Conservatives don't want to pay taxes that fund social-welfare programs. I know this because I have heard at least a few individuals say that to me, face-to-face.
They say that money is taken from them in the form of taxes and given to people who don't want to work. (At heart this idea is racist: They are really talking about African-Americans and the sentiment relies on the old racist canard that African-Americans don't want to work--never mind pointing out to them that huge numbers of job applicants have turned out, with lines going around the block, when there has been a widely announced hiring event in their communities, as shown in photos and video clips.
I will tell you, them, whomever—where tax dollars are really going to waste.
For one thing, the United States sends billions of dollars to the government of Afghanistan; and in turn, in the course of just one year, a billion dollars of Afghan aid was "lost to corruption." For another thing, Afghan President Karzai is an opportunist who has given power—and immunity from prosecution—to men who in another time and place would be counted as war criminals.
Much as I might support the aspirations of women in Afghanistan to have those rights which Taliban rule in Afghanistan would deny them, I see a relic of the cold war here: The United States got involved in Afghanistan after the country was wrecked and ruined by civil wars, fighting between war lords and factions that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets. (To remember our history: In Vietnam, the French lost and pulled out and America thought it could do better, but could not and lost also. Similarly, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and apparently the US felt it could do better, and the final results of that may not be in but it does not look optimistic.)
So, I have to suspect that US efforts in Afghanistan have been a waste of your and my tax dollars. And here is another one: Businesses like Walmart, and fast-food companies like McDonald's who pay their workers inadequate wages.
These companies are allowed to pay their workers a minimum wage which has not gone up, in real dollars (or even in nominal dollars) for decades.
A Walmart worker who is single earns a wage which puts her at about the poverty level. If a Walmart, or McDonald's, worker earns minimum wage but supports a family of four on his or her income, that worker's income is supplemented by aid from the government which costs us an average of about $1700 for that family. So, what Walmart or McDonald's does not pay the worker, you and I pay.
Walmart is making huge profits. Basically every American taxpayer, by having to add to the insufficient income that the Walmart or McDonald's worker receives from her employer, is paying his taxes ultimately into the pockets of the owners of Walmart and McDonald's. It would save us, the middle-class Americans who pay taxes, money if those companies were compelled to pay a living wage.
Copyright © 2013.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Right-Wing Lies about "Obamacare"
I have blogged twice (September 21, 2012 and August 5, 2013) about lies generated by right-wing or conservative commentators, politicians, and bloggers, and spread by emailers who forward e-mails.
Obamacare--that is not the correct term but was originally a derogatory term coined by these right-wing people and now it seems to have stuck as the common term by which to refer to the Affordable Care Act--has been the victim of much misinformation.
Many people may remember Sarah Palin's assertion, quite some time ago, that there would be "death squads" which would decide whether elderly patients would receive treatment or would be allowed to die. I hope that anyone who heard that has since come to understand that there are no such things as these death squads.
More recently, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Obamacare is in effect a massive tax increase. Again, false.
One other assertion is that under the new health care plan, doctors would be obliged to ask patients about their sex lives.
I get very troubled by such deliberate dissemination of lies. If you are a person who always tries to believe the best about people, maybe you believe that these are well-intentioned and that the people who have spread these false ideas had reason to believe they were true. If you are more cynical, then you probably will believe that the people who say these things know they are false and say them anyway.
I think it was Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propoganda, who said that you only have to repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it. Unfortunately, this is true; and as I said in one of my earlier blog postings, people who hear or read these things are not always critical of what they hear and take it as fact and truth.
Obamacare--that is not the correct term but was originally a derogatory term coined by these right-wing people and now it seems to have stuck as the common term by which to refer to the Affordable Care Act--has been the victim of much misinformation.
Many people may remember Sarah Palin's assertion, quite some time ago, that there would be "death squads" which would decide whether elderly patients would receive treatment or would be allowed to die. I hope that anyone who heard that has since come to understand that there are no such things as these death squads.
More recently, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Obamacare is in effect a massive tax increase. Again, false.
One other assertion is that under the new health care plan, doctors would be obliged to ask patients about their sex lives.
I get very troubled by such deliberate dissemination of lies. If you are a person who always tries to believe the best about people, maybe you believe that these are well-intentioned and that the people who have spread these false ideas had reason to believe they were true. If you are more cynical, then you probably will believe that the people who say these things know they are false and say them anyway.
I think it was Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propoganda, who said that you only have to repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it. Unfortunately, this is true; and as I said in one of my earlier blog postings, people who hear or read these things are not always critical of what they hear and take it as fact and truth.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Government Shutdown
One hour ago the US government had to shut down, because a budget had not been passed by the Congress, and so there is no money to run the government and pay its employees
Most likely a great majority of Americans don't understand what the consequences of this are going to be. I am sure we will be hearing of new consequences every day that this goes on. One thing is certain, there will be a big impact on the economy. Today, the day preceding the actual shutdown, the US stock markets took a bit hit in anticipation of the government shutdown.
Let's look at why this happened. The immediate cause is that the US House of Representatives refused to pass a budget without a provision that would have delayed the implementation of "Obamacare" by one year; and the Senate would not accept a budget law that contained this provision.
So maybe, if an agreement could not be reached, you have to figure both sides were inflexible and would not compromise.
I think the House, and particularly the Republicans in the House, are to blame. There are many Republican congressmen, many of them allied with the Tea Party, who have been obsessively resolved to undo Obamacare. Forty-two times the House has voted—unsuccessfully—to repeal Obamacare. Should we admire their persistence? That might be a fit subject for debate.
My take on it is that the Tea Partiers will sacrifice the economic welfare of the country to their own ideology—they'd say "principles," I am sure—and are absolutely determined not to compromise at all.
Someone once said that politics is the art of the practical. That does not mean the art of absolute and uncompromising ideology, which is something quite different.
But you can step back yet one step and blame the people who elected the Tea Partiers, these well-nigh insane ideologues who would not accept the defeat of their 42 attempts to repeal Obamacare but instead were willing to maneuver the economic welfare of the US to the brink of a cliff, holding the raising of the debt ceiling, which would let the government continue to operate, hostage. You know the "game" of "chicken," where two young men drive their cars at one another until one loses his nerve and veers and thus avoids the collision? How many people have been killed in that "game"? Well now the same thing has happened with the US economy.
Copyright © 2013
Most likely a great majority of Americans don't understand what the consequences of this are going to be. I am sure we will be hearing of new consequences every day that this goes on. One thing is certain, there will be a big impact on the economy. Today, the day preceding the actual shutdown, the US stock markets took a bit hit in anticipation of the government shutdown.
Let's look at why this happened. The immediate cause is that the US House of Representatives refused to pass a budget without a provision that would have delayed the implementation of "Obamacare" by one year; and the Senate would not accept a budget law that contained this provision.
So maybe, if an agreement could not be reached, you have to figure both sides were inflexible and would not compromise.
I think the House, and particularly the Republicans in the House, are to blame. There are many Republican congressmen, many of them allied with the Tea Party, who have been obsessively resolved to undo Obamacare. Forty-two times the House has voted—unsuccessfully—to repeal Obamacare. Should we admire their persistence? That might be a fit subject for debate.
My take on it is that the Tea Partiers will sacrifice the economic welfare of the country to their own ideology—they'd say "principles," I am sure—and are absolutely determined not to compromise at all.
Someone once said that politics is the art of the practical. That does not mean the art of absolute and uncompromising ideology, which is something quite different.
But you can step back yet one step and blame the people who elected the Tea Partiers, these well-nigh insane ideologues who would not accept the defeat of their 42 attempts to repeal Obamacare but instead were willing to maneuver the economic welfare of the US to the brink of a cliff, holding the raising of the debt ceiling, which would let the government continue to operate, hostage. You know the "game" of "chicken," where two young men drive their cars at one another until one loses his nerve and veers and thus avoids the collision? How many people have been killed in that "game"? Well now the same thing has happened with the US economy.
Copyright © 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Humor
They say money talks. I hear mine talking to me, saying Bye-bye!
*******
TV infomercial: Are you ashamed of your ears? Are you so embarrassed by your ears that you wear earmuffs when you go out, even in the summer?
Well, after years of research, medical science now has the answer for you--an astonishing new medical breakthrough called VenEars™.
You don't have to let your ears embarrass you any more. Now you can have ears that will attract notice and admiration from the opposite sex. Just look at these before-and-after photos!
And VenEars are your own natural ears! You wear them swimming, during sports, even when you're sleeping!
Find out what VenEars can do for you to make you beautiful and self-confident as never before! And, they're affordable on most budgets. Visit your licensed, certified VenEars provider today to see how VenEars can change your life.
Copyright © 2013.
*******
TV infomercial: Are you ashamed of your ears? Are you so embarrassed by your ears that you wear earmuffs when you go out, even in the summer?
Well, after years of research, medical science now has the answer for you--an astonishing new medical breakthrough called VenEars™.
You don't have to let your ears embarrass you any more. Now you can have ears that will attract notice and admiration from the opposite sex. Just look at these before-and-after photos!
And VenEars are your own natural ears! You wear them swimming, during sports, even when you're sleeping!
Find out what VenEars can do for you to make you beautiful and self-confident as never before! And, they're affordable on most budgets. Visit your licensed, certified VenEars provider today to see how VenEars can change your life.
Copyright © 2013.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Yet Another Shooting
It's happened again, another mass shooting.
I've hoped that one of these times, it would prove to be a tipping point and there would be a loud outcry from millions of Americans saying, "Enough! This has to stop," and effectively pressuring their leaders to do something about these shootings and control guns.
Guns, to my mind, are nasty things. Some people think they need a gun in their home for "protection," but that produces accidents where a very young child picks up the gun and shoots herself or a sibling or parent. (Do a Google search for "father shoots son." It will turn up news items on sons being shot by fathers and fathers being shot by sons—often accidentally.)
But there are those individuals, and the NRA (National Rifle Association), who get paranoid at the very mention of any sort of controls on guns whatsoever. If owning a gun is not a God-given right, it's a Constitutional right. Never mind that (1) there can be a lot of arguing over the meaning and/or intention of the Second Amendment; and (2) there has been a significant history of jurisprudence holding that guns can be regulated.
It's no secret that the NRA is very powerful. The NRA very recently, in Colorado, backed the successful recall of two state senators who had voted for gun-control measures.
The NRA claims it's just a bunch of owners of guns for hunting and handguns possessed for protection or target practice. Why, then, do they oppose legal limits on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines?
One thing that should be understood is that the NRA has not only gun-owning individuals as its members but gun manufacturers as well who, of course, want to see more guns and more ammunition bought. For them, one or two or three guns per household is not enough (and I believe that, as a national average, we already have more than one gun per household).
Other countries can scarcely believe that America is so gun-crazed and that we put up with these shootings again, and again, and again.
Copyright © 2013.
I've hoped that one of these times, it would prove to be a tipping point and there would be a loud outcry from millions of Americans saying, "Enough! This has to stop," and effectively pressuring their leaders to do something about these shootings and control guns.
Guns, to my mind, are nasty things. Some people think they need a gun in their home for "protection," but that produces accidents where a very young child picks up the gun and shoots herself or a sibling or parent. (Do a Google search for "father shoots son." It will turn up news items on sons being shot by fathers and fathers being shot by sons—often accidentally.)
But there are those individuals, and the NRA (National Rifle Association), who get paranoid at the very mention of any sort of controls on guns whatsoever. If owning a gun is not a God-given right, it's a Constitutional right. Never mind that (1) there can be a lot of arguing over the meaning and/or intention of the Second Amendment; and (2) there has been a significant history of jurisprudence holding that guns can be regulated.
It's no secret that the NRA is very powerful. The NRA very recently, in Colorado, backed the successful recall of two state senators who had voted for gun-control measures.
The NRA claims it's just a bunch of owners of guns for hunting and handguns possessed for protection or target practice. Why, then, do they oppose legal limits on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines?
One thing that should be understood is that the NRA has not only gun-owning individuals as its members but gun manufacturers as well who, of course, want to see more guns and more ammunition bought. For them, one or two or three guns per household is not enough (and I believe that, as a national average, we already have more than one gun per household).
Other countries can scarcely believe that America is so gun-crazed and that we put up with these shootings again, and again, and again.
Copyright © 2013.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Why the Rich Are Getting Richer (and you and I are getting poorer)
The news recently has it that income inequality in the United States is at its greatest since the 1920s. That upper 1% owns a staggeringly disproportionate share of the nation's wealth: I think the number is that 1% owns 19% of the wealth.
And if you go "down" to the upper 10%, they control 47% of the nation's wealth.
1) In the past year, the individuals on the Fortune 400 (list of 400 wealthiest individuals) saw their incomes rise 19%.
2) Unemployment among those with an annual income of $20,000 is 23%, whereas unemployment among those with an income of $150,000 was 3.2%.
Update, September 18, 2013. Here is a link to a Huffington Post article that says inequality is at a record high, and that the median income has fallen for five years in a row: Median income falls 5 straight years, inequality at record high
Copyright © 2013.
And if you go "down" to the upper 10%, they control 47% of the nation's wealth.
- The declining membership and power of unions is one factor. Think Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's successful efforts to strip bargaining rights from public employees. Similar things have recently happened in a few other states.
- For another thing, it's been laws that favor wealthy individuals and large corporations and keep tax rates on the upper income brackets low. Thank your Republican senators and congressmen for that. (In the days of FDR and the New Deal, the top incremental rate of the income tax actually was 98%; today it's 38.5%. Yet the super-rich organize Tea Party rallies and shout that taxes are too high, but they are not trying to lower taxes for you and me, but for themselves.)
- And the lobbyists who do the bidding of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations and even submit to legislatures draft laws which are friendly to their bosses. A number of corporations have banded together in a consortium called ALEC for the purpose of lobbying, and ALEC has been quite effective. (Generally, corporations' legislative aims are fewer regulations as well as lower taxes.)
- And of course court decisions, such as the infamous Citizens United decision which gave essentially free reign to the super-rich to anonymously contribute to election campaigns.
- Yet another culprit: It was recently asserted—and I've heard this twice, now--that the policies of the Federal Reserve Board favor the rich by fostering low inflation over low unemployment. Obviously, if a lot of people are unemployed, that lowers their personal income level and income levels overall.
- Another way that the Federal Reserve's low interest policies are supposed to be favoring the rich: The low interest rate lets the rich borrow cheaply. They borrow, using their homes and/or their wealth as collateral, and buy commodities. (More properly, commodities futures, which are contracts to buy or sell commodities such as precious metals; oil; wheat or corn; coffee, orange juice; and the infamous "pork bellies.") It is true that it's mainly the rich who trade in commodities because the amounts of the contracts, in dollars, are very large.
1) In the past year, the individuals on the Fortune 400 (list of 400 wealthiest individuals) saw their incomes rise 19%.
2) Unemployment among those with an annual income of $20,000 is 23%, whereas unemployment among those with an income of $150,000 was 3.2%.
Update, September 18, 2013. Here is a link to a Huffington Post article that says inequality is at a record high, and that the median income has fallen for five years in a row: Median income falls 5 straight years, inequality at record high
Copyright © 2013.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
A Better Model of Homo sapiens
If you believe that God created mankind, I'd like you to consider this: I don't think He did a very good job. (This might appear blasphemous to some people, but the spirit in which this is intended is more one of whimsy. Or, it's what the physical scientists would call a "thought experiment.")
Here are some ways in which I think a new, improved model could be better than the existing model; or--pretty much the same thing, I guess--how I would design Man if I were doing it.
First, how about a human being who is incapable of lying? We would not have to worry about being cheated, conned, etc. Think how that might revolutionize politics! We would not vote for candidates only to find out, once they were in office, that they were not going to keep their promises to us.
Or, a model of human who was less fond of killing his own kind.
How about a human being who was incapable of believing incorrect things? We would not have superstition (like albinos in Africa being killed because their bones are thought to have magical or medicinal value, or rhinoceroses being killed to extinction because the Chinese believe their horns have aphrodisiac properties).
Of course there's a difficulty here: If human beings were fashioned such that they only believed that which is true, we might have the problem, in designing our new, improved model of human, that there might just be some uncertainty as to what is true. Even in Science, that which is true today can be shown to be false tomorrow.
So, this is just an exercise in fanciful thinking. But you have to admit, the prospect of a race of beings who could not lie is intriguing. (Any writer of science fiction: Feel free to use this idea in a story of yours.)
On a more serious note, for anyone who would like to indulge in further contemplation of the Nature of Man, I recommend the (long) poem by the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man.
Here are some ways in which I think a new, improved model could be better than the existing model; or--pretty much the same thing, I guess--how I would design Man if I were doing it.
First, how about a human being who is incapable of lying? We would not have to worry about being cheated, conned, etc. Think how that might revolutionize politics! We would not vote for candidates only to find out, once they were in office, that they were not going to keep their promises to us.
Or, a model of human who was less fond of killing his own kind.
How about a human being who was incapable of believing incorrect things? We would not have superstition (like albinos in Africa being killed because their bones are thought to have magical or medicinal value, or rhinoceroses being killed to extinction because the Chinese believe their horns have aphrodisiac properties).
Of course there's a difficulty here: If human beings were fashioned such that they only believed that which is true, we might have the problem, in designing our new, improved model of human, that there might just be some uncertainty as to what is true. Even in Science, that which is true today can be shown to be false tomorrow.
So, this is just an exercise in fanciful thinking. But you have to admit, the prospect of a race of beings who could not lie is intriguing. (Any writer of science fiction: Feel free to use this idea in a story of yours.)
On a more serious note, for anyone who would like to indulge in further contemplation of the Nature of Man, I recommend the (long) poem by the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
