web statisticsRealtime Web Statistics

Categories

Year: 2010

Entitlement?

by

I’m really alarmed at what I’m positive is about to happen to social security. I don’t know if you guys caught this story, but last week Senator Alan Simpson, who is on Obama’s deficit commission referred to social security as “a milk cow with 310 million tits”. He made another appalling comment a few days later, but I’m going to stick with social security for this post.

Simpson isn’t alone. republican representatives have had nothing but disdain for social security since its inception. I’m not going to list all of the republicans that are opposed to social security because the list includes almost all of them. They view social security as an entitlement program, and anyone that collects a social security check as a scourge on society. I said that republican representatives have a disdain for social security because polls show that even republican voters don’t feel the same way. Three out of four Americans are strongly in favor of preserving social security, which means that a significant percentage of republican voters want to preserve it. Their elected officials simply aren’t representing them.

There’s a fundamental dishonesty in the way republican representatives view social security. It’s not an entitlement, as they claim. Social security is something that we all pay into for our whole professional lives. When we retire, we collect the money that we contributed. There’s no entitlement involved here. The same holds true of unemployment insurance. We pay into it when we work, and we collect from it when we’re laid off. No fucking entitlement to see here!

Welfare is an entitlement. Medicaid is an entitlement. These are not programs that we pay into, and then collect when we need them. Tax cuts for the rich are an entitlement. Cutting capital gains tax is an entitlement. Donald Trump shouldn’t be entitled to pay less taxes on his capital gains than you pay on your earned income. Paris Hilton is not entitled to inherit the totality of her grandfathers wealth, simply for being born. Any tax code that allows people to pay less taxes on anything than we do on earned income is an entitlement. More than that, it’s bullshit. The earned income tax rate should be the lowest tax rate that we have. No other system of taxation is equitable. Earned income is the hardest to come by. You have to work for it. It should not be taxed at a higher rate than any other type of income. Period. I honestly can’t conceive of a rational person disagreeing with that, unless they’re the heir to a large fortune. But 99% of American’s aren’t, so what the fuck are they thinking? Are they under the delusion that Paris Hilton is working harder than they are?

Back to social security. As it stands right now, we have a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus (sort of) in social security. It’s the only damned place in our economy where there’s a surplus of any kind. I say sort of, because that 2.5 trillion dollars is effectively made up entirely of US bonds. It’s not actual cash. Bush, Clinton, and Bush 2.0 all siphoned money out of social security. Bush 2.0 took every nickle that was left to pay for his war, occupation, and tax cuts. When a president takes money out of social security, they leave an IOU, or a bond in place of the cash. When the US borrows money from China or any other country, they give that country US bonds in exchange for that loan. Those bonds are insured by “the full faith and credit” of the US government. If we were to ever default on these bonds, our economy would crumble because we wouldn’t be able to borrow any more money. It works exactly the way your credit card does. If you miss a payment, you can’t use that card until you get current on what you owe.

I’ve never, ever heard a single politician talk about defaulting on our bonds to China as a means of balancing the budget. That would be an insane idea that would bury the US.

So why the fuck do they feel so comfortable with the notion of defaulting on the bonds to you? Because they honestly have nothing but disdain for you. They don’t respect you, and they don’t give a damned about your quality of life. They’re openly talking about stealing your money, and they’re doing it to get your vote! ARE YOU BATSHIT CRAZY? Why would you vote for that? It’s your goddamned money! They have to falsely call it an “entitlement” to try and get you to go along with this scheme. And while Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving social security, most of us don’t believe that it will pay out when we retire. Managing expectations is 60% of the battle in getting anything done. If we accept the idea that social security is going to be diminished on us, then we’ve set ourselves up to get robbed. This is madness!

Yes, social security will be in trouble in 2037 if we maintain the current rules. By 2038, if we do nothing to the system at all, social security will pay each recipient 78% of what it pays now in order to keep the system solvent. Keep in mind that what I mean by solvent, is self sustaining (i.e NOT an entitlement). There’s a simple solution to the solvency problem. As it stands now, we stop making social security contributions when we’ve reached an income of $106,800 per year. After you’ve made that, you’re no longer paying into the system until the next calendar year. All we need to do is remove that cap, and problem solved! I don’t know about you, but when I’m 107,000 into my annual earnings, that’s when I can most afford to get taxed. I honestly don’t even notice when those contributions stop being taken out of my check.

If I were writing the US tax code, here’s what I would do;

-No federal taxes on anyone for the first 35k you earn. That first 35k is when you most need every cent you make.

-Federal taxes would kick in on every cent over 35k that you earn, and the percentage would increase incrementally on every 35k.

-Capital gains tax would be some percentage higher than earned income taxes, and they would be paid on every cent of capital gains. Right now, rich people defer some of their income to take stock options, in order to avoid paying that higher earned income tax rate. This must end. They’re stealing from you by doing this.

-There would be no contribution cap on any federal insurance program (social security, medicare, unemployment, etc).

Look, if I have to be taxed, I’d rather be taxed on the last 35k that I earn every year than on the first 35k. That first 35k is the money that keeps me from being homeless. The last 35k is what keeps me in Ferragamo handbags.

And let me say one more thing to the “entitlement” hating crowd. Until you can name one single first world country that doesn’t have social safety nets, you need to shut the fuck up. There’s no such thing as a first world country with no social safety nets. “Safety net” and “first world” are inextricably intertwined. And if you’re telling yourself otherwise, they you’re a complete idiot. If you can’t show me how your bullshit idea of every man for himself has worked to improve one single country, then SHUT UP ALREADY. I’m tired of hearing about your fucking unicorn.It makes me bitchy.

Social security is the only solace you have when Enron, Arthur Anderson, and WorldCom rob you by suckering you into investing in their worthless company. Social security is the only solace you have when Bank Of America, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, and Chase falsely inflate the value of your home by giving out loans to people that can’t afford the other homes on your block. Social security is the only solace you have when the lobbyists for the financial institutions that robbed you, buy politicians so that they can turn Fannie and Freddie into coconspirators in the real estate ponzi scheme.

Corporations are picking your picket every single day, in a million different ways. Our wages haven’t gone up in a decade. I got into the staffing business almost 14 years ago. When I started, I was hiring JAVA developers. I’m still hiring JAVA developers today, for the exact same wage that I was paying them 14 years ago, when gas literally cost half as much as it does today, and milk was $2.50 a gallon. You’re making less money, while the company sells its wares at a higher profit.

We’re on the fast track to turning into Mexico. Taking away social security will accelerate that devolution faster than other single factor that got us on this road.

You’re not the one sucking on the tit. You’re the fucking cow. And when your milk stops lubricating our country, you’re fucked, and your kids are fucked. Wake up!

Share

Obama MUST Get A Blow Job

by

In order to save America. It’s his patriotic duty. We wouldn’t be suffering through any of this race baiting if our president would just get an extracurricular sex life.

Most liberals believe that Obama is reviled by the right because he’s black. I completely disagree. He’s reviled by the right because he’s a democrat. It seems like we’ve all collectively forgotten the Clinton years. They were a series of one batshit crazy accusation after another being hurled at both Clintons.

Let me refresh your memories:

Whitewater – Where Ken Starr spent 74 million tax payer dollars to find nothing (except Monica)

Vince Foster – Who, despite his suicide note was obviously murdered by the Clintons or their operatives ( I was never clear on which)

Postagegate – When republicans investigated whether Bill Clinton used tax payer funded stamps to respond to children that wrote the white house about Sox, the cat

Chinagate – Bill Clinton was accused of selling military secrets to China (yes, really)

Wag the doggate – Remember “NO WAR FOR MONICA!”? This was when Clinton bombed Afghanistan in an effort to get Bin Laden order to divert our attention from Monica

Buddhist Templegate (I’m not kidding) – When the Clintons and Al Gore used Buddhist monks to launder money to the DNC

I can go on and on until you go blind from staring at your computer monitor, but you get the point. The attacks against the Clinton were absurd and unrelenting.

Is Obama being attacked more than Clinton was? I honestly don’t think so.

More importantly, I don’t believe that the “masterminds” behind the attacks on Obama are necessarily racist. I think they’re profoundly lazy, or wiped out by the creativity they had to display during the Clinton years (seriously, Buddhist monkgate??). Stirring up racial tension is just the easiest and most obvious way for them to get people to hate Obama.

We learned in the Clinton years, that these guys don’t care what they have to say, who they hurt along the way, or how hypocritical they have to be in order to meet their objective of taking power.  Remember how sanctimonious Newt was about his disgust with Clinton over the Lewinsky affair? He was both outraged and pious in 1998, while he was banging his own staffer, while his wife was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. He actually served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital! But don’t feel too sorry for her, she was his mistress before she became his wife. I encourage you to google Marion Gingrich. What she has to say about Newt is nothing but fun!

No, the treatment Obama is getting isn’t a black thing. It may be a little bit a black thing, but it’s mostly a “getting power back” thing. And they don’t give a shit about what kind of collateral damage they create along the way. All of this anti-Muslim crap that the right wing is creating is purely about getting Obama.

A few Muslims getting killed or hurt along the way is meaningless as long as they can convince Americans that Muslins are bad, and that Obama is a Muslim. They have to make shit up because he hasn’t given them any ammo.

Which brings me to his duty to get a blow job. The insane accusations against Bill Clinton stopped when the right wing finally found Monica. There was no reason to make shit up after our president (hide your children!!!) GOT BLOWN!

If past is prologue, then the right wing will stop their nonsensical attacks when Obama finally gives them something to work with. Which is why I have concluded that Obama must have extramarital sex in order to restore race relations in America.

I don’t think I’m asking too much here. I didn’t get a decent health reform bill, I got DICK for financial reform, all indications show that Obama is about to piss all over social security. I think that a blow job in the name of peace is a perfectly reasonable request.

If you really think about it, a sex scandal would solve two problems simultaneously. He could get caught, and then seek marital counseling from his christian pastor. America could watch Obama walking into a christian church five or six times a week! The Muslim allegations would be laid (so to speak) to rest once and for all and we could all go back to coexisting peacefully.

And look, we don’t even really need for Obama to play along. I say to patriotic women in America, join together in accusing our president of having an affair with you! Seriously, if enough of us come out with these accusations, we’re bound to keep Fox news mired in Obama sex stories for months. This will take the heat off the Muslims.

Sorry Michelle, but you’re going to have to suck it up. America needs another presidential blow job!

Share

None Of The Above

by

I have a crazy idea. I know what you’re thinking; Bitchy, most of your ideas are crazy! You would be correct, but at least I’m consistent!

I was listening to last night’s episode of Maddow and she said something that sparked a crazy thought in my mind. She said that in Nevada, voters have the option of voting for “none of the above”. I looked up the statue and it’s real! It’s been in place since 1976. But it has a major flaw. Here’s how it works; Nevada voters can vote for one of the candidates or for “none of the above”. The candidate with the most votes wins. That last part is problematic.

This would be a great (and useful) law with a little tweaking. This law could combat the Citizen’s United ruling by the Supreme Court, which opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on elections.

Here’s what I think should happen. We should collectively get state by state ballot initiatives together to include “none of the above” as an option. But instead of the candidate with the most votes winning, the option with the most votes should win. So if “none of the above” gets the most votes, none of the candidates wins. If it’s a primary, any party that gets a majority of “none of the above” votes, must run a new set of candidates. If it’s a general election, then both parties need to go back and do better. Oh, and a candidate that lost to “none of the above”, couldn’t run for that seat again until the next election cycle.

If you think about it for a minute, you’ll realize that I’m not entirely batshit crazy. My idea solves a myriad of problems.

“None of the above” would spare each of us the pain of having to choose the least shitty candidate ever again! Look, the republican party have nominated the village idiot to be in the white house three times in a row now (Quayle, W, and Palin). I refuse to believe that there weren’t a significant number of republicans that didn’t hold their nose to cast a vote for the idiot, despite knowing they were an idiot. I know that when the presidential election came around in 2004, I held my nose a little. I knew I was voting for the best option, but I wasn’t voting for the best candidate. So this solves the problem of feeling dirty after casting your vote.

I mentioned Citizen’s United. Imagine how much fucking money corporations would flush down the toilet, having to finance campaigns over and over again, for candidates that keep getting shot down by voters. The cost of a winning senate seat used to be (pre-Fiorina) 6.5 million dollars. Citizens United and rich, entitled asshat candidates will bring that number way up fairly soon. Imagine what would happen if we had the power to say, “Not having it. Try again.” Corporations and rich fuckers would have to spend double what they’re spending now, if we forced them to do just one do-over. If corporations are going to buy the elections, we should do what we can to make it as costly for them as possible! If we keep rejecting the bullshit candidates that are obviously in the back pocket  of the corporation that financed the run, maybe corporations will be forced to rethink their strategy. If nothing else, they will have to budget significantly more for the “buying politicians” allocation of their petty cash reserves.

And if we can get congress to pass the bill they’ve been talking about; the one that would force corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending, voila! Problem solved! Or at least mitigated.

As it stands now, both candidates running in any given race is a corporate shill. We should have the option of voting for neither candidate and forcing a more palatable option.

What do you think? Am I coo coo for cocoa puffs?

Share

Cowardly Bullies

by

Turns out that high school is an excellent place to learn about how the world works. For example, most of us learned that the school bully is really just a big coward by the time we got to our senior year. Either that, or we learned it in a John Hughes film but regardless, we learned it.

Why am I thinking about bullies? Because of Ken Mehlman, of course. How did you not make that connection?

In case you hadn’t heard, Ken Mehlman (W’s campaign manager in 2004 and head of the RNC from 2005 – 2007) came out of the closet this week. Yup, much to no one’s surprise, Ken is gay. He’s 43 years old, and finally out of the closet. Why now? Because he’s not working as a republican operative anymore, stupid! He doesn’t have to fall in line anymore, so he gets to spend that last half (or third) of his life keeping it real.

What a fucking coward, seriously. Now, I can understand the appeal of conservative rhetoric (you know, the horseshit about small government and fiscal conservatism) 25 years ago when Ken was deciding on which political ideology suited him better. But by the mid 90s, the Pandora’s box that Reagan opened up in trying to appeal to evangelicals and religious zealots had started to move the party in a very ugly direction. The right wing rhetoric during the making of don’t-ask-don’t-tell was appalling. Why didn’t all of the gay republicans stand up then? Why did they choose fear and shame over courage?

I’m not suggesting that they should have abandoned their party. I understand that liberalism isn’t for everyone. Although it should be said that the last liberal president we had was Jimmy Carter. The last two have been decidedly right of center but okay, no one knew it was going to turn out that way and the next Jimmy Carter could have been lurking in the democratic party. What I’m suggesting is that they should have stood up, come out, and changed the course that the republican party was taking. But no, they instead chose to shut the fuck up and tow the party line. Worse than that, they helped in the suppression of their own civil rights. Fucking cowards.

Gay republicans aren’t the only cowards. Sane republicans are cowardly in their own right (how’d that double entendre work out for you?). Yes, I said sane republicans. There are some. You just don’t know about them because they’re in the sane closet. Lindsey Graham (I have no idea why Ken Mehlman makes me think of Lindsey Graham!) is not a whack-a-doodle. John McCain isn’t a whack-a-doodle. Dick Luger and Orin Hatch aren’t whack-a-doodles. Scott Brown is a dim bulb, but he’s not a whack-a-doodle.

Why aren’t they standing up for sanity? Why aren’t they appropriating funds for the jobs bill, stimulus, and the extension of unemployment benefits when they know that these bills are helping their states? Make no mistake, they do know. CBO (the congressional budget office) just came out with a report that says that the stimulus has helped to create between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. That 3.3 million figure means that the number of jobs created solely because of the stimulus package have surpassed the number of jobs created during the whole, miserable George W Bush nightmare. Sane republican senators know this. I don’t have some magical mechanism that gives me access to information that they don’t have. And yet, they’re shutting down efforts to help their constituents at every turn in order to tow the party line.

Where the fuck were the sane ones to reign in Bush when he was spending us into oblivion? Not one of them stood up and suggested that it might be a good idea to budget for the war and the occupation. Not one. None of them stood up and said that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea. They knew what the impact of those tax cuts were going to be. They had to pass those tax cuts through reconciliation. According to the rules of reconciliation, congress can’t pass anything that way if it will have a negative effect on the deficit for over ten years. So they passed it through reconciliation with a nine year and three hundred and sixty-four day sunset. They knew they were burying our economy. They fucking knew it and said nothing. God damned cowards.

They are aiding and abetting the nuttyfication of the republican party because they’re fucking cowards.

How different would the republican party be today if their members weren’t cowards? They might actually practice some fiscal conservatism. They might have some diversity of thought. Democrats have anti-choice members serving in congress and in the senate. It’s inconceivable to me that 100% of republicans are anti-choice. It’s inconceivable to me that 100% of republicans are so rabidly pro-gun, that they don’t think that banning people on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun is a good idea.

It’s inconceivable to me that republicans aren’t a bunch of cowards. They band together to bully the pussies in the democratic party because they’re fundamentally a bunch of scared little girls. And I don’t understand what they’re so afraid of. Are they worried that if John Boehner pays them a visit to give them a good talking to for not towing the party line, that his skin condition will be contagious?

I honestly don’t understand this level of cowardliness. I’m used to spineless democrats, but at least they’re not actively participating in the ruination of their constituents, or the suppression of their own civil rights.

Share

Stockholm Syndrome

by

A recent Pew Research poll shows that 18% of Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim.

I’d like to tell you that at least 1 in 300 million doesn’t give a shit one way or another. I honestly don’t care which religion my president is afflicted with. I can’t see much of a distinction from one religion to another. I do know that if you purport to be religious, and are afraid of someone else’s religion, you probably don’t know shit about God and aren’t likely to find “him” in your lifetime.

The idea that Americans fear or loathe Islam is inexplicable to me. The only reason why you’re not scared shitless of the international pedophile factory known as the Catholic Church, is that you’re suffering from an as of yet undiagnosed form of Stockholm Syndrome that allows you to take comfort in the devil you know.

I say “pedophile factory” because the science is very clear in this area; pedophiles create pedophiles. The numbers vary (depending on which study you look at), but somewhere between 30% and 93% of child molesters were molested as children. Molesters on average, molest fifty children. Think about that for a minute, and apply those statistics to the pedophile Catholic priests around the world. If each priest molests fifty children, we know that somewhere between fifteen and forty six and a half of those fifty victims will grow up to victimize.

That doesn’t scare the shit out of you? If it doesn’t, it’s because they’re the devil you know and you’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome .

Does anyone know what the ratio of pedophile Catholic priests is to radicalized Muslims? No, no one does.

America’s fear and hatred of Islam is arbitrary and irrational.

Why don’t the Mormons scare the crap out of you? They come to your door, literally! These batshit crazy fucks have to spend two years of their lives peddling their religion on the street like a hot dog, and you’re not alarmed by this? The only reason they “renounced” polygamy, is because Utah couldn’t be ratified as a state until they did. Blacks couldn’t enter the Mormon priesthood until 1978 because they were believed to be placed under a curse, which gave them black skin. These people have never once done the right thing without being pressured into it.

Why aren’t you scared shitless of Mormons? Because they’re the devil you know, and you’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

How about the Jahovah’s Witnesses and the Evangelicals that are foaming at the mouth, waiting for Armageddon to come so that they can be “saved”. Saved, by the destruction of mankind? That doesn’t scare the piss out of you? If it doesn’t sound coo coo for cocoa puffs to you, it’s because they’re the devil you know and you’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Not to be accused of bias toward my own, how about that whole flotilla in Gaza situation? Granted, that wasn’t the Jewish faith behaving like soulless bastards, it was a country. But I must say that if your “survival” depends on oppressing others, I for one won’t miss you if you’re gone. An American citizen was executed (four shots to the head and one shot to the heart) during the course of that incident, and our media tells us that Israel was justified and that we should support them? Israel is the devil we know, and we’re collectively suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Personally, I’m afraid of anyone that feels compelled to tell me what they believe in. I feel like your beliefs are personal and the only reason for attempting to convert others to your beliefs, is because you’re fundamentally insecure about them. I don’t talk about what I believe in very often because I don’t need the validation of others to support my beliefs. I just need my beliefs to get me through the day. And anyone that needs to convince me about what they believe is scary.

Why do we even give a shit what our president’s religion is? It’s 2010. Why aren’t we more concerned with how our president governs than we are with how he prays to god, or even if he prays to god?

Share

Do you REALLY Think That America Is Great?

by

I can’t believe I even have to talk about this noncontroversial Muslim community center issue, but thanks to Fox, I do.

Before I get into the greatness of America, I do want to tell you one thing that you may not know if you’re not a New Yorker. The proposed community center is 2 – 3 blocks from ground zero which means that it very likely isn’t even in the same zip code as the WTC buildings. I’m not kidding. Two blocks in New York is literally a different zip code. But that’s irrelevant.

My question to those that oppose a Muslim community center is, do you really think that America is great, really? I must say that I question your sincerity if you answered in the affirmative. You see, if you really believe that America is great, you would support America’s embrace of the Muslim culture. If you actually had faith in America’s greatness, you would believe that it can overcome the will of religious radicals, Muslim or otherwise.

When we embrace Muslims and make them an integral part of our country, we’re actually welcoming them over here so that we don’t have to fight them over there. I do fundamentally believe in the principals that make America great. We didn’t become the world’s superpower without embracing many, many new cultures along the way. And as we became greater and greater, more people wanted to come here to get a piece of the American dream because our way is a better way. And as more and more people make America their home, we become greater.

Let me clue you in on something about people – we’re not different. No matter where a person comes from, human nature remains the same. We all want decent homes to call our own, flat screen TVs to put in those homes, and iPods to carry with us to work. We all want jobs that enable us to support our families, and we all want safe communities to raise our families in.

These desires are not unique to a specific race or religion. Most people would choose to pursue these opportunities if given the chance. If you don’t believe me, you’re just not paying attention. First generation Americans generally leave the majority of their parent’s rituals behind. I see Indian families all the time, where the mother is is wearing a saree and the daughter is wearing jeans. Or a Hasidic family where the adult son is wearing nothing more than a yamaka.

America offers the opportunity to obtain the house, TV, iPod, and community in which to raise your family. That’s what makes us better.

Iran is still stoning people to death. Seriously, they’re burying people up to their chests and throwing stones at them until they’re dead. Let me share a few more highlights about Sharia law with you;

-Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. In 2005, a man was sentenced to an eighty stroke caning for drinking in Nigeria

-Islam allows a husband to beat their wives, for simply being “highhanded”. Yup, domestic abuse is permitted by Sharia.

-Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped, and adulterers to be stoned to death.

-Islam forbids smoking

-Under Sharia, all men must have beards

Does any of this sound good to you? Do you think this sounds good to anyone that has a choice? Do you have so little faith in the superiority of the American way of life, that you don’t think it will win out over stoning? Who do you think would choose a caning over a beer?

Honestly, this opposition to Muslims being embraced by America is the most inane thing I’ve ever heard. It goes against everything that went into making America what it is today. But more than that, it is fundamentally based on the fear that our way of life isn’t better. You must believe that a significant number of people will choose radicalism over iPhones. That’s just stupid on its face.

Believe in America. Believe that most people that experience America won’t choose terrorism over living a free and happy life here.


Share

Bin Laden Is Winning

by

He always said that his goal was to bankrupt the United States. Well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

We’re caught in a vicious cycle, thanks to the Bush approach to economics. Losing 8 million jobs has had such a profound impact, that most people can’t even grasp the big picture anymore.

See, when people aren’t working, two major things happen; they’re not earning taxable income, which lowers the amount of money that both states and the feds are collecting, and they’re not putting money into the economy, which costs more jobs.

I’m about to debunk two lame ass republican mantras; “trickle down economics” and “the government can’t create jobs”.

Let’s start with the latter. Last week, republicans were up in arms over the federal jobs bill which included 26 billion dollars for school funding. That 26 billion is supposed to save over 160,000 teachers from losing their jobs so naturally, we’re all supposed to hate the free loading teachers now. Actually, that’s not true. We’ve always hated the teachers because they have the audacity to join labor unions, but that’s a topic for another post. The one thing that Fox and the republicans didn’t tell you, is that those funds were paid for. They weren’t an “emergency” supplemental a la Bush, and they weren’t off budget funds. They were paid for.

So let’s look at the impact of those teachers on the economy. I’m going to use my city of New York as an example because well, it’s my city!

New Yorkers are currently talking about yet another impending increase in subway fares. This is  BIG deal for us, because we don’t drive cars. The subway is how we get around. The proposal on the table right now would increase the monthly cost by 16%. That’s a huge increase. We’ve been getting a minimum of 10% increases every year for the past 4 years. The MTA (transit authority) is facing major shortfalls (as they always are), so they’re cutting services and increasing fares.

Back to the teachers. Some of the shortfalls that state and city run services are facing are due to unemployment rates. When New Yorkers aren’t working, they’re not paying New York city taxes (yes America, we pay city, state, and federal taxes here so QUIT your whining!). In addition to not paying taxes, they’re not using some services, and using the shit of other services. Services that cost money see shrinking revenues. Unemployed people don’t buy $89 unlimited Metro cards. They buy single ride cards because they’re not leaving the house every day. With less people riding the trains, those shortfalls increase exponentially. So if New York city saves 5,000 teaching jobs as a result of those federal funds, it’s good for us in more ways than most people can even conceive of.

When 5,000 teachers are spared from the fate of unemployment, some number of MTA employees are also saved because those fares help to mitigate the budget shortfalls.

This applies to a myriad of different service jobs. Every $1 that those 161,000 teachers spend on food creates $1.71 in economic activity. “Economic activity” includes the jobs of the people picking (or processing) the food, the truck drivers delivering the food, the gas station owners filling up the trucks with gas, the store employees stocking the shelves, etc. You see how the list goes on and on, far beyond what most people think about.

If those teachers were unemployed, they would be spending less, thereby causing more unemployment. And that impact wouldn’t be limited to the state they live in. Yes, unemployed NYC teachers hurt the state of New York, but they also hurt economic activity in several other states. How is this not obvious to everyone?

Anybody who says that the government can’t create jobs is just plain ignorant. Republicans that say it are just lying. All they have to do to prove that government creates lots of jobs, it to look at the Reagan presidency. The Reagan years were eight straight years of stimulus spending. He jacked up record deficits so that he could spend wildly on defense. He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars onto the pockets of the defense industry. That investment is still creating jobs today. All of that defense money Reagan spent ultimately led to the silicon valley boom. Hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown at R&D in defense, shrank the microchip down to a size that made the personal computer possible. Yes, we would unquestionably have gotten there eventually, but the “Reagan stimulus” greatly sped up the pace.

So yes, government does create jobs. Lots of jobs because money doesn’t trickle down, it flows up.

Poor people are the ones that actually create jobs. No, I’m not crazy. Just stay with me. Those 161,000 teachers that make between $25,000 and $50,000 a year are actually the backbone of our economy because they spend every cent of what they earn, which creates economic activity. People who make more generally save some of their money. They defer some of their income into 401k accounts and open up savings accounts.

People that make a lot more invest their money. They invest their money in ways that will maximize a return on their investment. They invest in companies that will pay out high dividends. How does a company get into a position of paying out high dividends? By maximizing profits by any means necessary. Historically, this is accomplished by paying less for goods and labor. This means offshoring jobs and buying supplies from Chinese manufacturers that can offer those supplies at a much lower rate than a US manufacturer can.

Companies don’t have an imperative to create jobs. They have an imperative to create money, which is why “trickle down” is total bullshit. Very little actually trickles down. In fact, every $1 in tax cuts to corporations creates 32 cents in economic activity. The other 68 cents ends up either in a Swiss bank account or at a manufacturing plant in China.

Republican ideology is giving Bin Laden his wish. Every cent of stimulus spending they choke off is accelerating the pace for the bankrupting of the United States.

States all across the country are removing street lamps, or just turning them off at night. How’s that going to work out for your city’s crime rate? And as states are running out of money, they’re also cutting state jobs like policemen and firefighters. Good luck with getting help on those dark streets. Another charming development is that we’re devolving from using asphalt on our roads, back to gravel because it’s cheaper. Seriously, we’re going to be driving on dirt roads soon. Our roads are literally crumbling, our cities are getting darker, and our infrastructure is falling apart.

Two key measures of the development of a country are its infrastructure and its education system. We’re moving backwards in both of those areas. Thanks republicans!

Your sudden interest in fiscal conservatism is as ass backward as your knowledge of world politics. If we don’t invest a lot of money in our country right now, we’re either going to give Bin Laden his wish, or we’re going to spend a lot more later. And by “later”, I mean a couple of years.

Nevada is a few months away from not being able to pay its municipal bonds. Florida, Arizona, California, and Wyoming aren’t far behind. Where do you think they’re going to turn to bail them out?

The federal government can spend money to create jobs now, or they’re going to be forced to throw a lot more money at the problem later. Homeowners know that if you don’t spend a dime on maintenance for ten years, you’re going to have to spend a lot more to rebuild portions of your house later.

We are letting our country fall apart, and we’re giving Bin Laden his wish. Anytime some asshat talks to you about “trickle down” or the evils of stimulus spending, just let them know that Bin Laden appreciates their hard work. He can’t do it without them.

Share

Banking On Dumber

by

That’s what leaders in both the republican and democratic parties are counting on. They’re counting on the other party being even dumber than they are, in order to pick up some seats.

Republicans spent the better part of last year touting the virtues of the tea party, only to discover that they’re a giant liability to republicans. Republican leaders didn’t have to foresight to realize that aligning themselves with extremist whack-a-doos was eventually going to bite them in the ass. Good luck turning Sharon Angle into something palatable to the general public, Mitch McConnel! Thanks to your shortsightedness, you lost the unlose-able seat. And thanks to your stupidity, I’m stuck with six more years of Harry Reid in the role of majority leader (because you’re not taking back the senate this time around). Thanks a lot, dumbasses! I was perfectly willing to lose that seat to get a real leader in the senate.

And speaking of dumbasses, there is no shortage of them in the Obama administration. Let’s review;

  • Robert Gibbs (white house press secretary) went off on “the professional left” (of which I’m not a member because you people are too damned cheap to donate!), stating that they wouldn’t be happy until “…we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the pentagon”.
  • After the Arkansas primary when Blanche Lincoln (the corporatist incumbent) barely squeezed out a victory against her more liberal, union backed opponent (Bill Halter), an unnamed (it was obviously Rahm) white house source said, “Organized labor just flushed $10M down the toilet”.
  • Earlier this year, Rahm Emanuel referred to liberal activists as “fucking retarded”.

I think we’re all pretty clear on how this administration feels about liberals. Personally, I would like to let the geniuses at the white house know that crapping on your base is no way to win a midterm election. In fact, it’s a great way to ensure that your candidate is going to have to whore himself out to corporate America with the enthusiasm of a rent boy, to make up for the money that your base won’t be contributing to him in the next presidential election. Here’s a news flash for the brilliant Rahm Emanuel; nothing slams my wallet shut tighter than being referred to as a retard.

Rahm and Gibbsy are counting on the notion that liberals have nowhere to go, so we have to show up for them. They think that republicans are so distasteful to us, that we’re just going to suck it up and support any trash they serve up. Wow, your parents must be so proud of you, what with you sucking less than the other guy. Way to lead democrats, way to lead!

Guess what? I’m not going to show up for you. I’m not going to donate to any DNC candidates, and I’m not going to vote for any DNC candidates. And if that means ceding seats to republicans, then sobeit. If losing control to republicans again is what needs to happen in order for democrats to reassess their policy positions, then that’s what’s going to happen. I have no emotional attachment to the democratic party, so I have absolutely no preference for democrats fucking me over republicans fucking me. If your platform doesn’t line up with mine, then I’m outta here! Republicans allowed their party to turn into a giant crapfest because they chose to stand by their man like battered wives, taking back their abusive husbands in perpetuity. I’m not planning on making that same mistake. I refuse to aid and abet the devolution of my party by buying into the false narrative that I have no other choice.

I can choose to sit back and let you get your asses handed to you. And I will, because that’s preferable to letting democrats hand my ass to me with my vote and with my money.

So congrats to democrats on saving the Harry Reid seat that should have been lost to a republican. And by “saving”, I mean sitting back while dipshit republicans let an unelectable whack job like Sharon Angle win the primary.

And congrats to republicans for winning the senatorial seat in Arkansas. And by “winning” I mean, sitting back while dumbass democrats poured a shitload of money to ensure that Blanche Lincoln (who no progressive will come out to vote for) won the primary.

I have to hand it to the “strategists” for both the democratic and republican re-election committees. Waiting for your opponent to be dumber than you are is a most innovative strategy that I could never conceived of.

Share

Steven Slater

by

No, I’m not going all pop culture on you. Don’t worry, Lindsay Lohan posts will not be forthcoming.

I’m fascinated with how quickly Mr. Slater has become a national hero.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, let me give you the background. Mr. Slater was a flight attendant with JetBlue. He snapped a few days ago when a passenger was abusive toward him, after he asked her to follow FAA rules and remain in her seat until the plane stopped moving. The passenger refused to apologize for her rude behavior, so Mr. Slater did what none of us would do – he took to the PA system on the plane to curse her out, bid farewell to a 28 year long career in the airline industry, grabbed a couple of beers from the galley, deployed the emergency exit slide, and slid off the plane.

I say that none of us would do this because it wouldn’t occur to most of us. If it did occur to us, it would probably end at being a lovely, reoccurring revenge fantasy.

But what he did isn’t the interesting part to me. The interesting part is that he’s become a national hero. I’ve seen at least three Facebook groups dedicated to lionizing him. Every news story I’ve seen is full of praise for Mr. Slater. Everyone seems to be on his side. This is particularly interesting to me since, the rude public that he pushed back on is us! Let’s be honest here, we’ve all taken out a little aggression on a flight attendant or TSA officer for making us abide by some stupid arbitrary rule, haven’t we? So why are we all jumping on the “Steve Slater is a hero” bandwagon when we’re essentially the public that put him over the edge?

He’s a hero because he’s one of “us” in the battle of “us versus them”. He’s every working man, standing up against a shitty job that doesn’t pay enough to compensate for the grief that comes with that job. We’re collectively angry at corporate America for the situation that we find ourselves in. We viscerally know that our precarious job security, plummeting home value, and diminishing 401ks lay squarely on the shoulder of big business.

We’re all pro-Steve Slater because we’re as anti-corporate as we’ve ever been.

It’s just interesting to me that when politics is taken out of the equation, Americans generally agree on most issues. To be pro-Steve Slater is to be pro-labor and yet, we’ve been led to believe that Americans aren’t pro-labor because unions are evil.

Let me go off on a union tangent for a moment. 8% of American workers today are union members. Unions get their “strength” from union dues. They’re what fuel union lobbying efforts. Let’s think about this for a minute. 8% of blue collar Americans are union members. So 8% of Americans are paying some percentage of their salaries in union dues which, in turn pay for union activities (of which lobbying is a small part). Are we to believe that unions have more power than corporate interests? Really? HOW? I have yet to hear someone explain how that math creates an equation in which unions are the big, powerful interest group that has ruined everything.

But I digress. Back to Steve. He’s our hero because he stood up to “the man” in a way that most of us want to. And he doesn’t (didn’t) even work for a a company that is generally regarded as evil! He works (worked) for a company that is generally well regarded and yet, we’re elated that he stood up for himself. We’re elated because we’re vicariously standing up for ourselves through him.

Maybe we need to stop framing our issues in political terms, and start talking about what we want to change and how we want to change it.

This artificial right/left divide that has been created is designed to keep us fighting amongst ourselves so that we don’t pay attention to who is doing evil unto us. We’re told to hate the Mexicans, the gays, Obama, black racists, and everyone that isn’t like us. And a certain segment of America is happy to jump on board because they’re angry about the situation they find themselves in, and are happy to hate whomever they’re told to hate. Figuring out who’s responsible takes more work than following Glenn Beck’s chalk board scribblings.

But those people aren’t really angry at the gays, the Mexicans, the blacks, or Obama. They’re angry at the same people that those of us that pay attention are angry at.

The lionization of Steve Slater proves that.

We need to learn from this and reframe the debate and close the false divide that has been created to divert us from the real issues.

Share

What’s In It For You?

by

This is a question that I often have for conservatives that are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-fiscal responsibility, and pro-America, that insist on voting a straight republican ticket, ALWAYS.

I talk to republicans all the time that claim to be for gay equality because they have lots of gay friends. They purport to have no desire to ban gay marriage and yet, they vote a straight republican ticket every opportunity they get. WTF? You want your gay friends to have equal rights, and yet every time you vote, you create a road block to equality for the gay community. What is that, collateral damage? And what are you getting in exchange for creating that collateral damage? Does your conscience speak up at all when you vote? Or does your concern for the gay community end at having to do anything demonstrable? What’s in it for you?

And you pro-choice republican-voting women. Seriously, WTF? If your party had its way, you would be forced to carry your rapists child. Or worse yet, your daughter would. More collateral damage? And again, I have to ask, what’s in it for you? What are you getting from your vote that trumps the importance of having the ability to exercise control over your own body?

But the asshats I love the most are the patriots that always vote republican. Last week, we watched republicans vote down health care for 9/11 responders. What the fuck are you getting in return for sacrificing a group of people that selflessly helped other people escape certain death on 9/11? Honestly, you people piss me off the most. What’s in it for you that makes this excusable?

I get that you may not to vote for democrats because you find them too distasteful to even consider debasing yourself with. Trust me, in many cases, I’m right there with you.

But why aren’t you out there fighting to change what’s unacceptable to you about your party? Where was the outrage from the right over the 9/11 responders’ health care bill? Seriously, where the fuck were you? I hear the whackadoodles in the republican party all the time. They’re vocal and they’re active. Two of them managed to win republican primaries for US senate seats (and many more currently serve as senators and congressmen). But where the fuck are the non-crazy republicans? I talk to pro-choice republicans all the time, which tells me they’re not all that rare. Why aren’t they speaking up within their party? Why isn’t anyone in the party demanding actual, demonstrable fiscal responsibility? Your last three presidents have jacked up the deficit to dizzying heights compared to their democratic counterparts. Why is this acceptable to you? What’s in it for you?

Why are you holding your nose and supporting a party that collectively (and consistently) supports policies that you claim not to support? What’s in it for you?

There are many of us on the left, busting our asses to keep Obama in line with his promises. We’re busting our asses (and wallets) to support primary challengers against people like Blanche Lincoln, who don’t support our party platform.

Why aren’t you doing the same? Why have you let the nutbags take over your party? And more importantly, why do you keep voting for this?

What’s in it for you?


Share
No Notify!