runes and attunement experience), I know I'd get bored if I had to grind for all that several days a week, when not raiding. As it is, I try to do some of that a few hours a week, its slow, but at least it doesn't bore me.
So what have I given up with no other free time? Reading books mostly. I read some on the train, but usually with my kindle. I have a good dozen books at home that I had bought (some were pre-kindle, some were after but far cheaper bought used than through kindle) and I wonder if I'll ever get through them. I've gotten spoiled with my kindle so I don't want to carry around a big book, so that limits reading them at home. But I don't have much time for that anymore. Takes me a good month to get through a book these days.
I need to find some new authors soon. Some of my old-favs seem to be running out of a lot of steam in their series. I suppose after 20 books with the same characters, it all starts to get very repetitive. Hopefully ASOFAI will finish up in another two books or so, before that becomes stale.
At least I don't have to waste time watching the news these days. Its all politics, presidential primary/campaigns. I don't have time, or need to hear that stuff. I don't think anything will change my mind on my votes, so I'd rather just fastforward to November, please. All this money in politics just makes the whole process so extended, I can't wait for it to be over. Please, give us our TV/media "free" time back.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Challengers
When I think about the Republican field for President, on the one hand, I gotta hand it to them for finally providing a diversified field. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the "rank and file" party members like any of them and must be in quite a quandry over who to vote for. Given my own upbringing and background, plus what I see in today's public media, the 'generic' Republican voter tends to be white, middle aged, Christian (not necessarily evangelical, but certainly only believes in one way to God), above-average income, married (and monogamous), and to put it bluntly, rather old-fashioned in a belief that women and non-whites have to 'know their place.'
Now this is certainly not the case for every Republican, and likely not even most, but it does seem to be a plurality. I'm sure there are many who are fine with a woman nominee, but there's also probably enough that feel the exact opposite that it probably hurt her chances regardless of her politics. Yeah, Sarah Palin got the VP nominee last year, but she wasn't voted in via a primary election, she was chosen. And she (and McCain) didn't win, and I have no doubt that there are some people out there that didn't vote at all because they didn't want to vote for a woman on one side, or a non-white on the other. Yes, those people still exist.
So how do the nominees stack up?
Michelle Bachman - Female, so any that don't like women in power won't vote for her. Plus, she's show a distinct lack of brainpower.
Herman Cain - Black, so any that don't like non-whites in power won't vote for him. Ditto on the lack of brain power.
Newt Gingrich - Smart, but he cheated on two ex-wives and divorced one while in the hospital. Not exactly a poster boy for 'family values' that so many Republicans like to spout.
Mitt Romney - Mormon, so any Christians that are real hard-liners (evangelicals, for instance), won't vote for him.
Jon Huntsman - See Mitt Romney. Plus, who?
Rick Santorum - Google it
Rick Perry - One George W. Bush was enough (and this one seems even dumber)
Ron Paul - Too libertarian - so any that are against legalizing drugs won't vote for him.
Not a single one of the candidates have all the qualities necessary to win over the majority "generic" Republican voter. There's not one white, male, Christian (preferably evangelical, but they'll accept any protestant - non mormon), still married to one woman (and not cheated), smart, totally conservative candidate, who's name can't be googled with laughter. Frankly, I see most Republicans holding their noses at the voting booth come 2012.
I think this is why, for the most part, Mitt Romney is presumed to win the nomination. He'll get enough plurality votes, 30% or so probably, that he'll have most of the delegates he needs, but no doubt he'll have to be saddled with some Tea Party darling (maybe even Michelle) to make the even further right consider voting for him to counter for his forays into bipartisanship (gasp!), while they agonize over his religion.
No doubt, its not a sure thing for Obama, but I think there's still enough divide in the Republican party that they'll have people staying at home rather than voting for one of these nominees as President.
Now this is certainly not the case for every Republican, and likely not even most, but it does seem to be a plurality. I'm sure there are many who are fine with a woman nominee, but there's also probably enough that feel the exact opposite that it probably hurt her chances regardless of her politics. Yeah, Sarah Palin got the VP nominee last year, but she wasn't voted in via a primary election, she was chosen. And she (and McCain) didn't win, and I have no doubt that there are some people out there that didn't vote at all because they didn't want to vote for a woman on one side, or a non-white on the other. Yes, those people still exist.
So how do the nominees stack up?
Michelle Bachman - Female, so any that don't like women in power won't vote for her. Plus, she's show a distinct lack of brainpower.
Herman Cain - Black, so any that don't like non-whites in power won't vote for him. Ditto on the lack of brain power.
Newt Gingrich - Smart, but he cheated on two ex-wives and divorced one while in the hospital. Not exactly a poster boy for 'family values' that so many Republicans like to spout.
Mitt Romney - Mormon, so any Christians that are real hard-liners (evangelicals, for instance), won't vote for him.
Jon Huntsman - See Mitt Romney. Plus, who?
Rick Santorum - Google it
Rick Perry - One George W. Bush was enough (and this one seems even dumber)
Ron Paul - Too libertarian - so any that are against legalizing drugs won't vote for him.
Not a single one of the candidates have all the qualities necessary to win over the majority "generic" Republican voter. There's not one white, male, Christian (preferably evangelical, but they'll accept any protestant - non mormon), still married to one woman (and not cheated), smart, totally conservative candidate, who's name can't be googled with laughter. Frankly, I see most Republicans holding their noses at the voting booth come 2012.
I think this is why, for the most part, Mitt Romney is presumed to win the nomination. He'll get enough plurality votes, 30% or so probably, that he'll have most of the delegates he needs, but no doubt he'll have to be saddled with some Tea Party darling (maybe even Michelle) to make the even further right consider voting for him to counter for his forays into bipartisanship (gasp!), while they agonize over his religion.
No doubt, its not a sure thing for Obama, but I think there's still enough divide in the Republican party that they'll have people staying at home rather than voting for one of these nominees as President.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Bubble
I recently finished reading Michael Lewis, "The Big Short" which is about the housing bubble, how it started, how wall street traders who originally bought/sold government bonds created mortgage bonds, which then got bundled into credit default swaps and thereafter rebundled again into collaterialized debt obligations, and when people making $10,000 year could no longer afford to pay their mortgage on $500,000 homes, the market crashed. And if you know what any of those things are, you're ahead of 95% of America (not to mention 95% of investment bankers).
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
Some people are prescient. I present Keith Olberman's "Special Comment" from August 1, 2011 (repeated on Oct. 14, 2011) regarding the raise the debt ceiling deal. In particular, his call at the end to rise up and protest. It seems that some people were listening.
I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.
Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.
We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.
We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.
We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic.
Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.
Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.
For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.
Except this one.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?
This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.
Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it.
And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.
Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.
What happens if there's ever another… war?
Or another… terrorist attack?
Or another… natural disaster?
Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.
And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.
We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.
The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.
The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.
By a committee.
A committee that has yet to be formed.
There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.
Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?
Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?
Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?
Where is the outrage to come from?
From you!
It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.
It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.
It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.
The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.
And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.
It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.
I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.
Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.
Good night, and good luck.
I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.
Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.
We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.
We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.
We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.
It would be comical if it were not tragic.
Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.
Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.
For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.
Except this one.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?
This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.
Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it.
And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.
Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.
What happens if there's ever another… war?
Or another… terrorist attack?
Or another… natural disaster?
Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.
And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.
We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.
The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.
The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.
By a committee.
A committee that has yet to be formed.
There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.
Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leap website paywalls or could not afford cable tv?
Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?
Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?
Where is the outrage to come from?
From you!
It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.
It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive details about exactly how the bank robbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.
It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.
The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.
And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.
It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.
I cannot say to you, meet there or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.
Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.
Good night, and good luck.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Not Knowing
Yup, long time since last post. Busy busy.
Today, Occupy Wall Street is marching in Philly. My secretary had no idea what that was, although its been in the news for close to a month. Granted, mostly in NYC, but still, that's pretty close to Philly that we usually get their big news. Yes, it started small, but its grown quite a bit in the last two weeks. I don't watch "regular" news, primarily The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Countdown, but since its been in the newspaper, I figure ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have at least touched on it a tad.
Also today is the fall out from everyone (you'd think at least) hearing about Steve Job's death. Again, my secretary had no idea who he was. Only the man that created Apple, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, essentially he created our personal computing/social media culture. Without Jobs, there would be no Twitter (which is, of course, how I first learned of his death at 7:40 p.m. last night), no Facebook (no Winklevii for Zuckerman to allegedly cheat, hah), music would still be bought on CDs as complete albums, TV/movies would still only be on TV or through DVDs and we wouldn't be up in arms with Netflix raising prices to stream movies and TV. I wouldn't be writing this blog right now, and neither would millions of others. We'd still get our news via paper or TV.
I was a little surprised my secretary hadn't heard about Occupy Wall Street, but then again, she doesn't pay all that much attention to life outside her kids, her job, her home. But that she didn't even know who Steve Jobs was just gobsmacked me. How could anyone not have heard about Steve Jobs?
But I also remember that my secretary doesn't read a news paper, she doesn't watch the news, she doesn't have a smartphone, she doesn't vote. She has never voted in any election and sees no reason to start. As such, she doesn't bother finding out anything that's going on in the world, the country, even her own city unless it directly impacts her family.
Surprisingly, or maybe not, more than half of this country is the same. Everytime I think how can people vote against their economic interests, I have to remind myself that the vast majority don't even know what their economic interest is, and don't bother to find out enough information to vote.
Even in our last presidential election, 122 million voted out of approximately 230 million voting age people. Just over 50%. That means almost half of this country doesn't care about their economic interest, their social interest, or really much of anything beyond their own life, much like my secretary. The vote was historic. We'd either have the first black president, or the first female vice president. Yet still half didn't care.
I can't imagine going through life and not knowing what's going on. I remember how embarrassed and dumbstruck I was when I went on a two-week vacation to France in August 2005, and because my in-laws' computer connection was very slow, I only checked my email a couple of times, nothing else. My in-laws didn't get a news paper (and I'm not sure I could have read much of it anyway). It wasn't until I came back to the US that I heard about Hurricane Katrina. How could I have not heard about this during my trip? I swore never to be so out of touch again. Its one of the (many) reasons I don't think I could ever be a Survivor contestant, don't think I could stand to be so unplugged for an extended amount of time again.
I'm sure some people like not knowing what's going on. "Ignorance is bliss" is the phrase. I don't agree. All ignorance does is allow other people to control things that affect your life, even if you don't realize it. Its amazing, for example, that one person controls so much that he got all or nearly all Republican office holders to sign a pledge never to raise taxes for any reason (although despite this pledge, some apparently distinguish between raising taxes on wealthy people - no no no - and the middle and lower classes - yes yes yes). Is that really the best thing for this country or just for a few thousand? But this is what comes from not knowing and allowing others to control this country.
One doesn't have to be smart or understanding everything that happens. I don't understand investment banking, although I've been trying to educate myself (and what I've read so far, just strikes me as incredible that people were so gullible - no actually it doesn't - and that our country has let so many people get away with almost outright fraud - except that its hard to prove because people are so gullible). But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in someone saying they pledged never to raise taxes for any reason, but its ok to "broaden the tax base so more people contribute (i.e. pay) taxes. Um, if that doesn't mean a raise of taxes on some people, i.e. those at the bottom of the base, which supposedly you pledged not to do, I don't know what does.
I may not agree with other people, but at least read a newspaper, or watch some news on your computer (thank you Steve) or TV (and make it more than just Fox news, please). At least know the names of the people who have a significant impact on your life.
Today, Occupy Wall Street is marching in Philly. My secretary had no idea what that was, although its been in the news for close to a month. Granted, mostly in NYC, but still, that's pretty close to Philly that we usually get their big news. Yes, it started small, but its grown quite a bit in the last two weeks. I don't watch "regular" news, primarily The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Countdown, but since its been in the newspaper, I figure ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have at least touched on it a tad.
Also today is the fall out from everyone (you'd think at least) hearing about Steve Job's death. Again, my secretary had no idea who he was. Only the man that created Apple, the iPod, the iPhone, iTunes, essentially he created our personal computing/social media culture. Without Jobs, there would be no Twitter (which is, of course, how I first learned of his death at 7:40 p.m. last night), no Facebook (no Winklevii for Zuckerman to allegedly cheat, hah), music would still be bought on CDs as complete albums, TV/movies would still only be on TV or through DVDs and we wouldn't be up in arms with Netflix raising prices to stream movies and TV. I wouldn't be writing this blog right now, and neither would millions of others. We'd still get our news via paper or TV.
I was a little surprised my secretary hadn't heard about Occupy Wall Street, but then again, she doesn't pay all that much attention to life outside her kids, her job, her home. But that she didn't even know who Steve Jobs was just gobsmacked me. How could anyone not have heard about Steve Jobs?
But I also remember that my secretary doesn't read a news paper, she doesn't watch the news, she doesn't have a smartphone, she doesn't vote. She has never voted in any election and sees no reason to start. As such, she doesn't bother finding out anything that's going on in the world, the country, even her own city unless it directly impacts her family.
Surprisingly, or maybe not, more than half of this country is the same. Everytime I think how can people vote against their economic interests, I have to remind myself that the vast majority don't even know what their economic interest is, and don't bother to find out enough information to vote.
Even in our last presidential election, 122 million voted out of approximately 230 million voting age people. Just over 50%. That means almost half of this country doesn't care about their economic interest, their social interest, or really much of anything beyond their own life, much like my secretary. The vote was historic. We'd either have the first black president, or the first female vice president. Yet still half didn't care.
I can't imagine going through life and not knowing what's going on. I remember how embarrassed and dumbstruck I was when I went on a two-week vacation to France in August 2005, and because my in-laws' computer connection was very slow, I only checked my email a couple of times, nothing else. My in-laws didn't get a news paper (and I'm not sure I could have read much of it anyway). It wasn't until I came back to the US that I heard about Hurricane Katrina. How could I have not heard about this during my trip? I swore never to be so out of touch again. Its one of the (many) reasons I don't think I could ever be a Survivor contestant, don't think I could stand to be so unplugged for an extended amount of time again.
I'm sure some people like not knowing what's going on. "Ignorance is bliss" is the phrase. I don't agree. All ignorance does is allow other people to control things that affect your life, even if you don't realize it. Its amazing, for example, that one person controls so much that he got all or nearly all Republican office holders to sign a pledge never to raise taxes for any reason (although despite this pledge, some apparently distinguish between raising taxes on wealthy people - no no no - and the middle and lower classes - yes yes yes). Is that really the best thing for this country or just for a few thousand? But this is what comes from not knowing and allowing others to control this country.
One doesn't have to be smart or understanding everything that happens. I don't understand investment banking, although I've been trying to educate myself (and what I've read so far, just strikes me as incredible that people were so gullible - no actually it doesn't - and that our country has let so many people get away with almost outright fraud - except that its hard to prove because people are so gullible). But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the inconsistency in someone saying they pledged never to raise taxes for any reason, but its ok to "broaden the tax base so more people contribute (i.e. pay) taxes. Um, if that doesn't mean a raise of taxes on some people, i.e. those at the bottom of the base, which supposedly you pledged not to do, I don't know what does.
I may not agree with other people, but at least read a newspaper, or watch some news on your computer (thank you Steve) or TV (and make it more than just Fox news, please). At least know the names of the people who have a significant impact on your life.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Liars and Hypocrits
Watching my favorite show, TDS from Thursday night. I totally floved that $700 billion bit. Its been said that if Obama and The Dems got their way and eliminated the tax cuts on those that make over $250,000 a year, it would raise $700 billion dollars. The Republicans/Faux News keep saying that the amount wouldn't do anything to solve our debt crises and in fact take need money away from the so-called "job creators" that only seem to be able to create jobs in third world countries.
However, the Republicans are all fine with increasing taxes on the poor and middle class. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the bottom 50% of the country has a combined wealth of $1.4 Trillion, about the same amount as the combined wealth of the top 2%. If one takes half of that amount, its, oh lookie, $700 billion.
The republicants that are all 'no raising taxes' and can't let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because its a 'tax increase' but have absolutely no problem with refusing the extend the payroll tax holiday on the poor and middle classes (who are the only ones that pay it all in full) because "its fair to make them pay" and the country needs their money to reduce its debt.
It just amazes me that the faux news people can say with a straight face that $700 billion from millionaires is "eh, too little to consider", but when its from the poor and middle class, suddenly its a game changer and a save to the country.
And yet, those morons in the "heartland" continue to vote for these hypocrits and liars because of the social issues and the lie the republicans keep telling them that Obama wants to raise their taxes. I bet there isn't more than 20 people per "heartland" state that make more than $500,000, yet their all afraid that the bad black man will raise their taxes. Its such bullshit.
Come on Dems show them who is really lying out there. Quit bending over and kowtowing to these liars and hypocrits. Most of the media would probably like to be on your side, if you'd give them something to hold on to.
However, the Republicans are all fine with increasing taxes on the poor and middle class. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the bottom 50% of the country has a combined wealth of $1.4 Trillion, about the same amount as the combined wealth of the top 2%. If one takes half of that amount, its, oh lookie, $700 billion.
The republicants that are all 'no raising taxes' and can't let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because its a 'tax increase' but have absolutely no problem with refusing the extend the payroll tax holiday on the poor and middle classes (who are the only ones that pay it all in full) because "its fair to make them pay" and the country needs their money to reduce its debt.
It just amazes me that the faux news people can say with a straight face that $700 billion from millionaires is "eh, too little to consider", but when its from the poor and middle class, suddenly its a game changer and a save to the country.
And yet, those morons in the "heartland" continue to vote for these hypocrits and liars because of the social issues and the lie the republicans keep telling them that Obama wants to raise their taxes. I bet there isn't more than 20 people per "heartland" state that make more than $500,000, yet their all afraid that the bad black man will raise their taxes. Its such bullshit.
Come on Dems show them who is really lying out there. Quit bending over and kowtowing to these liars and hypocrits. Most of the media would probably like to be on your side, if you'd give them something to hold on to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)