I think I thought this video clip of Bush was funny but really it's sad. Here's a clip of Bush talking about Bin Laden after looking for him for only a few months... (he starts 50 seconds into the clip)
And now Obama caught Bin Laden.... "thanks Obama".
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
It's the Inequality, Stupid
This is my blog version of a "re-tweet" of an interesting article. Thanks to Karen for pointing me to this article - even though I can't see any content on Facebook as I have opted out of Facebook. I've been interested in income inequality for sometime. Here was a good publication from 2004 and it's only gotten worse!
As a response to "Joe the Plumber" and his claims of Obama's 3% tax increase on income over $250,000 being called socialism or re-distribution of wealth - the evidence suggests that there has been a LONG history of income re-distribution however it is going from the middle-class to the wealthiest income earners. And this is structurally put into the laws.
To me there is nothing wrong with making a lot of money - however I'm not sure why all the rules are written to the benefit of the wealthiest (and they are!). Well - I know WHY - because the rich and powerful write the laws (or influence the politicians that do). I can't figure out why income your money makes in the stock market is taxed at a lower rate (capital gains) than income people make by laboring day in and day out. I can't figure out why the effective tax on many corporations is ZERO and why the effective tax rate of the wealthiest is less than the upper middle class. If you are at or around the AMT line - you are paying THE HIGHEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE!
Quick side rant - I personally believe most financial companies are merely siphoning money out of the middle class and consolidating it into the hands of very few - which is why I manage all of my own finances and investing. Maybe said a better way - I'm not convinced that financial firms are actually adding value to the economy as a whole.
On the flip side - I also can't figure out why more than 50% of Americans don't have any federal tax liability when they use public services too - but you can see how the standard deduction was put in to offset everything else in this article below.
I hope we drastically change the tax code for individuals and businesses to make it a straight calculation based on income - and then you'll find the tax rate will be MUCH lower because there will be no loop holes or deductions for some and not for others.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Sources
Read also: Kevin Drum on the decline of Big Labor, the rise of Big Business, and why the Obama era fizzled so soon.
More Mother Jones charty goodness: How the rich get richer; how the poor get poorer; who owns Congress?
As a response to "Joe the Plumber" and his claims of Obama's 3% tax increase on income over $250,000 being called socialism or re-distribution of wealth - the evidence suggests that there has been a LONG history of income re-distribution however it is going from the middle-class to the wealthiest income earners. And this is structurally put into the laws.
To me there is nothing wrong with making a lot of money - however I'm not sure why all the rules are written to the benefit of the wealthiest (and they are!). Well - I know WHY - because the rich and powerful write the laws (or influence the politicians that do). I can't figure out why income your money makes in the stock market is taxed at a lower rate (capital gains) than income people make by laboring day in and day out. I can't figure out why the effective tax on many corporations is ZERO and why the effective tax rate of the wealthiest is less than the upper middle class. If you are at or around the AMT line - you are paying THE HIGHEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE!
Quick side rant - I personally believe most financial companies are merely siphoning money out of the middle class and consolidating it into the hands of very few - which is why I manage all of my own finances and investing. Maybe said a better way - I'm not convinced that financial firms are actually adding value to the economy as a whole.
On the flip side - I also can't figure out why more than 50% of Americans don't have any federal tax liability when they use public services too - but you can see how the standard deduction was put in to offset everything else in this article below.
I hope we drastically change the tax code for individuals and businesses to make it a straight calculation based on income - and then you'll find the tax rate will be MUCH lower because there will be no loop holes or deductions for some and not for others.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Eleven charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.
How Rich Are the Superrich?
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.
Winners Take All
The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.
Out of Balance
A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.
Capitol Gain
Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.
| member | max. est. net worth |
|---|---|
| Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) | $451.1 million |
| Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) | $435.4 million |
| Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) | $366.2 million |
| Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) | $294.9 million |
| Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) | $285.1 million |
| Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) | $283.1 million |
| Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) | $231.2 million |
| Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) | $201.5 million |
| Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) | $136.2 million |
| Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) | $108.1 million |
| combined net worth: | $2.8 billion |
Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.
Who's Winning?
For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.
YOUR LOSS,THEIR GAIN
How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?
Sources
Income distribution: Emmanuel Saez (Excel)
Net worth: Edward Wolff (PDF)Household income/income share: Congressional Budget OfficeReal vs. desired distribution of wealth: Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely (PDF)Net worth of Americans vs. Congress: Federal Reserve (average); Center for Responsive Politics (Congress)Your chances of being a millionaire: Calculation based on data from Wolffhousehold and population data) (PDF); US Census (Member of Congress' chances: Center for Responsive PoliticsWealthiest members of Congress: Center for Responsive PoliticsWall street profits, 2007-2009: New York State Comptroller (PDF)Unemployment rate, 2007-2009: Bureau of Labor StatisticsCEO vs. worker pay: Economic Policy InstituteHistoric tax rates: Calculations based on data from The Tax FoundationFederal tax revenue: Joint Committee on Taxation (PDF)
Read also: Kevin Drum on the decline of Big Labor, the rise of Big Business, and why the Obama era fizzled so soon.More Mother Jones charty goodness: How the rich get richer; how the poor get poorer; who owns Congress?
Monday, December 28, 2009
A rant on Bailouts + Taxes + Education
Do you remember when President Bush pushed through a landmark bailout plan saying:
"This legislation will safeguard and stabilize America's financial system and put in place permanent reforms so these problems will never happen again"
The citation is the shocker - as this is a quote from George H. W. Bush (senior) in 1989 during the Savings and Loans scandal. This bailout was for an unprecedented sum (at the time) of $66 billion. Sounds a lot like George W. Bush in September of 2008 when he pushed through a landmark bailout saying:
"We'll make sure, as time goes on, this doesn't happen again. In the meantime we got to solve the problem. And that's why people send me the Washington D.C."
Like father like son 20 years apart. But don't worry - this isn't a bust on the Bush's for government spending - as we all know Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which had put up a firewall between savings banks and investment banks after the great depression.
I think it's a great point to look at political stereotypes - which are that Republicans are against government spending - though in additon to the two bailouts mentioned the Bush presidents and Regan count for a huge majority of the national debt. Though credit Bush senior for recognizing that we needed to raise taxes to lower the debt - though he broke his promise of "read my lips - no new taxes" and his own party revolted against him making him a one term president and paving the way for Clinton. Credit Clinton for having left a huge budget surplus which would have cut the national debt in half from $10 trillion to $5 trillion had Bush Jr. not passed his famous (and overwhelmingly popular) Bush tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) that ran the national debt up to the $10 trillion dollar figure.
The other stereotypes are that Democrats are all for big government and increasing regulations - but Clinton's administration de-regulated banks allowing the crazy derivative investments that seem to have been a major cause of the current recession.
NET - my point is voting by ideology is misguided as we Americans (in general) don't vote for the tough medicine. It is popular to cut government spending but no one wants to cut medicare to the elderly. In fact the Republicans recently balked at the Health care reform provisions seeking to cut $500 billion dollars of "waste" out of medicare stating that the elderly will suffer. Fine! I am all for spending money if we all agree to fund it - by raising taxes. But NO ONE can run on raising taxes - it is immensely unpopular. But then poeple who voted against it then say "I am affraid of the national debt and passing that burden on to our children!" Well - start voting with you mind and not your ideology. You may disagree with large government - but if we have ALREADY spent $12 trillion dollars more than we brought in over the past 30 years - then guess what - it's time to raise taxes!
I am in a minority who don't react violently to the thought of higher taxes - and we would pay one of the highest tax brackets on our money. We live comfortably, save for retirement, and even enjoy splurges like vacations. An additional 3% tax (moving from 38% to 41% bracket) on money over $250,000 (which we don't make) is what is proposed, but let's assume it was an additional 3% tax on money over $50,000 - it's really not a life changing sum for us (and I argue for anyone making over $50,000 per year) but would help solve numerous budget issues not the least of which being the national debt, but then would fund health care reform (if you are opposed to the government spending part since the public option is gone) as well as educational programs.
In fact I'd like our government to pay off the national debt and then create a government surplus to pay for disasters or wars with savings - like normal people do when they have unplanned expenses. Though I believe it is bad national policy when you can print money - so I think carrying some debt helps invest and you build for today - though it is unpopular. There are also those who don't think the government should have a savings built up as that is "our" money as tax payers and the government shouldn't have it.
And Finally - an unorganized rant on education - I believe if fundamentally an economy is all about GDP (if you make the assumption that your production matches your consumption but that is another blog) - so you can transpose GDC ( as in consumption) though it's not as easy an index that is tracked like GDP so NET - if our country is a person, our GDP is like our salary - or a measure of our productivity to society - and the best way to raise that is through education. So I am all for the government providing low interest loans directly to students. The win-win is that tax payers make money (maybe 2-3% on the investment) and students get lower rates than the currently crippling 6-7% student loan rates just because many feel ideologically that it is un-American for the government to profit a little - but "American" for bank CEOs to get huge bonuses off of the back of students and stick the money in their "fat-cat" pockets.
I think there is a fair skepticism to say that the government is not an efficient way to use our money - and there is waste and corruption in politics - I just don't believe the solution to this issue is to line the pockets of elite private citizens who are efficient in funneling money to their own bonuses. I'm not against corporations or "free markets" in general - but not necessarily for public works, especially when free market forces don't translate to doing the right thing for the economy - as you can see that bank CEOs motivations were not in the best interest of the economy - but rather in their own. People are outraged to hear that banks receiving bailout are paying out huge bonuses - but those in power in companies are not prone to "market forces" as much as personal gain. Hence driving businesses into the ground. regular employees lose their jobs, these guys get millions in parachutes - and we complain about the inefficiencies of government as a justification to continue this cycle?
Fear of big government (in my opinion) has been an ideology that has made the rich richer supported on the ideological votes of the poor who "don't trust the government".
"This legislation will safeguard and stabilize America's financial system and put in place permanent reforms so these problems will never happen again"
The citation is the shocker - as this is a quote from George H. W. Bush (senior) in 1989 during the Savings and Loans scandal. This bailout was for an unprecedented sum (at the time) of $66 billion. Sounds a lot like George W. Bush in September of 2008 when he pushed through a landmark bailout saying:
"We'll make sure, as time goes on, this doesn't happen again. In the meantime we got to solve the problem. And that's why people send me the Washington D.C."
Like father like son 20 years apart. But don't worry - this isn't a bust on the Bush's for government spending - as we all know Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which had put up a firewall between savings banks and investment banks after the great depression.
I think it's a great point to look at political stereotypes - which are that Republicans are against government spending - though in additon to the two bailouts mentioned the Bush presidents and Regan count for a huge majority of the national debt. Though credit Bush senior for recognizing that we needed to raise taxes to lower the debt - though he broke his promise of "read my lips - no new taxes" and his own party revolted against him making him a one term president and paving the way for Clinton. Credit Clinton for having left a huge budget surplus which would have cut the national debt in half from $10 trillion to $5 trillion had Bush Jr. not passed his famous (and overwhelmingly popular) Bush tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) that ran the national debt up to the $10 trillion dollar figure.
The other stereotypes are that Democrats are all for big government and increasing regulations - but Clinton's administration de-regulated banks allowing the crazy derivative investments that seem to have been a major cause of the current recession.
NET - my point is voting by ideology is misguided as we Americans (in general) don't vote for the tough medicine. It is popular to cut government spending but no one wants to cut medicare to the elderly. In fact the Republicans recently balked at the Health care reform provisions seeking to cut $500 billion dollars of "waste" out of medicare stating that the elderly will suffer. Fine! I am all for spending money if we all agree to fund it - by raising taxes. But NO ONE can run on raising taxes - it is immensely unpopular. But then poeple who voted against it then say "I am affraid of the national debt and passing that burden on to our children!" Well - start voting with you mind and not your ideology. You may disagree with large government - but if we have ALREADY spent $12 trillion dollars more than we brought in over the past 30 years - then guess what - it's time to raise taxes!
I am in a minority who don't react violently to the thought of higher taxes - and we would pay one of the highest tax brackets on our money. We live comfortably, save for retirement, and even enjoy splurges like vacations. An additional 3% tax (moving from 38% to 41% bracket) on money over $250,000 (which we don't make) is what is proposed, but let's assume it was an additional 3% tax on money over $50,000 - it's really not a life changing sum for us (and I argue for anyone making over $50,000 per year) but would help solve numerous budget issues not the least of which being the national debt, but then would fund health care reform (if you are opposed to the government spending part since the public option is gone) as well as educational programs.
In fact I'd like our government to pay off the national debt and then create a government surplus to pay for disasters or wars with savings - like normal people do when they have unplanned expenses. Though I believe it is bad national policy when you can print money - so I think carrying some debt helps invest and you build for today - though it is unpopular. There are also those who don't think the government should have a savings built up as that is "our" money as tax payers and the government shouldn't have it.
And Finally - an unorganized rant on education - I believe if fundamentally an economy is all about GDP (if you make the assumption that your production matches your consumption but that is another blog) - so you can transpose GDC ( as in consumption) though it's not as easy an index that is tracked like GDP so NET - if our country is a person, our GDP is like our salary - or a measure of our productivity to society - and the best way to raise that is through education. So I am all for the government providing low interest loans directly to students. The win-win is that tax payers make money (maybe 2-3% on the investment) and students get lower rates than the currently crippling 6-7% student loan rates just because many feel ideologically that it is un-American for the government to profit a little - but "American" for bank CEOs to get huge bonuses off of the back of students and stick the money in their "fat-cat" pockets.
I think there is a fair skepticism to say that the government is not an efficient way to use our money - and there is waste and corruption in politics - I just don't believe the solution to this issue is to line the pockets of elite private citizens who are efficient in funneling money to their own bonuses. I'm not against corporations or "free markets" in general - but not necessarily for public works, especially when free market forces don't translate to doing the right thing for the economy - as you can see that bank CEOs motivations were not in the best interest of the economy - but rather in their own. People are outraged to hear that banks receiving bailout are paying out huge bonuses - but those in power in companies are not prone to "market forces" as much as personal gain. Hence driving businesses into the ground. regular employees lose their jobs, these guys get millions in parachutes - and we complain about the inefficiencies of government as a justification to continue this cycle?
Fear of big government (in my opinion) has been an ideology that has made the rich richer supported on the ideological votes of the poor who "don't trust the government".
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Guilty Pleasure Reading + Goldline.com
I have a few guilty pleasures, I like to read an article on CNN and then go and look at the same story on FoxNews and HuffingtonPost. If you really want to be scared about our society read some of the people who comment on the Obama articles on FoxNews. I'm not talking about the usual battles between big government and smaller government, I'm talking scary "end of times" talk, you know the birthers and the socialism conspiracy ala the Manchurian Candidate. I wish I could tell you that the messages on HuffingtonPost or NPR are as scary but I guess I must have some bias OR they are less apocalyptic and really don't jump out at me. I mean the 9-11 conspirators who think our own gov't attacked us would fit this description - I just haven't seen that on there recently.
In a similar vein, you've probably seen the commercials for GoldLine. It's a major scam about buying gold coins etc but... a new fun place to get the latest "rumors" and "inside scoop" is the Goldline.com bulletin board where real Goldline.com members can tell you all about how the world is coming to an end and our currency is about to crumble (thanks to Obama and General Mao apparently).
I don't have time to post my blog of "controlled inflation is good and any deflation is a depression" but I will say that there seem to be people who think that inflation is one of the seven horsemen in revelations signaling the rapture.
I for one am not likely to buy into these end of times debates. I think if you believe that the government and the printing of money (which it does) will lead to inflation (which it does) but at such a catastrophic rate that you will be left penniless unless you own gold - I am all for you paying up to $1,500 per oz for gold coins when gold is trading at $1,088 per oz. I won't call goldline a scam but it is. (PS whenever something becomes "mainstream" like gold is now - you missed the run up, it's like when everyone and their brother was thinking they should be flipping houses - you then have already missed the prime house flipping time).
BUT - before you buy overinflated gold (pun-intended) you should know that the richer you are the more at risk you are for inflation. The ones crying foul when the government prints money are those who have the largest savings. For those living paycheck to paycheck it is basically a push as you live in the moment and begin to make more but things cost more at a relatively even rate. It is the "space-time" disconnect of savings that inflation preys upon. So NET I am just saying if you have millions of dollars in the market you might want to hedge your bets with some gold for the long term (if you do buy an ETF instead of Gold Bullion from scammers) - however if you have relatively modest means, buying gold is not a magic bullet for savings, especially if you are buying at 50% premiums. Otherwise I have a lot of P&G stock to sell you at $100 per share too.
PPS - Anytime a commercial basically says "I'm afraid" it's just playing on human fears. Same with politicians. So if Goldline's selling line is "I'm affraid of all of this government spending and inflation"... run the other way! If they don't use fear - then maybe listen (maybe) but in general most "investments" you don't understand are ways to scam you out of your money.
In a similar vein, you've probably seen the commercials for GoldLine. It's a major scam about buying gold coins etc but... a new fun place to get the latest "rumors" and "inside scoop" is the Goldline.com bulletin board where real Goldline.com members can tell you all about how the world is coming to an end and our currency is about to crumble (thanks to Obama and General Mao apparently).
I don't have time to post my blog of "controlled inflation is good and any deflation is a depression" but I will say that there seem to be people who think that inflation is one of the seven horsemen in revelations signaling the rapture.
I for one am not likely to buy into these end of times debates. I think if you believe that the government and the printing of money (which it does) will lead to inflation (which it does) but at such a catastrophic rate that you will be left penniless unless you own gold - I am all for you paying up to $1,500 per oz for gold coins when gold is trading at $1,088 per oz. I won't call goldline a scam but it is. (PS whenever something becomes "mainstream" like gold is now - you missed the run up, it's like when everyone and their brother was thinking they should be flipping houses - you then have already missed the prime house flipping time).
BUT - before you buy overinflated gold (pun-intended) you should know that the richer you are the more at risk you are for inflation. The ones crying foul when the government prints money are those who have the largest savings. For those living paycheck to paycheck it is basically a push as you live in the moment and begin to make more but things cost more at a relatively even rate. It is the "space-time" disconnect of savings that inflation preys upon. So NET I am just saying if you have millions of dollars in the market you might want to hedge your bets with some gold for the long term (if you do buy an ETF instead of Gold Bullion from scammers) - however if you have relatively modest means, buying gold is not a magic bullet for savings, especially if you are buying at 50% premiums. Otherwise I have a lot of P&G stock to sell you at $100 per share too.
PPS - Anytime a commercial basically says "I'm afraid" it's just playing on human fears. Same with politicians. So if Goldline's selling line is "I'm affraid of all of this government spending and inflation"... run the other way! If they don't use fear - then maybe listen (maybe) but in general most "investments" you don't understand are ways to scam you out of your money.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Fair and Balanced
It's funny how no one wants to comment on these posts, but anyway here's a great clip from Fox News because it covers how I feel about Fox News being Fair and Balanced.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Glenn Beck - WTF?
I was going to write a post about how Bill O'Reilly of Fox News seems to have a more level head and is more of a reporter than an ideological pundit, but this video changed the intent of this post.
Apparently Glenn Beck (who is the Lou Dobbs of Fox News) and makes a living off of playing into people's fears is quoted to say:
I'm just not sure how to take this one. Either I respect Beck a little bit more OR he has ruined all of his credibility as he likely voted for McCain and beat that drum during the election and seemily works everyday to play into people's worst fears about Obama (you know - socialist out to destroy capitalism and turn the White House into a pyramid).
Here's the video
Watch CBS Videos Online
Apparently Glenn Beck (who is the Lou Dobbs of Fox News) and makes a living off of playing into people's fears is quoted to say:
"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama," Beck told Couric in the debut episode of her new web show, @katiecouric.
"I can't believe I'm saying this," Beck said, "I think I would have much preferred [Hillary Clinton] as president and may have voted for her against John McCain."
I'm just not sure how to take this one. Either I respect Beck a little bit more OR he has ruined all of his credibility as he likely voted for McCain and beat that drum during the election and seemily works everyday to play into people's worst fears about Obama (you know - socialist out to destroy capitalism and turn the White House into a pyramid).
Here's the video
Watch CBS Videos Online
Saturday, September 19, 2009
CNN puts the smack down on FoxNews
What's funny about this is that for the most part I think many people believe Fox News exists in it's on delusional world where Fox News there is a huge media conspiracy out there but they are the only ones being "fair and balanced" when really egregious examples like this exist probably daily demonstrating that Fox News is probably more entertainment for a specific targeted group than trying to be a real news organization for the masses (centered and unbiased).
It's not enough show show data where people measure Fox News's conservative bias in their reporting like these articles: Here, Here, and here.
that's because of the "liberal media bias" conspiracy theory they perpetuate on Fox News, which I believe the perception could be true because if your audience is to a specific political group (conservative/ far right), then the center can seem pretty far left from what you want to see. So it's better to see when Fox News does something blatant like this:
UPDATED: Since I blogged about this CNN has launched an ad called "FoxNews - distorting NOT reporting" here it is:
As To would say - grab your popcorn!
UPDATE AGAIN: I had heard about this story but this is funny how FoxNews didn't check out the facts before running it. This is called: "Fox's Advocacy Nets Another Victim: Fox's Credibility"
It's not enough show show data where people measure Fox News's conservative bias in their reporting like these articles: Here, Here, and here.
that's because of the "liberal media bias" conspiracy theory they perpetuate on Fox News, which I believe the perception could be true because if your audience is to a specific political group (conservative/ far right), then the center can seem pretty far left from what you want to see. So it's better to see when Fox News does something blatant like this:
UPDATED: Since I blogged about this CNN has launched an ad called "FoxNews - distorting NOT reporting" here it is:
As To would say - grab your popcorn!
UPDATE AGAIN: I had heard about this story but this is funny how FoxNews didn't check out the facts before running it. This is called: "Fox's Advocacy Nets Another Victim: Fox's Credibility"
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The moral roots of liberals and conservatives
Since politics is heating up with the Health Care debate - I found a great speech discussing how and why Liberals and Conservatives differ (BTW he uses these labels for anyone left or right of center where as I would usually use these lables for people FAR off of center - but you'll get the idea)
Who doesn't love TED.com? If you haven't found it yet you are missing out!
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.
Who doesn't love TED.com? If you haven't found it yet you are missing out!
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Health Care Scare Part 2
I wish I saw this before I posted, but Jon Stewart and I are apparently on the same page:
And this one!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Healther Skelter | ||||
| ||||
And this one!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate | ||||
| ||||
Health Care Scare!
If you've followed my blog - it will come as no surprise that I am an Obama supporter (at least when given the choice between him and McCain/Palin).
But let me criticize him for a second. And then blast the American public in general.
Obama has left it to Congress to pass Health Care reform, which is a nightmere and stupid, which is fine - but there is no clear plan with talking points. No wonder so many people are confused and even scared about Health Care reform. But just because the message hasn't been clear - it doesn't mean that there will be a "Death Panel" to decide who lives and who dies (are you serious Palin?) nor will we be euthanizing our seniors. Maybe she should have checked her facts.
Not that anyone wants to talk about what the Health Care reform is about (they just know that they are afraid) - For what it's worth The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:
•Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
•Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
•Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
•Invest in prevention and wellness
•Improve patient safety and quality of care
•Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
•Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
•End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
But enough about the politics of it all, because let's face it the Democrats in control will want to push legislation through that many Republicans (even if they would benefit from the plans) don't want on the basis of not wanting Government in any way involved in Health Care (except for Medicare, don't touch their Medicare, or Social Security...)
Anyways what all of the ugly shouting and hate speech in these town halls says to me is: Most Americans are Ignorant and that's as polite as I can be about it. And it works for both sides (if you are an extremist on either side you are probably dangerous to the majority), though Health Care is giving us some great examples today.
My favorite quote from this article is:
I was forwarded an ugly fearful email about people who believe Obama has some hidden double secret agenda like the Manchurian Candidate or something (I have not seen the movie).
Here are just a few of the things in this email:
The people who believe these emails are people who:
- think Obama wants to turn the Whitehouse into a Pyramid (like Egypt)
- Think we are close to socialism (as if they even knew what that meant)
- Think Obama's still pallin' around with terrorists as I write this
In the end I think it's funny because Bill Clinton was called a socialist and I don't remember capitalism coming to a grinding halt - at least not until George W was in office (but I'll save that for another blog). In the meantime I am glad my retirement accounts have clawed back 1/2 of their losses and look forward to making a stronger middle class because I think the point the wealthy Republicans miss is that when the middle class has money - the Republican business owners and the wealthy make money - and when the middle class is broke - we all lose money!
Nevermind the fact that the sentiments of "If more Americans can get health care then I might have to wait longer for care" are the most self-centered me versus you scarcity of resources mindset you can imagine (and it assumes that supply and demand doesn't mean anything in an economy continuously graduating more Doctors). I guess we should cut health care for more people so the top 51% of Americans can have even better care... now that's reform that might get a slim majority to agree to.
If you are interested in Abundance thinking versus fear bases Scarcity thinking there are numerous blogs and while this one strays across many topics - it is one that I find myself keeping an eye on - I'm too tired to find an even better example of her writing but poke around.
PS - I hope to keep my blog up and running when we become a socialist country - but I am not sure if I will be allowed to so this may be my last post...
But let me criticize him for a second. And then blast the American public in general.
Obama has left it to Congress to pass Health Care reform, which is a nightmere and stupid, which is fine - but there is no clear plan with talking points. No wonder so many people are confused and even scared about Health Care reform. But just because the message hasn't been clear - it doesn't mean that there will be a "Death Panel" to decide who lives and who dies (are you serious Palin?) nor will we be euthanizing our seniors. Maybe she should have checked her facts.
Not that anyone wants to talk about what the Health Care reform is about (they just know that they are afraid) - For what it's worth The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:
•Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
•Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
•Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
•Invest in prevention and wellness
•Improve patient safety and quality of care
•Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
•Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
•End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
But enough about the politics of it all, because let's face it the Democrats in control will want to push legislation through that many Republicans (even if they would benefit from the plans) don't want on the basis of not wanting Government in any way involved in Health Care (except for Medicare, don't touch their Medicare, or Social Security...)
Anyways what all of the ugly shouting and hate speech in these town halls says to me is: Most Americans are Ignorant and that's as polite as I can be about it. And it works for both sides (if you are an extremist on either side you are probably dangerous to the majority), though Health Care is giving us some great examples today.
My favorite quote from this article is:
...members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.It's like when those Sunday morning political shows decide to go to various restaurants across the US and talk to real Americans about hot button political issues. You quickly find out that most real Americans have no business discussing anything requiring intelligent thinking or complexity (but that's for another blog). It's like going to a random person in Walmart and asking them how you should raise your kids.
I was forwarded an ugly fearful email about people who believe Obama has some hidden double secret agenda like the Manchurian Candidate or something (I have not seen the movie).
Here are just a few of the things in this email:
- Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .I'm not including this email to fight for Obama - you are smart enough to figure out you own opinions about him, rather I am pointing out that there are enough really ignorant people in America passing along stuff like this and shouting at town halls with very little info to back up their fear-minded statements. I love the part about wanting to dismantle Capitalism. There is also a line that says Sarah Palin is intelligent - but you'll have to read the link above!
- His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND NATIONAL HEALTH CARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid.
- Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas.
The people who believe these emails are people who:
- think Obama wants to turn the Whitehouse into a Pyramid (like Egypt)
- Think we are close to socialism (as if they even knew what that meant)
- Think Obama's still pallin' around with terrorists as I write this
In the end I think it's funny because Bill Clinton was called a socialist and I don't remember capitalism coming to a grinding halt - at least not until George W was in office (but I'll save that for another blog). In the meantime I am glad my retirement accounts have clawed back 1/2 of their losses and look forward to making a stronger middle class because I think the point the wealthy Republicans miss is that when the middle class has money - the Republican business owners and the wealthy make money - and when the middle class is broke - we all lose money!
Nevermind the fact that the sentiments of "If more Americans can get health care then I might have to wait longer for care" are the most self-centered me versus you scarcity of resources mindset you can imagine (and it assumes that supply and demand doesn't mean anything in an economy continuously graduating more Doctors). I guess we should cut health care for more people so the top 51% of Americans can have even better care... now that's reform that might get a slim majority to agree to.
If you are interested in Abundance thinking versus fear bases Scarcity thinking there are numerous blogs and while this one strays across many topics - it is one that I find myself keeping an eye on - I'm too tired to find an even better example of her writing but poke around.
PS - I hope to keep my blog up and running when we become a socialist country - but I am not sure if I will be allowed to so this may be my last post...
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Controversy: Why I am for Gay Marriage
WARNING: This blog is not only controversial but politically charged. If you can not read this and engage in an intellectual and open minded dialogue - please stop reading now.
I support gay marriage.
Now for a little bit of background - I was raised Catholic, but I am certainly very open to other religious ideas and fascinated that we study so much in school before choosing a profession but never study religions of the world before "choosing" one but that is a topic for another blog. Not that it should matter but I feel I should disclose that I am heterosexual and married. So I probably have nothing to gain by seeing gay marriage pass - but I can still point out where I see injustices or at a minimum narrow minded policy making.
I think on it's face if marriage carries legal privileges - then by default it should be open to any two consenting individuals. And I am saying this from an objective position as a legal matter. If you are going to give people rights and privileges if they get married - then in my opinion you can't discriminate against people who want these privileges.
Now let me debunk a few of the arguments against Gay Marriage from how I see it.
The bible says it's a sin
I'm sorry but I don't care. And I am saying this as someone who thinks the bible is obviously one of the most powerful books and thinks as a whole religion helps society deal with the unknown and gives us a reason to act as a civilized society rather than like animals killing each other for our own gains. First - I can't claim to have studied the Bible enough to know whether or not it really says being gay is a sin- I am guessing many can interpret the bible to meet their own needs - but let me talk about a bigger point. I don't think we should be creating laws for a country based on any specific religion or religious document.
I guess I still believe America was founded by the Pilgrims who were trying to escape religion persecution. Whether you believe that or not - I at least believe if you are the governing for ALL the people in America - then you need to take into account that not everyone's religions beliefs are based on this interpretation of the bible or the bible at all for that matter!
It also bothers me that when people say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so - I am bothered by the clear lack of consistency in this thought. I'm not sure the bible says it's a sin to be gay - but I do know it says it's a sin to commit adultery and I don't think we have any laws in place against that. If we were being consistent shouldn't we say that anyone who has committed adultery should not be allowed to marry again because the bible says it's a no-no? Or if adultery was committed in a couple who decides to stay together - should we as a society strip them of all the legal benefits of marriage because of the sin?
Let me now also say that I don't believe that being gay is a sin. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about this because it's such a political hot topic. I guess it comes down to the fact that there are a lot of things I think are wacky about Catholicism including treating women as second class citizens if they wish to pursue a life serving god. I hope to see female priests in the Catholic mass in my life - it wasn't until I was in high school that they started to allow female alter servers. But I'm getting off topic.
The reason I don't think being gay is a sin is because on a broader non-organized religion view I just believe that if there is one great creator called God then God created some people to be gay (and I am sure there is a spectrum so that is how I rationalize bi-sexuality). I also believe that scientific evidence is pointing to this direction - but for now that's irrelevant because there are many gay people in the world - and that is how the world of today was made.
At the end of the day I can't see anything that comes from a place of love and respect as a sin. I think it may be easy for some to call it a sin if they are not familiar with a loving and caring gay couple - but if they got to know more and more people who I believe may just be born with a different sexual orientation then they can see that there is nothing to fear from gay marriage destabilizing a society - in fact it would only improve things because the more committed couples we have the better.
Children need a Mom and a Dad
I am not going to doubt that this is true. I think it would probably be best for the kids to have a mom and a dad - nuclear family - and a pet. But the problem I have with this argument is that it is fantasy - not everyone is going to have that chance. Either by divorce or death of a parent many children are raised without a mom and a dad. Also there are probably some really bad moms and really bad dads out there anyways (like the ones who video tape their toddlers smoking pot - but let's not go there). Now to take this further - using the fact that ideally children would have a good mom and a good dad as a justification to oppose gay marriage is similarly detached from reality - just because some people say kids are better off with a mom and a dad isn't going to stop gay couples from living their lives together and raise children. In this scenario I believe we as a society are better off recognizing the commitment to their families of gay couples. Just because America tries to punish gay couples by withholding legal privileges of marriage from them doesn't mean gay couples are going to disappear.
If there is no possibility for children then it shouldn't be called marriage
I'm getting long winded so I'll debunk this one quickly - if this were the case then there should be laws that if due to medical reasons a heterosexual couple couldn't naturally conceive a child - then they should not be allowed to marry to be consistent with this philosophy.
It devalues marriage
Really? Because I think there are a lot of disgraceful and repugnant things going on in heterosexual marriages. Abuse, infidelity, etc. We can't really think that this argument could hold up as a reason to oppose gay marriage.
The majority are opposed to gay marriage
News flash - the majority opposed interracial marriage decades ago. Where I think the court decisions of overturning a ban on gay marriage are right is because the majority should not be allowed to just vote to keep rights away from a minority, otherwise we could today pass a law that says Republicans can no longer vote based on majorities. Another news flash - the majority of Americans are uninformed or ignorant. Would you really trust the intelligence of the masses to decide what is fair and just? I think I could get a majority to agree to put an end to Woman's suffrage. Women have been sufffraging for too long! But then Americans would figure out that they just passed a law to end a women's right to vote. Besides it was ill-advised power majority who previously prevented women from voting.
In summary - I actually don't have any issues with people having strong religious beliefs about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. However your right to swing your fist stops at another's face - so to speak - and when it comes to legal matters and laws for an entire country - I'm sorry - no matter how big a majority a specific religion may have - it should not be the defacto law in my opinion. That is such a narrow view that because it's some groups strong religious belief that it should become public policy - well our public may not all agree with the same religions ideas and we all have to live together. By default for me laws should be fair to all - not the majority.
I also am encouraged to see that younger generations are more tolerant and open minded - and while recent polling puts the issue currently close to a 50-50 split - I believe it will only be a matter of time before gay marriage will be granted the same legal rights and no longer will we have second class citizens (at least not for gay Americans and at least not legally anyway). Hopefully in 50 years we'll look back at this issue the way we do at preventing women to vote and we'll think "what the heck was America thinking back then".
I hope this blog helps start a useful dialogue and shed some light as to why we can't just point to the bible or any religion for answers to national policy - at least in my opinion.
I support gay marriage.
Now for a little bit of background - I was raised Catholic, but I am certainly very open to other religious ideas and fascinated that we study so much in school before choosing a profession but never study religions of the world before "choosing" one but that is a topic for another blog. Not that it should matter but I feel I should disclose that I am heterosexual and married. So I probably have nothing to gain by seeing gay marriage pass - but I can still point out where I see injustices or at a minimum narrow minded policy making.
I think on it's face if marriage carries legal privileges - then by default it should be open to any two consenting individuals. And I am saying this from an objective position as a legal matter. If you are going to give people rights and privileges if they get married - then in my opinion you can't discriminate against people who want these privileges.
Now let me debunk a few of the arguments against Gay Marriage from how I see it.
The bible says it's a sin
I'm sorry but I don't care. And I am saying this as someone who thinks the bible is obviously one of the most powerful books and thinks as a whole religion helps society deal with the unknown and gives us a reason to act as a civilized society rather than like animals killing each other for our own gains. First - I can't claim to have studied the Bible enough to know whether or not it really says being gay is a sin- I am guessing many can interpret the bible to meet their own needs - but let me talk about a bigger point. I don't think we should be creating laws for a country based on any specific religion or religious document.
I guess I still believe America was founded by the Pilgrims who were trying to escape religion persecution. Whether you believe that or not - I at least believe if you are the governing for ALL the people in America - then you need to take into account that not everyone's religions beliefs are based on this interpretation of the bible or the bible at all for that matter!
It also bothers me that when people say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so - I am bothered by the clear lack of consistency in this thought. I'm not sure the bible says it's a sin to be gay - but I do know it says it's a sin to commit adultery and I don't think we have any laws in place against that. If we were being consistent shouldn't we say that anyone who has committed adultery should not be allowed to marry again because the bible says it's a no-no? Or if adultery was committed in a couple who decides to stay together - should we as a society strip them of all the legal benefits of marriage because of the sin?
Let me now also say that I don't believe that being gay is a sin. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about this because it's such a political hot topic. I guess it comes down to the fact that there are a lot of things I think are wacky about Catholicism including treating women as second class citizens if they wish to pursue a life serving god. I hope to see female priests in the Catholic mass in my life - it wasn't until I was in high school that they started to allow female alter servers. But I'm getting off topic.
The reason I don't think being gay is a sin is because on a broader non-organized religion view I just believe that if there is one great creator called God then God created some people to be gay (and I am sure there is a spectrum so that is how I rationalize bi-sexuality). I also believe that scientific evidence is pointing to this direction - but for now that's irrelevant because there are many gay people in the world - and that is how the world of today was made.
At the end of the day I can't see anything that comes from a place of love and respect as a sin. I think it may be easy for some to call it a sin if they are not familiar with a loving and caring gay couple - but if they got to know more and more people who I believe may just be born with a different sexual orientation then they can see that there is nothing to fear from gay marriage destabilizing a society - in fact it would only improve things because the more committed couples we have the better.
Children need a Mom and a Dad
I am not going to doubt that this is true. I think it would probably be best for the kids to have a mom and a dad - nuclear family - and a pet. But the problem I have with this argument is that it is fantasy - not everyone is going to have that chance. Either by divorce or death of a parent many children are raised without a mom and a dad. Also there are probably some really bad moms and really bad dads out there anyways (like the ones who video tape their toddlers smoking pot - but let's not go there). Now to take this further - using the fact that ideally children would have a good mom and a good dad as a justification to oppose gay marriage is similarly detached from reality - just because some people say kids are better off with a mom and a dad isn't going to stop gay couples from living their lives together and raise children. In this scenario I believe we as a society are better off recognizing the commitment to their families of gay couples. Just because America tries to punish gay couples by withholding legal privileges of marriage from them doesn't mean gay couples are going to disappear.
If there is no possibility for children then it shouldn't be called marriage
I'm getting long winded so I'll debunk this one quickly - if this were the case then there should be laws that if due to medical reasons a heterosexual couple couldn't naturally conceive a child - then they should not be allowed to marry to be consistent with this philosophy.
It devalues marriage
Really? Because I think there are a lot of disgraceful and repugnant things going on in heterosexual marriages. Abuse, infidelity, etc. We can't really think that this argument could hold up as a reason to oppose gay marriage.
The majority are opposed to gay marriage
News flash - the majority opposed interracial marriage decades ago. Where I think the court decisions of overturning a ban on gay marriage are right is because the majority should not be allowed to just vote to keep rights away from a minority, otherwise we could today pass a law that says Republicans can no longer vote based on majorities. Another news flash - the majority of Americans are uninformed or ignorant. Would you really trust the intelligence of the masses to decide what is fair and just? I think I could get a majority to agree to put an end to Woman's suffrage. Women have been sufffraging for too long! But then Americans would figure out that they just passed a law to end a women's right to vote. Besides it was ill-advised power majority who previously prevented women from voting.
In summary - I actually don't have any issues with people having strong religious beliefs about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. However your right to swing your fist stops at another's face - so to speak - and when it comes to legal matters and laws for an entire country - I'm sorry - no matter how big a majority a specific religion may have - it should not be the defacto law in my opinion. That is such a narrow view that because it's some groups strong religious belief that it should become public policy - well our public may not all agree with the same religions ideas and we all have to live together. By default for me laws should be fair to all - not the majority.
I also am encouraged to see that younger generations are more tolerant and open minded - and while recent polling puts the issue currently close to a 50-50 split - I believe it will only be a matter of time before gay marriage will be granted the same legal rights and no longer will we have second class citizens (at least not for gay Americans and at least not legally anyway). Hopefully in 50 years we'll look back at this issue the way we do at preventing women to vote and we'll think "what the heck was America thinking back then".
I hope this blog helps start a useful dialogue and shed some light as to why we can't just point to the bible or any religion for answers to national policy - at least in my opinion.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Socialism here we come?
Really? Does anyone with a MIND really believe that? Can anyone take someone seriously when they say rolling back the tax code 8 years to the Clinton era before the Bush tax cuts took effect is socialism? It's too much. It's exaggeration and it makes great political theater unless you run into people who believe it! It'd be like someone on the left saying that under a Republican president any attempt to reduce the size of government would be Anarchy and we'd soon have to defend ourselves against the Mexican Drug Lords (good thing we'd have our second amendment and semi-automatic weapons) since we reduced government so much.
At least you know that anyone who goes to the extremes over small policy changes is not out to protect you but out to create fear and panic and serve their own agenda. I think that's called demagoguery and a wise man once said that is the most destructive abuse of political position (see Hitler).
Anyway - here's a great blog from an American who lived in the UK for 12 years about the over-hyped charges of socialism:
http://daggle.com/090317-210847.html
At least you know that anyone who goes to the extremes over small policy changes is not out to protect you but out to create fear and panic and serve their own agenda. I think that's called demagoguery and a wise man once said that is the most destructive abuse of political position (see Hitler).
Anyway - here's a great blog from an American who lived in the UK for 12 years about the over-hyped charges of socialism:
http://daggle.com/090317-210847.html
Apparently, some people believe President Barack Obama wants to turn the United States into a socialist country -- with fears that this would be a terrible step in the wrong direction. Fair to say, most people with these fears have never lived in a socialist country. I have, in Britain, for 12 years. I thought I'd share a bit about how terribly different and strange that economic system is from the one we enjoy in the United States.
It's not that different.
In Britain, you have rich people, poor people and a lot of people in between. The key difference, economically speaking, is that the poor people have a safety net both in terms of income support and universal health care. This does not come by taxing the rich people to death. Neither does this produce a huge class of people who do nothing but live off the state.
I'll expand on both of these points in a moment. But first, let me further clarify that both "sides" in the "Barack wants to make us socialist" debate haven't actually lived in a socialist country. I say both sides, but it really seems to be one side shouting loudly that this is going to happen and another side arguing it is not, rather than being "pro-socialist." No one wants to be pro-socialist, since that word sounds almost as bad as some people have made "liberal" be.
Not only have most people arguing not experienced socialism, but the term itself fails to be defined. When I hear it in commentary, usually from those who feel we're headed in that direction, it seems to be a shorthand description for an Animal Farm-esque country with high taxes where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of how hard they work or their own personal initiative and talents.
It's been a long time since I had to study different economic models, and it is far from my area of expertise. What exactly is a socialist country? If we hit Wikipedia, it says:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
Well, who wants to trust what Wikipedia says. OK, how about Encarta:
Socialism, economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. The term socialism also refers to the doctrine behind this system and the political movement inspired by it.
So the key points of socialism:
The state owns industry
People earn equally
By that definition, Britain isn't socialist. Most of Europe isn't. But I say I have lived in a socialist country, because let's consider some of the popular ways people assume socialism to be defined. From a search on "socialist country," I came across these gems:
It estimated that Americans pay approx. 43 % of our income to local, state and the federal government in one form of tax or the other. Does this mean that if this number goes up to , say 51 % , we are technically, for the most part a socialist country ? Is it more likely that government will GROW instead of shrink ? Ron Paul fans ? (Askville)
I'm talking, like, Sweden. Where you pay a grip load of taxes, but don't usually end up being neck-deep in debt from healthcare, student loans, or stuff like that. Would you move there? Discuss. (Yelp)
I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a Socialist society. ... If you look at spreading the wealth, that's honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth (Joe The Plumber)
Maybe I need to restructure this question a little bit here because I agree with you, I think we're still a center right country, but the American people did elect Barack Obama who did say he was going to spread the wealth with Vice President Joe Biden who said it's our patriotic duty to pay more taxes. Why should we be surprised that they followed through what their promises are? Back door national health care. (Sean Hannity)
The key points of socialism as I've read it in the past months according to popular accounts, usually by those who have a view to "stopping it," are:
Higher taxes on the rich, which in turn provide some services for those with less wealth
National health care
Let's take higher taxes first. If taxing rich people more is what makes a country socialist, well, Britain sure does that. However, it doesn't do it to the degree people still think is the case. Years and years and years ago, there was a time when some people with extremely high wealth could find up to 90% of their income taxed. As I've talked to many people over the years, there's still a perception that Britain and much of Europe still has taxation rates of 50% or more.
That's not the case, in Britain. In fact, as a top rate earner, I paid about the same in taxes in Britain than I did in the United States.
In Britain, I paid a national income tax of 41%. Not all of my income was taxed at that rate, just the amount above around $60,000. That income tax also included my National Insurance contribution, which is like Social Security for the UK.
In the United States, the rate is about 28% when you get above $60,000 on up to 35%, if you earn over $350,000. Cheaper, right? Ah, but I've also got a Social Security contribution to make. Plus, I live in the state of California, which has a 9.3% top rate on state income tax. Combined, it's not that far away from Britain. It certainly isn't the vast difference that many assume is the case in "socialist" Britain or Europe.
Moreover, if taxing people who earn more a higher rate is what makes a socialist country, then I guess we've been living the socialist life here in the United States for ages. For as long as I can remember, there's been a tiered system of income tax rates. How did this suddenly become a tipping point under Obama?
Now let's move to universal health care. I love America dearly. I'm proud of my country, patriotic and happy to be back living at home once again. But our lack of health care is a national embarrassment. It's shameful. We appear as a backward, savage country when you talk about our health care system compared to far more civilized countries on this front in Europe or in Canada.
In Britain, the National Health Service covered the birth of both of my children, completely. I paid for parking on trips to the hospital. That was it. Not only that, but for months afterward, a "health visitor" came to our house to do follow-up health care check-ups. I also had my kids to the emergency room on three or four different occasions, again without any cost to me. My wife had an unexpected life-threatening illness that was treated again at no cost.
Everyone is covered. People don't sell their homes in order to get treatment just to stay alive. People don't worry that they might get struck down out of the blue and lose everything. Children don't have to hope that their families are lucky enough to be under the poverty live in order to be covered, or lucky enough that their families can afford coverage. People don't live in fear there will be some pre-existing condition that's used to block coverage. They don't worry that losing their jobs means losing their health care coverage.
When you try to explain the US "system" of health care to those in Britain, you really understand just how appalling our country covers our own citizens. People simply can't comprehend the idea that people are allowed to die or get needed medical treatment simply because they are poor.
The NHS is not perfect. The hospitals can be busy. Emergency room waiting times can be long. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that constantly screams that they just need more money. At times, I desperately wanted there to be some competitor to the NHS just so some of those who had almost an entitlement attitude to their jobs got a kick in the ass. But it was far better than having nothing, and those who weren't happy with what was provided had the option to go for private care.
Nor is the UK some type of utopia. I can't speak to the coverage provided to those who lose their jobs in terms of income protection. I can say there is a strong culture of people being "on benefit," to the degree that you'd see things like movie tickets still sold in places at a lower rate to those who could show an unemployment card. But I don't think it's the case that you have a vast wasteland of unemployed slackers living off the work of others.
I don't think it's constructive at all, during the real challenge that the US faces right now economically, to simplify things as "socialist or not," especially when that term is ill-defined. Having universal health care doesn't mean being a socialist country; lacking it doesn't mean you're a capitalistic country. The reality is that the United States is far from practicing some pure form of capitalism. We have a tradition, especially since the Great Depression, of having the state provide basic benefits that protect our citizens overall.
Laws protect workers from unsafe employment practices. Laws protect citizens from unsafe food packaging. Laws and structures ensure that our money doesn't go "poof" when deposited into a bank. Laws protect us from companies gaining unfair monopolies. Laws provide us with a guaranteed retirement income (even if what's that worth seems so worthless these days).
If you've never read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, or John Steinbeck's The Grapes Of Wrath, I strongly encourage you do so, especially if you worry that caring better for our citizens is somehow turning American into some socialist state. They are gripping novels of a time America moved away from. What we really need are more books like this now to capture the popular spirit of just how dysfunctional our current society is in caring for all of its people. It can be done -- where necessary and useful -- without taxing the rich to death and without abandoning the poor, and doing so makes us all stronger.
Postscript: Jeffrey McManus notes that the UK also charges a 15% VAT (sales tax) charge on products and services that consumers purchase. I did mean to mention this. That's absolutely true -- in fact, it used to be 17.5%. But it's not levied on everything (food, for instance) similar to how in California, sales tax isn't applied to everything. Taxes can also be much higher than in the US for things like cigarettes or gasoline (when I left last year, we were paying $14 per gallon for gas, 75% of which was due to government taxes).
In California, we also pay sales tax -- around 8%, depending on your county. That still puts the UK higher on the sales tax rate. But the main point I'm making I think is still true -- the UK doesn't have this 50%+ income tax rate that some people seem to assume is a hallmark of the country or a requirement of a "socialist" state.
I also can't stress enough that I'm not saying the UK is perfect, or that taxes in the US should go up or that everything the UK provides as a government service is something the US should do. I actually tend to want the government to provide as little as possible (since what it does provide tends to become bureaucratic, in my view) and charge as little tax as possible. There are also no end of things that either the UK government or the European Union decides it needs to regulate things that I find infuriating.
Case in point -- buy a drink in any bar in the EU. You'll see a line on the glass to ensure that you are getting the "full" amount you paid for, say a full shot glass. The drink has to be poured up to the line. It's stupid -- no one regulates the prices charged. So if one bar "shorted" you a little by not pouring a completely full shot, it doesn't matter since they might be charging you far less than some other overpriced bar that fills right to the top.
Still, I think we need a fair and renewed assessment of what basic services we should be covering for our citizens free from charged political concepts and lockstep viewpoints. Do we, as a country, think all people here should be provided with basic health care? That's not a "socialist" viewpoint to me, any more than asking if we think all children should be entitled to a basic education. At some point, the US grew up in its thinking to decide education for all was a service that should be provided, because it benefited the country as a whole. Does something benefit the country? We need to ask ourselves that, not does X, Y, Z add up into some ill-conceived political concept.
By Danny Sullivan on Mar. 17, 2009 | Permalink
Friday, January 30, 2009
Giant Ponzi Scheme!
This cartoon is what I have been saying for multiple blogs - Whenever we vote AGAINST raising taxes or cutting entitlements - we are really saying that the current retiring generation can blatantly steal from our future generations! The numbers as they stand today just don't add up!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Topics I love!
I was listening to a caller on a radio show who was upset that a comedian was making fun of religion. And she reminded me of something you often hear: NEVER talk about money, politics or religion.
Only I think that is a bunch of BS. I agree that you should be aware of your audience and I try not to talk about these things in the formal work environment, though sometimes lunch conversations can get interesting.
BUT - As you can see from the blog labels for this blog - I love talking about these things! I just think you have to be sure to have the right audience.
I am so very thankful to have a group of friends who like to talk about money. I have learned so much about saving for retirement form this group of friends as we openly share our approaches and strategies. I think you should find people of similar economic levels because then you don't have to worry about people's feelings as specific dollars are talked. I for one now am much more comfortable talking about money and have no insecurities as I talk to folks who are quite wealthy or close to retirement and have millions of dollars saved. There are no hard feelings because I have spent a lot of time looking at my specific situation with the help of friends who like to offer advice or support and I am not insecure about our current situation - so I don't have any issues talking with people who are "better off". It's just real world - I don't believe we all have to be equal to have respect for one another and have intellectual conversations.
The same goes for religion. If I could pick one topic that I believe more people should discuss it would be spirituality. I think there are very few things in life that can be such a big part of your life that you had NO CONTROL OVER. Most people inherit their religious beliefs (and religion for that matter) from their parents. I believe at some point when we all grow up and become adults - that it is fair game to take a survey of what is offered globally by way of spiritual thinking and making a decision of what fits for you versus basically having that decision made for you when you are a child.
I think where this falls apart is where people are threatened or offended by other ways of thinking. To me I am all for everyone having their own ideas on religion - but the worst is when someone thinks their ideas should be adopted by others. I am happy to discuss the different views everyone has but at the end of the day I think it is about each person's individual connection to their spirituality.
So I am very thankful to have friends and family-in-law who are exploring different religious or spiritual ideas and discussing them or suggesting good books to read. I think 2009 will be a big year for me to do more meditating and reflect upon "me" more than other years where I have spent most of my energy externally (job, money, retirement, etc).
Politics is very fascinating to me because it combines religious and financial views into what people push for in public policy. The same warnings about money and religion apply but it gets even stickier. I am so thankful to have friends with various views who can openly talk about the trade-offs to all of our approaches.
I believe some of the best intellectual conversations include these 3 "taboo" topics and they encourage indivicual growth and acceptance of others. I would encourage everyone to completely ignore the advice to "never" talk about these topics - only find the right audience in your life to do so.
Only I think that is a bunch of BS. I agree that you should be aware of your audience and I try not to talk about these things in the formal work environment, though sometimes lunch conversations can get interesting.
BUT - As you can see from the blog labels for this blog - I love talking about these things! I just think you have to be sure to have the right audience.
I am so very thankful to have a group of friends who like to talk about money. I have learned so much about saving for retirement form this group of friends as we openly share our approaches and strategies. I think you should find people of similar economic levels because then you don't have to worry about people's feelings as specific dollars are talked. I for one now am much more comfortable talking about money and have no insecurities as I talk to folks who are quite wealthy or close to retirement and have millions of dollars saved. There are no hard feelings because I have spent a lot of time looking at my specific situation with the help of friends who like to offer advice or support and I am not insecure about our current situation - so I don't have any issues talking with people who are "better off". It's just real world - I don't believe we all have to be equal to have respect for one another and have intellectual conversations.
The same goes for religion. If I could pick one topic that I believe more people should discuss it would be spirituality. I think there are very few things in life that can be such a big part of your life that you had NO CONTROL OVER. Most people inherit their religious beliefs (and religion for that matter) from their parents. I believe at some point when we all grow up and become adults - that it is fair game to take a survey of what is offered globally by way of spiritual thinking and making a decision of what fits for you versus basically having that decision made for you when you are a child.
I think where this falls apart is where people are threatened or offended by other ways of thinking. To me I am all for everyone having their own ideas on religion - but the worst is when someone thinks their ideas should be adopted by others. I am happy to discuss the different views everyone has but at the end of the day I think it is about each person's individual connection to their spirituality.
So I am very thankful to have friends and family-in-law who are exploring different religious or spiritual ideas and discussing them or suggesting good books to read. I think 2009 will be a big year for me to do more meditating and reflect upon "me" more than other years where I have spent most of my energy externally (job, money, retirement, etc).
Politics is very fascinating to me because it combines religious and financial views into what people push for in public policy. The same warnings about money and religion apply but it gets even stickier. I am so thankful to have friends with various views who can openly talk about the trade-offs to all of our approaches.
I believe some of the best intellectual conversations include these 3 "taboo" topics and they encourage indivicual growth and acceptance of others. I would encourage everyone to completely ignore the advice to "never" talk about these topics - only find the right audience in your life to do so.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Border Fence?
(Warning - this blog is among my "Swiftian" modest proposal type blogs)
As per the cartoon above - Aren't we all here illegally? It's like yelling "shotgun" or something, but as a nation we believe we should keep people from continuing to come here to try and find a better life even though that was the basis of how our modern society was founded (much to the dismay of the Native Americans who were here before us). But I want to quickly get to my point. I feel it isn't much of a stretch to state that many on the the right side of the political scale are for protectionism when it comes to immigration. A more extreme position has been to even identify and "round up" the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the US and deport them (as if that were possible) but I'm not here to discuss that.
I'm going to take a tough "devil's advocate" position to defend in a recession (but thinking macro-scopically) - Doesn't this protectionism against immigration (either legal or illegal, which I will now call "pilgrim style") come from a fear of scarcity? As if there isn't enough to go around? That we need to block people out because they could be taking money from us either though "stealing jobs" or through public works projects and funds. I'm going to put that position against another "right side of the political scale" position of a free market economy.
What hit me this weekend when Dale showed me this cartoon, was that those on the right of the political scale who typically have a protectionism mindset on immigration are also generally on the side of a free market when it comes to the economy. Sooooo... why not just compete against immigrants for the resources - "free market" style. If it is so easy for "them" to steal "our jobs" then isn't that the free market at work? Besides isn't it a conservative position to take to say "everyone for themselves?" - yet we want government to help us keep "our jobs" and "our resources" and "our opportunities" just for the privileged of us who got here "Sooner".
In summary - my Devil's advocate position is to embrace an ever changing global world and remove artificial "protectionistic measures" and just compete for resources. This will drive the need for skilled labor, continuing education, and working hard. The best way to protect yourself is to make yourself move valuable to the economy through education, training, and work ethic. Besides - if someone wants to come to the US and is willing to work harder than some of our lazy, entitled teens, then our country will only be stronger for embracing the engines of the economy instead of fighting to protect the economic drains.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Election Analysis (Intro)
Before some interesting analysis, let's take a look at how Obama made it happen.
Bush 2004 vs Obama 2008
What are my take-aways from the Electoral Maps above?
1) Obama delivered on his promise to change the map
2) It was an electoral college route (compare the blue states to the density of US population)
I believe this all happened because of the Obama grass-roots organization, of which I played a small part but for which I certainly felt a lot of passion and patriotism. As one small example here is the email I got from Barack right before his nominee speech last night:
I know it was computer generated to fill in my name - but it's a classy touch. And what I like best is that there is always a bigger picture to his messages and as you can see he is going to call on his grass roots organization to continue to work for the country. The local group I volunteered with sent out a similar email in summary stating "congratulations - where do we want to direct our volunteer efforts next?".
So what's the point of all of this? Well I want to comment on Karen's most recent blog who I know was a McCain supporter. What I like about Karen is that she is very open with her opinions (and isn't afraid of how others may take it) AND she isn't blindly locked in her views - so I hope she doesn't mind me stealing a quote from her blog but I want to use it to make a point. In response to what will happen in the next 4 years Karen said:
I want to see some of this [positive] change he’s been talking about. And if it does, and we’re on the right path, I’ll vote for him in 2012.
I too would like to have her vote for Barack in 2012 but let me tell you how I think it can happen. I really think Obama's email and volunteer list (and text messages) will continue as president and it's going to opened up to all American's now to join him in making the positive change this country wants. If Republicans can get the results they want for our country in the next 4 years too - then we would all benefit from Barack as president. And maybe our efforts will be small scale and local but they will be none-the-less meaningful. My goal in 4 years is to have my retirement savings recover to 2006 levels which is sad to think of losing 6-8 years of growth and lost time. So Karen - maybe the sentiment is you have as much say as to whether or not you see the change you want in the next 4 years as anybody else.
If that all sounds like pie in the sky talk - I submit to you the fact that Hamilton County turned BLUE this year!
I've decided to split this in two from my election analysis, please read that in my next blog below.
Election Analysis
Are you ready to embrace a new America? Some of these breakouts may be interesting!
I only added that image so you can see that Barack Obama got 53% of the votes, and John McCain got 46% of the votes. While not a "landslide" it is a pretty convincing delta considering that we have seen the winner of the popular vote lose an election.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg, take a look at some of these breakouts and see where you fall in line with America or where you are "out of touch" with Modern America (I say that only jokingly but everyone may see some surprises).
This was a surprise to me that both men and women chose Obama over McCain. Going into the election it looked like McCain might have a lead among men but that the huge delta among women would trump that - but instead both picked Obama even if men just slightly did so.
If you are over 65 you picked McCain - otherwise you picked Obama. OK, that's a generalization but that trend is a fascinating look at either 1) passing the baton to the next generation as leaders or 2) ageism plain and simple.
What stood out to me is that the wealthiest American's - those who unlike Joe the Plumber will actually have their taxes raise - they chose Obama! I think that people's reactions to paying higher taxes come from fear and a "scarcity of resources" mindset versus a feeling of abundance in their lives. As you may know I think all taxes should be raised as we not only need to balance the budget but we need to address out 10 trillion dollar debt which is really just stealing money from our children - but that's another blog.
I was NOT surprised to see the poorest Americans (bottom ~40% of American's) chose Obama because of the hope and help from government he represents versus a "you are on your own" mind set some on the far right may have. I'm in between certainly.
Here is one of the biggest surprises to me. Obama won across all education levels. I'm not sure I can easily articulate my feeling on the matter other than to say I underestimated the fact that democrats and republicans span all education and income levels, only vary in where they live (rural vs urban) as a trend.
If I had to pick a surprise here it's that Obama won in the suburbs - only barely but that's where 50% of us live.
While who these groups voted for is NOT surprising, maybe what is interesting is to see that MORE Americans believe the government needs to do more than it currently is (hopefully this opinion was formed BEFORE the bail out because the government is "getting all up in it" now!).
These results are obvious, as people often vote by party line - but what is interesting is to see that almost 8% more of Bush's voters switched to Obama this year than vice-versa - and that is how the Democrats won - in the middle and with those who did note vote before.
Another example that the majority of Americans are in the middle on ideology and that's where Obama won. I am surprised to see 34% conservative and 22% liberal - both of those groups seem bigger than I would have expected.
No stunners here for me. I think if McCain is the choice of Protestants who represent 54% of the US, he had to win bigger than he did.
I was surprised to see that almost 1 in 4 white evangelicals in the US chose Obama. I didn't think it would be that big.
I think both of these can be explained by - the younger you are the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
This is interesting - and to break any myths about Democrats - if you work full-time - the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
The gun ownership wasn't surprising - but to break another myth about democrats - look how close our military vets were split between Obama and McCain - they chose McCain - but by much less than I would have expected. I believe had there been a poll among those currently serving in the military it may have been more lopsided. I think some people's views on war may change with hindsight.
and now LAST BUT NOT LEAST....
I put this one in last so that you could look at the differences in how American's voted by a number of different breakouts and maybe spent some time thinking about where your views fit in and where America's views fit.
Now - Are you prepared for an America where Obama won the presidency by a safe 7% margin but he would have lost the election among whites by a wide 12% margin.
Let that one sit in for a second...
I think this one is challenging to some Americans but one I am pretty excited about it. America has always been a "melting pot" and a diverse country, but now as we continue to grow more diverse and more globally connected - I think the "center-right" description of America is sure to almost disappear and I think even today it may be a "center-left" country (refer back to the question about should government be more or less involved).
This is my point - are some morning the loss of a country run by those who were in charge in the past or excited by those we represent today. I think the old-boys club that even Sarah Palin was fighting against is becoming a thing of the past - even if a large percentage of Americans by morn its passing or be in denial about the Modern America. I think the Democratic Party is best positioned to capture the huge growth in minorities in the future. So as the Republicans huddle up and figure out what they stand for after this loss - they need to figure out how to grow their base more than pander to it (just my opinion).
A nod to Hillary and a statement on Sexism
It may be dangerous and irresponsible to try and hold the Barack vs. Hillary primary as a statement on the views in the US (otherwise the battle of the sexes on the tennis courts would have defined athletic ability) - but I will use it to discuss sexism - not because I think Obama won solely because of this , but because I think we got a preliminary view of sexism in politics. I think as an entire nation the US was more willing to accept a minority male president than a female president. I think the qualities we look for in a leader we see much more positively in a male candidate than we do in a female candidate. I think we saw that our stereo-typed gender roles trumped out racial biases, maybe not directly reflected in votes because people vote for candidates for numerous reasons, but because of how Hillary and Sarah were treated. Politics may be the oldest "old boys network" left in the US - next to Commercial real-estate I am told as many female real estate agents work in residential sales instead.
I also should add that I believe ageism played a factor in McCain's loss but I also think that the youth of the country have different fundamental views that previous generations so you could also argue ideology but I don't want to discount ageism.
I only added that image so you can see that Barack Obama got 53% of the votes, and John McCain got 46% of the votes. While not a "landslide" it is a pretty convincing delta considering that we have seen the winner of the popular vote lose an election.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg, take a look at some of these breakouts and see where you fall in line with America or where you are "out of touch" with Modern America (I say that only jokingly but everyone may see some surprises).
This was a surprise to me that both men and women chose Obama over McCain. Going into the election it looked like McCain might have a lead among men but that the huge delta among women would trump that - but instead both picked Obama even if men just slightly did so.
If you are over 65 you picked McCain - otherwise you picked Obama. OK, that's a generalization but that trend is a fascinating look at either 1) passing the baton to the next generation as leaders or 2) ageism plain and simple.
What stood out to me is that the wealthiest American's - those who unlike Joe the Plumber will actually have their taxes raise - they chose Obama! I think that people's reactions to paying higher taxes come from fear and a "scarcity of resources" mindset versus a feeling of abundance in their lives. As you may know I think all taxes should be raised as we not only need to balance the budget but we need to address out 10 trillion dollar debt which is really just stealing money from our children - but that's another blog.
I was NOT surprised to see the poorest Americans (bottom ~40% of American's) chose Obama because of the hope and help from government he represents versus a "you are on your own" mind set some on the far right may have. I'm in between certainly.
Here is one of the biggest surprises to me. Obama won across all education levels. I'm not sure I can easily articulate my feeling on the matter other than to say I underestimated the fact that democrats and republicans span all education and income levels, only vary in where they live (rural vs urban) as a trend.
If I had to pick a surprise here it's that Obama won in the suburbs - only barely but that's where 50% of us live.
While who these groups voted for is NOT surprising, maybe what is interesting is to see that MORE Americans believe the government needs to do more than it currently is (hopefully this opinion was formed BEFORE the bail out because the government is "getting all up in it" now!).
These results are obvious, as people often vote by party line - but what is interesting is to see that almost 8% more of Bush's voters switched to Obama this year than vice-versa - and that is how the Democrats won - in the middle and with those who did note vote before.
Another example that the majority of Americans are in the middle on ideology and that's where Obama won. I am surprised to see 34% conservative and 22% liberal - both of those groups seem bigger than I would have expected.
No stunners here for me. I think if McCain is the choice of Protestants who represent 54% of the US, he had to win bigger than he did.
I was surprised to see that almost 1 in 4 white evangelicals in the US chose Obama. I didn't think it would be that big.
I think both of these can be explained by - the younger you are the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
This is interesting - and to break any myths about Democrats - if you work full-time - the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
The gun ownership wasn't surprising - but to break another myth about democrats - look how close our military vets were split between Obama and McCain - they chose McCain - but by much less than I would have expected. I believe had there been a poll among those currently serving in the military it may have been more lopsided. I think some people's views on war may change with hindsight.
and now LAST BUT NOT LEAST....
I put this one in last so that you could look at the differences in how American's voted by a number of different breakouts and maybe spent some time thinking about where your views fit in and where America's views fit.
Now - Are you prepared for an America where Obama won the presidency by a safe 7% margin but he would have lost the election among whites by a wide 12% margin.
Let that one sit in for a second...
I think this one is challenging to some Americans but one I am pretty excited about it. America has always been a "melting pot" and a diverse country, but now as we continue to grow more diverse and more globally connected - I think the "center-right" description of America is sure to almost disappear and I think even today it may be a "center-left" country (refer back to the question about should government be more or less involved).
This is my point - are some morning the loss of a country run by those who were in charge in the past or excited by those we represent today. I think the old-boys club that even Sarah Palin was fighting against is becoming a thing of the past - even if a large percentage of Americans by morn its passing or be in denial about the Modern America. I think the Democratic Party is best positioned to capture the huge growth in minorities in the future. So as the Republicans huddle up and figure out what they stand for after this loss - they need to figure out how to grow their base more than pander to it (just my opinion).
A nod to Hillary and a statement on Sexism
It may be dangerous and irresponsible to try and hold the Barack vs. Hillary primary as a statement on the views in the US (otherwise the battle of the sexes on the tennis courts would have defined athletic ability) - but I will use it to discuss sexism - not because I think Obama won solely because of this , but because I think we got a preliminary view of sexism in politics. I think as an entire nation the US was more willing to accept a minority male president than a female president. I think the qualities we look for in a leader we see much more positively in a male candidate than we do in a female candidate. I think we saw that our stereo-typed gender roles trumped out racial biases, maybe not directly reflected in votes because people vote for candidates for numerous reasons, but because of how Hillary and Sarah were treated. Politics may be the oldest "old boys network" left in the US - next to Commercial real-estate I am told as many female real estate agents work in residential sales instead.
I also should add that I believe ageism played a factor in McCain's loss but I also think that the youth of the country have different fundamental views that previous generations so you could also argue ideology but I don't want to discount ageism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)