Two NFL notes;
First, ESPN's Kevin Seifert had a blog post suggesting Mike Tice had settled the Chicago Bears Offensive Line. Apparently they had a good game against the NY Jets and that proves that they are settled. Ignore the fact that the lead the league in sacks allowed or that they have the worst o-line rating in the NFL when considering sacks, penalties, and QB hurries and knock downs. In related news Joe Webb is the second coming of Tom Brady.
Second, Chris Johnson is only 1,175 yards short of the 2,500 he said he thought he could achieve this year. The good news is he can break two records in one day if he does run for 1,175 yards against the Colts this Sunday. He would have the highest single game total and the most yards in a single season. I got the under on this one.
Friday, December 31, 2010
If Republicans want to have an "adult conversation" they first need to act like adults
Prior to the November elections Republicans were out in force spreading the word that to fix the US we would need to have an "adult conversation". The problem is Republicans don't seem to understand what that means. Being the adult means making tough choices that "the kids" will not like. As a parent you don't just give your kids everything they ask for because you are smarter and know better. He is an example. Tonight at midnight Massachusetts will eliminate it's state tax on alcohol. They have essentially decided that alcohol is a necessity not a luxury. This will cost the state $100 million in revenue. This means less money for public programs and less public employees. That is unless the state raises another tax to make up the difference. But that won't happen because our politicians are not the adults they claim to be. They are the parent that wants to be the kids friend and fails to parent.
To put it in terms that Republicans should appreciate, imagine if a business owner let his employees decide their pay rate, work hours, and vacation time. While that might work for some very small companies with a highly motivated and dedicated staff, the majority of companies will see a huge drop in production because most Americans don't understand what is best for them.
My point is that we have a lot of very important issues that need to be addressed but no one is willing to take on popular programs or increase taxes because they want to be liked and Americans are too stupid to make the right choices.
Having an adult conversation makes no difference if you aren't going to act like an adult when tough decisions need to be made.
To put it in terms that Republicans should appreciate, imagine if a business owner let his employees decide their pay rate, work hours, and vacation time. While that might work for some very small companies with a highly motivated and dedicated staff, the majority of companies will see a huge drop in production because most Americans don't understand what is best for them.
My point is that we have a lot of very important issues that need to be addressed but no one is willing to take on popular programs or increase taxes because they want to be liked and Americans are too stupid to make the right choices.
Having an adult conversation makes no difference if you aren't going to act like an adult when tough decisions need to be made.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Hey New York - Public Employees Plow the Roads
There has been a lot of talk over the past few days about how bad the snow removal has been in New York city. Setting aside my disdain for the over exposure New York gets for everything, it should be noted that government employees are the ones who plow the snow and lay down the salt. Thanks to the tax cuts that Republicans forced down our throats for the super rich and even some for the rest of us, there are less employees to drive the trucks. There is less salt to be spread. And there are less employees to maintain the equipment. All of this adds up to slower travel for New Yorkers. This will only get worse, as the new year brings a new round of layoffs to New York.
Keep in mind, this is not unique to New York. This is happening in your community too. Your tax dollars pay for things like firefighters, police, and roads. Less tax money means less public service. And this means slower response times for firefighters. It means less criminals being caught by less cops. And yes it means less snow removal and less safe roads. Thank the Republicans who convinced you that less is more, except for the times when less is actually less.
Keep in mind, this is not unique to New York. This is happening in your community too. Your tax dollars pay for things like firefighters, police, and roads. Less tax money means less public service. And this means slower response times for firefighters. It means less criminals being caught by less cops. And yes it means less snow removal and less safe roads. Thank the Republicans who convinced you that less is more, except for the times when less is actually less.
Highway Trust Fund (gas / fuel tax) under attack by Republicans
Republicans continue to claim a need to reduce the deficit yet at every turn they do things to the contrary. Their new idea to reduce the deficit? Steal money from the Highway Trust Fund to fund other programs that they do like. So how does that reduce the deficit? It doesn't.
The fuel tax like Medicare and Social Security are targeted taxes that when collected only go to pay for the programs they tax for. Imagine if your SS payments when to fund welfare. Think of the outcry. We are already underfunding the maintenance of our roads and stealing money from the Highway Trust fund will only make things worse. Additionally, less money for roads means less infrastructure spending and less jobs. Not exactly what Republicans ran on this fall.
The claim is that there are no sacred cows when looking to cut the budget. That is fine but this tax was put in place to specially fund the roads. It was a tax increase. If you would like to cut money from the Highway Trust Fund then cut my taxes by lowering the gas tax. If you don't have enough money to fund another program then increase taxes accordingly. This tax is completely independent of any other taxes and therefore does not qualify as a sacred cow. Military spending is spending using general fund money. Refusing to cut military spending (actually military spending was increased by 13%) is having a sacred cow because that is discretionary spending. The Highway Trust Fund is not.
This is why the Highway trust Fund had been solvent for it's first 50 years until Republicans changed the rules forcing the Trust Fund to act like the irresponsible Americans that Republicans love to chastise. In 1998 Republicans forced the Highway Trust Fund to spend all of the money it gets. This was fine until the recession hit and funding dropped drastically. Instead of having a rainy day fund as it did before Republicans changed the rules, the Highway Trust Fund became a spend everything you make entity. It's almost like the Republicans wanted the Fund to fail. And stealing money from it now to save military contract jobs in their states only proves that Republicans say one thing and do another. Adding to the Deficit in the name of tax cuts for the super rich while cutting already low spending on the roads that working Americans need.
The fuel tax like Medicare and Social Security are targeted taxes that when collected only go to pay for the programs they tax for. Imagine if your SS payments when to fund welfare. Think of the outcry. We are already underfunding the maintenance of our roads and stealing money from the Highway Trust fund will only make things worse. Additionally, less money for roads means less infrastructure spending and less jobs. Not exactly what Republicans ran on this fall.
The claim is that there are no sacred cows when looking to cut the budget. That is fine but this tax was put in place to specially fund the roads. It was a tax increase. If you would like to cut money from the Highway Trust Fund then cut my taxes by lowering the gas tax. If you don't have enough money to fund another program then increase taxes accordingly. This tax is completely independent of any other taxes and therefore does not qualify as a sacred cow. Military spending is spending using general fund money. Refusing to cut military spending (actually military spending was increased by 13%) is having a sacred cow because that is discretionary spending. The Highway Trust Fund is not.
This is why the Highway trust Fund had been solvent for it's first 50 years until Republicans changed the rules forcing the Trust Fund to act like the irresponsible Americans that Republicans love to chastise. In 1998 Republicans forced the Highway Trust Fund to spend all of the money it gets. This was fine until the recession hit and funding dropped drastically. Instead of having a rainy day fund as it did before Republicans changed the rules, the Highway Trust Fund became a spend everything you make entity. It's almost like the Republicans wanted the Fund to fail. And stealing money from it now to save military contract jobs in their states only proves that Republicans say one thing and do another. Adding to the Deficit in the name of tax cuts for the super rich while cutting already low spending on the roads that working Americans need.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Fox News only tells the parts of the truth that makes Democrats look bad
Today Fox News has as its feature story, a piece on the a NASA program that even though canceled due to a belief that the technology is out of date and unnecessary, is being forced to proceed by congressional action and cost the American tax payers $500 million. Here is the wording by Fox News:
It’s the frustrating result of an ongoing political battle that stretched throughout this year. With the potential cancellation of Constellation looming, lawmakers inserted clauses into NASA’s 2010 budget to protect Ares I jobs in their home states, effectively preventing NASA from shutting down the program pending a new budget from Congress.
So who would have caused such waste just to save jobs in their district? Fox News fails to produce any names. Why would that be? Shouldn't we be mad at the people who are wasting tax payers money. Doesn't this drive up the deficit and Fox News hates increases to the deficit. Isn't this big government evil stimulus spending? The reason Fox News doesn't mention the congressmen who inserted the pork is because it is Republican Richard Shelby.
Fair and Balanced? I guess that statement is based on the belief that the US is a center right country. That means it is fair and balanced from a right leaning perspective. Screw the truth. Report propaganda.
It’s the frustrating result of an ongoing political battle that stretched throughout this year. With the potential cancellation of Constellation looming, lawmakers inserted clauses into NASA’s 2010 budget to protect Ares I jobs in their home states, effectively preventing NASA from shutting down the program pending a new budget from Congress.
So who would have caused such waste just to save jobs in their district? Fox News fails to produce any names. Why would that be? Shouldn't we be mad at the people who are wasting tax payers money. Doesn't this drive up the deficit and Fox News hates increases to the deficit. Isn't this big government evil stimulus spending? The reason Fox News doesn't mention the congressmen who inserted the pork is because it is Republican Richard Shelby.
Fair and Balanced? I guess that statement is based on the belief that the US is a center right country. That means it is fair and balanced from a right leaning perspective. Screw the truth. Report propaganda.
Fox News is fear mongering to benefit Republicans
I found the following poll on Fox News today:
Are you planning to travel for vacation in 2011?
No -- The uncertainty of the economy is going to keep me close to home.
Maybe -- I'd like to, but with the economy in its current state and rising gasoline prices, I can't be sure.
Yes -- The purpose of a vacation is to get away, and that's exactly what I intend to do.
Notice the negative connotations to all of the possible answers. I think the No statement and the Maybe statement show a slight lean but the Yes statement proves the fear mongering conservative bias of Fox News. It suggests that things are so bad that you need a vacation to escape the misery and oppression that President Obama has forced down our throats with his failed economic policies (Fox narrative not Furriners). They could have easily said something like the downturn in the economy has not affected me and I will be traveling. This would keep in line with their "economy" theme of the first two statements. After all the rich are richer than ever and I'm certain they have no reservations about taking a vacation or two this year. Unfortunately they will probably vacation abroad which will have little impact on the US economy. Way to keep things Far from Balanced Fox News.
Are you planning to travel for vacation in 2011?
No -- The uncertainty of the economy is going to keep me close to home.
Maybe -- I'd like to, but with the economy in its current state and rising gasoline prices, I can't be sure.
Yes -- The purpose of a vacation is to get away, and that's exactly what I intend to do.
Notice the negative connotations to all of the possible answers. I think the No statement and the Maybe statement show a slight lean but the Yes statement proves the fear mongering conservative bias of Fox News. It suggests that things are so bad that you need a vacation to escape the misery and oppression that President Obama has forced down our throats with his failed economic policies (Fox narrative not Furriners). They could have easily said something like the downturn in the economy has not affected me and I will be traveling. This would keep in line with their "economy" theme of the first two statements. After all the rich are richer than ever and I'm certain they have no reservations about taking a vacation or two this year. Unfortunately they will probably vacation abroad which will have little impact on the US economy. Way to keep things Far from Balanced Fox News.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Best argument ever against calling the US a Christian Nation
On December 28th 2010 Iran hung a man for "being an enemy of God".
Crazy is all about perspective
NPR reported that much of the Muslim population in Nigeria refuses to get vaccinated for polio. Why would they do this you might ask? Well apparently these people believe that the "polio vaccine is a western plot to sterilize Muslim women or spread the AIDS virus." Crazy right? What proof do they have?
In a related story, I recently offended a co-worker of mine when I mocked his concern that the Chinese would soon own America. In his words "we will all be working for Chow Chi Chung for 26 cents an hour." Crazy right? What proof does he have?
Crazy is all about perspective. The ability to understand how someone else thinks. Unfortunately I find that many conservative positions show a severe lack of understanding of the other sides position. Muslims think Americans are evil and so they don't trust us. Americans burn the construction equipment that is being used to build a mosque and are then surprised that Muslims in the rest of the world are skeptical when we suggest we have their best interests in mind. Crazy?
In a related story, I recently offended a co-worker of mine when I mocked his concern that the Chinese would soon own America. In his words "we will all be working for Chow Chi Chung for 26 cents an hour." Crazy right? What proof does he have?
Crazy is all about perspective. The ability to understand how someone else thinks. Unfortunately I find that many conservative positions show a severe lack of understanding of the other sides position. Muslims think Americans are evil and so they don't trust us. Americans burn the construction equipment that is being used to build a mosque and are then surprised that Muslims in the rest of the world are skeptical when we suggest we have their best interests in mind. Crazy?
Monday, December 27, 2010
Proof that Republicans are clueless
For some reason, someone from my high school graduating class forwarded the following political email:
It just hit me!! My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day. She has her food prepared for her. She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365. Her meals are provided at no cost to her. She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise. For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her. She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep. If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up. She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep. She receives these accommodations absolutely free. She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever. All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,
My dog is a Democrat!
And my classmate made the following statement at the beginning of the email:
regardless of your political party affiliation, this is cute..........
How clueless can you be? I'm a Democrat and not only do I not find this cute, I find it childishly simple minded and insulting. How can someone think that I would find it funny to be compared to a dog. Its no wonder Republicans get so mad at Democrats. Apparently they really think important social decisions can be summed up in one kitschy paragraph.
On a positive note I suppose I find it preferable to be compared to a Democratic dog than being of the same beliefs as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
UPDATE:
Found this and thought it was too cute not to pass along to everyone I know. If you somehow find this offensive you must be a terrorist.
It just hit me!!! My cat is paranoid and overreacts to the slightest sign of trouble. She even freaks out at absolutely nothing. She is only concerned about herself and only seeks attention when it benefits her. She only spends time with a very small select group and runs in fear when anyone outside of that group appears. She lives a life of excess and expects everyone else to clean up after her. When anything gets changed she is completely flummoxed and takes for ever to adjust. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head.
My Cat is Douche Bag Republican.
Cute, right!
It just hit me!! My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day. She has her food prepared for her. She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365. Her meals are provided at no cost to her. She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise. For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her. She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep. If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up. She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep. She receives these accommodations absolutely free. She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever. All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,
My dog is a Democrat!
And my classmate made the following statement at the beginning of the email:
regardless of your political party affiliation, this is cute..........
How clueless can you be? I'm a Democrat and not only do I not find this cute, I find it childishly simple minded and insulting. How can someone think that I would find it funny to be compared to a dog. Its no wonder Republicans get so mad at Democrats. Apparently they really think important social decisions can be summed up in one kitschy paragraph.
On a positive note I suppose I find it preferable to be compared to a Democratic dog than being of the same beliefs as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
UPDATE:
Found this and thought it was too cute not to pass along to everyone I know. If you somehow find this offensive you must be a terrorist.
It just hit me!!! My cat is paranoid and overreacts to the slightest sign of trouble. She even freaks out at absolutely nothing. She is only concerned about herself and only seeks attention when it benefits her. She only spends time with a very small select group and runs in fear when anyone outside of that group appears. She lives a life of excess and expects everyone else to clean up after her. When anything gets changed she is completely flummoxed and takes for ever to adjust. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head.
My Cat is Douche Bag Republican.
Cute, right!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Stop out of control government spending!
The Tea Party loves to complain that the government is spending too much money. While we are running a deficit, the deficit includes a LOT more information than just how much the government spends.
Having said that, to some extent I agree with the idea that our government spends too much money. The problem is that the austerity measures government agencies have undertaken are the absolute wrong way to go about making things better. An example of this is recent backlash against government employees.
Many complain that they make too much yet most lag behind their private sector counterparts and unlike the private industry public employees don't receive huge bonuses based on how much they have ripped off the general public. Additionally state and local employees like police, firefighters and teachers have seen a reduction of around 400,000 jobs over the last year while Federal employees have increased by around 82,000. Of those 82,000; 27,000 were in defense, 25,000 in veterans affairs, and 13,000 in homeland security. By supporting cuts in government spending we have made our homes and cities less safe and instead are using our tax dollars to defend the world.
Also consider that the largest increase in government spending over the past year was in the defense budget where spending increase by a little over $100 billion. Not only do we spend five times as much on defense as the next largest spending country (China) but our one year increase alone would rank as the second largest spending nation in the world (behind ourselves). The list would go like this:
US 2009 defense spending - $795 billion
US 2009-2010 increase of defense spending - $101 billion
China 2009 defense spending - $98 billion
Yes, we increased spending in one year by more than any other nation spends. This $101 billion increase also represents the largest increase in spending in the entire federal government budget. So yes, government spending is out of control but don't blame it on high government employee wages or earmarks. The fear mongering from the right and the insistence on being the world police are the reasons we have huge deficits. Unless we tax accordingly, we will never control our national debt until we reign in defense spending.
Having said that, to some extent I agree with the idea that our government spends too much money. The problem is that the austerity measures government agencies have undertaken are the absolute wrong way to go about making things better. An example of this is recent backlash against government employees.
Many complain that they make too much yet most lag behind their private sector counterparts and unlike the private industry public employees don't receive huge bonuses based on how much they have ripped off the general public. Additionally state and local employees like police, firefighters and teachers have seen a reduction of around 400,000 jobs over the last year while Federal employees have increased by around 82,000. Of those 82,000; 27,000 were in defense, 25,000 in veterans affairs, and 13,000 in homeland security. By supporting cuts in government spending we have made our homes and cities less safe and instead are using our tax dollars to defend the world.
Also consider that the largest increase in government spending over the past year was in the defense budget where spending increase by a little over $100 billion. Not only do we spend five times as much on defense as the next largest spending country (China) but our one year increase alone would rank as the second largest spending nation in the world (behind ourselves). The list would go like this:
US 2009 defense spending - $795 billion
US 2009-2010 increase of defense spending - $101 billion
China 2009 defense spending - $98 billion
Yes, we increased spending in one year by more than any other nation spends. This $101 billion increase also represents the largest increase in spending in the entire federal government budget. So yes, government spending is out of control but don't blame it on high government employee wages or earmarks. The fear mongering from the right and the insistence on being the world police are the reasons we have huge deficits. Unless we tax accordingly, we will never control our national debt until we reign in defense spending.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Top 1% are not rich, they are Super rich
As a Democrat I was disappointed that we lost the message on one important part of the tax compromise that was recently signed into law. For some reason the middle class feel that they will someday be rich and therefore they fight to keep taxes low, even for this elite group. I think it would help to change the message and instead of calling them "the rich" we refer to them as "the Super Rich". This should make them harder to identify with and allow for a repeal of these taxes in 2 years when this debate occurs again.
Lovie Smith the new Big Buck aka Wayne Fontes
Following their 2006 Super Bowl appearance the Chicago Bears have had two 7-9 seasons and a 9-7 season. Going into this year Lovie Smiths job was in jeopardy. As A Lions fan I am excited that the Bears, contrary to my preseason prediction, have put together another winning record. This means Lovie Smith gets to keep his job another year. The Bears under Lovie Smith are eerily similarly to the Lions under Wayne Fontes. They win in the years when the competition is inferior and lose when they have to play good teams. This year the Bears have managed to beat two teams with winning records while facing the 8th easiest schedule. In addition they have lost very little time to injuries and have not had to put a single stater on IR this year.
I think the Bears will be one of the worst teams in the playoffs and I would be surprised if they manage one win in the playoffs this year let only two. This is unfortunate since next year the Bears will struggle to get to 8 wins and without a good playoff run Lovie could again be on the hot seat.
If Lovie is smart he will send Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli, and Mike Tice on vacation around the NFL draft because those three guys (the first two in particular) are awful talent evaluators.
Good Luck Big Buck.
I think the Bears will be one of the worst teams in the playoffs and I would be surprised if they manage one win in the playoffs this year let only two. This is unfortunate since next year the Bears will struggle to get to 8 wins and without a good playoff run Lovie could again be on the hot seat.
If Lovie is smart he will send Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli, and Mike Tice on vacation around the NFL draft because those three guys (the first two in particular) are awful talent evaluators.
Good Luck Big Buck.
Monday, December 20, 2010
John Stossel's list of Politicians top 10 promises gone wrong.
When I was a kid I remember seeing John Stossel on 20/20 and thinking he had some good points. Then I grew up. As a Fox News contributor John Stossel has taken to only presenting half of the story. This is true with his most recent report: Politicians top 10 promises gone wrong.
10. Cash For Clunkers.
John stands in a junk yard breaking things to acting like he is creating stimulus. Well to some extent he is. An environmental consulting firm recently reported that cutting down Christmas trees was a better than owning a fake one. One of the big reasons? It creates jobs to destroy perfectly good trees. Rather than putting out facts to support his point Stossel takes on Paul Krugam'sstatement that the 9/11 attacks will be good for the economy. Stossels view: you think it creates jobs because you can see the jobs it creates. John Stossel actually believes that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is just making an off the cuff statement about the economic impact of destruction. John you are no economist and you embarrass yourself with this mind numbingly simple minded belief.
John goes on to claim that the increase in used car prices proves it was bad. Really? So keeping house prices high is good while car prices should be low? You can't have it both ways John.
Cash for Clunkers created jobs and put money into the economy. Was it the best stimulus program ever? No. But it was better than the Estate Tax cut or the tax cut for the super rich. Yes.
9. Minimum Wage
John makes the argument that having a minimum wage is bad and finds people ordinary people who either start off making less than minimum wage or want to hire people at less than minimum wage as his proof. John, these people have a stake in this. They are not reliable sources. The real problem here, which John repeats a couple of times on this list, is he uses the results of the legislation to show that we don't need it. What I mean by this is similar to Glenn Beck claiming we have the safest food in the world and uses that as proof why the government should stay out of food safety. The food is safe because of the FDA, not in spite of it. Similarly, American wages are higher because of minimum wage, not in spite of it.
John points out that more people would be working it companies could just pay less. Apparently John is OK with corporate greed where big business overcharges just as long as none of those profits are handed down to the working class. After all only the super rich deserve a big bonus.
If John was right and having no lower limit was good then the foreclosure epidemic in the US is a good thing. Just ask people who need to sell their house how the foreclosures have affected their ability to move and take a new job.
8. Title 9
John claims that the women's movement has already take care of any inequality issues, after all, his college had gone co-ed a full three years before title 9. Hey John, isn't is possible that your school saw what was coming and acted proactively because of title 9? Also to suggest that everything would be equal void of title 9 shows a complete lack of connection with reality given that women are still behind in many areas including pay for the same job. Weird that a white male wouldn't see the value of title 9.
Clearly this legislation has some issues but don't we want our elected officials to make improvements as issue arise? Do you really expect perfection right out of the gate?
7. New stadiums using tax payer money will increase jobs
I imagine there is some small amount of truth to this idea but the funny thing here is that Mr. Stossel blames politicians for this. This shell game was created by the super rich who want someone else to pay for a stadium they will use. The only reason politicians get involved is because pushing the agenda of the super rich is good for their political career. All John does is further the Fox News narrative that government is bad and business is good by blaming a big business idea on politicians.
6. Tax breaks for farmers
John finds a bunch of people who are taking advantage of the situation by being rich and looking for a way to get a tax break. Odd that John would chastise a tax cut for rich people looking to hide their money. The tax cut is not designed for these people. It is designed for small farmers to compete with industrial farms. I'm not sure if it is good legislation but John is really distorting the truth with this one. John is all for less taxes and this legislation does that. I actually agree with John that this legislation should be fixed. The only problem is that the beneficiaries of this legislation are the rich and that means the Republicans will block any changes and claim that it is a tax hike or kills jobs.
5. Credit Card bill
John claims that thanks to the credit card legislation less people have access to credit cards and interest rates are higher. This is like an abusive parent blaming the kids for their abuse. The credit card companies have many unsavory methods of making money. That is their free market right. The government is fighting to protect the abused by limiting some of the worst practices. But when the abusive company find a different way of abusing their customers John makes the argument that the government is acting poorly? This is complete lunacy.
4. Health Care for all
Again John is making the case for the abuser. Medicare has lower costs than private insurance. That is a fact. Private insurance companies raising rates and dropping participants doesn't prove that health care for all is bad. It proves that private insurance companies put wealth above health. That is the free market system so I don't blame them. But John Stossel should know better. These are issues with the private insurance companies and if Republicans hadn't fought against the public option we could have eliminated some of these issues. John is completely wrong here. Not only does he blame the abused for being abused but his support for the conservative stand made the problem worse.
3. Ethanol
This one is a shameless distortion of the facts. ADM wanted increase profits and diversify into renewable energy. They paid lots of money to convince politicians that this was a good thing. The only people ethanol helps is big corn companies like ADM. This has been obvious for quite some time yet people like Chuck Grassly defend it because that is a big chuck of change he stands to lose it the government mandate for ethanol disappears. John, this was big business at work, not bad politicians. It would be nice if you could mention that in your smear campaign.
2. Home ownership
John blames the housing bubble on the push for increased home ownership. This may have started the problem but the blame for the bubble lies at the feet of the big businesses that asked for the ability to prospect in homes, over sell an under educated populous, and create a false reality of housing prices. Flipping houses and artificially increasing value wasn't a result of the home interest tax credit. It may not have hurt, but putting all of the blame on the government misses the whole story.
1. Fiscal responsibility
John claims that we expect our politicans to be fiscally conservative yet they spend more money every year. There is a lot of issues here but this one I actually agree with to some extent. I just wish John would point out that historically this is a problem with Republican Presidents not Democratic ones. The other big problem I have with blaming government for this is that our electoral system relies on outside money and big business buys these "bad deal". Republicans have fought changing how campaigns are funded at every turn so I'm not sure that John gets to complain about the results of a policy his organization supports. Second, the American people support almost all the spending that we currently do. Why? Because every piece of legislation is designed to help someone and who wants to end a program that they benefits from?
I think John would have been better served if he had called this list what it really is: Fox News top 10 slants that make Democrats look bad.
10. Cash For Clunkers.
John stands in a junk yard breaking things to acting like he is creating stimulus. Well to some extent he is. An environmental consulting firm recently reported that cutting down Christmas trees was a better than owning a fake one. One of the big reasons? It creates jobs to destroy perfectly good trees. Rather than putting out facts to support his point Stossel takes on Paul Krugam'sstatement that the 9/11 attacks will be good for the economy. Stossels view: you think it creates jobs because you can see the jobs it creates. John Stossel actually believes that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is just making an off the cuff statement about the economic impact of destruction. John you are no economist and you embarrass yourself with this mind numbingly simple minded belief.
John goes on to claim that the increase in used car prices proves it was bad. Really? So keeping house prices high is good while car prices should be low? You can't have it both ways John.
Cash for Clunkers created jobs and put money into the economy. Was it the best stimulus program ever? No. But it was better than the Estate Tax cut or the tax cut for the super rich. Yes.
9. Minimum Wage
John makes the argument that having a minimum wage is bad and finds people ordinary people who either start off making less than minimum wage or want to hire people at less than minimum wage as his proof. John, these people have a stake in this. They are not reliable sources. The real problem here, which John repeats a couple of times on this list, is he uses the results of the legislation to show that we don't need it. What I mean by this is similar to Glenn Beck claiming we have the safest food in the world and uses that as proof why the government should stay out of food safety. The food is safe because of the FDA, not in spite of it. Similarly, American wages are higher because of minimum wage, not in spite of it.
John points out that more people would be working it companies could just pay less. Apparently John is OK with corporate greed where big business overcharges just as long as none of those profits are handed down to the working class. After all only the super rich deserve a big bonus.
If John was right and having no lower limit was good then the foreclosure epidemic in the US is a good thing. Just ask people who need to sell their house how the foreclosures have affected their ability to move and take a new job.
8. Title 9
John claims that the women's movement has already take care of any inequality issues, after all, his college had gone co-ed a full three years before title 9. Hey John, isn't is possible that your school saw what was coming and acted proactively because of title 9? Also to suggest that everything would be equal void of title 9 shows a complete lack of connection with reality given that women are still behind in many areas including pay for the same job. Weird that a white male wouldn't see the value of title 9.
Clearly this legislation has some issues but don't we want our elected officials to make improvements as issue arise? Do you really expect perfection right out of the gate?
7. New stadiums using tax payer money will increase jobs
I imagine there is some small amount of truth to this idea but the funny thing here is that Mr. Stossel blames politicians for this. This shell game was created by the super rich who want someone else to pay for a stadium they will use. The only reason politicians get involved is because pushing the agenda of the super rich is good for their political career. All John does is further the Fox News narrative that government is bad and business is good by blaming a big business idea on politicians.
6. Tax breaks for farmers
John finds a bunch of people who are taking advantage of the situation by being rich and looking for a way to get a tax break. Odd that John would chastise a tax cut for rich people looking to hide their money. The tax cut is not designed for these people. It is designed for small farmers to compete with industrial farms. I'm not sure if it is good legislation but John is really distorting the truth with this one. John is all for less taxes and this legislation does that. I actually agree with John that this legislation should be fixed. The only problem is that the beneficiaries of this legislation are the rich and that means the Republicans will block any changes and claim that it is a tax hike or kills jobs.
5. Credit Card bill
John claims that thanks to the credit card legislation less people have access to credit cards and interest rates are higher. This is like an abusive parent blaming the kids for their abuse. The credit card companies have many unsavory methods of making money. That is their free market right. The government is fighting to protect the abused by limiting some of the worst practices. But when the abusive company find a different way of abusing their customers John makes the argument that the government is acting poorly? This is complete lunacy.
4. Health Care for all
Again John is making the case for the abuser. Medicare has lower costs than private insurance. That is a fact. Private insurance companies raising rates and dropping participants doesn't prove that health care for all is bad. It proves that private insurance companies put wealth above health. That is the free market system so I don't blame them. But John Stossel should know better. These are issues with the private insurance companies and if Republicans hadn't fought against the public option we could have eliminated some of these issues. John is completely wrong here. Not only does he blame the abused for being abused but his support for the conservative stand made the problem worse.
3. Ethanol
This one is a shameless distortion of the facts. ADM wanted increase profits and diversify into renewable energy. They paid lots of money to convince politicians that this was a good thing. The only people ethanol helps is big corn companies like ADM. This has been obvious for quite some time yet people like Chuck Grassly defend it because that is a big chuck of change he stands to lose it the government mandate for ethanol disappears. John, this was big business at work, not bad politicians. It would be nice if you could mention that in your smear campaign.
2. Home ownership
John blames the housing bubble on the push for increased home ownership. This may have started the problem but the blame for the bubble lies at the feet of the big businesses that asked for the ability to prospect in homes, over sell an under educated populous, and create a false reality of housing prices. Flipping houses and artificially increasing value wasn't a result of the home interest tax credit. It may not have hurt, but putting all of the blame on the government misses the whole story.
1. Fiscal responsibility
John claims that we expect our politicans to be fiscally conservative yet they spend more money every year. There is a lot of issues here but this one I actually agree with to some extent. I just wish John would point out that historically this is a problem with Republican Presidents not Democratic ones. The other big problem I have with blaming government for this is that our electoral system relies on outside money and big business buys these "bad deal". Republicans have fought changing how campaigns are funded at every turn so I'm not sure that John gets to complain about the results of a policy his organization supports. Second, the American people support almost all the spending that we currently do. Why? Because every piece of legislation is designed to help someone and who wants to end a program that they benefits from?
I think John would have been better served if he had called this list what it really is: Fox News top 10 slants that make Democrats look bad.
Why do the rich get richer? Republicans and Stupid Americans.
President Obama has signed the tax compromise into law and Americans support the action. The problem is that Americans support the bill for all the wrong reasons. There are a number of myths at work here.
1. The tax compromise will create jobs.
This tax compromise should be viewed as the next stimulus, though not a very good stimulus. The biggest problem is that over a third of the tax cuts benefit the top 2% and the CBO recently released are report showing the the job creation of the tax cuts for the super rich is between 0.1% and 0.0%. Basically the super rich will create almost no jobs.
2. The rich create jobs.
We have tackled this issue here before but to rehash, the super rich don't create jobs. They are mainly employed by huge companies or self employed. If the super rich truly did create jobs then we should see a correlation between the unemployment rate of a country and the distribution of wealth in that country. Below is a graph showing the CEO pay ratio by country versus the unemployment rates for those countries.
The graph shows no correlation between the average CEO pay relative to average worker pay and unemployment.
3. The American Dream
There is a long standing belief that in America if you work hard you can become successful. Polls show that 51% of 18-29 year olds believe they will be rich someday. The super rich have sold the middle class on this idea of social mobility as a means of justifying their standing while fooling the working class into working harder. For the American worker, chasing this carrot would have better results in almost every other industrialized country other than Britain and Italy. You have a better chance at upward mobility in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Denmark.
Americans love to equate their personal finances with that of the government. Given this I would like Americans to consider this. In financial terms tax cuts by the government equate to spending less as a private citizen. Clearly this is a good idea in bad times. Conversely tax increases by the government are equivalent to saving by private citizens. This is where we have failed. If taxes had remained at the historicaly low Clinton rates under Bush, we could have had a rainy day fund for the economic collapse that we experienced. Instead the government acted like many Americans and spent beyond their means.
Support the tax compromise for what it does do but realize that failing to hold the super rich accountable for their portion means a higher burden for you. Educate a fellow American so the tax cuts for the super rich get eliminated in two years when the economy has improved.
1. The tax compromise will create jobs.
This tax compromise should be viewed as the next stimulus, though not a very good stimulus. The biggest problem is that over a third of the tax cuts benefit the top 2% and the CBO recently released are report showing the the job creation of the tax cuts for the super rich is between 0.1% and 0.0%. Basically the super rich will create almost no jobs.
2. The rich create jobs.
We have tackled this issue here before but to rehash, the super rich don't create jobs. They are mainly employed by huge companies or self employed. If the super rich truly did create jobs then we should see a correlation between the unemployment rate of a country and the distribution of wealth in that country. Below is a graph showing the CEO pay ratio by country versus the unemployment rates for those countries.
The graph shows no correlation between the average CEO pay relative to average worker pay and unemployment.
3. The American Dream
There is a long standing belief that in America if you work hard you can become successful. Polls show that 51% of 18-29 year olds believe they will be rich someday. The super rich have sold the middle class on this idea of social mobility as a means of justifying their standing while fooling the working class into working harder. For the American worker, chasing this carrot would have better results in almost every other industrialized country other than Britain and Italy. You have a better chance at upward mobility in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Denmark.
Americans love to equate their personal finances with that of the government. Given this I would like Americans to consider this. In financial terms tax cuts by the government equate to spending less as a private citizen. Clearly this is a good idea in bad times. Conversely tax increases by the government are equivalent to saving by private citizens. This is where we have failed. If taxes had remained at the historicaly low Clinton rates under Bush, we could have had a rainy day fund for the economic collapse that we experienced. Instead the government acted like many Americans and spent beyond their means.
Support the tax compromise for what it does do but realize that failing to hold the super rich accountable for their portion means a higher burden for you. Educate a fellow American so the tax cuts for the super rich get eliminated in two years when the economy has improved.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Treat The Cause, Not The Symptoms
A couple of days ago, I, perhaps inartfully, expressed my discontent with Jon Stewart taking such a special interest in the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Yesterday, in the final Daily Show of 2010, Jon basically devoted the entire show to the topic.
It failed to sway my opinion.
In the yahoo! news article linked above, the first sentence is:
Is it not the case that their health care only even needs to be funded via a stand-alone bill is a result of our ridiculous health care system (that does not guarantee health care to all citizens)? Why is Jon Stewart so worked up about this when there are approximately 47 million Americans without health insurance? Studies have shown that the uninsured (remember we're talking about 47 million Americans (at least until ObamaCare fully kicks in in 2014)) live sicker and die younger. This is not a new phenomenom and, yet, only now Jon Stewart is motivated to break the format of his show for a cause?
So, I'll say it again. Let's go Single-payer. Problem solved.
That is my request for you in 2011, J-Stew Beef.
It failed to sway my opinion.
In the yahoo! news article linked above, the first sentence is:
Some have questioned why the Republican effort to block a bill to fund health care for 9/11 first responders hasn't received more coverage on the cable news networks.
Is it not the case that their health care only even needs to be funded via a stand-alone bill is a result of our ridiculous health care system (that does not guarantee health care to all citizens)? Why is Jon Stewart so worked up about this when there are approximately 47 million Americans without health insurance? Studies have shown that the uninsured (remember we're talking about 47 million Americans (at least until ObamaCare fully kicks in in 2014)) live sicker and die younger. This is not a new phenomenom and, yet, only now Jon Stewart is motivated to break the format of his show for a cause?
So, I'll say it again. Let's go Single-payer. Problem solved.
That is my request for you in 2011, J-Stew Beef.
The ultimate irony of the Flip-Flop
Today in Ezra Klein's blog he examines the following statement from former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush, David Frum, regarding Mitt Romney's ever changing views.
I sometimes imagine that Romney approaches politics in the same spirit that the CEO of Darden Restaurants approaches cuisine. Darden owns Olive Garden, Longhorn steakhouses, and Red Lobster among other chains. Now suppose that Darden’s data show a decline in demand for mid-priced steak restaurants and a rising response to Italian family dining. Suppose they convert some of their Longhorn outlets to Olive Gardens. Is that “flip-flopping”? Or is that giving people what they want for their money?
Likewise, the “pro-choice” concept met public demand so long as Romney Inc. was a Boston-based senatorship and governorship-seeking enterprise. But now Romney Inc. is expanding to a national brand, with important new growth opportunities in Iowa and South Carolina. A new concept is accordingly required to serve these new markets. Again: this is not flip-flopping. It is customer service.
You may say: But what does Romney think on the inside? Which of his positions is the “real” Romney? I’d answer that question with another question. Suppose an Olive Garden customer returns to the kitchen a plate of fettuccine alfredo, complaining the pasta is overcooked. What should the manager do? Say “I disagree”? Explain that it’s a core conviction to cook pasta to a certain specified number of minutes and seconds, and if the customer doesn’t like it, she’s welcome to take her patronage elsewhere? No! It doesn’t matter what the manager “really” thinks. What matters is satisfying each and every customer who walks through the door to the very best of the manager’s ability.
While Ezra takes issue with the actual analogy it struck me as funny given the term flip flopper was used by the guy Mr. Frum worked for to retain his job. I'm certain David Frum was a firm believer in rigidity that George W. Bush exhibited and was more than happy to chastise John Kerry as a flip flopper. Obviously seeing that the guy he backs now makes John Kerry look as stubbornly obstinate as, well, George W. Bush, he has decided to spin flip flopping and make it a positive.
While I have always supported the idea that a President should constantly evaluate every decision and make adjustments if necessary, Mr. Frum is advocating that Mitt Romney is doing this not because the change of heart represents what is best for Mitt Romney's constituents but rather what is best for Mitt Romney. There is a huge difference and the fact that David Frum doesn't realize that or chooses to ignore it, only proves that contrary to their stance as the party of morals, Republicans are willing to do anything for money and power.
I sometimes imagine that Romney approaches politics in the same spirit that the CEO of Darden Restaurants approaches cuisine. Darden owns Olive Garden, Longhorn steakhouses, and Red Lobster among other chains. Now suppose that Darden’s data show a decline in demand for mid-priced steak restaurants and a rising response to Italian family dining. Suppose they convert some of their Longhorn outlets to Olive Gardens. Is that “flip-flopping”? Or is that giving people what they want for their money?
Likewise, the “pro-choice” concept met public demand so long as Romney Inc. was a Boston-based senatorship and governorship-seeking enterprise. But now Romney Inc. is expanding to a national brand, with important new growth opportunities in Iowa and South Carolina. A new concept is accordingly required to serve these new markets. Again: this is not flip-flopping. It is customer service.
You may say: But what does Romney think on the inside? Which of his positions is the “real” Romney? I’d answer that question with another question. Suppose an Olive Garden customer returns to the kitchen a plate of fettuccine alfredo, complaining the pasta is overcooked. What should the manager do? Say “I disagree”? Explain that it’s a core conviction to cook pasta to a certain specified number of minutes and seconds, and if the customer doesn’t like it, she’s welcome to take her patronage elsewhere? No! It doesn’t matter what the manager “really” thinks. What matters is satisfying each and every customer who walks through the door to the very best of the manager’s ability.
While Ezra takes issue with the actual analogy it struck me as funny given the term flip flopper was used by the guy Mr. Frum worked for to retain his job. I'm certain David Frum was a firm believer in rigidity that George W. Bush exhibited and was more than happy to chastise John Kerry as a flip flopper. Obviously seeing that the guy he backs now makes John Kerry look as stubbornly obstinate as, well, George W. Bush, he has decided to spin flip flopping and make it a positive.
While I have always supported the idea that a President should constantly evaluate every decision and make adjustments if necessary, Mr. Frum is advocating that Mitt Romney is doing this not because the change of heart represents what is best for Mitt Romney's constituents but rather what is best for Mitt Romney. There is a huge difference and the fact that David Frum doesn't realize that or chooses to ignore it, only proves that contrary to their stance as the party of morals, Republicans are willing to do anything for money and power.
Fair and Balaned? More like Far from Balanced.
Last year around this time the Fox News spin machine was in full force trying to convince Americans that the scientific community was lying about the mountain of evidence that confirms global warming. Their basis for these claims was when the email accounts of a number of climate scientists were hacked into and published. Noted Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin made the following statements:
The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.
Then earlier this week internal Fox New emails from Washington Bureau Chief, Bill Sammon, were leaked showing a clear company wide goal to influence the opinions of viewers against global warming and health care reform. Fox News' official narrative on global warming as provided by Mr. Sammons was as follows:
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
While I don't mind the opinion guys on Fox New having an opinion I hate to think that they espouse that opinion not because they believe it but because that is the company line. Having said that, if Global Warming is a hoax and these emails prove it than why design a corporate narrative, just do like other news sources and release the proof.
And to rally support against the public option in the health care reform bill Mr. Sammon issued a statement that the Fox News wording for this program be changed to "government option".
I'm not sure how slanting the opinions of your viewers qualifies as "Fair and Balance". Fortunately for Fox News, they understand their audience and realize that reality and facts are not important to them, they just want an opinion they can believe in.
The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.
Then earlier this week internal Fox New emails from Washington Bureau Chief, Bill Sammon, were leaked showing a clear company wide goal to influence the opinions of viewers against global warming and health care reform. Fox News' official narrative on global warming as provided by Mr. Sammons was as follows:
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
While I don't mind the opinion guys on Fox New having an opinion I hate to think that they espouse that opinion not because they believe it but because that is the company line. Having said that, if Global Warming is a hoax and these emails prove it than why design a corporate narrative, just do like other news sources and release the proof.
And to rally support against the public option in the health care reform bill Mr. Sammon issued a statement that the Fox News wording for this program be changed to "government option".
I'm not sure how slanting the opinions of your viewers qualifies as "Fair and Balance". Fortunately for Fox News, they understand their audience and realize that reality and facts are not important to them, they just want an opinion they can believe in.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
I Propose A Trade
Last night, I happened to catch a bit of The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. He had on Meghan McCain to talk about the House's latest attempt to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Ms. McCain again reiterated her strong support for repeal of DADT and for marriage equality for the LGBT community.
As I watched it, I could not help but think a trade is in order... would not everyone be happier if the Democrats/liberals & progressives swapped Harold Ford, Jr. to the Republicans/conservatives & teabaggers for Meghan McCain?
Would Meghan make a good Democrat? No, absolutely not. But neither does Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln and certainly neither does Harold Ford, Jr.! Mr. Ford is what we refer in the fantasy sports world as "expendable" (it is also what Dick Cheney calls U.S. soldiers... allegedly).
This would be the best trade I have made since acquiring Patrick Jeffers early in the 1999 fantasy football season.
Ms. McCain again reiterated her strong support for repeal of DADT and for marriage equality for the LGBT community.
As I watched it, I could not help but think a trade is in order... would not everyone be happier if the Democrats/liberals & progressives swapped Harold Ford, Jr. to the Republicans/conservatives & teabaggers for Meghan McCain?
Would Meghan make a good Democrat? No, absolutely not. But neither does Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln and certainly neither does Harold Ford, Jr.! Mr. Ford is what we refer in the fantasy sports world as "expendable" (it is also what Dick Cheney calls U.S. soldiers... allegedly).
This would be the best trade I have made since acquiring Patrick Jeffers early in the 1999 fantasy football season.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
We Are All Worthy, Jon!
Earlier this very day, my Furriners colleague seemed to take a little shot at Jon Stewart. Just by coincidence, I also have a qualm with the esteemed host of The Daily Show. (And this is a post which I reckon will not win me any fans... unlike my many Derek Anderson posts which, by the way, are award eligible.)
In the past couple weeks, Mr. Stewart has had (for a lack of better phrase) a little burr in his bonnet about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - commonly known as the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Mr. Stewart has called it "literally the least we could do."
Fair enough...
...however, I could not help but recall an interview from last summer that Jon had with Bill Kristol regarding our nation's health care system. The topic came up of how veterans are covered under the V.A. (socialized medicine) and that they receive this as a benefit for their service to the country.
It included this excerpt:
As Mr. Kristol said that, literally a gasp came over the audience at how outrageous is to say that the general public is not worthy of the same quality of health care as soldiers.
Hmmmm... I get the feeling I am not making a persuasive argument...
so let me put it another way.
I assume that most of these First Responders have health insurance, correct? Safe assumption I think we'd all agree (and even if they didn't, this would presumably fall under Work Comp for most). So why is there even a need for such a bill to cover the medical expenses of these men and women? Should not their respective health insurance companies be picking up the tab on these expenses? What... are these expenses too much of a drag on their profits so we have to go to the taxpayers to pay these bills?
So, okay... fair enough. I am actually fine with some of my tax dollars going to cover medical expenses of our nations populice - but I just wish I could get in that myself. Single-payer... Medicare For All...or even Public Option... whichever form it takes, I would just like people to recognize that all of our citizens, living our lives, doing the best we can, are also worthy of having our medical needs met.
And, by the way, yes, I am uninsured. By choice. Because I don't want to give money to the any of the greedy, morally bankrupt (and very much not financially bankrupt) private insurance companies.
In the past couple weeks, Mr. Stewart has had (for a lack of better phrase) a little burr in his bonnet about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - commonly known as the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Mr. Stewart has called it "literally the least we could do."
Fair enough...
...however, I could not help but recall an interview from last summer that Jon had with Bill Kristol regarding our nation's health care system. The topic came up of how veterans are covered under the V.A. (socialized medicine) and that they receive this as a benefit for their service to the country.
It included this excerpt:
Jon: Are you saying that the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?
Bill: Yes. To our soldiers? Absolutely. I think if you become a soldier, you deserve...first class health care.
As Mr. Kristol said that, literally a gasp came over the audience at how outrageous is to say that the general public is not worthy of the same quality of health care as soldiers.
Hmmmm... I get the feeling I am not making a persuasive argument...
so let me put it another way.
I assume that most of these First Responders have health insurance, correct? Safe assumption I think we'd all agree (and even if they didn't, this would presumably fall under Work Comp for most). So why is there even a need for such a bill to cover the medical expenses of these men and women? Should not their respective health insurance companies be picking up the tab on these expenses? What... are these expenses too much of a drag on their profits so we have to go to the taxpayers to pay these bills?
So, okay... fair enough. I am actually fine with some of my tax dollars going to cover medical expenses of our nations populice - but I just wish I could get in that myself. Single-payer... Medicare For All...or even Public Option... whichever form it takes, I would just like people to recognize that all of our citizens, living our lives, doing the best we can, are also worthy of having our medical needs met.
And, by the way, yes, I am uninsured. By choice. Because I don't want to give money to the any of the greedy, morally bankrupt (and very much not financially bankrupt) private insurance companies.
Jon Stewart running for President in 2012?
Recently Jon Stewart and the Daily show have been moving to the right. This has made the show rather vanilla. It makes you long for the times of George W. Bush when Jon was an unabashed Liberal. That version of the Daily show pointed and relevant while the post Rally to Restore Sanity Daily Show is measured and tepid.
This unexplainable shift got me thinking to another John who suddenly moved right - John McCain. And then it dawned on me. Jon Stewart is planning a run for President as a Republican. It makes perfect sense given that the Tea Party has forced the Republicans so far right that the constraints of Democracy has them bordering on a becoming a Dictatorship movement. This leaves a huge void for right leaning independents, which Jon apparently plans to fill. All that is left is to secure the services of Joe Lieberman as VP and Jon can toss his hat into the ring.
This unexplainable shift got me thinking to another John who suddenly moved right - John McCain. And then it dawned on me. Jon Stewart is planning a run for President as a Republican. It makes perfect sense given that the Tea Party has forced the Republicans so far right that the constraints of Democracy has them bordering on a becoming a Dictatorship movement. This leaves a huge void for right leaning independents, which Jon apparently plans to fill. All that is left is to secure the services of Joe Lieberman as VP and Jon can toss his hat into the ring.
The argument for the constitutionality of the individual mandate
As I stated in a previous post I don't love the individual mandate, but unlike Republicans I understand that it is necessary to accomplish the goals of providing better and cheaper health care while putting more money in peoples pockets.
The US Government has already proven that it has the constitutional right to mandate insurance (purchase a product) by mandating everyone who drives a car purchase insurance. But wait, you say. Not everyone has to drive a car so it is not the same. Well, not everyone has to use a hospital so it is the same.
If, however, you take the stance that everyone does have to use the hospital at some time then hospitals become part of the common good which means our tax dollars should cover it. There is already precedent for the common good argument set forth by the government since hospitals are required to see people in the emergency room regardless of their insurance status. Additionally the elderly don't get to opt out of Medicare, which means that at some point the government already has an individual mandate for people of a certain age. The only difference is that Medicare is a single payer system. But that doesn't change the fact that it is mandated and people are essentially charged for it in every pay check.
The US Government has already proven that it has the constitutional right to mandate insurance (purchase a product) by mandating everyone who drives a car purchase insurance. But wait, you say. Not everyone has to drive a car so it is not the same. Well, not everyone has to use a hospital so it is the same.
If, however, you take the stance that everyone does have to use the hospital at some time then hospitals become part of the common good which means our tax dollars should cover it. There is already precedent for the common good argument set forth by the government since hospitals are required to see people in the emergency room regardless of their insurance status. Additionally the elderly don't get to opt out of Medicare, which means that at some point the government already has an individual mandate for people of a certain age. The only difference is that Medicare is a single payer system. But that doesn't change the fact that it is mandated and people are essentially charged for it in every pay check.
Public Service Announcement: Stop Sign Edition
In my recent travels on Michigan roads in noticed that there seems to be some confusion about how to properly use a stop sign. With this in mind I wanted to post a Public Service Announcement on the etiquette of a stop sign.
First, if you are going to blow through a stop sign to get in front of me because executing a legal stop would force you to wait until I go by, then you sure as shit better go at least one mile per hour faster than I am going and if I have to touch my breaks because you're too important to let me pass before pulling out, be prepared to have a Toyota Corolla bumper sticker for the next few miles.
Second, If I'm first to the stop sign, you don't have the right to ignore the stop sign because that is the only way to get in front of me. If you choose to do so please follow the statement in the first example above or expect the bumper sticker response.
Finally, a stop sign in front of a store is meant for a complete stop, followed by acceleration away from the stop sign. Sitting at the stop sign while your 300 pound wife waddles in for a pack of Marlboro's and a vat of ice cream, is not an option. This also applies to the entire sidewalk portion in front of the store. Being lazy or rich does not give you special privileges at Target. Anointing yourself as more important than the handicap makes you an asshole and when a random cart dents your car out of nowhere, consider that your warning.
This has been a Public Service Announcement, brought to you by the slightly disturbed folks at Furriners.
First, if you are going to blow through a stop sign to get in front of me because executing a legal stop would force you to wait until I go by, then you sure as shit better go at least one mile per hour faster than I am going and if I have to touch my breaks because you're too important to let me pass before pulling out, be prepared to have a Toyota Corolla bumper sticker for the next few miles.
Second, If I'm first to the stop sign, you don't have the right to ignore the stop sign because that is the only way to get in front of me. If you choose to do so please follow the statement in the first example above or expect the bumper sticker response.
Finally, a stop sign in front of a store is meant for a complete stop, followed by acceleration away from the stop sign. Sitting at the stop sign while your 300 pound wife waddles in for a pack of Marlboro's and a vat of ice cream, is not an option. This also applies to the entire sidewalk portion in front of the store. Being lazy or rich does not give you special privileges at Target. Anointing yourself as more important than the handicap makes you an asshole and when a random cart dents your car out of nowhere, consider that your warning.
This has been a Public Service Announcement, brought to you by the slightly disturbed folks at Furriners.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Christians under attack in Muslim nations
There has been a rash of religious based, state sponsored, attacks in Muslim nations over the past few months that have been garnering attention in the US mainly because of the Christians who are being targeted. The attacks however are not limited to Christians as Muslims are also attacking those of all faiths including other derivations of the Muslim faith.
I imagine many Christians find these attacks deplorable and believe that all Muslims are bad or at least this is not something Christians would do in the name of their God. While religious freedom is easier to come by in the US than some other countries intolerance runs deep among American Christians and violence has certainly been part of that intolerance (see the history of the KKK). This is also true of other nations that have Christian majorities like Canada, Ireland, and Russia. The point being that violence towards other religions is not a uniquely Muslim trait.
The biggest difference between the US and the Muslim nations where the attacks are currently occurring, is the separation of church and state. These Muslim nations have laws, that are punishable by death if broken, such as blasphemy. As a Catholic you get off with a few Haily Marys but in Pakistan you die. By not having a national religion we avoid having religious based laws that are by their very nature intolerant of other religions. I don't care how righteous you are or how pure you think your religion is, each individual interprets their religious book differently and those interpretations lead to hate and violence in some followers.
The US is a great country and religious violence is low because of the separation of church and state not in spite of it. Believing otherwise makes you no better than the Muslim extremists that you are fighting against and for those who fear the rule of Sharia Law in America - the separation of church is your best defense against it not the declaration of Christian nation.
I imagine many Christians find these attacks deplorable and believe that all Muslims are bad or at least this is not something Christians would do in the name of their God. While religious freedom is easier to come by in the US than some other countries intolerance runs deep among American Christians and violence has certainly been part of that intolerance (see the history of the KKK). This is also true of other nations that have Christian majorities like Canada, Ireland, and Russia. The point being that violence towards other religions is not a uniquely Muslim trait.
The biggest difference between the US and the Muslim nations where the attacks are currently occurring, is the separation of church and state. These Muslim nations have laws, that are punishable by death if broken, such as blasphemy. As a Catholic you get off with a few Haily Marys but in Pakistan you die. By not having a national religion we avoid having religious based laws that are by their very nature intolerant of other religions. I don't care how righteous you are or how pure you think your religion is, each individual interprets their religious book differently and those interpretations lead to hate and violence in some followers.
The US is a great country and religious violence is low because of the separation of church and state not in spite of it. Believing otherwise makes you no better than the Muslim extremists that you are fighting against and for those who fear the rule of Sharia Law in America - the separation of church is your best defense against it not the declaration of Christian nation.
Richard Holbrooke Pulls A Clinton
No need to worry, this has nothing to do with sex with interns.
Let me preface this by saying I mean no disrespect to the recently deceased. While I acknowledge I am not a long time foreign policy junkie who can fully appreciate the career of Mr. Holbrooke, I have seen him interviewed several times over the past two years and I certainly found him to be intelligent and thoughtful.
That said, I was a little taken aback this morning when across the MSNBC ticker, it said the last words of Mr. Holbrooke (according to his family) were:
Seeing as how in all the interviews I have seen of Mr. Holbrooke since his appointment as Special Envoy to Afghanistan & Pakistan in 2009, I did not ever recall him being a strong voice for ending the war, I found this a little surprising.
What does this have to do with Bill Clinton you might be wondering?
Well, Bill Maher has on occasion pointed out that - after leaving office - President Clinton has said that he thought marijuana should be legalized (I will acknowledge here that a google provides no evidence of that). About the former president's stance, Mr. Maher has quipped "Great! Wouldn't it be nice if you were in a position of power and could do something about it?!"
So this is reminiscent of Mr. Holbrooke. He was The Man when it came to Af-Pak. He had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ear and would certainly have had some influence on President Obama as well. As far as I can tell (who knows what was going on behind the scenes? Well, I suppose we all might soon enough given the WikiLeaks situation!), Mr. Holbrooke never spoke out against our ongoing war/occupation in Afghanistan until it was too late.
Sometimes carpe diem isn't just a cliche people.
Let me preface this by saying I mean no disrespect to the recently deceased. While I acknowledge I am not a long time foreign policy junkie who can fully appreciate the career of Mr. Holbrooke, I have seen him interviewed several times over the past two years and I certainly found him to be intelligent and thoughtful.
That said, I was a little taken aback this morning when across the MSNBC ticker, it said the last words of Mr. Holbrooke (according to his family) were:
You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan.
Seeing as how in all the interviews I have seen of Mr. Holbrooke since his appointment as Special Envoy to Afghanistan & Pakistan in 2009, I did not ever recall him being a strong voice for ending the war, I found this a little surprising.
What does this have to do with Bill Clinton you might be wondering?
Well, Bill Maher has on occasion pointed out that - after leaving office - President Clinton has said that he thought marijuana should be legalized (I will acknowledge here that a google provides no evidence of that). About the former president's stance, Mr. Maher has quipped "Great! Wouldn't it be nice if you were in a position of power and could do something about it?!"
So this is reminiscent of Mr. Holbrooke. He was The Man when it came to Af-Pak. He had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ear and would certainly have had some influence on President Obama as well. As far as I can tell (who knows what was going on behind the scenes? Well, I suppose we all might soon enough given the WikiLeaks situation!), Mr. Holbrooke never spoke out against our ongoing war/occupation in Afghanistan until it was too late.
Sometimes carpe diem isn't just a cliche people.
Republicans get decison against individual mandate, claim victory?
District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled yesterday that the individual mandate portion of the health care reform bill was unconstitutional while the rest of the bill was left alone or declared constitutional.
For some reason Republicans are claiming victory over this decision. As a Liberal I can tell you I don't love this portion of the bill. It is a big kick back to the insurance industry. If Republicans want to fight the interests of big business I'm all for it. The problem for Republicans is the fact that the rest of the bill was not struck down. The individual mandate may be the only part of the policy that doesn't poll well but it is responsible for covering more people and lowering the costs. By removing the individual mandate the Republicans are basically fighting for health care welfare. The uninsured will still get care and the insured will continue to pay for that care only without the individual mandate some of the cost controls will be lost and the insured will pay more while the uninsured get a "free ride".
After this decision NPR put together a report on the changing world that the baby boomers find themselves in. They grew up with the promise of a fully funded Social Security system, medical insurance through Medicare, a guaranteed pension, and an ever increasing value of their investments, yet at every turn over the last half a century Republicans have looked to erode these safety nets for 98% of Americans in favor of benefits for the top 2%. Republicans have stacked the deck using the idea that it takes money to make money and then preach to the less fortunate that they just need to work harder and show some personal responsibility.
They claim to fight for jobs and then give a massive tax break to a segment of the population that the COB estimates will increase jobs by between 0.1% and 0.0%. They claim hard work and then slash capital gains taxes which make more money for less work than any other segment of the labor force as evidence by the $144 Billion in bonus money given out. They claim to support small business while giving the biggest tax cuts to the self employed rich who have no need to hire outside help. They claim to hate free loaders and then give huge subsidies to very profitable business sectors. They claim the most recent elections was a referendum on President Obama's agenda when all it really proves, is that our educational system is clearly failing, when the American public can be as easily manipulated as an over weight drunk sorority girl.
If Democrats didn't have to spend so much time fighting the arcane ideologies of the right like gay marriage, separation of church and state, the right to health care for all, and the fear mongering of gun rights maybe they would have the political capital available to stand up for some of the no brainers like the repeal of Don't ask Don't tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act. Apparently the only thing required for the Republicans to declare something as a victory is if it benefits the top 2%.
My only hope at this point is that one of these days the Republicans can't get out of a corner they backed themselves into. Maybe repeal of the individual mandate will be the first since its repeal could lead to a single payer system as the only option left.
For some reason Republicans are claiming victory over this decision. As a Liberal I can tell you I don't love this portion of the bill. It is a big kick back to the insurance industry. If Republicans want to fight the interests of big business I'm all for it. The problem for Republicans is the fact that the rest of the bill was not struck down. The individual mandate may be the only part of the policy that doesn't poll well but it is responsible for covering more people and lowering the costs. By removing the individual mandate the Republicans are basically fighting for health care welfare. The uninsured will still get care and the insured will continue to pay for that care only without the individual mandate some of the cost controls will be lost and the insured will pay more while the uninsured get a "free ride".
After this decision NPR put together a report on the changing world that the baby boomers find themselves in. They grew up with the promise of a fully funded Social Security system, medical insurance through Medicare, a guaranteed pension, and an ever increasing value of their investments, yet at every turn over the last half a century Republicans have looked to erode these safety nets for 98% of Americans in favor of benefits for the top 2%. Republicans have stacked the deck using the idea that it takes money to make money and then preach to the less fortunate that they just need to work harder and show some personal responsibility.
They claim to fight for jobs and then give a massive tax break to a segment of the population that the COB estimates will increase jobs by between 0.1% and 0.0%. They claim hard work and then slash capital gains taxes which make more money for less work than any other segment of the labor force as evidence by the $144 Billion in bonus money given out. They claim to support small business while giving the biggest tax cuts to the self employed rich who have no need to hire outside help. They claim to hate free loaders and then give huge subsidies to very profitable business sectors. They claim the most recent elections was a referendum on President Obama's agenda when all it really proves, is that our educational system is clearly failing, when the American public can be as easily manipulated as an over weight drunk sorority girl.
If Democrats didn't have to spend so much time fighting the arcane ideologies of the right like gay marriage, separation of church and state, the right to health care for all, and the fear mongering of gun rights maybe they would have the political capital available to stand up for some of the no brainers like the repeal of Don't ask Don't tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act. Apparently the only thing required for the Republicans to declare something as a victory is if it benefits the top 2%.
My only hope at this point is that one of these days the Republicans can't get out of a corner they backed themselves into. Maybe repeal of the individual mandate will be the first since its repeal could lead to a single payer system as the only option left.
Republicans ain't puttin' out for less than $250k!
While there has been some debate in the Furriners office about the magnitude of our displeasure over the tax compromise we can agree that it is not a deal that we find acceptable as a stand alone bill. If we had been able to get a vote on the DREAM act, the new START Treaty, and a repeal of Don't ask Don't tell, that might have been enough for me to say OK to this compromise.
This whole though process made me think about the things I do for my wife to get the things I want and I realized that the Republicans are the women in our Democracy. If you are a guy you no doubt have bent over backwards and spent thousands of dollars to get your piece of the pie and this is exactly what Democrats have been doing for the last two years. Republicans understand that we are Democrats are desperate for a little Congressional action and so they are holding out. Add to that how easily the waterworks start for John Boehner and it becomes obvious. Republicans wear the panties in this relationship.
I'm reminded of G Love song (the Pussy song) with the Republican (women's) portion of the song as follows:
I've got all the pussy and you ain't gettin' none.
To which the Democrats should reply:
I've got all the pussy and you only got one!
The point being, Democrats don't need to work with this bunch of bitches. Find another bitch that don't make you work so hard for so little.
You better have a big estate if you want to get with John Boehner! He only puts out for the top 2%.
This whole though process made me think about the things I do for my wife to get the things I want and I realized that the Republicans are the women in our Democracy. If you are a guy you no doubt have bent over backwards and spent thousands of dollars to get your piece of the pie and this is exactly what Democrats have been doing for the last two years. Republicans understand that we are Democrats are desperate for a little Congressional action and so they are holding out. Add to that how easily the waterworks start for John Boehner and it becomes obvious. Republicans wear the panties in this relationship.
I'm reminded of G Love song (the Pussy song) with the Republican (women's) portion of the song as follows:
I've got all the pussy and you ain't gettin' none.
To which the Democrats should reply:
I've got all the pussy and you only got one!
The point being, Democrats don't need to work with this bunch of bitches. Find another bitch that don't make you work so hard for so little.
You better have a big estate if you want to get with John Boehner! He only puts out for the top 2%.
Christmas a genericized trademark
If a product becomes so generally known by the name brand of that product eventually that name brand could lose the trademark to its name. Examples of this include Aspirin, Escalator, Yo-Yo, and Zipper. These were all name brand products when they were first introduced and last that trademark because the name became synonymous with the product.
In the small town where I work there are a number of homes that have signs out that say "Keep the Christ in Christmas". I guess Happy Holidays just isn't good enough for these people. This got me to wondering, should Christians lose their claim to Christmas given that Christmas has become synonymous with the Santa Claus and the other non Christian aspects of the commercialization of Christmas that it can hardly be associated with Christians anymore. I don't think this would ever happen but I would love to see the right flip out at the mere suggestion.
Apparently Santa didn't get the Justin Bieber tickets he asked for this Christmas!
In the small town where I work there are a number of homes that have signs out that say "Keep the Christ in Christmas". I guess Happy Holidays just isn't good enough for these people. This got me to wondering, should Christians lose their claim to Christmas given that Christmas has become synonymous with the Santa Claus and the other non Christian aspects of the commercialization of Christmas that it can hardly be associated with Christians anymore. I don't think this would ever happen but I would love to see the right flip out at the mere suggestion.
Apparently Santa didn't get the Justin Bieber tickets he asked for this Christmas!
Monday, December 13, 2010
Where Is The Outrage?
You know, I am old enough to remember a time when people used to get upset when lawmakers would vote themselves a pay raise. They are a bunch of bums! They don't deserve it! people would howl.
Yet, it looks like this week in Washington, our congress with the full support of President Obama is going WAY beyond a few thousand dollars in an unwarranted pay raise.
I am, of course, referring to the estate tax. Before President Obama's capitulation to the GOP last week, the tax was proposed to be 50% on the value of an estate over $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), now President Obama has agreed with the GOP to set it at 35% on the value of estates over $5 million ($10 million for couples).
I don't get a tax break for that. If you're reading this, I suspect you will not be getting a tax break. (The only I'll ever qualify for that is if I either get a huge settlement after getting hit by a drunk driver or if Derek Anderson leaves me all his money in his will someday for being his one true believer. *fingers crossed*)
You know who will get tax breaks from that? Members of congress. For example, John McCain is said to be worth an estimated $28-44 million. If we conservatively consider him to be worth $30 million, Mr. McCain (or his heirs more accurately I suppose) stands to save $4.5 million from the policy change!
That reminds me... one other way I could get a tax credit from this policy change is if I could marry Meghan McCain... she's going to be LOADED! (And she is already stacked!)
But, quite frankly, I think I got a better chance of getting named in Derek Anderson's will.
Yet, it looks like this week in Washington, our congress with the full support of President Obama is going WAY beyond a few thousand dollars in an unwarranted pay raise.
I am, of course, referring to the estate tax. Before President Obama's capitulation to the GOP last week, the tax was proposed to be 50% on the value of an estate over $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), now President Obama has agreed with the GOP to set it at 35% on the value of estates over $5 million ($10 million for couples).
I don't get a tax break for that. If you're reading this, I suspect you will not be getting a tax break. (The only I'll ever qualify for that is if I either get a huge settlement after getting hit by a drunk driver or if Derek Anderson leaves me all his money in his will someday for being his one true believer. *fingers crossed*)
You know who will get tax breaks from that? Members of congress. For example, John McCain is said to be worth an estimated $28-44 million. If we conservatively consider him to be worth $30 million, Mr. McCain (or his heirs more accurately I suppose) stands to save $4.5 million from the policy change!
That reminds me... one other way I could get a tax credit from this policy change is if I could marry Meghan McCain... she's going to be LOADED! (And she is already stacked!)
But, quite frankly, I think I got a better chance of getting named in Derek Anderson's will.
Impeach Newt Gingrich! And The Entire GOP!
I know, I know. Newt Gingrich does not have a job. Or, at least, one in the public sector where we could impeach him. I'm pretty sure, like most conservatives with possible presidential aspirations, he is drawing a paycheck from Fox News.
However, I wanted to point out an observation that specifically applies to Mr. Gingrich - but, in general, is probably applicable to most of the currently elected GOP politicians.
Undoubtedly, you have heard of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks document dump. You may support his efforts or you may think he is a slimeball. Personally, I think that just because you can release leaked documents does not mean you should. I mean, if he were to gain access to truly newsworthy information that exposes lies and corruption (such as was released regarding the Iraq War), then I think there is a strong argument for releasing such information because the public has the right to know what their government is doing in their name. If what you're doing is essentially the equivalent of releasing private e-mails regarding the personal impressions of individual government bureaucrats - then you're going to lose me.
Anyway, my point is that I recently saw a clip of Mr. Gingrich saying that Mr. Assange was a terrorist and should be treated as an "enemy combatant".
Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. Gingrich, but there is no such thing in the United States Constitution as an "enemy combatant". Our judicial system is covered under Article III of the Constitution and IF Mr. Assange has violated any of the laws of the United States, he is certainly entitled to a day in court as prescribed by the Constitution, no?
And, in fact, it has been documented that your philosphy on judges is:
No one likes a hypocrite, Newt.
However, I wanted to point out an observation that specifically applies to Mr. Gingrich - but, in general, is probably applicable to most of the currently elected GOP politicians.
Undoubtedly, you have heard of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks document dump. You may support his efforts or you may think he is a slimeball. Personally, I think that just because you can release leaked documents does not mean you should. I mean, if he were to gain access to truly newsworthy information that exposes lies and corruption (such as was released regarding the Iraq War), then I think there is a strong argument for releasing such information because the public has the right to know what their government is doing in their name. If what you're doing is essentially the equivalent of releasing private e-mails regarding the personal impressions of individual government bureaucrats - then you're going to lose me.
Anyway, my point is that I recently saw a clip of Mr. Gingrich saying that Mr. Assange was a terrorist and should be treated as an "enemy combatant".
Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. Gingrich, but there is no such thing in the United States Constitution as an "enemy combatant". Our judicial system is covered under Article III of the Constitution and IF Mr. Assange has violated any of the laws of the United States, he is certainly entitled to a day in court as prescribed by the Constitution, no?
And, in fact, it has been documented that your philosphy on judges is:
Impeach judges who don't abide by the Constituion.
No one likes a hypocrite, Newt.
When did e-cards become narcissistic?
I have received a few e-cards this Holiday season (suck on that Jesus lovers), and each one of them boasts about how great the e-card I'm getting with the phrase: "Awesome Christmas Card". Really? Awesome? Can I just say for the record that in my 34 years of living I have never seen a Holiday card that qualified as awesome. Why? Because they're Holiday cards. Asking a Holiday card to be "Awesome" is like asking Michele Bachmann to be rational - it just ain't going to happen.
Don't get me wrong the e-cards are great because I'm just going to pitch your Holiday cards after I read them, but their no Justin Bieber, so lets keep the boasting to a minimum.
Now THIS is an Awesome Holiday Card!
Don't get me wrong the e-cards are great because I'm just going to pitch your Holiday cards after I read them, but their no Justin Bieber, so lets keep the boasting to a minimum.
Now THIS is an Awesome Holiday Card!
Harold Ford, Jr. Is A Quitter
I am a semi-regular casual viewer of Meet The Press.
One of the most frequent roundtable guests is former congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN). I finally noticed yesterday that he is billed as Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. I have no idea what that is but I really do not want this guy as a spokesman for anything having to do with the Democratic Party. He always comes across as Republican-Lite and I am tired of his wishy-washy bullshit. (I wonder if Jon Stewart likes Mr. Ford? He seems to be the epitome of can we PLEASE compromise? Is there ANYTHING I can do for you, Mr. Republican so we can make a deal?) He makes me want to jump through the TV and yell at him "Is there anything worth fighting for, Mr. Ford?!?!"
In fact, I just did a YouTube search on Mr. Ford to find an example of him being the wishy-washy pussy I accused him of being in the previous paragraph. I found something much more damning: check this out.
One of the most frequent roundtable guests is former congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN). I finally noticed yesterday that he is billed as Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. I have no idea what that is but I really do not want this guy as a spokesman for anything having to do with the Democratic Party. He always comes across as Republican-Lite and I am tired of his wishy-washy bullshit. (I wonder if Jon Stewart likes Mr. Ford? He seems to be the epitome of can we PLEASE compromise? Is there ANYTHING I can do for you, Mr. Republican so we can make a deal?) He makes me want to jump through the TV and yell at him "Is there anything worth fighting for, Mr. Ford?!?!"
In fact, I just did a YouTube search on Mr. Ford to find an example of him being the wishy-washy pussy I accused him of being in the previous paragraph. I found something much more damning: check this out.
Don't put Jamie Dukes in charge of your fantasy team.
This weekend an emailer from Canada asked the Jamie Dukes, of the NFL network, what running back to start for his fantasy football team. I don't recall all of the choices as the correct answer was so obvious I didn't think the question should have even been asked, let alone made it to air. Jamie Dukes decided he would take Brandon Jackson (of Green Bay) instead of Maurice Jones-Drew (of Jacksonville). Jackson stat line was 7 rushes for 19 yards and 3 receptions for 9 yards, and no touchdowns. Jones-Drew went 23 carries for 101 yards, 3 receptions for 19 yards and 1 touchdown.
The rationale behind the choice was the fact that the Green Bay Packers opponent, the Detroit Lions, ranked 25th against the run. Jamie Dukes either isn't very good at fantasy football or he outsmarted himself. Given this, I have some advise for the emailer from Canada. It's fantasy football dude! If this decision is too tough for you or stresses you out, then maybe you should be play something a little less involved. Check out your local Bingo hall or buy a scratch off.
P.S. Don't take Jimmy Clausen this week over Tom Brady, even if Rich Eisen thinks it's a good play.
The rationale behind the choice was the fact that the Green Bay Packers opponent, the Detroit Lions, ranked 25th against the run. Jamie Dukes either isn't very good at fantasy football or he outsmarted himself. Given this, I have some advise for the emailer from Canada. It's fantasy football dude! If this decision is too tough for you or stresses you out, then maybe you should be play something a little less involved. Check out your local Bingo hall or buy a scratch off.
P.S. Don't take Jimmy Clausen this week over Tom Brady, even if Rich Eisen thinks it's a good play.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Obama Just Does Not Get It
Within the last few hours, Barack Obama trotted out Bill Clinton to urge congressional Democrats to back his tax capitulation with the GOP.
This is pathetic.
Does he really think just dusting off a corporatist former President is going to change the fact that he sold us out?
I'll tell you what, Mr. President:
If you can re-animate FDR and get his seal of approval, I'll consider endorsing your deal. Until then, I'm still waiting for my $500 back.
This is pathetic.
Does he really think just dusting off a corporatist former President is going to change the fact that he sold us out?
I'll tell you what, Mr. President:
If you can re-animate FDR and get his seal of approval, I'll consider endorsing your deal. Until then, I'm still waiting for my $500 back.
Facebook is boring
I have been a member of Facebook for over a month now and have found it to be almost completely useless. I really don't understand what people like about it. My biggest problem with Facebook is that people's lives are boring but for some reason they think their lives are interesting. This leads to an excess of boring posts. There are a number of people whose posts I don't even read anymore because they have absolutely nothing interesting to say.
Here is my advise. If you are posting more than one message a day, you are posting too much. Nobody is that interesting. Similarly, I didn't accept your friend request because I was interested in hearing about your kids. I don't know them and if they are anything like you as a kid, I don't want to know them. All of our kids do the same stupid crap and when my kid does it, its way more interesting than your kid does it. Additionally, if I want a recap of the Red Wings game there are plenty of more reliable sources to get my sports information from and you don't know as much about the Lions as I do, so you're just wasting my time. Also, there is no possible way people are actually laughing out loud at these posts. If they are, this blog must be responsible for many people wetting themselves.
Basically if your news isn't important enough for you to call a friend you haven't talked to in weeks, it isn't worth putting on Facebook (Justin Bieber posts are of course the exception).
Here is my advise. If you are posting more than one message a day, you are posting too much. Nobody is that interesting. Similarly, I didn't accept your friend request because I was interested in hearing about your kids. I don't know them and if they are anything like you as a kid, I don't want to know them. All of our kids do the same stupid crap and when my kid does it, its way more interesting than your kid does it. Additionally, if I want a recap of the Red Wings game there are plenty of more reliable sources to get my sports information from and you don't know as much about the Lions as I do, so you're just wasting my time. Also, there is no possible way people are actually laughing out loud at these posts. If they are, this blog must be responsible for many people wetting themselves.
Basically if your news isn't important enough for you to call a friend you haven't talked to in weeks, it isn't worth putting on Facebook (Justin Bieber posts are of course the exception).
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Government is providing the wrong incentives to Doctors
The biggest issue with our health care system, aside from the fact that it leaves many Americans uncovered, is the costs. Washington has tired to get control of these costs with Medicare but have failed because they are providing the wrong incentives to Doctors and Hospitals. To control costs the government just mandated cost cuts. Unfortunately for the politicians the Doctors are not very excited about making less money so they just started adding in more tests and doctors visits to make up for the lost revenue of government health care. What we need to do is reward doctors for a combination of results and costs. Some issues require a lot of money to treat successfully while others are relatively cheap to get good results.
The problem is that as soon as you suggest such a plan Republicans freak out and claim that the government will decide who gets medical attention and who doesn't. Rationing and Death panels are other common fear mongering tactics against the idea of controlling medical costs. Right now the only real death panel we have is insisting on keeping the system as it is.
To incentivize successful low cost health care practices you need to have a base line. The Presidents independent payment advisory board would be able to provide this baseline. This is standard for business so it's a wonder that Republicans go ape-shit over the idea. It saves money. This will allow more people to get health care not less. This should lead to better service not worse. Doctors want to save as many people as possible and this will give them the tools to do so. The only problem is this might hurt bad doctors. Shouldn't Republicans support the best doctors making more money and bad doctors either improving or moving on? Maybe the real problem here is the incentives for our Republican politicians.
The problem is that as soon as you suggest such a plan Republicans freak out and claim that the government will decide who gets medical attention and who doesn't. Rationing and Death panels are other common fear mongering tactics against the idea of controlling medical costs. Right now the only real death panel we have is insisting on keeping the system as it is.
To incentivize successful low cost health care practices you need to have a base line. The Presidents independent payment advisory board would be able to provide this baseline. This is standard for business so it's a wonder that Republicans go ape-shit over the idea. It saves money. This will allow more people to get health care not less. This should lead to better service not worse. Doctors want to save as many people as possible and this will give them the tools to do so. The only problem is this might hurt bad doctors. Shouldn't Republicans support the best doctors making more money and bad doctors either improving or moving on? Maybe the real problem here is the incentives for our Republican politicians.
Democrats should stand their ground
As Michelle Obama would say, today is the first time I have been proud of...the Democrats in the Senate. I was excited to hear the news that Senate Democrats were not going to bring the recently negotiated tax deal to a vote. They have finally realized that Republicans are in the minority. Not only in the Senate but in the US. A recent Gallop poll on the Bush tax cuts show 85% of Republicans support temporary tax cuts for all, while only 67% of independents, and 52 percent of Democrats hold this view. While this may not play to the current stance of blocking the tax cuts it shows that Republicans are further out of step with Independents than the Democrats. Additionally when asked about an extension of unemployment, the numbers supporting the extension were Democrats 84%, Independents 71% and Republicans 43%. Add in Americans views on the repeal of don't ask don't tell which are Democrats 71%, Independents 63%, and Republicans 34% and you begin to wonder why the Senate Democrats are only now getting angry about 2 years worth of compromise with the obstructionist right.
Republicans don't care about you...unless you're rich
Have you ever wondered why Republicans have stacked the deck for the rich while ignoring the needs of the middle class? Because they ARE the rich. Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is building a $2.2 million dollar home in Florida on land he purchased for $800,000. This is a second home for him. He has another palatial estate in Arkansas. The man owns two multimillion dollar homes and claims to understand the struggles of the common man. He is not fighting for you. He is fighting to keep you from getting ahead.
OECD educational rankings show the US losing ground
In a recent report American children are falling behind their global counterparts in all areas. The US currently ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.
With the massive state budget shortfalls and the failed no child left behind program it comes as no surprise that American children are not receiving the highest level of education. We have less teachers and less resources for these teachers. Parents are also less engaged due to a new level of concern on their own jobs and money.
Thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, states had less money available and the no child left behind program was never funded properly. Another problem of the no child left behind program that President Obama seems happy to continue is the emphasis on testing as a means for measuring success. Unfortunately the most successful people don't always test out well. There are many examples of this in American business. Additionally this mentality leads to teaching to the test which is clearly not the best form of education.
For some reason politicians always want the simple answer and test results is about as simple as you can get. This suggests our politicians have never been educators and just having been a student doesn't make you qualified to determine the metrics upon which educators should be measured. What is particularly odd about this idea is that it is typically supported more by Republicans yet Republicans claim that there should be less government involvement. Well a federal mandate is not less government.
I think there are a multitude of other factors that play into a quality education which are completely ignored in our public policy. If there were easy answers those answers would be obvious by looking at the most successful nations yet they each have a unique educational style.
The biggest thread that I see is personal responsibility. The idea of personal responsibility has been eroding for years in America and our educational output has reflected that change, while countries like Japan have placed a very high level of importance on education and expect more from their students. When a child's parents put an emphasis on education it becomes important to the student and similarly when education is ignored in the home the grades suffer. This occurs both among the rich and the poor. When you start to look at other factors like money and educational styles you can start to make a good profile for what makes a successful student, but thinking it is a easy as improving test scores is using the wrong method to do the right thing.
With the massive state budget shortfalls and the failed no child left behind program it comes as no surprise that American children are not receiving the highest level of education. We have less teachers and less resources for these teachers. Parents are also less engaged due to a new level of concern on their own jobs and money.
Thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, states had less money available and the no child left behind program was never funded properly. Another problem of the no child left behind program that President Obama seems happy to continue is the emphasis on testing as a means for measuring success. Unfortunately the most successful people don't always test out well. There are many examples of this in American business. Additionally this mentality leads to teaching to the test which is clearly not the best form of education.
For some reason politicians always want the simple answer and test results is about as simple as you can get. This suggests our politicians have never been educators and just having been a student doesn't make you qualified to determine the metrics upon which educators should be measured. What is particularly odd about this idea is that it is typically supported more by Republicans yet Republicans claim that there should be less government involvement. Well a federal mandate is not less government.
I think there are a multitude of other factors that play into a quality education which are completely ignored in our public policy. If there were easy answers those answers would be obvious by looking at the most successful nations yet they each have a unique educational style.
The biggest thread that I see is personal responsibility. The idea of personal responsibility has been eroding for years in America and our educational output has reflected that change, while countries like Japan have placed a very high level of importance on education and expect more from their students. When a child's parents put an emphasis on education it becomes important to the student and similarly when education is ignored in the home the grades suffer. This occurs both among the rich and the poor. When you start to look at other factors like money and educational styles you can start to make a good profile for what makes a successful student, but thinking it is a easy as improving test scores is using the wrong method to do the right thing.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Republicans want Government to act like an American household
I often hear people who support the Republican talking points and in particular those who act like they care about the deficit, claim that the government needs to tighten it's belts since that is what normal Americans do. In addition Republicans really seem to think that the richest among us make the best role models for government. While it may be true that the rich spend less when times get hard they also save for a rainy day when times are good.
I bring this up because while I'm not excited about the Obama tax cut deal I understand it from the standpoint that now is a good time for stimulus and tax cuts are stimulus. The problem is that when times were good we also cut taxes. Well that is not what the rich would do, so why did Republicans support an idea that flies in the face of the fiscal ideas of the Americans that they canonize. If we should act like the rich then we should do it when times are good and when times are bad. We are in trouble because of the Bush tax cuts from 2001-2008 not the ones from 2008-2010.
Republicans have shown time and time again that they don't support the average American, they support the rich and manufacture rationale for how that support helps the rest of us. Americans need a big can of smelling salts because you're clearly dreaming if you think the Republicans have your interests in mind and these tax cuts are just the most obvious form of that hypocrisy.
I bring this up because while I'm not excited about the Obama tax cut deal I understand it from the standpoint that now is a good time for stimulus and tax cuts are stimulus. The problem is that when times were good we also cut taxes. Well that is not what the rich would do, so why did Republicans support an idea that flies in the face of the fiscal ideas of the Americans that they canonize. If we should act like the rich then we should do it when times are good and when times are bad. We are in trouble because of the Bush tax cuts from 2001-2008 not the ones from 2008-2010.
Republicans have shown time and time again that they don't support the average American, they support the rich and manufacture rationale for how that support helps the rest of us. Americans need a big can of smelling salts because you're clearly dreaming if you think the Republicans have your interests in mind and these tax cuts are just the most obvious form of that hypocrisy.
Lawrence O'Donnell Has Kids To Feed
As President Obama hastily called a press conference yesterday to try to tap down the liberal backlash against his "compromise", I shared an e-mail with my father predicting that primetime MSNBC hosts would have their pitchforks out. That is exactly what happened:
Olbermann CRUSHES Obama in Special Comment
Maddow argues Obama is on road to irrelevance
However, it turned out I was not entirely correct. Lawrence O'Donnell was a dissenting voice who thinks Obama made the best deal at the right time. He took a stance that it would be Armageddon to let tax rates go back to the Clinton rates on January 1st.
Am I the only one who thinks that O'Donnell just got a new primetime hosting gig (probably with a nice fat pay raise) and now he is looking out for the pocketbook of Lawrence O'Donnell?
And I was especially perturbed by his Rewrite segment where he slammed our least favorite pelican enemy, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La). O'Donnell said:
Okay, so in O'Donnell's analysis, the Bush tax cuts set the country on the road to ruin? His solution: extend the Bush tax cuts. Good call, Larry. Good call.
Olbermann CRUSHES Obama in Special Comment
Maddow argues Obama is on road to irrelevance
However, it turned out I was not entirely correct. Lawrence O'Donnell was a dissenting voice who thinks Obama made the best deal at the right time. He took a stance that it would be Armageddon to let tax rates go back to the Clinton rates on January 1st.
Am I the only one who thinks that O'Donnell just got a new primetime hosting gig (probably with a nice fat pay raise) and now he is looking out for the pocketbook of Lawrence O'Donnell?
And I was especially perturbed by his Rewrite segment where he slammed our least favorite pelican enemy, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La). O'Donnell said:
(Landrieu) was one of the few Democrats in the senate who voted for the Bush tax cuts that set the Treasury on the road to ruin.
Okay, so in O'Donnell's analysis, the Bush tax cuts set the country on the road to ruin? His solution: extend the Bush tax cuts. Good call, Larry. Good call.
Rise and Fall
A modern tragedy:
We know. We know. You worked so hard to get where you are. It all crescendoed in 2007-2008. People loved you and so many of us had such high hopes. This will change everything we thought.
Then, the results started coming in. Immediately, it was not all that we hoped for. Let's be patient we thought... there is a lot of work to be done and it's not going to happen overnight. Then, the disappointments and missteps started to accumulate. The disgruntled whispers gradually became a little louder. Now, with your recent stunt, you've basically lost everyone who truly believed in you.
And, honestly, it's you. It's not us. You're just not who we thought you were.
It's time for a change.
Let's just make sure we keep our corrections straight:
I don't want to see Jim Harbaugh as the 45th POTUS and Hillary Clinton coaching U of M football!
We know. We know. You worked so hard to get where you are. It all crescendoed in 2007-2008. People loved you and so many of us had such high hopes. This will change everything we thought.
Then, the results started coming in. Immediately, it was not all that we hoped for. Let's be patient we thought... there is a lot of work to be done and it's not going to happen overnight. Then, the disappointments and missteps started to accumulate. The disgruntled whispers gradually became a little louder. Now, with your recent stunt, you've basically lost everyone who truly believed in you.
And, honestly, it's you. It's not us. You're just not who we thought you were.
It's time for a change.
Let's just make sure we keep our corrections straight:
I don't want to see Jim Harbaugh as the 45th POTUS and Hillary Clinton coaching U of M football!
Secret Muslim or Secret Republican?
Last year, Bill Maher did a rant during his New Rules segment on Real Time where he said:
I noted this quote to a conservative family member who responded something along the lines of "that is too stupid to even comment on."
Well, score another one for Bill Maher. This tax "compromise" (i.e. roll over/capitulation) is a spit in the face of all the liberals and progressives who worked so hard and donated so generously to get Barack Obama elected president.
Apparently, we elected not a secret muslim but rather a secret Republican.
Consider me depressed.
(Republicans) actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal!
I noted this quote to a conservative family member who responded something along the lines of "that is too stupid to even comment on."
Well, score another one for Bill Maher. This tax "compromise" (i.e. roll over/capitulation) is a spit in the face of all the liberals and progressives who worked so hard and donated so generously to get Barack Obama elected president.
Apparently, we elected not a secret muslim but rather a secret Republican.
Consider me depressed.
The Balance Sheet of Barack Obama
In 2008, I was a donor to the campaign of Barack Obama.
Until recently, I certainly presumed I would again be donating in 2012.
In my head, at least, I devised a tally sheet for my eventual 2012 contribution.
For example, we start with the baseline of my 2008 contribution ($500 if I recall correctly). Then, as he progresses through his term, I add/subtract $ based on his accomplishments.
Here is something like it might look like:
HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSES (+250)
NO PUBLIC OPTION (-200)
FINANCIAL REFORM PASSES (+200)
DOES NOT END 'TOO BIG TO FAIL' (-180)
CREDIT CARD REFORM (+50)
GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS (-25)
GITMO STILL OPEN (-50)
DADT NOT REPEALED (-50)
NO NEW ENERGY POLICY (I.E. CARBON TAX) (-100)
OPEN NEW WATERS TO DEEP WATER DRILLING (PRE SPILL) (-75)
MORATORIUM ON DEEP WATER DRILLING (POST OIL SPILL) (+15) --- no brainer, little credit deserved
NO IMMIGRATION REFORM (-0) --- I don't care about this one
FAILED TO PROSECUTE TORTURE (-50)
ESCALATED WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (-50)
FAILED TO CAPTURE/KILL BIN LADEN (-50)
Well, as of December 7, 2010... I'm afraid your account has gone negative, Mr. President. I want my $500 back.
And, by the way, I don't want a friggin' tax cut!
I just want my $500 and my vote back.
Until recently, I certainly presumed I would again be donating in 2012.
In my head, at least, I devised a tally sheet for my eventual 2012 contribution.
For example, we start with the baseline of my 2008 contribution ($500 if I recall correctly). Then, as he progresses through his term, I add/subtract $ based on his accomplishments.
Here is something like it might look like:
HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSES (+250)
NO PUBLIC OPTION (-200)
FINANCIAL REFORM PASSES (+200)
DOES NOT END 'TOO BIG TO FAIL' (-180)
CREDIT CARD REFORM (+50)
GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS (-25)
GITMO STILL OPEN (-50)
DADT NOT REPEALED (-50)
NO NEW ENERGY POLICY (I.E. CARBON TAX) (-100)
OPEN NEW WATERS TO DEEP WATER DRILLING (PRE SPILL) (-75)
MORATORIUM ON DEEP WATER DRILLING (POST OIL SPILL) (+15) --- no brainer, little credit deserved
NO IMMIGRATION REFORM (-0) --- I don't care about this one
FAILED TO PROSECUTE TORTURE (-50)
ESCALATED WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (-50)
FAILED TO CAPTURE/KILL BIN LADEN (-50)
Well, as of December 7, 2010... I'm afraid your account has gone negative, Mr. President. I want my $500 back.
And, by the way, I don't want a friggin' tax cut!
I just want my $500 and my vote back.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Another Request From Furriners
Earlier today, I requested that ESPN stop putting Matt Millen in the booth for Michigan (and MSU) games. They have not contacted the site to thank us for our input but I assume they got the message and will comply.
To follow in the same vein, I have a request for cnn.com:
We get it, Sarah Palin hates the media and liberals. You don't have to make every gd time Sarah Palin opens her moose hole a lead story on your political 'ticker'. I swear, every friggin' time I go to your website, I see Palin Blasts Media or Palin Slams Liberals. Please, I beg of you, stop it! We don't care! I half expect to see a story documenting her bowel movements you guys are so infatuated with her.
To follow in the same vein, I have a request for cnn.com:
We get it, Sarah Palin hates the media and liberals. You don't have to make every gd time Sarah Palin opens her moose hole a lead story on your political 'ticker'. I swear, every friggin' time I go to your website, I see Palin Blasts Media or Palin Slams Liberals. Please, I beg of you, stop it! We don't care! I half expect to see a story documenting her bowel movements you guys are so infatuated with her.
Consider The Source
I would, me personally, I'd give Rich Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt and let him continue what he started here. -- Matt Millen on 11/27/10 during Michigan-Ohio State game
And, by the way, request for ESPN: PLEASE DO NOT LET MATT MILLEN DO UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN (OR MSU) GAMES!!!! WE HATE HIM!!!! It ruins the game for the viewers in this state. I am not kidding.
Furriners Loves Chris Spielman
Chris Spielman is a great source of quotes. This weekend while he was doing the Pittsburgh v Cincinnati game, he said this on one of the latest batch of awful calls regarding the wussification of the game of football:
The second quote that shows that Mr. Spielman is apparently a mind hacker who steals ideas right from my brain (regarding the announced deal for Derek Jeter for three years at $17m per year):
(I'm) kinda used to watching football, I don't know what they're playing. (Bob Griese laughs) I mean (that) seriously.
The second quote that shows that Mr. Spielman is apparently a mind hacker who steals ideas right from my brain (regarding the announced deal for Derek Jeter for three years at $17m per year):
You got A-Rod sitting over there at third (base)... maybe move him to short... nice knowing you, Derek! Thanks for the years. It's pro sports... what have you done for me lately?
Furriners Civil War!!
No, no, no! I am not with my Furriners colleague on this one.
I hate, hate, hate this compromise from President Obama. And I will whine about it until 2013 when a new President is inaugurated and I am beginning to think it just may not be Barack Obama. He may yet be saved by the fact that the Republicans are bunch a kooks who still seem to not have a reasonable alternative.
Another thing that comes to mind is that there has been a lot of talk in my life about predictions. Elijah Moon had drastically incorrect predictions on the Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. I have a brother who still says Rich Rodriguez is a great coach (had previously predicted a national championship within three years of his hiring in 2007) who is "on the cusp of greatness". I was incorrect that the Derek Anderson plus Larry Fitzgerald combo would result in a Super Bowl title (Fitzgerald really dropped the ball on that one!)
Yesterday was the first time that I legitimately thought to myself... what if Hillary Clinton were president? Did I back the wrong horse in 2007-08? Maybe I should have gone with Zenyatta rather than Big Brown?
I hate, hate, hate this compromise from President Obama. And I will whine about it until 2013 when a new President is inaugurated and I am beginning to think it just may not be Barack Obama. He may yet be saved by the fact that the Republicans are bunch a kooks who still seem to not have a reasonable alternative.
Another thing that comes to mind is that there has been a lot of talk in my life about predictions. Elijah Moon had drastically incorrect predictions on the Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. I have a brother who still says Rich Rodriguez is a great coach (had previously predicted a national championship within three years of his hiring in 2007) who is "on the cusp of greatness". I was incorrect that the Derek Anderson plus Larry Fitzgerald combo would result in a Super Bowl title (Fitzgerald really dropped the ball on that one!)
Yesterday was the first time that I legitimately thought to myself... what if Hillary Clinton were president? Did I back the wrong horse in 2007-08? Maybe I should have gone with Zenyatta rather than Big Brown?
President Obama agrees to a compromise on the Bush tax cuts; Progressives upset
As a Liberal who is informed about the sweetheart deals that are in place for the top 2% I am disappointed that the President has decided to compromise on the tax cuts for the rich. Having said that, what I really don't want to hear right now is whining from progressive congressman. Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate and with that power did nothing on these tax cuts. The President ran on lowering taxes for everyone making $250k and below and yet Congressional Democrats couldn't be bothered to take up the matter when they had the political capital to do so. Why these Democrats didn't force Republicans to go on the record before the elections, is beyond me. Did the President fail to push this agenda and rally support - yes, but why would the President be out in front of something that members of his party were not planning on touching. Maybe next time these Democrats will get mad before it is too late and present the voting public with a bunch of simple minded ideas to latch onto, just like the Republicans do. Democrats have taken every opportunity to let Republicans control the message and they act surprised at the results. Get mad at the President if you like but realize the part you play in the Presidents failures.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Breaking News: Tea Party movement thinks they are important
Not since George W. Bush claimed "Mission Complete" has then been such an embarrassing overstatement of the facts as a recent Michigan news paper article stating "There's no denying the Tea Party's impact". The article goes on to attribute the recent wins by Republicans and a handful of "Tea Party" candidates as proof.
This is just like a conservative to only be able to see things through the very small prism that is the conservative world. To have a opinion and to find facts to support that opinion while ignoring reality.
The fact is, Republicans won because of the economy. This same thing happened to Reagan. Just because the Tea Party came into existence around the same time doesn't make them responsible. If the economy improves by 2012 all the Tea Party will do is further splinter the Republican party and then fade away to obscurity by 2014. The people who ran under the Tea Party umbrella were opportunists who couldn't get elected as Republicans. They will soon be assimilated into the Republican cult and any Tea Party activism will be beat out of them.
This self aggrandizing by the Tea Party only proves how uninformed the Tea Party really is.
This is just like a conservative to only be able to see things through the very small prism that is the conservative world. To have a opinion and to find facts to support that opinion while ignoring reality.
The fact is, Republicans won because of the economy. This same thing happened to Reagan. Just because the Tea Party came into existence around the same time doesn't make them responsible. If the economy improves by 2012 all the Tea Party will do is further splinter the Republican party and then fade away to obscurity by 2014. The people who ran under the Tea Party umbrella were opportunists who couldn't get elected as Republicans. They will soon be assimilated into the Republican cult and any Tea Party activism will be beat out of them.
This self aggrandizing by the Tea Party only proves how uninformed the Tea Party really is.
Republicans should take a stand against unemployment benefits
Republicans really don't care about the costs of extending unemployment benefits. All of their actions suggest they are willing to jack up the deficit to benefit their base. The reason they hate unemployment is their belief that people on unemployment are lazy. Unfortunately many in their base have had to accept unemployment benefits and they really appreciate the assistance while hating the fact that they need to accept unemployment. This reality leads to polls favoring an extension of the unemployment benefits, which is again not good for Republicans.
Given that Republicans believe those on unemployment are lazy and polls don't really matter to them, I say they take this opportunity to draw a line in the sand. If Republicans truly believed their own rhetoric, they would let the unemployment benefits lapse and people will have no choice but to return to work. Since getting a job is solely based on the want to work according the Republicans, we should see an immediate drop in the unemployment rate shortly after the benefits run out. With all of the extra tax revenue these newly employed would generate, we could afford to rehire many of the laid off police officers and spend extra money on correctional facilities. This will be necessary since apparently even lazy people need to feed their families and apparently being too lazy to work doesn't make you too lazy to become a criminal.
I know what your thinking, this sounds too good to be true. This is practically the Utopian society that you as a Republican have always dreamed of. Republicans, being the only people willing to pull themselves up by their boot straps will find jobs and prosper and Democrats, all being lazy, will expose themselves as the criminals they really are and spend the rest of their lives behind bars. Now if only the Republicans in DC had the balls to back their own beliefs. If only.
Given that Republicans believe those on unemployment are lazy and polls don't really matter to them, I say they take this opportunity to draw a line in the sand. If Republicans truly believed their own rhetoric, they would let the unemployment benefits lapse and people will have no choice but to return to work. Since getting a job is solely based on the want to work according the Republicans, we should see an immediate drop in the unemployment rate shortly after the benefits run out. With all of the extra tax revenue these newly employed would generate, we could afford to rehire many of the laid off police officers and spend extra money on correctional facilities. This will be necessary since apparently even lazy people need to feed their families and apparently being too lazy to work doesn't make you too lazy to become a criminal.
I know what your thinking, this sounds too good to be true. This is practically the Utopian society that you as a Republican have always dreamed of. Republicans, being the only people willing to pull themselves up by their boot straps will find jobs and prosper and Democrats, all being lazy, will expose themselves as the criminals they really are and spend the rest of their lives behind bars. Now if only the Republicans in DC had the balls to back their own beliefs. If only.
Psst...tax cuts are stimulus spending!
Lost in all of the conversation about extending the Bush tax cuts is the fact that Republicans support stimulus spending. There was a reason the stimulus package contained almost $300 billion in tax cuts. It stimulates the economy. The problem I have with the tax cuts is not their stimulative properties but the fact that they are a very poor stimulator, especially when give to those in the higher tax brackets. The next time a Republican claims to be against stimulus spending just remind them that they are completely full of shit and they only difference between them and the Democrats is that a Republican only cares about stimulating the rich.
DREAM Act again proves Republicans aren't serious about deficit reduction
The CBO has reported that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. This is very unfortunate for the Republicans since their highly paid, completely bias economists had previously come up with a figure of $6 billion added to the deficit.
Now that the official CBO report is out you would assume Republicans would be all over it, after all, they claim that the recent election was a referendum on big spending government and reducing the deficit is their top priority. The problem is Republicans only talk about deficit reduction when they don't like a bill and stating their actual rationale behind their object is not politically popular.
As the information piles up Democrats are proving to be the more fiscally conservative party of late. Republicans are against Health Care reform even though it reduces the deficit. Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts even though they increase the deficit. Republicans voted against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act which cuts the deficit by $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Add to this the 8 years of Republican led spending under Bush and you start to see that Republicans don't hate the deficit, they hate non-wealthy Americans.
Now that the official CBO report is out you would assume Republicans would be all over it, after all, they claim that the recent election was a referendum on big spending government and reducing the deficit is their top priority. The problem is Republicans only talk about deficit reduction when they don't like a bill and stating their actual rationale behind their object is not politically popular.
As the information piles up Democrats are proving to be the more fiscally conservative party of late. Republicans are against Health Care reform even though it reduces the deficit. Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts even though they increase the deficit. Republicans voted against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act which cuts the deficit by $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Add to this the 8 years of Republican led spending under Bush and you start to see that Republicans don't hate the deficit, they hate non-wealthy Americans.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Republicans love to paint themselves into a corner
I have noticed recently that Republicans aren't very good a predicting the outcome of their decisions. I have two examples.
First, John McCain had previously stated that he would support a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell if the military's top brass told him they supported ending the policy. I think John McCain never planned on this happening as he assumed top military leaders would think like he does and would never back such a change. Unfortunately for John McCain they called his bluff. Rather than stick to his word and vote to repeal DADT, McCain has gone on the offensive. That is, after all, what you do when you are backed into a corner. The fact is McCain has always supported the policy and never expected to see it repealed during his tenure so sounding rationale for an upcoming election, made sense.
Second, Republicans have had such a fervent hatred for Barrack Obama that they decided early on to block everything he supported. They were put to the test shortly after his inauguration with the stimulus bill. Having no good rationale for being against the bill they decided the best way to attack it was under the guise of the national debt. Debt and Deficit was never a problem in Republican policy prior to Obama's election but simple minded people don't need good rationale they just need something simple to rally behind. Once they decided this was their new narrative, TARP, which many of the Republicans supported under Bush, came under fire. Not because of who it helped or the lack a regulations that it required which would prevent history from repeating itself, but because it added to the debt. Unfortunately for Republicans the fear mongering worked and people started to hate TARP and Stimulus. The problem for Republicans is that they really love deficit spending. They want to extend tax cuts that will be far more detrimental to the national debt and the deficit than Stimulus, TARP, and Health Care reform combined. They were so excited about having a way to slow down President Obama's progress that they never took the time to realize that being successful would be to their own detriment.
Luckily for Republicans Americans is stupid and they don't realize when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. They support tax breaks for very rich people who already pay less in taxes than they do. They support policies that allow the rich to get rich while keeping the poor and middle class from advancing. Essentially by supporting the Republican position on things they support the exact opposite of their own interests.
Republicans seem to have a policy of short term gain regardless of the long term implications. Their positions on the two topics listed above poll poorly for them and it is their own doing. Now if only Democrats had the balls to make them pay for their mistakes.
First, John McCain had previously stated that he would support a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell if the military's top brass told him they supported ending the policy. I think John McCain never planned on this happening as he assumed top military leaders would think like he does and would never back such a change. Unfortunately for John McCain they called his bluff. Rather than stick to his word and vote to repeal DADT, McCain has gone on the offensive. That is, after all, what you do when you are backed into a corner. The fact is McCain has always supported the policy and never expected to see it repealed during his tenure so sounding rationale for an upcoming election, made sense.
Second, Republicans have had such a fervent hatred for Barrack Obama that they decided early on to block everything he supported. They were put to the test shortly after his inauguration with the stimulus bill. Having no good rationale for being against the bill they decided the best way to attack it was under the guise of the national debt. Debt and Deficit was never a problem in Republican policy prior to Obama's election but simple minded people don't need good rationale they just need something simple to rally behind. Once they decided this was their new narrative, TARP, which many of the Republicans supported under Bush, came under fire. Not because of who it helped or the lack a regulations that it required which would prevent history from repeating itself, but because it added to the debt. Unfortunately for Republicans the fear mongering worked and people started to hate TARP and Stimulus. The problem for Republicans is that they really love deficit spending. They want to extend tax cuts that will be far more detrimental to the national debt and the deficit than Stimulus, TARP, and Health Care reform combined. They were so excited about having a way to slow down President Obama's progress that they never took the time to realize that being successful would be to their own detriment.
Luckily for Republicans Americans is stupid and they don't realize when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. They support tax breaks for very rich people who already pay less in taxes than they do. They support policies that allow the rich to get rich while keeping the poor and middle class from advancing. Essentially by supporting the Republican position on things they support the exact opposite of their own interests.
Republicans seem to have a policy of short term gain regardless of the long term implications. Their positions on the two topics listed above poll poorly for them and it is their own doing. Now if only Democrats had the balls to make them pay for their mistakes.
John Shimkus thinks God will solve Global Warming
John Shimkus' official position on Global Warming is; don't worry, God's got your back. The irony is that according the believers, God works in mysterious ways and often sends signs which lead to a change in ones life. Well perhaps God has sent us a sign by increasing the temperature and melting away ice caps. Maybe all of the recent reports and the growing concern over Global Warming were a sign from God that things needed to change. Perhaps God is really concerned about air quality and since smog and cancer didn't change Republicans minds God decided to turn up the heat (literally) and flood out the human race.
As far as I can tell Mr. Shimkus has half of it right, God will take care of Global Warming. He has given us more than enough signs that excess carbon dioxide in the air is bad and he expects us to do something about it. Its just too bad that Mr. Shimkus is using God as an excuse not to act, rather than truly understanding that God has already acted and the failure now rests on the heads of his believers that place greater importance on Jesus like depictions on toast than actual signs of the apocalypse. As the old saying goes - the greatest trick the Devil every pulled was convincing Christians that Global Warming doesn't exist!
As far as I can tell Mr. Shimkus has half of it right, God will take care of Global Warming. He has given us more than enough signs that excess carbon dioxide in the air is bad and he expects us to do something about it. Its just too bad that Mr. Shimkus is using God as an excuse not to act, rather than truly understanding that God has already acted and the failure now rests on the heads of his believers that place greater importance on Jesus like depictions on toast than actual signs of the apocalypse. As the old saying goes - the greatest trick the Devil every pulled was convincing Christians that Global Warming doesn't exist!
Dinner for Schmucks featuring Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck
Just when I thought Glenn Beck had nailed down the top spot in the dumbest statements per hour category, clearly leaving Rush Limbaugh in his dust, Rush comes back with a completely idiotic statement of his own, closing the gap, and again drawing even with Beck.
On his November 24th radio show, while discussing President Obama's recognition of Native American accomplishments, Rush decides to play the fake white victim card and claim that Indians are to blame for the diseases associated with cigarettes because they introduced the European settlers to tobacco.
Apparently Rush feels that there is a "myth" being propagated that "we were incompetent idiots, we didn't know how to feed ourselves, so they came along and showed us how."
It makes you wish Rush would read verbatim off of pre-written scripts like Bill O'Reily so that he could read how stupid his own arguments are before he makes them. How can you claim on one hand that we are not incompetent idiots then claim that we were powerless to the ills of tobacco. Its not surprising that a former drug addict is in a rush to place blame on everyone else rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions.
At this point I have to assume that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are either currently under the influence, completely nuts, or have a secret bet to see who can come up with the bigger line of shit and still retain their audience. Stay tuned.
On his November 24th radio show, while discussing President Obama's recognition of Native American accomplishments, Rush decides to play the fake white victim card and claim that Indians are to blame for the diseases associated with cigarettes because they introduced the European settlers to tobacco.
Apparently Rush feels that there is a "myth" being propagated that "we were incompetent idiots, we didn't know how to feed ourselves, so they came along and showed us how."
It makes you wish Rush would read verbatim off of pre-written scripts like Bill O'Reily so that he could read how stupid his own arguments are before he makes them. How can you claim on one hand that we are not incompetent idiots then claim that we were powerless to the ills of tobacco. Its not surprising that a former drug addict is in a rush to place blame on everyone else rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions.
At this point I have to assume that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are either currently under the influence, completely nuts, or have a secret bet to see who can come up with the bigger line of shit and still retain their audience. Stay tuned.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck
After watching the Daily Show last night I was excited to see that Jon Stewart was back to the Jon Stewart I have come to know and love. He seemed to have lost his way in an effort to prove how unbiased he was and how Americans should all just get along which seemed to be motivated by the Rally to Restore Sanity. Fortunately, last night Jon again took full aim at the blatant hypocrisy of the Republicans as he seemed to realize that the crazy on the right is not proportional to the crazy on the left. Meeting in the middle requires an effort from both sides and I hope Jon has realized that right now the only people willing to work across the isle, are sitting on the left.
One other important bit of information from yesterdays Daily Show is that Glenn Beck is a complete moron. I'm not sure if he is just trying to increase his ratings or he is truly as dumb as he comes across. His latest rant, which Jon exposed, had Glenn claiming the US had the best food quality in the world and then lambasting the FDA as an evil form of government control. He is playing to the absolute idiots here. You don't get to act all patriotic and claim the US is number one and then fail to recognize the very reason we are number one. Hey Glenn, without the FDA we would be just like any other country. You can call it the government controlling what you eat, which it isn't, but if you hate the system then you don't get to celebrate the superior results of the system. Congratulations Glenn Beck, you make Rush Limbaugh look rational. Tool!
One other important bit of information from yesterdays Daily Show is that Glenn Beck is a complete moron. I'm not sure if he is just trying to increase his ratings or he is truly as dumb as he comes across. His latest rant, which Jon exposed, had Glenn claiming the US had the best food quality in the world and then lambasting the FDA as an evil form of government control. He is playing to the absolute idiots here. You don't get to act all patriotic and claim the US is number one and then fail to recognize the very reason we are number one. Hey Glenn, without the FDA we would be just like any other country. You can call it the government controlling what you eat, which it isn't, but if you hate the system then you don't get to celebrate the superior results of the system. Congratulations Glenn Beck, you make Rush Limbaugh look rational. Tool!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Open Letter To Your (Democratic) Senator
I sent this to Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. It is okay with me if members of Furriners Nation copy-n-paste to your particular senators.
Dear Senator,
I just wanted to voice my opinion about some reports I have read about today. It is being reported that all GOP senators are vowing to not cooperate with any legislation until the issue of the expiring tax rates are dealt with (presumably extended for all Americans including those making $250k+).
Please do not fall for this tactic! Does anyone have any reason to believe the GOP will cooperate with ending DADT, the DREAM Act, passing the START treaty before the end of the year, extending long-term unemployment benefits, etc. if you extend tax cuts for the wealthy?
That is ludicrous. Recently, I watched a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving where Lucy, as always, promises to hold the ball and takes it away at the last second... please do NOT let the Democrats play the role of Charlie Brown!
I am guessing the GOP is actually not willing to let all the tax cuts expire in their desire to protect the wealth of the top 2%. Perhaps deep down they even know that is fiscally irresponsible to do so and are doing so only to secure future campaign donations? Regardless, please stay true to the principles of the Democratic Party (and the promises of President Obama) that the government needs to work for average Americans and not for the moneyed elite.
Thank you,
Derek Anderson Fan Club
Ann Arbor Chapter
Dear Senator,
I just wanted to voice my opinion about some reports I have read about today. It is being reported that all GOP senators are vowing to not cooperate with any legislation until the issue of the expiring tax rates are dealt with (presumably extended for all Americans including those making $250k+).
Please do not fall for this tactic! Does anyone have any reason to believe the GOP will cooperate with ending DADT, the DREAM Act, passing the START treaty before the end of the year, extending long-term unemployment benefits, etc. if you extend tax cuts for the wealthy?
That is ludicrous. Recently, I watched a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving where Lucy, as always, promises to hold the ball and takes it away at the last second... please do NOT let the Democrats play the role of Charlie Brown!
I am guessing the GOP is actually not willing to let all the tax cuts expire in their desire to protect the wealth of the top 2%. Perhaps deep down they even know that is fiscally irresponsible to do so and are doing so only to secure future campaign donations? Regardless, please stay true to the principles of the Democratic Party (and the promises of President Obama) that the government needs to work for average Americans and not for the moneyed elite.
Thank you,
Derek Anderson Fan Club
Ann Arbor Chapter
Republicans - I call bullshit!
Of all the irritating double talk coming out of the Republicans the one that bothers me the most is their fake concern over the deficit. In debate over extending unemployment yesterday Republicans claim they will not vote for something that increases the deficit. Bullshit! Republicans are pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts which will increase the deficit significantly. Apparently Republicans are so entranced by their own rhetoric that they are choosing to ignore the fact that unemployment checks have a much greater stimulative affect on the economy than tax cuts. Scott Brown made the following statement yesterday:
"We should have spent seven days working on the one thing that the people in November sent a very powerful message -- and that is getting our economy moving again. Focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Well Mr. Brown, unemployment adds less to the deficit and increases jobs more than your precious tax cuts. If only Democrats could get Americans to understand this, we could start moving the country in the right direction.
"We should have spent seven days working on the one thing that the people in November sent a very powerful message -- and that is getting our economy moving again. Focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Well Mr. Brown, unemployment adds less to the deficit and increases jobs more than your precious tax cuts. If only Democrats could get Americans to understand this, we could start moving the country in the right direction.
Pure Michigan add campaign in jeopardy
Outgoing Governor Jennifer Granholm and incoming governor Rick Snyder both support a renewal of the Pure Michigan add campaign while the Republican lead senate refuses to address the need for money that would allow Michigan to purchase add time in an aim to increase tourism in the state.
This is another clear example of Repubocrisy. Republicans hold business and business ideology in the highest regard and often suggest that government needs to be run more like a business. Unfortunately their rhetoric doesn't match their actions. One of the main tenants of of business is that it takes money to make money. The Pure Michigan add campaign has been shown to have a good return on investment meaning that it brings in more money to Michigan than it costs. In business if a program you have makes a profit you don't shut it down and claim it is for budgetary reasons. That is completely counter intuitive to business people, yet that is exactly what Republicans are doing.
There is a reason that companies like GM continue to advertise while losing money. It has a good return and they would have lost more money if they didn't advertise. Republicans are determined to say one thing and do another. Either Republicans don't understand the very ideals they claim to hold dear or they don't actually believe in their own rhetoric.
This is another clear example of Repubocrisy. Republicans hold business and business ideology in the highest regard and often suggest that government needs to be run more like a business. Unfortunately their rhetoric doesn't match their actions. One of the main tenants of of business is that it takes money to make money. The Pure Michigan add campaign has been shown to have a good return on investment meaning that it brings in more money to Michigan than it costs. In business if a program you have makes a profit you don't shut it down and claim it is for budgetary reasons. That is completely counter intuitive to business people, yet that is exactly what Republicans are doing.
There is a reason that companies like GM continue to advertise while losing money. It has a good return and they would have lost more money if they didn't advertise. Republicans are determined to say one thing and do another. Either Republicans don't understand the very ideals they claim to hold dear or they don't actually believe in their own rhetoric.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
President Obama offers Federal Pay Freeze
Not surprisingly John Gage, the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (the Union for Federal workers) came out against this move making the following statement:
Two unfunded wars, stock market collapse and trying to solve this deficit by going after working people's salary — I just expected more from the Obama administration.
This is where unions really bother me. As a small business owner we put a pay freeze in place for lower level employees and then we cut the salary of all the managers and owners. We did this to stay in business not because we liked it. We didn't hide behind all of our past failures that could have saved us money as rationale for maintaining unsustainable raises. The fact was that the economy was down and we needed to adjust to the new situation we found ourselves in.
I would respect the union if instead of complaining about a freeze they accepted it and spent their time finding other areas of the budget that could be cut. They should offer solutions instead of whining. They are acting like they are the only ones who are being asked to sacrifice. The economy is bad and it doesn't matter who is to blame. I didn't see the federal employees union lobbying against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. They weren't spending union dues to put stiffer regulations on Wall Street that would have prevented the gambling that led to the economic collapse. They didn't offer solutions to the budget deficit when times were good. If you just sit on the sidelines and watch you can't affect the outcome of the game. Unfortunately that is what the Federal Employees Union is doing now, acting like the problems of the past were obvious and they warned of the impending doom. They didn't want to be part of the solution then and they certainly aren't offering to help now and that is the lack of responsibility that really bugs me about unions.
Two unfunded wars, stock market collapse and trying to solve this deficit by going after working people's salary — I just expected more from the Obama administration.
This is where unions really bother me. As a small business owner we put a pay freeze in place for lower level employees and then we cut the salary of all the managers and owners. We did this to stay in business not because we liked it. We didn't hide behind all of our past failures that could have saved us money as rationale for maintaining unsustainable raises. The fact was that the economy was down and we needed to adjust to the new situation we found ourselves in.
I would respect the union if instead of complaining about a freeze they accepted it and spent their time finding other areas of the budget that could be cut. They should offer solutions instead of whining. They are acting like they are the only ones who are being asked to sacrifice. The economy is bad and it doesn't matter who is to blame. I didn't see the federal employees union lobbying against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. They weren't spending union dues to put stiffer regulations on Wall Street that would have prevented the gambling that led to the economic collapse. They didn't offer solutions to the budget deficit when times were good. If you just sit on the sidelines and watch you can't affect the outcome of the game. Unfortunately that is what the Federal Employees Union is doing now, acting like the problems of the past were obvious and they warned of the impending doom. They didn't want to be part of the solution then and they certainly aren't offering to help now and that is the lack of responsibility that really bugs me about unions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
