blog
posts..
(this page isn't really for you...)
yet MORE of this stuff... here
The instrument capable of detecting the sub-atomic shit I give about this has yet to be invented.
Iraq War ...
The Iraq war... was WON??? by whom??? at what point in time did that clusterfcuk EVER resemble a success? Is this the kind of tainted crap they feed over at the Fox trough? that would explain a great many things... Jebus H Crikey, Fred, that is a new record level of ridiculous delusional thinking, even by your standard (and THAT is one low bar pal...) Did you see that "Mission Accomplished" banner and just declare it all case closed 'cause we say it is? But it's all Obama's fault, for failing to take radioactive pigshit and turn it into chocolate covered diamonds. Therefore: vote PALIN! she can see Russia, you know... I love re-playing all those hit songs from yester-year... Condi Rice: "we can't wait until the smoking gun appears in the form of a mushroom cloud..." or Don Rumsfeld: "General Shinseki is wrong, we don't need 300k troops, we can do it by using 'smart' approaches, only need 120k troops or so... it'll be over in 3 weeks, the natives will love us for it..." or the Paul Wolfowitz classic: "the war will mostly PAY FOR ITSELF..." (quiz: what happens when your cost estimate is wrong by more than a TRILLION dollars? answer: they appoint you head of the World Bank, cuz you're so good with finance and money and stuff..) Or Cheney: "I'm my own branch of Gov't... because I say so..." (and they just LOVE the Constitution, don't they...) And now we need to listen to whom? that's right, the same cabal of lunatics who got us here in the first place. Genius thinking, right there...
Every time Dick Cheney utters the phrase "take responsibility" the devil eats a kitten. Please shut up, Dick, and you too, Kristol... do it for the kittens...
Megyn Kelly to the Ex-Vpenis on Fux News last night: "Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir. You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005, and you said that after our intervention, extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?"
Gov't can't do anything right...right?
Conservatives tend to oppose anything that puts control into the hands of Gov't... because, in their view, Gov does most everything badly, inefficiently. wastefully. The problem with this thinking is that it's a little bit... correct. There ARE a lot of examples of waste, no doubt, and who doesn't hate the DMV? But like many conservative positions, this is an over-simplified way of seeing things. Further, they tend to over-sell the solution: private enterprise! which can always do it better, faster, cheaper, right? well sometimes... but one cannot understand the whole problem without looking at the details. Sorry, but life is (as usual) more complex than ALL GOOD/ALL BAD.
Case in point: the Obamacare website, which conservatives site as example of Gov't can't do anything right... well folks, you do realize that THAT website was created by a private contractor, yes? So how did that contract get out of control? and isn't THAT fact, in itself, an example of Gov failing? well, yeah, it is, but it's because we let conservative thinking influence how the Gov tries to do business in a way that is friendly to business: instead of regulating/controlling its contractors, the Gov now gives them power/options. It's like a form of Political Correctness metastisized into Business Correctness, at the expense of us, the taxpayers. (don't comment yet... wait for the rest of the story...)
In order to understand where the Gov't has allowed business interests to steer it wrong, you need to understand a concept called Total System Performance Responsibility. It refers to a type of “Performance Based Logistics” (PBL) that “revolutionized” the way the Pentagon issued contracts, by putting more “responsibility” (a.k.a. “power”) into the hands of the contractors. This “innovative thinking” promised to free-up the creative power of the private sector by removing the "oppressive" and "inefficient" power of government oversight. Sounds great, right?
To me, it sounds like something Ayn Rand wrote in a love letter
to Milton Friedman. This horrible idea started back in Reagan, but really took
flight at the start of W Bush’s administration and it resulted in a decade of
defense contractors gone wild—particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in other
areas too; what it meant for the F-35 contract for instance: according to Adam
Ciralsky in Vanity Fair , that “…Lockheed was given near-total responsibility
for design, development, testing, fielding, and production.”
So instead looking out for the taxpayers, in the form of oversight along the
way, “…the Pentagon gave Lockheed a pot of money and a general outline of what
was expected.” So who's fault is this? is it the Gov, or the over-spending
contractors? well, IMO, the Gov's job is to keep costs down by regulating
MORE. And so after conservatives oppose and weaken regulations, there is
less oversight/control, and contractors over-spend. Then conservatives
turn around and say "Look at the over-spending; Gov can't do anything right!"
...which brings us back to Healthcare.gov. Like the open-ended Total System
Performance Responsibility contract system used by the Pentagon, the agencies
launching the Affordable Care Act often gave out Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
Quantity (IDIQ) contracts—as is the case with the now infamous deal that GCI
Federal (a PRIVATE contractor) received to build the website. An IDIQ contract
is exactly like it sounds—it can be a broadly-defined trough, with few
parameters and little oversight, kinda like your plate during the “Oceans of
Shrimp” promotion at your local seafood buffet. IDIQ contracts are not unusual.
Nor is the practice of contractors giving well-timed political donations. DC is
teeming with companies drawn to this type of recession-proof feeding frenzy.
Something like fifty-five companies got a piece of the Affordable Care Act. Some
of the big winners of the ACA rollout are well-practiced consumers of tax
dollars. Defense giants like Booz Allen Hamilton ($2.6m), Northrop Grumman
($1.66m) and Science Applications International Corp. ($1.77m) couldn’t resist
getting “a taste” of the ACA. The big winner was General Dynamics’ subsidiary
Vangent ($28m), which they acquired just in time to belly up to the ACA trough.
Imagine that: all these "pros", these free-enterprise entities, all working on the healthcare rollout... but it's the Government's fault that it took too long and cost too much? well, yes it is... if the Government did more governing, and less trying to be business friendly, maybe it could get its job done.
Corporate feasting continues even as taxpayers are force-fed a bogus debate over a “government takeover of healthcare”... a phrase which is nonsense. The ACA is little more than a legally-binding promise to enshrine, forever, the profitable health insurance industry and its massive, private bureaucracies. An actual government takeover would’ve replaced health insurance with healthcare. But that didn’t happen.
Meanwhile, Lockheed has prospered beyond its expectations. They soundly beat estimates for the 3rd quarter of 2013... And General Dynamics scored a $3 billion missile deal! So they're doing GREAT, and so are their shareholders (that tiny group of very wealth people who "earn" money by investing, aka NOT you)... And you? how's that co-pay? reached your "out-of-pocket" medical spending goal yet, so your benefits can begin? Tell me again where is the welfare waste?
Intelligent Design v. Evolution
Evolution and the rest of "big science" are often described as having an atheistic preference. Actually, science avoids intelligent design explanations (for natural phenomena) out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only those things that can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming un-testable and over-complicated. By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed." A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.
MLM scams
Let me help translate what you've said to me here:
"You are completely wrong and have no grasp of our Industry. "
Translation: "Reality makes us look bad...Let me spin this so we look better"
"I am an Ambassador with Evolv"
Translation: "I like to give myself contrived, meaningless titles because it
adds to my phony sense of accomplishment"
"...and have earned Millions in the Network Marketing Industry"
Translation: "I have duped a LOT of people into believing they can earn as much
as me, knowing full well that they never will"
"Have YOU! "
Translation: "My money-based self-worth makes me feel superior"
"People will join who they know, like and trust. "
Translation: "suckers are born every minute, and we like to take advantage of
the inner SUCKER in our friends"
"We are in the Relationship Marketing Industry"
Translation: "we sell bullshit, packaged as a 'dream' that suckers think they
can attain, but we know better"
"... and help to develop Leaders who are earning significant incomes"
Translation: "the early and most ruthless ones make money: we don't like to talk
about the thousands of suckers who MUST lose money in order for the 'leaders' to
earn significant incomes, so we chalk it up to leadership and pat ourselves on
the back for our 'hard work', it helps us sleep"
"Most Leads are people watching TV and eating Pizza, "
Translation: "most suckers DESERVE to get ripped off, so I've decided to dupe
them and make money. And the fact that I make money justifies in my mind that
I'm better than them, and thus I deserve to make more money."
" Everything rises and falls with Leadership, "
Translation: "I'll close with a meaningless phrase I learned in "How To Bilk
Your Friends While Selling Them Phony Dreams 101'"
yes, some people make money, I even know 2 of them. How they
live with themselves is a mystery, but one even believes God is "blessing" them
because of their great work (selling phone service plans...) Best of luck
**********************
I can't believe anyone's even debating this. Just take a glance
at the video girl (Kate) and her other videos; she has about 8 videos EXACTLY
the same. "The scam exposed about (insert MLM here)" and of course, each is
actually a testimonial about how MLM is NOT a scam but a great way to earn
money... whatever... ACN, 5Linx, Arbonne, WakeUpNow... really Kate? they're ALL
great? why not NuSkin, Amway, or Scientology? or have those ones failed to pay
you? What a steaming load...
ACN
https://www.youtube.com/user/katesmlmvideoreview?feature=watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJtPhMOq35c
Nu Skin complaints:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cosmetics/nu_skin.html
Replies
"why should you guys give us shit for what we do?" Actually no one's
giving you shit for what you do; they're questioning whether or not you actually
do what you (and this video woman) claim to do. Personally, if I was actually
making money at something, I would feel absolutely
no need to create videos like this. Why do you spend any time defending
its legitimacy? (Answer: because if no one believes it's legit, then you
won't have suckers buying in below you, and YOU lose money)
"Business opportunities" like this rely on a whole bunch of people to believe in them
and buy in; otherwise ya'll wouldn't need these deceptively titled videos and
the testimonials.
Your story lacks the detail that I'd expect from someone actually succeeding;
you say you "made back twice the amount I put in." so you made $1000? that was
enough to quit your job?
Instead of a religious / psychological pitch (like you post here), it would be
genuinely interesting to read some actual details; details
that a person in business would have right at hand, such as: how much did you
actually gross, against how much invested; in what period of time; how many
sales, and how many people did you present your sales pitch to... etc. "I made
a ton" and "you have to work your butt off" and "it works for those who work at
it" are as meaningless as "just trust me".
So if anyone's actually making money, details please. Otherwise you're probably
trying to sell people a phony dream, one that you've already bought yourself,
and the only way to break even is to get others to believe...
dude, don't waste your time... these people are either just
scammers, or they're so deluded that they really think they will start making
money, ANY MINUTE NOW, it's gonna happen... yeah, please show us the new house
you bought, the bank statement, your tax return, showing us your huge income
stream... their ONLY goal is to sucker just a few more people into thinking
"well, I guess I should try it..." bam! thanks for the $500, chump... what? you
got nothing? well, it's because YOU didn't believe hard enough in the magic
beans, don't blame us...
Lost money? never got people to buy in? Your experience is EXACTLY
the same as the 4 people I know who did this, each trying so hard to sign up a
bunch of other people... and I suspect the 99% of everyone who falls for these
pyramid schemes, unlike yourself, never ever mentions it, never reports it, they
just slink away embarrassed, they don't wanna admit that they pissed away $500
on snake oil... or they believe the jackass hype that it was all their fault,
they didn't beLIEve hard enough...
I have friends, good hearted people who've tried this. 4 were never able to sign up enough people to get any "income stream" going, and then were hit with renewal fees and more. All 4 dropped out. One couple though, TOTALLY believes. They're just hypnotized by the presence of Donald Trump and mention it EVERY time they can... they are SO gung-ho about it "changing their lives" or whatever, that I wonder if they're actually in the tiny percent who have signed up enough paying down-line (suckers) under them to make money. But they are such believers, it's like talking to cult members; I have NO idea if they even know whether they're telling me the truth. Whatever the case, I've had to ask them to stop trying to sell me on it, and other friends have stopped talking to them. It gets obnoxious and phony when your "friends" see you as a source of revenue.
" I am a multiple six figure earner and owe it all to ACN."
right... multiple six-figure income... what are you doing here then? oh I see, you JUST signed up for a YouTube account, and made this ONE comment... that seems completely legit... Pro tip: Most of the successful people that I know? they don't need to call themselves "Mr Success" in order to make it seem real to others...
In case my intent was not clear: ACN is NOT legit, it is a scam. And this video presenter is a fraud; she's made about 8 of these videos promoting 8 different MLM (pyramid scheme) businesses, in the EXACT same script, same white board, sometimes even the same shirt/bra (eye contact? where's the fun in that?). And I know 4 people who lost money with this ACN racket, and 2 who lost with 5Linx... and they all were given this same quasi-religious, cult talk: it's YOUR fault because you don't BELIEVE in yourself enough or whatever. It's crap. And most of the posts from ppl who says it's legit are phony accounts, people with only one post, people who joined YouTube yesterday... what bullshit. Avoid ACN. Avoid MLM.
I also know 2 people who make money thru MLM, and they did it by (somehow) getting up to the upper levels; they DO NOT make money selling the actual product (which, in both cases, is a product and a service) that NO ONE actually needs, in both cases the actual "thing" is crap; but they managed to sign up SO many people that they make money off OTHER people's work, off other people getting other suckers to sign up and pay in. One has basically alienated all her former friends, since she used them and they lost money. The other has over 1,400 people in her down line, took many years. And those downline people LOSE money, and she relies on that to happen; she relies on suckers buying in and then quitting. I don't know how such people live with themselves; how do you justify your success based on duping people into believing that they can reach your level, but knowing the whole time that if that actually happened your income would be threatened.
OMG are you amazingly gorgeous... is that you in the pic? wow... oh btw: you should use "You're"... not "your"... ok, so... If you actually believe there exists " the other million people who have made it" then you have been duped, or you're (see that?) fooling yourself, or you're just trying to put enough doubt into people's minds so a few more fools will sign up. Because THAT is how anyone makes money in a pyramid like this: not from selling the actual product, but from getting people to "just take a chance", pay their initial fee, and then drop out, so you can get MORE suckers to play the game. "in all honesty" is nice to say, so why don't you try being all honest, and tell us all how well you're (see that?) doing, with real numbers: how much do you make at this, in what period of time, how many people did you sign up, how many of THEM are making money too, etc. If you're legit, this info should be right at hand for you. and please no more cult-speak, no more passive-aggressive nonsense "well, if YOU don't believe in our BS, then you can just go on missing out on our secret..." ok? because a legit biz doesn't need such persuasion; facts don't rely on belief to remain factual. K thx bye!
ACN is a dangerous cult, brainwashing people and taking money from the lower part of society. Over here in the Netherlands it is a relatively new concept and it is growing rapidly (unfortunately).
I did some research into this company and I found out that it is not a classical pyramid scheme, but rather a sophisticated one. First of all: yes, you can earn residual income with ACN and yes this can add up to a few hundred, or even thousands, of dollars a month. However, for this you would have to sell a LOT of contract since profit margins on ACN products are really low because of the competitiviness of the respective markets (energy and telecommunications). Therefore, one should expect a profit margin of only 2%, maybe if they're lucky 5%. Say Joe average pays 100$ a month for these services (electricity and mobile phone). You, as an ACN rep could get 2-5$ a month from this contract. Seems like a win for you right? The more you sell, the more you keep right? But the thing is that now ACN is responsible for the network and customer relations which is just utter crap. And since you can only approach friends and family eventually you will allienate them and off course you need to put a LOT of effort into it to make some decent money.
So the vast riches promised are too good to be true right? Maintaining simultaneously a couple of thousand of contracts for electricity and telecommunications is hard. Big firms have huge overhead facilities for this which you don't have as a so called Independent Business owner. There is another way of making money within ACN. And this is when ACN is becoming a pyramid/ponzi scheme. You can recruit new people and they will have to pay 500$ to get in. Supposedly this is for the start-up of your business, but this is not true. Your mentor will get a slice of it because he 'trains' you.
Furthermore you are more or less obliged to attend trainings and meetings for which you will have to pay an entrance fee. Generally, from what I have heard and seen, it's a meeting in which some guest speakers talk about how wonderful ACN is and the people just clap for him/her. Thus one could simply agree that recruiting is far more profitable than actually selling products. And that's exactly what the rep's think and do!
Finally, the risk-return correlation between this kind of business is so low that it doesn't outweigh the opportunity cost. Lets see: The average first year drop-out rate is estimated somewhere between a conservative 50% to a more extreme 98%. Let's for a moment assume that the conservative estimate is correct. So the risk that I will drop out is 50%. I will invest 500$ and put 20 hours of work a week into ACN. Working at an average job earns you something in the neighborhood of 10$ after tax. So my opportunity cost is (20*10*52=14000$) with 0% risk. However, with ACN I have the chance to earn vast riches (4000$ a month) of income with a 50% chance to have nothing. Well, being a relatively rational human being I would choose to work at an average job and earn those 14000$ a year without any risk.
To conclude: don't go into ACN if you want to keep your friends and family. Furthermore it's a pyramid scheme, meaning that only a small percentage of all people within ACN will actually get rich. Also, I advise people who want to become rich fast to go to either the casino or buy stocks in some start-up company with their 500$. More chances of becoming actually rich.
How Conservatives Billionaires Corrupt the system
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/22135-the-koch-brothers-dark-money-man
how banks fuck us with credit cards; even when you pay every month...
http://truth-out.org/news/item/21929-usurious-returns-on-phantom-money-the-credit-card-gravy-train
Campaign finance corruption
http://truth-out.org/news/item/21928-david-simon-on-our-rigged-political-system
Libertarian bullshit
few libertarians are as hypocritical as the billionaires who earned their fortunes in the tech world. Government created the Internet. Government financed the basic research that led to computing itself. And yet Internet libertarians are among the most politically extreme of them all.
Perhaps none is more extreme than Peter Thiel, who made his fortune with PayPal. In one infamous rant, Thiel complained about allowing women and people he describes as “welfare beneficiaries” (which might be reasonably interpreted as “minorities”) to vote. “Since 1920,” Thiel fulminated, “the extension of the franchise to (these two groups) have turned ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
With this remark, Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don’t like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what’s wrong with governments that regulate.
On this score, at least, Thiel is no hypocrite. He’s willing to freely say what others only think: Democracy should be replaced by the rule of wealthy people like himself. But how did Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks—after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government. By that standard, Thiel and his fellow “digital libertarians” are hypocrites of genuinely epic proportion.
Which leads us to our next question: Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government? Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws. But why evev these two? If the mythical free market can solve any problem, including protecting the environment, why can’t it also protect us from foreign invaders and defend the copyrights that make these libertarians wealthy? For that matter, why should these libertarians be allowed to hold patents at all? If the free market can decide how best to use our national resources, why shouldn’t it also decide how best to use Peter Thiel’s ideas, and whether or not to reward him for them? After all, if Thiel were a true Randian libertarian he’d use his ideas in a more superior fashion than anyone else—and he would be more ruthless in enforcing his rights to them than anyone else. Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?
Conservative bullshit
Right... and so to all the kids my mother teaches in a poor community, kids who have nothing to eat but this "evil" soul-emptying Gov't food, you would say... what, exactly? Sorry, I couldn't hear your "correct" ideology over the noisy stomachs...
Who cares if Ryan's
story is factual, his ideology is a fantasy. The idea that the "left doesn't
understand" empty souls is nothing more than dog-whistle talk to pull in the
religious sheep. But never mind that: in their fact-deflector suits, Ryan and
his ilk pretend to be blind to the fact that there exist people who can't afford
to give their kids food. To talk of creating "a full stomach and an empty soul"
is so stupid, it's hard to believe this guy has a position as a leader. THEY
CANNOT EAT A BAG FULL OF YOUR IDEOLOGY, YOU SMUG MORON.
Ryan's speech disgusts me. Does he find himself so clever as to "discover" that
a poor kid would rather have a nice lunch from home? wow, that's amazing,
detective. Did you also "discover" that kids would rather be driven to school in
a limo than ride a bus or walk? hey, Columbo? we're not talking about a class of
people who have a choice in the matter, you blathering idiot.
His whole point of view ignores reality. If you believe in this Ayn Rand
make-believe world that Gov't creates poor people, you're either being
purposefully ignorant, or you're being genuinely stupid. I'd say the Left
doesn't "get" why these idiots ignore facts, offer no solution to the problem of
people who can't afford food, while calling everyone else "emotional". Project
much?
Lost father to
Fox:
Liberals, the president included, would be better off just letting Fox rant on to its self-selected audience: a paltry average viewership of a bit over one million in prime time, with a median age of 68 - a virtually all-white retirement community that will vote Republican no matter what, often in red states and districts that are safely Republican in any event.
Republican, Democrat, who cares? I am for: whatever works.
So viewing history? Liberal economic policies have worked better. New
Deal; Great Society. Clinton's years.
Reagan embraced tax cuts as a growth-promoting strategy, and so did GW Bush.
Viewed economically, that strategy is a bust. Reagan is credited as a
success, but GDP grew at 31.7 percent during Reagan's eight years in office,
compared with Clinton's 33.1 percent and JFK/LBJ's 47.1 percent. However,
supply-side approaches do wonders for the 1 percent, whose income grew 10 times
as much as everyone else-61.5 percent vs 6.15 percent - a far cry from the JFK/LBJ
years, when the 99 percent actually did better than the 1 percent: 30.9 percent
vs 26.9 percent.
Socialism: clearly failed in the USSR and other places. But the fact is that the US adopted some very Socialist policies to get out of the Depression, and carried them all the way into the 1970's, and it worked. Worked very well. Even conservative Charles Krauthammer (who has viciously attacked everything about Obama) called the New Deal a "shining success". (He doesn't think it would work now, for reasons I don't understand at all.)
Capitalism: profit, rewards for hard work and
innovation, etc, those are the good parts of our system. And that's not
the problem. The problem is that we used to tax GIANT profits and use that
money to invest in US (schools, infrastructure, etc), but we've been convinced
that this is unfair to the "job-creators" by the Fox/CATO/Heritage
Foundation/etc media machine, who repeat this stuff so much that now blue-collar
tea-party people will argue about how unfair it is to tax billionaires... WTF?
These people who make TONS of
money, on the order of your whole life's worth... in a year, or a month, or a
week. Sorry, but NO ONE is working THAT hard. Why do you de-value
your own work so much? do you REALLY think there is anyone on this planet
who works ten times harder than you? how? 400 hours per week? is
that possible? well, there are people who "earn" 50-times what you make,
100-times what you make; why do you feel that's ok? or rather, why do you
think they shouldn't pay more in taxes than you? do you really think there
is someone worth 50 of you? I'd like to meet that person...
Folks, you've been duped by a well funded campaign, paid for by an elite, very small, ultra-rich group. They've been working against the "socialist" policies of the New Deal and Johnson's Great Society for decades, but their only goal is to make themselves more money. And their propaganda has been so relentless that now it comes out of the mouths of people at our level, when they say that the problem is big Gov't, or that Social Security is somehow a failure. And this tiny group of elite billionaires makes more money when you vote conservative or Tea Party, and that's their goal: make more money. (Does this mean I "love" the Dems? hell no, they're about 60% Republican anyway. But there are key differences on a few very important issues, and that's ONLY thing that keeps me voting at all...)
Conservative bullshit 2...
That's the thing about conservatives. They think everyone has
the same questionable morality that they do. They lie, so they believe everyone
else lies. They have no shame, so they think no one feels shame. They are haters
so everyone must hate. To them, political discourse is like "opposites" day.
Everything in the original post is verifiable. Yet Mr. English parrots Fox News
(The Alternative History Channel) talking points "without shame." Fortunately
the more they spew their bullshit, the more they marginalize themselves. The
voting public is starting to see through their fantasy world. The best way to
deal with conservative nut jobs is to ignore them. Arguing with them is like
playing chess with pigeons. They walk on the board shitting and kicking the
pieces over, then they strut around like they've won.
You started this exchange telling US who the bad guys are (the
Gov't), but that doesn't stop you from whining about how irritating it is when
Democrats tell YOU who the bad guys are...
Pot, meet kettle.
You arrogantly use the derisive term "sheep" for people who don't agree with you... they're just mindless followers because they don't see things your way... but that doesn't stop you from presenting a lecture on how it's actually the Democrats who don't allow other opinions to be legit...
Seriously man, look in the mirror.
Sheep? I've got a sheep story for you... for decades after
the New Deal, the ultra-rich have been chipping away at the law with one
singular goal: to make more money. Tax rates on HUGE incomes (at levels you and
I will never see) were too high for their liking; never mind that the economy
was doing well or that unemployment was low, and infrastructure / schools were
well funded, college education was affordable, etc. Collective good was not
their concern; individual good was. So their problem was: how do we get low to
middle-income, working-class schmucks to vote in ways that make us more money?
Well, one way is convince them that the Government is the problem... and
poor people, THOSE are the ones who are ruining everything for them. It's
not about collectivism, it's about "personal freedom", "rugged individualism"
etc. Thus some people with Big Money created the Heritage Foundation, the
CATO Institute, Fox news, all of which work full-time to push their agenda.
The result? working-class people who think deregulation is a good idea for
them... and the states that most strongly oppose the ACA, the ones who THINK
they're the most independent, "we don't need no Federal Gov", turn out to be the
ones who take in the most Fed aid. In other words, the people who need help the
most tend to hate the help... well-played, Mr. Koch...
yeah, you can't let the Gov take your freedoms, as the NSA scandal shows. But
the people telling you to fear Gov and fight things like the ACA are not in it
for your interests.
Libertarianism is a Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda - read about
its origins here, then make sure you're not the one wearing the wool...
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda
Just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— to supplement other business lobbying groups which focused on specific policies and legislation. Now, the IDEAL of Libertarianism existed before that, but the modern day Libertarian political movement has its roots in a self-interested business group, whose agenda was to create laws favoring corporate interests, and who have hijacked the issue of personal freedom to disguise their true motivation: increase corporate profit.
It is in no way a "grass roots" movement... FEE’s original donors in its first four years included the Big Three auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford; top oil majors including Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; major steel producers US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; major retailers including Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemicals majors Monsanto and DuPont; and other Fortune 500 corporations including General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich, ConEd, and more. That is how libertarianism in America started: As an arm of big business lobbying.
Modern “Libertarianism” is the result of the efforts of the corporate lobby world, launched as a big business “ideology” in 1946 by The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The purpose of this libertarianism was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations.
How the Right has lied to it followers:
History
After the Depression, the liberal policies of the New Deal saved the country. Sorry, but they did. If you read history, you reach this conclusion. If you get all your information from Fox, Limbaugh, Savage, Dr Laura, Ann Coulter, etc, then you likely believe something other than this reality. (And if you want to go on believing that stuff, then let's just stop talking right here, and have a nice day, I really mean that) In the 1960's, Johnson's Great Society policies brought down the poverty level and gave huge boosts to public education.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/56e.asp
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html
So that's TWICE in our country's history that socialistic, "big Gov't" policies brought the country back, and these policies produced good economies, good jobs, etc.
But conservatives who oppose all this have been at work since
the 60's (the Birch society called JFK a "traitor"), but they really got into
high gear when Reagan so slickly told us "Gov't is the problem".
Things did get out of balance in the 70's, something had to change, but
one thing is clear: By getting people to agree to push back against Gov't
programs, it opens up opportunities for pro-corporate forces, with tons of money
backing them, such as ALEC. This is the problem I have with "small Gov't"
Libertarianism: it's all dressed up as an "individual freedom" thing, but it
gets hijacked and serves the purposes of big corporate interests, at the expense
of the individual.
You should know who ALEC is, if you don't. They
write a LOT of legislation, designed to benefit their corporate interests, and
hand it to the Senators they've paid handsomely... those "representatives" then
introduce these laws, as if they are doing so in YOUR interest. They aren't.
Case in point:
An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is, right now, mobilizing to penalize homeowners who install their own solar panels - casting them as "freeriders" - in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy. Over the coming year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) will promote legislation with goals ranging from penalising individual homeowners and weakening state clean energy regulations, to blocking the Environmental Protection Agency. Details of Alec's strategy include blocking clean energy development at every stage. About 800 state legislators and business leaders attended a three-day event in December 2013, with appearances by the Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson and the Republican budget guru and fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan. Other speakers included a leading figure behind the recent government shutdown, US senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and the governors of Indiana and Wyoming, Mike Pence and Matt Mead.
just one loophole – the offshore tax haven – is allowing corporations to evade paying taxes on nearly $2 trillion in income. The country is not broke – it's been ROBBED. Real corporate taxes rates are at or near their lowest levels in 60 years, despite record profits; they're making more money than ever, paying less tax than ever...but you think it's the Government's fault...
Corporations use their power to gain more power:
Supply Side bullshit
Prior to Reagan's embrace of supply-side economics, every four-year presidential term but one since World War II had seen the federal debt decrease as a percentage of GDP. The only exception (Nixon-Ford) had seen a modest 0.2 percent increase. For all the complaining conservatives might do, there simply was no problem of "government living beyond its means" until Ronald Reagan came to town, and created the very problem that conservatives claimed was most dire. Under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio rose 21 percent, plus another 13 percent under Bush, before Clinton sharply reversed the trend, only to see Bush II begin increasing the debt ratio once again.
It's pretty annoying that conservatives fought for decades to lower taxes on the super rich, and then when the Gov't has no money to do anything properly, they turn around and say "see? Gov't can't do anything right!" Why are there problems in the schools, at the very same time tax revenues are so down? to keep people from connecting the dots, the conservative propaganda is a step ahead – how many times have we heard "you can't solve anything by 'throwing money at the problem'" geez we've heard that lie so many times it's become "common sense" (that's how good propaganda works, see?) Yet when you ask why is it OK for a CEO to earn 500 times more than the workers, they answer: big salaries are necessary to retain talented leaders. Why is it ok to throw money at rich people, but not at poor people?
Constitution..
Poorly-informed Americans have been convinced that the key Framers of the Constitution – the likes of George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton – wanted a system of strong states’ rights and a weak federal government, when the truth is nearly the opposite. This fake history has, in turn, fueled an intense hatred of today’s federal “guv-mint” as Tea Partiers fancy themselves the brave protectors of the Constitution.
With similar hypocrisy, the Right has rewritten the nation’s Founding narrative, an undertaking that has met little resistance from mainstream commentators who either don’t know the history themselves or don’t think the fight is worth having. Yet, ceding the historical narrative to the Right has meant that many Americans now think they are following the guideposts that the Framers left behind when they are actually being led in the opposite direction.
In the years after independence, Washington and Madison wanted a unified nation that addressed the country’s practical needs and overcame the rivalries among the states. “Thirteen sovereignties,” Washington wrote, “pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole.”
Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison told Washington that the states had to be made “subordinately useful,” a sentiment that Washington shared because – as commander in chief of the Continental Army – he had watched the Articles’ failure first-hand when his troops suffered without supplies and pay.
However, right-wing propaganda has transformed these key Framers from being the fathers of the Constitution to avatars for the Articles of Confederation, a system that both Washington and Madison despised. It was the Articles that made the states “sovereign” and “independent” and relegated the central government to a “league of friendship.”
Madison and Washington were among the pragmatic nationalists who recognized that the Articles were a disaster threatening the fragile independence and unity of the country. For instance, both Madison and Washington believed the central government needed the power to regulate national commerce.
When Madison tried to get a Commerce Clause added as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, Washington strongly supported Madison’s idea, calling the amendment “so self evident that I confess I am at a loss to discover wherein lies the weight of the objection to the measure. We are either a united people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of a general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it to be.”
After Madison’s commerce amendment died in the Virginia legislature – and as Shays’ Rebellion shook western Massachusetts in 1786 while the central government was powerless to intervene – Madison and Washington turned to the more radical concept of a Constitutional Convention. In Madison’s original draft of the Constitution, the federal Congress would have even been given veto power over state legislation, a provision that eventually was dropped. However, the Constitution and federal law were still made the supreme laws of the land, and federal courts had the power to strike down state laws deemed unconstitutional.
Though not giving the federal government all the powers that Madison had wanted, the Constitution still represented a major shift of authority from the states to the central government. And, that transformation was not lost on the Anti-Federalists who struggled desperately to block ratification of the Constitution, in 1788.
Tea Party bullshit, racism, etc..
the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in the Congress. In the United States House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the United States Senate.
Anyone can figure out that if Washington D.C. were populated by white conservative Republicans, rather than many people of color and liberal Democrats, the cause of D.C. representation would be a matter of “principle” for the Tea Party. There is no clearer case in America of people suffering under a key grievance of the Revolution: “no taxation without representation.”
However, given the dark-skin demographics and political leanings of the District’s population, Tea Partiers come to Washington to decry “taxation with representation” for THEMSELVES, while saying nothing about “taxation without representation” for District citizens. The Tea Partiers wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, but don’t demand seats in Congress for the people who live here.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19465-here-lies-the-tea-party-2009-2013
It is a Liberal idea that government is a public good and plays an important role in protecting the rights of the people, and promoting democracy for the common citizen. The Tea Party is opposed to this idea; they prefer to leave freedom in the invisible hand of the Free Market. That hand is invisible, because it doesn't exist. There is no profit in helping the interests of poor people.
The Tea Party and the billionaires who fund it think that government is somehow evil, and they seem to want to do everything they can to destroy it. If that means throwing the economy into chaos, then so be it.
Republican party leaders know that their core values – deregulation, cutting social services, and drowning government in a bathtub – are really the core values of the billionaire class. So they've tried, at different points in history, to make up for this fact by joining up with groups that have a bit more populist street cred than super-rich oil tycoons. Richard Nixon, for example, allied himself with racists in the South; Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush allied themselves with Evangelicals. Today's Republicans used the Tea Party and their hatred for taxes because, hey, who likes being taxed? no one, of course. So by joining up with these groups, Republicans seem less the party of the greed class, and more "grass-roots". That "grass" is phony; astro-turf is a more appropriate term.
But now it's come back to bite them. While Tea Partiers like Louie Gohmert may be popular in their own custom-made, gerrymandered districts, most Americans are put off by these people. They don't like the Tea Party's extremism and they don't want to sabotage the government. The majority of the country now thinks "Tea Party" when it hears the word "Republican." This has led to historically low approval ratings for the GOP.
The billionaires who back the Tea Party should have seen this coming. Back in the 1950s, Fred Koch, the father of the Koch Brothers, tried to force far-right extremism on the American people by funding the John Birch Society. The Society led the charge against the Civil Rights Movement and, for a while at least, just like the Tea Party, was taken seriously. But it hurt itself and the conservative brand by continuing to fight Civil Rights after the American people came to gradually accept integration and human rights for all races. This why the John Birch Society ran into a wall: the American people did not share its racist, anti-government values. The Tea Party has run into that wall. Its latest attempt to demand ransom from President Obama failed because, in the end, only a small handful of loonies want to sabotage Obamacare. Surveys show that even among people who oppose Obamacare, most of them oppose it because it doesn't go far enough – they want single-payer or a public option.
The events of the past two weeks have shown the American people once and for all that the Tea Party could care no less about them. Hopefully the public has figured out the con, and the Republican Party is going to pay for it. Tea Partiers may win a few more House seats. They certainly have the money to do so. But their moment in the sun is over; the end is near and everyone knows it. Rest in peace, teabaggers. Good riddance.
Misc
Amazing that grownups tout such shallow propaganda... to anyone with an attachment to reality, saying things like "defies Obama" just does violence to common sense.
Obama passed a law. Now 3 years later, the GOP is throwing a
tantrum, kicking over the game board and wanting a re-match, 3 years after the
fact, by holding up the budget and shuttering Gov't. It would be accurate
to say "Walker defies the Republican-led shutdown" but that, of course, wouldn't
push the "we hate Obama" button nearly as well, and gosh! does it make Scotty
look heroic to be "defying" that evil dictator... and sadly, reasonably
intelligent, grownup people hold this up as some kind of thing to admire.
Why do I always assume people would be smart enough to see thru this stuff...
Turns out, some of his parks are State run, and they won't need to shut down.
Great! Kinda boring, unless you spin it into a lie-filled serum of non-fact
based "defiance"... then it's GOLD!
But wait, it gets stupider:
Not only is the "defies Obama" bit a lie, but there's also "The
Obama liberals were going to stop the Army/Navy game..." no, the Obama liberals
were going to keep all Gov't functions running and get on with the business of
things, until the GOP threw a fit about a law that passed THREE FREAKIN' YEARS
AGO... only in some narrowly-focused minds is this some kind of Obama-led
shutdown... even republicans admit this.
My that is some MIGHTY strong Kool-aid ya drinkin' there...
Gov't Shutdown ..
More than a million federal workers aren’t receiving paychecks. Private contractors are “furloughing” their workers as well – and back pay doesn’t look likely – and the direct costs of the shutdown to the government are now approaching $5 billion. It’s caused a funding crisis in domestic violence shelters. The National Institutes of Health aren’t treating cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention furloughing most of its workers, a salmonella outbreak has spread to 18 states, sickening almost 300 people. New veterans’ benefits claims aren’t being processed, and the supplemental nutritional assistance program for poor women and infants is running out of money.
As we enter the shutdown’s third week, the damage is spreading to the state level where, according to Bloomberg News, they are now beginning to lay off their own workers and cut services for the poor….
Michigan is preparing to put as many as 20,000 workers on unpaid leave and eliminate cash and food aid to the poor. North Carolina sent 366 employees home and closed its nutrition aid program to tens of thousands of women and children. Illinois this week may issue furloughs to hundreds of federally funded employees, including workplace safety inspectors.
... but you freakin' Tea-clowns held a protest, why? because the parks weren't open... your perspective = fail.
Health Care Law ..
wow, such shallow propaganda. This kind of lie is really insidious, and the more
it gets repeats, the deeper the lie sinks in.
The GOP shuttered the Gov, folks. The ACA passed 3 years ago, by the normal,
legal process. Now, 3 years after losing the match, the GOP wants a re-vote? and
now has the nerve to claim that NOT bending the rules is some kind of lack of
"compromise" on the part of Democrats? geez they bend reality, and THIS story
just buys right in...
The ACA is, in itself, an ENORMOUS compromise with conservatives who would not
budge on including the public option, Medicare for all. It's silly to call it "Obamacare"
when it was invented by conservatives (Heritage Foundation) as an alternative to
the Clinton's universal healthcare proposal. It is an act of infantile
tantrum-throwing on the part of the Teabaggers to shut down the Gov't over a law
that has passed (and I'm sorry the GOP lost, but that's how it goes, sometimes
your side loses: see Bush tax cuts, gun control, Iraq war, etc etc etc), that
has survived 41 attempts at repeal, and has survived a Supreme Court challenge.
There is a legal mechanism to repeal & amend laws you don't like; refusing to
allow a budget vote is not it.
BUT IT'S OBAMA'S SHUTDOWN? WHAT???
sorry, but I find Ms Kelly full of horse poo... ACA is a huge compromise with conservatives, who threw a fit and killed off the public option (single-payer system). "Obamacare" was invented by conservatives (at the Heritage Foundation) and Mitt Romney (is he a socialist?) installed it in Massachusetts... Repubs blocked Obama's real choice, offer NO realistic alternative plan, despite working on it for 20 years... and Megyn Kelly is gonna call this a failure for Obama? that is some deep bullshit right there, but the joke really is on us: we get to keep paying ins. companies, getting less for our money, while Fox calls it socialism... Benghazi is only a scandal in the minds of desperate partisan republicans... I wonder where was your outrage, Ms. Kelly, when 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, 60 people died under Bush? or 3,000 on 9/11, his watch... oh, we don't blame Bush for 9/11, that's right, we blame the previous guy or something... can you imagine the Fox outrage if 3,000 Americans died in an attack on Obama's shift? IRS? again, a crock. Funny how this "targetting" of conservatives led to ONLY liberal groups losing tax-exempt status... This is why I don't watch too much Fox, I get upset over stuff that I find out later, ain't true...
It is an act of infantile tantrum-throwing on the part of the Teabaggers to shut
down the Gov't over a law that passed, that has survived 41 attempts at repeal,
and has survived a Supreme Court challenge. There is a legal mechanism to repeal
/ amend bad laws; this is not it.
Personally, I think we need Medicare for everyone, abolish private health
insurance, and join the rest of the modern world. Health care is not a
commodity; there is no free market for heart attacks.
Forbes is written by and for the investment class. So is WSJ. If you're not earning $5 million a year from your investments, the advice in those publications is NOT for your benefit...
NYT often features conservative guest opinion columnists, including William F
Buckley, George Will, Bill Kristol, Judith "we must attack Iraq" Miller... RE:
your current example,
Ms. Grace-Marie Turner: turns out she is the president of the Galen Institute, a
nonprofit "research" organization focusing on "free-market ideas" for health
reform... ie, a shill for the same billionaire class that believes health care
should be treated ONLY as a commodity.
In other words, despite your example appearing in the NYT, the source is same
group of pro-business investment class conservatives whose mission is to ensure
that public options are aborted at the embryonic stage at all cost. I would
submit that these people are not on your side.
Again, the ACA is a conservative invention, aimed at killing the public option,
and I rue the day Obama gave up the public option (as a COMPROMISE to
Republicans) and adopted Romney's Massachusetts model. If it should be replaced
by anything, it should be replaced by expansion of Medicare for everyone.
Obama hasn't compromised??? are you kidding??? the ACA is, ALL BY ITSELF, a huge
compromise, a cave-in by Obama; he gave up universal healthcare, you do realize
this, yes?
Obama backs up so much, he should
have a warning beeper like a dump truck... remember the debt-ceiling fight?
Obama said "I demand a clean debt bill. Beep-beep-beep, never mind..." "I demand
revenue enhancements from closing loopholes - and I will reject any bill that
does not include them. Beep-beep-beep, forget I said that..." "We must protect
Social Security and Medicare. Beep-beep-beep..." "I will close Guantanamo in one
year... Beep-beep-beep..." The Bush-era tax cuts? Emissions control bills? JOBS
bills? Beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep. Finance reform now! new rules, new
enforcement... oh the Republicans don't like it? sure, we can delay that forever
... Obama accepted the premise by the GOP that the debt limit increase had to be
tied to massive cuts. This was simply not true, and he failed utterly to stick
to his guns, preferring COMPROMISE... He demanded new tax revenues from closed
loopholes be part of the deal, and then surrendered that position. He swore to
protect the social safety net, and spent virtually the entire debate trying to
give it away...
So for someone to say Obama hasn't yielded on anything?... silly... but it's
more than that. If you're a DC insider, then surely you're aware of the “The
Williamsburg Accord,”, yes?
After the 2012 election, some house Republicans retreated to Williamsburg, Va,
to plot out their strategy for Obama’s second term. Conservatives were angry,
and sought assurances from their leaders that no further compromises would be
forthcoming. The
agreement that followed, which Republicans called “The Williamsburg Accord,”
received obsessive coverage in the conservative media but scant attention in the
mainstream press. Republicans had already responded to their 2008 defeat by
moving farther right, and likewise they responded to the 2012 defeat by moving
right yet again. Maybe this is why your idea of "center" is so far to the
right...
Since the R's had begun from a position of total opposition to the entire Obama
agenda, the newer rightward lurch took the form of trying to get concessions
from Obama by provoking a series of crises... The history is important because
much of the news coverage and centrist commentary has leaned heavily on the idea
that the crises in Washington have come about because of some nebulous failure
of bipartisanship. This is not the case. You need to be honest about the fact
that one party is pursuing this crisis governance as a conscious strategy.
The ACA is NOT a compromise? you do realize who invented the "individual
mandate", and why they did, yes? you do realize that this is a creation of the
Heritage Foundation, designed to kill off universal healthcare, yes? that's what
I mean. The fact
that the Gov't option has been off the table since 2009 is the biggest
compromise of the century.
ACA: the bill went through the legal process; I'm sorry the GOP is upset that it
didn't go their way, but kicking over the game board at this stage is just
infantile. Many Republicans are starting to see that now.
Delay it? that's BS and you know it. Nothing more than a stall to buy time to
mount further attacks. The GOP needs to get out of the way and stop shilling for
the Chamber of Commerce.
Phil, I appreciate your tone, but your arguments, to me, are so far right you
really have lost sight of the center. You list all these great balanced sources,
but select only pro-business conservative opinions to hold up as worthy of
support. Even your NYT sources are paid lobbyist shills for the far-right
agenda. And this Monica Wehby? it took me about 8 seconds to determine that she
too is a member of that same club. It is worth noting that the AMA disagrees
with her. (They support the health reform bill as written.) But there's No
mention of that in her commercial; I guess leaving out an important fact is not
a lie, it's just unfortunate that some people watching her speech may get the
wrong impression that Wehby is speaking for other doctors. She's not.
About her ad and who paid for it? (Hint: not Dr. Wehby.) There is one line down
at the bottom of the rethink-reform website, which says "Employment Policy
Institute". What the hell is that? Well, turns out it's a front group operated
by a Washington Lobbyist named Richard Berman. Berman runs several industry
funded organizations such as the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for
Union Facts. The Center for Consumer Freedom was set up by Berman with a
$600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris. His front groups have
run numerous media campaigns downplaying the dangers of obesity, smoking, mad
cow disease, drunk driving, etc. 60 minutes has called Berman the "booze and
food industries' weapon of mass destruction." His nickname, in which he takes
great pride, is "Dr. Evil." Funny stuff.
A guy fronting for obesity and smoking finds a conservative medical professional
to help keep the world safe for health insurers... and you recommend listening
to these people for an honest assessment? really? next you'll tell me there's a
great argument on climate change from Steve Milloy...
IMO: if you're going to tout opinions such as those of Ms. Turner (Galen
Institute), Mr. Jacobs (Heritage Foundation), Dr. Wehby (Employment Policy
Institute), you should be willing to disclose their affiliations. For the casual
reader, their agendas should be obvious.
Personally, I would encourage you to read "Deadly Spin" or ANY article by
Wendell Potter, former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA. I
find his perspective enlightening.
Compromise? the Bush tax
cuts were not a compromise with the DNC, they were shoved down the throats of
Liberals who complained that they would reduce revenue and cause increases to
the Debt (were they right? yep...) so should the Dem's have shuttered
the Gov't 3 years later, and whined about not getting enough "compromise"?
sorry, but kicking over the game board 3 years after losing a match is beyond
infantile; it's treasonous.
Phil, you're a very thoughtful guy, but I just can't understand how you're not
seeing how far the left has compromised... maybe I'm not stating it the right
way... The Democrats’ adoption of the individual mandate is a compromise between
socialized medicine and the free market, commodity model. (Do you not agree?)
Many liberals — including candidate Barack Obama — were historically skeptical
of the individual mandate, for reasons similar to yours: making people buy a
private product seems, well, wrong... There was a big debate inside the party as
to whether Democrats should move from proposing a government-centric healthcare
model to the one Republicans had developed in order to preserve the idea of
“personal responsibility” and private health insurers. Many liberals (including
ME) strongly opposed such a shift. But they lost to the factions in the party
that wanted health-care reform to be a bipartisan endeavor.
Make no mistake: it is the GOP who refused to even consider including an option
for people to be able to opt for public health insurance. (Why? because the
insurance industry lobbied VERY hard for them to take that position. Plenty of
Dems quietly cashed their checks as well, no doubt). Bottom line: abandoning the
Pubic Option was an enormous compromise by the Democrats (many of whom are
conservatives and were happy to do so)
So while it's flawed and not the plan I'd prefer, the ACA actually supports the
real basic rule of insurance, which is this: you need to have more people paying
in than are getting paid out. NO insurance model works without a larger paying
base than the pool of those being paid. If we don't mandate that everyone has to
pay in, how else would we ever create a workable (or fair) system? you say you
resent being forced to buy, but does that apply to automobile insurance too? if
we allowed people to opt out, it just doesn't work. Some people will never need
care (just like most people never need to collect on an accident claim) but that
is exactly why there is profit in the business. And personally, I say we should
remove profit from the system ... "but competition lowers prices" ... but it
isn't working now. Why? because healthcare does not follow free-market
principles, and we should stop treating it as a shop-able commodity.
A story about how the first plaintiff in the Supreme Court challenge to the ACA,
and how she's actually a perfect candidate for coverage under Obamacare:
More Health Care Law ..
a lot of people seem to be taking
this approach and saying "I shouldn't be forced to buy insurance" as if this is
some personal freedom issue, but it isn't... when people fall ill (and who can
predict emergencies?) then they end up consuming resources that, ultimately, get
paid for by others. So is that fair to everyone else? (One could take the same
attitude to toward ANYTHING that people are "forced" to "use their finances"
for: stop signs, police departments, schools, the Army... why does the Gov't get
to take MY money for these things? I don't even LIKE stop signs...)
Healthcare is something everyone needs and uses, and because of that, the burden
of cost needs to be socialized, meaning: everyone pays in, just like all other
social resources paid for by taxes, it's just the price of living is this great
country. So how do we accomplish that? either thru taxes (Medicaid for everyone)
or take the conservative's alternative to that, which is the "individual
mandate", and make everyone buy private insurance ... which now, ironically, the
conservatives oppose based on personal freedom issues... ai yi yi ...
Republicans, by the way, aren't
afraid of the ACA "destroying America". They're afraid it will work, and that
everyone will start to see that a GREAT MANY these "personal freedom" "small
Gov't" lies are nothing more than a giant smokescreen to benefit the
billionaires of the world. For example:
Great question: how did this Ms Brown afford to bring this lawsuit? well, she
didn't, a pro-corporate interest group are the ones who actually tried to
challenge the ACA, and they just went out and found someone to be the face of
their agenda... you see: Karen Harned, is a lawyer for the National Federation
of Independent Business; Ms. Brown is merely a chosen plaintiff in this business
federation's case... it's not Ms Brown's case, it's this "federation" of
businesses. From LA Times:
"The business federation calls the insurance mandate a "threat to individual
liberty" that violates the Constitution."
(Now, isn't it just great to know
that a "business federation" is SO concerned about threats to YOUR liberty...
yeah right... This next part is very revealing about who is REALLY against the
ACA):
Why did they pick Ms. Brown? "There was time pressure" to find a plaintiff for
the case, Harned (the lawyer for the National Federation of Independent
Business) said. "And candidly, it is not as easy as it sounds" to find someone.
She recalls that Brown was outspoken and stepped forward as a volunteer... But
when her situation came to light, it just shows that all Americans inevitably
have a need for healthcare. Somebody has paid for her healthcare costs.... So
the lawyers found a second plaintiff, a man named Kaj Ahlburg, a retired New
York investment banker living in Port Angeles, Wash.... and went right on
fighting the evil ACA (for your liberty, of course, nothing to do with their
profits...)
The humor is huge in this story... " it is not as easy as it sounds" to find
someone (to be the face of your corporate agenda)... so they picked a woman with
a big mouth, and it turns out she's a perfect example of who needs Obamacare...
oops!
Guns ..
NAP study:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15
The study you cite is hardly conclusive, even by it's own admissions. Quoting:
"On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only
108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey
(Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the
field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an
extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national
surveys."
You conclude "orders of magnitude higher" based on an extrapolation from a
relatively small sample. Further, the "data" is from SURVEYS, that is, relying
on people to provide anecdotes and not exaggerate. The dead bodies from
accidents, fits of rage, bad choices, on the other hand, exist in the real
world.
Your study goes on: "Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting
death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that
keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open
carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun
ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those
who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial
effects of defensive gun use..."
Again, you've concluded that the benefit of defensive gun use FAR outweighs the danger, while the study upon which you base this? it says no such thing, and even says the dangers could "cancel or outweigh" the benefit.
And further, not mentioned in all this is the fact: if there weren't so many guns in American culture, there wouldn't be such a NEED for this type of defense.
I get the concept, even bought into it for a time, of gun = me safer. But considering how we seem unique among nations in gun deaths and gun proliferation, I no longer subscribe.
From the Googles: Kleck is best known for his 1995 study with Marc Gertz that claims that up to 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use occur every year. Media figures and the National Rifle Association frequently cite this study to bolster their claims that owning firearms makes people safer.
Kleck, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use
But critics point to the study's "serious methodological difficulties" -- it extrapolates a very rare event, the slightly more than one percent of respondents to a survey that said they had used a gun in self-defense over the past year, to the entire population of 200 million adults. This means that even slight deficiencies in the accuracy of the survey, whether due to false positives or a sample that is not perfectly indicative of the overall population, can lead to large differences in the result. Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."
So Kleck surveyed (SURVEYED) 5000 households, and about one percent said they had used a gun in self defense, magnifies that to the entire population... and this is convincing? sorry, but I find it not so much...
On misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
For over a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The courts found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court for 100 yrs, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the 70's, NRA had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup in 1977 brought a group of committed conservatives to power. The new NRA pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
But NRA kept pushing...Conservatives often mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.
The re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation. Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” NRA commissioned academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. A radical constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom. And eventually, this theory became the law of the land. Well played, Mr Smith, Mr Wesson... how's that stock price doing these days? Cashing in on all that "freedom" must be hard work...
Hard to know where to begin, but thanks for helping me understand that it's
difficult to get folks to see through their own fantasy that guns make them
safer. I wonder, if you could ask Mrs. Lansa, or any of the 600 others who died
from guns by accident this year, if guns made them safer, what might their
opinion be? when someone is a shooting victim, pro-gun folks often will say "If
only the victim had been a gun owner, they could have stopped this..."
Question: why didn't Mrs. Lansa's guns protect her? What makes you think YOUR
guns will protect you?
U.S. 2010 tally: 31,513 deaths from firearms (we're number one!), distributed as
follows: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. non-fatal injuries--over
200,000 per year in the U.S. You fear a "free for all" if we ban guns? In my
opinion, we have a free for all NOW. About 8 kids died today from guns. About 8
more tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. Tell me again how baseball bats
or kitchen knives are equivalent.
A crazy man attacked 23 children at an elementary school in China. With a knife.
Number of dead? Zero
People want to be armed in order to fight back, I get that, I even had a Sig myself, for a time... Problem is, to effectively help, you need your gun ready (loaded, accessible) but what about the years of time it's sitting there, waiting for that one moment? Fact is, if your guns aren't secured safely, they threaten the rest of us. The mother in the Sandy Hook case failed to keep her kid from gaining access; her failure cost her life and the lives of 20 kids and 6 adults. If someone broke into my house, found enough accessible guns and ammo to effortlessly murder a class of first graders, I don't believe the phrase "guns don't kill people" would make it easier to live with... but that's just me...
"All guns in the last 2 mass shootings were obtained legally." Which proves what point? that legal guns are a bigger problem than illegal ones? I agree... but I'm not sure you're correct. The guns were obtained legally by the MOTHER, but would you say the SON obtained those guns legally? the guns weren't his, HE passed no background checks... if her guns had been stolen by a burglar and used in exactly the same way, would that be any different? many guns are legally purchased, then stolen and used in crimes... are those legal or illegal guns, and what difference does it make? "only law abiding honest people would ever turn them in ..." do you feel this way about speed limits, stop signs, or rape laws? only law-abiding people obey these laws, but they don't stop every violator... so therefore: we give up entirely? I disagree. If someone's guns go missing and end up killing my kid, I'm not going after the gun, I'm going after THEM... cuz guns don't kill people, but many times, irresponsible guns owners do, to the tune of tens of thousands every year. We should put a stop to that. Tomorrow. IMO. -
Tanya wrote: "At rich. All guns in the last 2 mass shootings were obtained legally. The background checks for purchasing at least in CA are rigorous and take ten days and if you even make one mistake on the ATF form you will be denied. The interesting thing about criminals is they don't generally tell you what they are gonna do or give any big clues that they are dangerous before they do what they do. Responsible guns owners are definitely a must but you will never solve crimes by taking guns away...only law abiding honest people would ever turn them in and then it would be a free for all amongst predators. Two things happen when a bad guys comes after you...first you call someone with a gun and second you pry they get there fast enough. Banning guns is a knee jerk reaction to trying to make sense of a senseless tragedy."
EJ: my responses to your last post (with the graph) are (1) that's intentionally
deceptive (2) you don't know that, and (3) don't be annoying.
Your graph there is intentionally misleading; if the Y axis were extended down
to zero, a reader could see that the drop in crime is much less significant than
what appears there. Propaganda much? (2) there are 100's of other
factors which contribute to the crime rate, police/jail policies,
poverty/economic conditions, divorce rates, security cameras/cell phones/video
surveillance advances, even environmental factors, etc etc etc.
Attributing that graph's drop to any one factor (like guns) is wishful thinking at
best. (3) You're gonna say that, based on your misleading graph
(whose cause is NOT certain) that I want the crime rate
to go up? don't offend me with such nonsense.
"Right-to-carry" states allow individuals to carry firearms for protection against crime. In these states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower."
Reason this is not proof of causality: This data does not account for other factors that impact crime rates, such as cultural differences, arrest rates, illegitimacy rates, poverty, etc.
Vaccine bullshit....
The thiomersal controversy describes claims that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal contribute to the development of autism and other brain development disorders. The current scientific consensus is that no convincing scientific evidence supports these claims, and a 2011 journal article described the vaccine-autism connection as "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".
Single dose-shots of the flu vaccine and the flu vaccine nasal sprays do not contain any mercury compounds. The multi-dose flu shot does contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into 49% ethylmercury and used to prevent bacterial contamination of the vaccine container. Ethylmercury, as I’ve discussed before, is processed differently by the body than methylmercury, the neurotoxin that can build up in the body and is found in fish. (Keep in mind the difference a letter can make in chemistry: methanol is anti-freeze while ethanol is a Chardonnay.) Ethylmercury is made of larger molecules that cannot enter the brain and exits the body within a week. There is no danger in receiving a vaccine with thimerosal – they’re given all over the world and it’s been extensively studied, even for cumulative effects on children over several years. And, keep in mind, if you’re just one of those paranoid types, you can easily request and get a flu shot without the preservative.
Formaldehyde is used in safely small amounts in several flu vaccines (Fluarix, FluLaval, Agriflu and Fluzone) to inactivate the virus so it cannot cause disease. It is not in other influenza vaccines (Afluria, FluMist and Fluvirin). Formaldehyde also occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables even is produced by the human body for a variety of functions, including making amino acids. The amounts of formaldehyde in these vaccines vary from 5 µg per dose (Fluarix) to 25 µg per dose (FluLaval) to 100 µg per dose (Fluzone). For reference, a pear contains about 39 to 60 mg/kg of formaldehyde (1000µg = 1mg, so pears contains approximately 39,000 to 60,000 µg/kg.) A typical pear weighs about 220g, or 0.22 kg. That means a single pear would contain 0.22 times the 39 to 60 mg/kg, or 8.6 to 13.2 mg (8600 to 13200 µg). (Meanwhile, a single dried shiitake mushroom contains 100-406 mg/kg of formaldehyde.) The claim of antifreeze being in vaccines comes from the use of octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100) (in Fluzone) or octoxynol-10 (Triton X-100) (in Fluarix) used to inactivate those viruses or to purify other vaccines. Polyethylene glycol by itself is one component of antifreeze but is not antifreeze itself, just as water is a component of antifreeze. But these are not the same as polyethylene glycol and involve the use of Triton X-100 as a splitting agent, which has been shown to be safe. Learn more about specific components of flu vaccines here, but remember, again that ONE LETTER can make a huge difference in what you’re talking about.
Formaldehyde bullshit:
Based on a maximal level of 200 micrograms of formaldehyde exposure from vaccination, the FDA model showed that the majority of the formaldehyde is essentially completely removed from the injection site within 30 minutes. The majority of the formaldehyde is broken down (metabolized) in the muscle and any remaining formaldehyde enters the bloodstream and body water. The model showed that at its highest concentration this remaining formaldehyde is less than 1% of the existing, naturally occurring level of formaldehyde in the body. The FDA scientists note that the natural level of formaldehyde in the body is more than 100 times higher than that found in vaccines. Moreover, there are no known adverse health affects from this naturally occurring formaldehyde. They concluded that the temporary presence of a very small amount of additional formaldehyde contributed by vaccination would pose no safety concerns.
Based on an estimate of 200 micrograms of formaldehyde exposure from vaccination, At its highest temporary concentration, the level of formaldehyde is less than 1% of the existing, naturally occurring level of formaldehyde in the body. IN A BABY. For an adult, the dose is even more diluted.
Formaldehyde is produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Your body has a nearly CONSTANT amount of formaldehyde in the blood
formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). In other words, you already have more formaldehyde in 100 ml of blood than is contained in the shot... and if you've ever eaten a tomato or an apple, you've received a 20x greater dose... ever eat a pear? you've ingested 100x that amount of formaldehyde. Why are these fruits safe? because your body deals with these tiny amounts of formaldehyde routinely, constantly, and very efficiently; the 0.1% added by the shot would not even be noticed. Keep that in mind, and then re-read these web sites which tell you that you should fear formaldehyde in 200 micro-gram quantities. It should help you understand their lack of perspective.
****************************************************************************
Man... am I SO sick.... and SO very tired... of reading about people who are afraid of vaccines.
Sorry, I do hate to be contradictory, I know some feel very strongly... but that list of Things To Fear in vaccines that you may have read on "Natural News" or "Holistic Healing" or whatever... is mostly wrong. When I say "wrong" I don't mean "I disagree with that opinion", I mean "contradicted by known facts." Often they do start with a bit of truth, but when applied without perspective, it becomes nothing more than unnecessary fear-mongering. Just one example:
One article lists formaldehyde as something to fear in vaccines.
It lists a host of bad things about formaldehyde... which are true only IF you
were exposed to large amounts of it. But it turns out that a vaccine shot
contains 100 to 200 micrograms formaldehyde. Is that Bad? the amount
contained within a vaccine is 50 times less than what is in a pear, naturally.
AND: Consider that your body naturally produces formaldehyde: you ALREADY HAVE about 15,000
micrograms formaldehyde in your bloodstream, RIGHT NOW, every minute of the
day... let that sink in a moment: they're telling us to fear something, and you already
carry 75-times more of that very thing in you, right now...
...and you're not dying from it, not getting cancer, you're not even feeling
ill... formaldehyde (in these tiny amounts) is essential in human metabolism and
is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of
protein); your body rapidly metabolizes and excretes it, naturally. And
Further: it is present at 50 to 100x higher amounts naturally in MANY foods, eg
apples, tomatoes, cauliflower, meats, fish, pears... so you've been eating it
for years, in doses that are 100, even 1000 times higher than found in a
vaccine, possible every day of your life (depending on your diet).
Knowing these facts, go back and read these "Natural News" web sites again, and you'll begin to see that what they're saying is just silly... at best, misleading. At worst: an avalanche of propaganda making us all dumber and more unnecessarily frightened. Why are they so wrong? I often wonder if they don't have Google like I do... or what they get out of it, scaring folks over nothing.
Not everyone's a chemist/toxicologist/annoying nerd, I get that. That's why this sort of thing just infuriates me, because the average person can't tell this stuff is BS. I even found a website (http://www.holisticmed.com) which cited some doctor (mail-order PhD, maybe?) claiming that formaldehyde ACCUMULATES in the body, and therefore long-term exposure builds up and causes (whatever...) This is absolutely laughable; anyone with a minute's worth of toxicology or biochemistry knows that this is wrong; formaldehyde's biological half-life and excretion processes are well-known facts... but the average person can't be expected to know. And so these jackasses with their official-looking web pages and their phony "doctors" make these scary claims, which are just lies; but who are WE to know that what they're saying is laughably wrong? and so I don't blame folks for not knowing, and getting scared.
But don't be. I think you should Get you and your kids vaccinated. And have a nice day.
And if you don't wanna, well ok, but please stop trying to scare other folks with all that BS, please. k? Thanks!
Some will say "But I don't trust the Big Pharma companies..." what??? you're saying that the profit-driven "free market" might not have your health as its first priority? you might be right about that part... so what's the alternative? Gov't-run drug development? we used to have that. It used to be illegal for drug companies to fund their own research/clinical trials, the idea being that if your company was running the test on it's own product that you've put your millions into, it has a conflict of interest in interpreting the data as positive evidence, and therefore drugs should be tested by independent agencies, like FDA. But during the Reagan years, we killed off this idea; he and his followers believed that "burdensome regulations" were hurting business or killing jobs or something... so during the 80's, those regulations were removed. Outcome? look up Vioxx...
So we're stuck with profit-driven drug development. Side-effects, brought to you by the low bidder... (no I don't have all the answers, that's why I make lame jokes)
You know, I'm a total idiot. I shouldn't just talk about facts, I should join the de-tox movement and make MONEY from people's lack of understanding.... hey! do you have FORMALDEHYDE in your blood? symptoms are: feeling tired at night, feeling hungry when you haven't eaten for a while, occasionally forgetting to take out the trash, or a tendency to put off things that you hate doing... any of these? OMG you're doomed!
but if you ACT NOW and send me four payments of $29.95, I'll show you the magic cure! Handed down from THOUSANDS of years of ancient knowledge, the key to ridding your body of the toxic burden of formaldehyde is: BREATHING. The secret? don't stop...
there, I've just given you the cure, you owe me money... send payment to AnnoyingNerd@all-times.wtf
Anyone who still believes vaccines are linked to autism is just ... wrong. Thimerosal was removed from all routine child vaccines in 2001. Despite the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines, autism rates have continued to rise. This is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism. If you believe a child born after 2001 was harmed by thimerosal, I would ask: how did they get exposed to it, since it's not in their vaccine...
I will be awaiting your answer sitting on the toilet. This way, even if you don't answer, I'll still be dealing with a load of crap...
Limbaugh: At UC Davis in the 80's, Limbaugh was an
unknown, local Sacramento radio voice, gaining attention by his rudeness and
outrageous statements. He ridiculed "femi-Nazi's" and women's-rights
protesters as "ugly lesbians." Someone in our apartment thought he was
great, so his show was on a lot. In one segment, he said something like "I
don't understand what all the fuss is about this phony concept of
'date-rape'.... I mean, if I was a woman, I would consider that a compliment..."
Naturally the phone lines lit up, the radio station had to issue an apology, and
here's how smart *I* am: I said "see? that kind of crap, that 'let's
say something outrageous just to stir up people' crap doesn't pay. That
guy's career is OVER, we'll never hear from him again..."
I could NOT have been more wrong...
Class Warfare
Bullshit....
yes there are lots of lazy people who make bad choices and live
off the Gov't. I just don't agree that's our biggest problem, and cutting off
unemployment risks leaving people with legitimate issues behind. Millions of
American jobs have disappeared in the last 10 years, millions more have been
shipped overseas; Detroit (once an iconic name associated with American
industrial greatness) currently has the lowest population seen since 1910, why
are people leaving by the 10's of thousands? why don't they just stay and
collect, if that life is so great?
Saying that a big chunk of the unemployed would just go find jobs but for the
availability of unemployment checks sounds like more of this "Look at how Gov't
causes poverty" nonsense I hear over and over on Fox. And if the economy is so
bad that the pathetic amount of an unemployment check is better than what's
available in the job market, I suggest that the bigger problem is not the Govt,
but the economy.
"...living in South America, poor meant living on the street, eating scraps in
an alley." yep. So are you saying you'd prefer America to be more like a 3rd
world country? We had that, before the New Deal. In the Depression, poverty
meant just what you describe. After that experience, we decided to create a
social safety net, and personally I think this is one of the things that makes
this a better country. I have several friends who've been out of work several
months - their families/kids are not eating scraps in the street because of this
system, so actually I don't "hate that our tax dollars pay for that shit" I'm
proud we do. It makes America preferable to Mexico or India or Thailand or much
of S. America, in my opinion...
(wow, the teachers you know are hopelessly lazy and unmotivated, and the
unemployed people you know are free-loaders with no scruples... are people just
better in California?)
The social safety net is what you're attacking, it's always been popular to do
so, at least among conservatives. And they always, partially, are correct in
that the system needs work, certainly; even if made as perfect as possible, such
a system still risks free-loaders. To me, that risk is preferable to a society
where legitimate working people end up in alleys, with their children and
elderly, as happened here in the USA, in the 30's. But the attacks on the social
safety net are a diversion; getting the middle class to focus on the
free-loading poor, welfare cheats, immigrants, etc, just enables the moneyed
class to pass laws to cut down on Govt burdens to THEM, while really not helping
the middle classes very much... there is SO MUCH MORE to be gained by closing
the loopholes at the top than there is by worrying about welfare types with cell
phones. Eliminating the free-ride for just one company (Koch industries) in just
one of their endeavors (oil pipelines on public lands, for which they pay NO
taxes to use, thanks to the governors they bankrolled, another reason I distrust
Walker) would pay for the entire Wisconsin budget shortfall. Just one company.
I wonder how many welfare cheats with nice wheels that equals...
The last ten years or so have seen the government send massive amounts of money
to people in the top tax brackets, mainly through two methods: huge tax cuts,
and financial bailouts. The government has spent what, billions (?) of our
national treasure bailing out Wall Street, who then showed enormous, record
profit numbers – nearly $100 billion in the last three years (tens of billions
in inflated compensation and bonuses that came more or less directly from
government aid). How does THAT welfare grab you? Add to that the $700 billion or
so the Obama tax cuts added to the national debt over the next two years, and
we’re looking at a trillion dollars of lost revenue in just a few years…. and
yet conservatives think the problem is too much welfare for the poor and the
unemployed?
Tenure: I favor a system which allows teachers to be rewarded for years of good
work, and protects them from be fired by capricious administrators trying to run
schools like businesses, or protects them from the prevailing political forces
which change cyclically. From what I read, and from my parent's opinion, tenure
does not make it "impossible" to fire bad teachers, it makes it so firing them
must be justified and not whimsical. If the system and the unions are indeed
causing bad performers to remain, then that systems needs adjustment. But I
think tossing out that system entirely, and adopting "free-market" approaches
will produce a system of teachers in it for the money, with NO loyalty to their
schools to stay and improve things, teaching only to the standardized tests;
Finland scores far above the US, does NO standardized testing, has strong unions
and tenure... now, they also have a merit pay system, but then again, they pay
teachers a competitive wage. Our system, again, needs adjustments, but I
disagree with the current trend toward free-market approaches, and outright
attacks on tenure or unions. But I think it's not that we completely disagree on
everything... it's just that I think there are some VERY large fish to fry, and
you're focusing on plankton...
At what income level does income become truly disposable? Todd Henderson,
Chicago professor, couple earns over 400k, complained about the tax cuts going
away, got blasted...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-23/business/ct-biz-0924-rich-blog-20100923_1_law-professor-blog-taxes
Earnings of more than $250,000 a year, but professor laments family just getting
by - Chicago Tribune articles.chicagotribune.com ...
here's why: it's a lie. http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/63-63/5724-no-half-of-all-workers-arent-freeloaders
No, Half of All Workers Aren't Freeloaders
readersupportednews.org 7 September 2011 02:21 A 30 year Republican staffer has
written an interesting piece on how the GOP operates... his criticism about the
useless Democrats is also spot on, but I find it frightening how effective they
manipulate public opinion. An excerpt: "When pressed, Republicans make up
misleading statistics to "prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne
by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that
fact. "Half of Americans don't pay taxes" is a perennial meme. But what they
leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes. There are
millions of people who don't pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes -
among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to GOP fiscal
theology, payroll taxes don't count. Somehow, they have convinced themselves
that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they're not real taxes. Likewise,
state and local sales taxes apparently don't count, although their effect on a
poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more regressive than on a
millionaire. All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular
culture via the corporate-owned business press. Just listen to CNBC for a few
hours and you will hear most of them in one form or another. More important
politically, Republicans' myths about taxation have been internalized by
millions of economically downscale "values voters," who may have been attracted
to the GOP for other reasons, but who now accept this misinformation as dogma."
Interesting words from a life-long republican, IMO...
Full article here, including an interesting bit on "entitlements"
http://www.truth-out.org/print/5901
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the
Cult www.truth-out.org
BTW: did you see Warren Buffet's op ed in the NY Times? Buffet's answer to my
earlier question to you (where you think the higher tax bracket cutoff should
be) is: at income above 1 million, and a higher bracket at 10 million...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich www.nytimes.com
Personal info --->>> Bio Page Back to --->>> Home