Listen to This: The Race To Ban Abortion
3 years ago
Friday, November 4, 2011
Muffingate, or how to shoot yourself in the foot
Large organizations, be they private or public are wasteful. I know this because I work for a large Fortune 500 company, and choke every day on the amount of bureaucracy I and my coworkers have to deal with. We all see waste in government as well. A recent flare up over government waste involved a report issued by the Justice Department where they stated that $4500 was spent on 250 muffins, or $16 per muffin at a conference at the Capitol Hilton. Naturally this set the Right Wingers off on a crazy diatribe about how wasteful the government is. Of course, the $16 muffins turned out to be false. $4500 was spent at the conference, but it was spent on the event space and refreshments but the original invoice just listed the total spend and the muffins. So no $16 muffins. But then the Justice Dept does an audit on this to dispel any myths about government waste and....wait for it: I present to you a 150 page audit report that defines exactly what was spent. 150 pages. WAY TO GO!!! So instead of just saying 'no we bought more than just muffins.' we get a huge report that no one reads except to get a good laugh at how dumb things can get. Here's the report. Now we DO have proof of government waste. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not against audits. It's good to check things. But instead of wasting how many thousands of dollars paying people to write a report to cover your ass, why not TRAIN your people on how to do proper inventory and invoicing? Waste is going to happen. It's human nature. But let's try to learn from it so that it won't happen again.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Save the Job Creators!
It's a classic quote from Conservatives: Too many people rely on the government. Of course, with 9.1% unemployment, people are hurting. Heck, if my wife's company doesn't find work soon, she will probably lose her job in 6 months and then be on unemployment while she searches for a job. Is that too much reliance on the government? Are you going to call me and my wife LAZY for not finding work? We were certainly dumb to buy a house in 2005, but we are current on our mortgage. If we were to walk away from that, we would be ostracized as layabouts. (Don't mention how the banks that routinely walk away from bad investments are the ones calling us lazy)
People who are protesting Wall Street are protesting the status quo, which means if you are middle class or poor, you will rack up debt just to survive and you still won't get ahead. These folks are complaining about why these bankers give them CRAP for complaining about having debt. Meanwhile these same bankers were given free reign to run around and bet OUR MONEY on anything they wanted, and in 10 years racked up a TON of leverage (debt) and nearly wiped out our economy and were BAILED OUT by US. But it's bad if we taxpayers complain about how these jerks messed everything up. We bailed them out, they not only survive, but THRIVE to the tune of 2 trillion in bonuses since 2008, yet when these protesters call foul, they are demonized as degenerate hippies.
Income inequality is a huge problem in this country. I'm going to quote an Mark Blythe, an economist that I follow:
"There’s a crisis of income growth in this country that’s papered over by credit. That’s why there’s $56-billion in student loan debt. That’s why there’s $14-trillion in mortgage debt. That’s why there’s more than $1-trillion in home equity lines of credit outstanding. Because people have been borrowing against an uncertain future to finance an ever more expensive present. At the same time income has stagnated. Let’s be clear. When you adjust wages for prices, when you look at the real wage, it’s stagnant for 40 percent of the population; and for the next 20 percent of the population it’s barely edged up over 25 years. Meanwhile the top one percent has increased its share from the late 1970s, from 9 percent of national income to 24 percent just now. You can’t say these things are not causally related… Economically, inequality is a bad thing. You don’t even need to make a moral argument. You don’t have to mention the word justice once. More equal societies grow faster."
Our country is hurting right now, but the pain is not being shared equally. The pain was created by everyone, but the burden is not being carried equally. That is why people are protesting. They want fairness. Look at how well this country did in the 1990's, and that is when the highest tax rate was 39.5%. But if we go to that rate today, then it is Socialism! Give me a brake. The highest tax rate under Ronald Reagan was 70%. Yet he is touted as a model Republican. I don't think that Reagan would be a viable nominee in today's GOP field. These protests we are seeing are related to the Arab spring and the riots in London. People are seeing that the game is rigged, and that their voice is muffled politically. So the only option that is left is to take to the streets. I'm not saying that the country should go the way of Sweden. Some inequality is good, because some people work harder than others and should be rewarded for that. But we do believe in fairness in this country, and fairness is NOT what is going on on Wall Street, where the risks have been socialized (the bailouts) but the profits have been privitized (the bonuses). This also extends to a lot of the Fortune 500 CEOs, Boards, and executives as well. Look at HP. They just fired their last CEO who was on the job for 11 months, but he still left with a severance of millions of dollars after taking the stock and driving it into the ground. What is that? That's not capitalism.
I do not buy for one instant the idea that Social Security is going bust. It's simply not true. It needs a little bit of help, but even after payroll taxes are unable to match benefits 1-1 in 2035 it will still pay out 70% of benefits. To fix that, just raise the cap on payroll taxes from the current limit of $106,000. The real problem is healthcare costs. Note that I said healthcare and not Medicare. Medicare is expensive because healthcare in this country is ridiculously expensive. We are riding a healthcare expense bubble that is going to pop and end very badly unless we get these costs under control. To do that, we have to exact pain on an industry that is starting to run amok. And in doing so we will exact some pain on ourselves but we will end this madness. Why is healthcare so expensive? Because of competition Hospitals need to compete with each other, so they offer more services. More services are expensive. But because of the way we deal paying for our healthcare in this country, we tend to not worry about prices.
Hearing GOP leaders whine about regulations is ridiculous. Regulations just decide who pays them. The costs are already there. Ideally, regulations make those responsible deal with those costs. Of course you can go overboard, but this wholesale movement to repeal regulation is just dumb and is what helped get us into this bind in the first place.
I also find it sad that the current GOP orthodoxy is that raising taxes on the rich is a terrible thing and is the equivalent of a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor yet giving the rich tax cuts is a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and that is ok. Poll after poll says that most Americans want to raise taxes on the rich, even most Republican voters agree with this.
People who are protesting Wall Street are protesting the status quo, which means if you are middle class or poor, you will rack up debt just to survive and you still won't get ahead. These folks are complaining about why these bankers give them CRAP for complaining about having debt. Meanwhile these same bankers were given free reign to run around and bet OUR MONEY on anything they wanted, and in 10 years racked up a TON of leverage (debt) and nearly wiped out our economy and were BAILED OUT by US. But it's bad if we taxpayers complain about how these jerks messed everything up. We bailed them out, they not only survive, but THRIVE to the tune of 2 trillion in bonuses since 2008, yet when these protesters call foul, they are demonized as degenerate hippies.
Income inequality is a huge problem in this country. I'm going to quote an Mark Blythe, an economist that I follow:
"There’s a crisis of income growth in this country that’s papered over by credit. That’s why there’s $56-billion in student loan debt. That’s why there’s $14-trillion in mortgage debt. That’s why there’s more than $1-trillion in home equity lines of credit outstanding. Because people have been borrowing against an uncertain future to finance an ever more expensive present. At the same time income has stagnated. Let’s be clear. When you adjust wages for prices, when you look at the real wage, it’s stagnant for 40 percent of the population; and for the next 20 percent of the population it’s barely edged up over 25 years. Meanwhile the top one percent has increased its share from the late 1970s, from 9 percent of national income to 24 percent just now. You can’t say these things are not causally related… Economically, inequality is a bad thing. You don’t even need to make a moral argument. You don’t have to mention the word justice once. More equal societies grow faster."
Our country is hurting right now, but the pain is not being shared equally. The pain was created by everyone, but the burden is not being carried equally. That is why people are protesting. They want fairness. Look at how well this country did in the 1990's, and that is when the highest tax rate was 39.5%. But if we go to that rate today, then it is Socialism! Give me a brake. The highest tax rate under Ronald Reagan was 70%. Yet he is touted as a model Republican. I don't think that Reagan would be a viable nominee in today's GOP field. These protests we are seeing are related to the Arab spring and the riots in London. People are seeing that the game is rigged, and that their voice is muffled politically. So the only option that is left is to take to the streets. I'm not saying that the country should go the way of Sweden. Some inequality is good, because some people work harder than others and should be rewarded for that. But we do believe in fairness in this country, and fairness is NOT what is going on on Wall Street, where the risks have been socialized (the bailouts) but the profits have been privitized (the bonuses). This also extends to a lot of the Fortune 500 CEOs, Boards, and executives as well. Look at HP. They just fired their last CEO who was on the job for 11 months, but he still left with a severance of millions of dollars after taking the stock and driving it into the ground. What is that? That's not capitalism.
I do not buy for one instant the idea that Social Security is going bust. It's simply not true. It needs a little bit of help, but even after payroll taxes are unable to match benefits 1-1 in 2035 it will still pay out 70% of benefits. To fix that, just raise the cap on payroll taxes from the current limit of $106,000. The real problem is healthcare costs. Note that I said healthcare and not Medicare. Medicare is expensive because healthcare in this country is ridiculously expensive. We are riding a healthcare expense bubble that is going to pop and end very badly unless we get these costs under control. To do that, we have to exact pain on an industry that is starting to run amok. And in doing so we will exact some pain on ourselves but we will end this madness. Why is healthcare so expensive? Because of competition Hospitals need to compete with each other, so they offer more services. More services are expensive. But because of the way we deal paying for our healthcare in this country, we tend to not worry about prices.
Hearing GOP leaders whine about regulations is ridiculous. Regulations just decide who pays them. The costs are already there. Ideally, regulations make those responsible deal with those costs. Of course you can go overboard, but this wholesale movement to repeal regulation is just dumb and is what helped get us into this bind in the first place.
I also find it sad that the current GOP orthodoxy is that raising taxes on the rich is a terrible thing and is the equivalent of a huge transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor yet giving the rich tax cuts is a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and that is ok. Poll after poll says that most Americans want to raise taxes on the rich, even most Republican voters agree with this.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
So the protests that started on Wall Street are still going and are going national. This is good. Are these folks the Tea Party equivalent of the Left? I'm having a hard time thinking so. There really isn't much difference between the left and right. Both sides are bought and paid for (left with super strong unions and the right with super strong corporations, with each side sharing the banks. This is simplistic, I know).So what is this movement all about? I'm not sure. Hopefully it can coalesce into something with political clout, cuz sign me up! Let's get money out of politics (Money is NOT Free Speech), let's break up the banks, let's turn off our TVs and get some good discourse going here.
Paul Krugman is saying that these protests are scaring the crud out of the wealthy elites because the elites know how gamed the system is.
Robert Reich is saying that Democrats are going to have a hard time joining with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
While I agree that some of the folks in this movement are a bit misguided, this is no different from those in the Tea Party who demand that the government keep its hands off of Medicare. The 'We are 99%' sub movement is also gaining ground and also has some misguided souls on its tumblr feed. That's ok. All this movement really wants is to bring attention that the current status quo is not sustainable nor inclusive, and the only way to get attention is to exercise a constitutional right and take to the streets. It does not help this movement if it becomes violent, however. If the cops keep aggressively trying to suppress supporters or onlookers, then things will get ugly. (Imagine the potential violence if those over 55 suddenly realize their benefits could be cut. The Horror!!)
A lot of right-wing commentators are saying how OWS is doing things wrong and they should do things differently, but as Yves Smith notes on her blog, the movement continues to spread with favorable media coverage.
Some criticism is being made towards the protectors use of corporate goods. Not all corps are bad, but these critics don't seem to get that and are still stuck in the us vs. them mentality.
And on a sad note, R.I.P. Steve Jobs. You will be missed.
Paul Krugman is saying that these protests are scaring the crud out of the wealthy elites because the elites know how gamed the system is.
Robert Reich is saying that Democrats are going to have a hard time joining with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
While I agree that some of the folks in this movement are a bit misguided, this is no different from those in the Tea Party who demand that the government keep its hands off of Medicare. The 'We are 99%' sub movement is also gaining ground and also has some misguided souls on its tumblr feed. That's ok. All this movement really wants is to bring attention that the current status quo is not sustainable nor inclusive, and the only way to get attention is to exercise a constitutional right and take to the streets. It does not help this movement if it becomes violent, however. If the cops keep aggressively trying to suppress supporters or onlookers, then things will get ugly. (Imagine the potential violence if those over 55 suddenly realize their benefits could be cut. The Horror!!)
A lot of right-wing commentators are saying how OWS is doing things wrong and they should do things differently, but as Yves Smith notes on her blog, the movement continues to spread with favorable media coverage.
Some criticism is being made towards the protectors use of corporate goods. Not all corps are bad, but these critics don't seem to get that and are still stuck in the us vs. them mentality.
And on a sad note, R.I.P. Steve Jobs. You will be missed.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
A little disappointment with The Daily Show
Jon Stewart had a favorite guest on his show Wednesday: Bill O'Reilly. This is just a day or two after Stewart showed a clip of O'Reilly saying that if his taxes increase to 50%, he might just quit. So Stewart asked him about this and some other things in the two parts of his interview below:
My breakdown of the interview:
So of course O'Reilly fesses up to the fact that he won't quit even if that happens. Of course not. No rich person would. Yet they say they might, and this makes people believe them. Now, I never believed that when I saw the clip, yet folks use that very idea to convince people that they could quit or move away in an effort to keep taxes low. It's BS and the rich know it. The non-rich think "Well, rich people must be smart or they wouldn't be rich, so what they are saying must be true." It's not. Jon did a decent job of trying to tear his argument down here. Bill was really on his game, and much faster than Jon was with quips.
O'Reilly's Solyndra comment was valid, and I though Jon did a decent job of putting the $500 million loan Solyndra got into the correct context. But then Jon should have mentioned all the WASTE that goes into Defense spending. That would have put O'Reilly on the defensive with his own talking point about having the government spend money efficiently. I can't argue against what O'Reilly is talking about when he says he wants to see the government spend money efficiently. How can you? But most politicians DON'T want to see efficiency because their donors will make less money. That's where I take issue with the Right and their ideas of efficiency. Efficiency means CUTS. O'Reilly even brings this up later in the interview, and I think that Stewart rightly puts it into the correct context again.
So then O'Reilly mentions the $16 muffin story. This is complete bunk. ABC news debunked this story here. It's too bad, because Stewart could have nailed him with this one. Disappointed with Stewart. He tried to save face by mentioning the bailouts, but the point was already won by O'Reilly. Stewart tries to paint O'Reilly into the box that most Republicans put themselves into by saying that all regulation is bad and business should be unfettered, but O'Reilly rightly denies that and mentions the efficiency comment again.
End of interview part 1. Part 2:
O'Reilly admits that he's a Democrat in terms of Financial regulation. Great. His flat tax wouldn't work, but the VAT (consumption tax) is awesome and we should do that. (Don't mention to him that is what most of Europe (socialists!!) does). O'Reilly's whine about all of the taxes is dumb. It's not the FEDERAL government's fault that his property, state, sales, etc are so high. Jon then brings up the good point about how little the top 1% pay in income taxes. O'Reilly's attempt to hide behind the other taxes he has to pay is lame, because EVERYONE else is paying those taxes too. Rich people pay income taxes because they have all the money.
O'Reilly's 10% across the board cuts is...nuts. A LOT of spending can be cut, but not across the board. Some government programs work a lot better than others.
Stewart should have brought up the class warfare comments that are all over Fox news, then asked him if Eisenhower is a socialist for having a 90% tax on the wealthy after WWII. It's a shame, as I would have enjoyed hearing O'Reilly's comments on the subject. Stewart's constant giggling was a little irritating, and something I wish he did less of that.
Oh well. Overall, a good interview even with a mildly disappointing performance by Stewart. I think O'Reilly has reasonable views, but he is so bombastic that I just can't be a fan.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
My breakdown of the interview:
So of course O'Reilly fesses up to the fact that he won't quit even if that happens. Of course not. No rich person would. Yet they say they might, and this makes people believe them. Now, I never believed that when I saw the clip, yet folks use that very idea to convince people that they could quit or move away in an effort to keep taxes low. It's BS and the rich know it. The non-rich think "Well, rich people must be smart or they wouldn't be rich, so what they are saying must be true." It's not. Jon did a decent job of trying to tear his argument down here. Bill was really on his game, and much faster than Jon was with quips.
O'Reilly's Solyndra comment was valid, and I though Jon did a decent job of putting the $500 million loan Solyndra got into the correct context. But then Jon should have mentioned all the WASTE that goes into Defense spending. That would have put O'Reilly on the defensive with his own talking point about having the government spend money efficiently. I can't argue against what O'Reilly is talking about when he says he wants to see the government spend money efficiently. How can you? But most politicians DON'T want to see efficiency because their donors will make less money. That's where I take issue with the Right and their ideas of efficiency. Efficiency means CUTS. O'Reilly even brings this up later in the interview, and I think that Stewart rightly puts it into the correct context again.
So then O'Reilly mentions the $16 muffin story. This is complete bunk. ABC news debunked this story here. It's too bad, because Stewart could have nailed him with this one. Disappointed with Stewart. He tried to save face by mentioning the bailouts, but the point was already won by O'Reilly. Stewart tries to paint O'Reilly into the box that most Republicans put themselves into by saying that all regulation is bad and business should be unfettered, but O'Reilly rightly denies that and mentions the efficiency comment again.
End of interview part 1. Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Bill O'Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
O'Reilly admits that he's a Democrat in terms of Financial regulation. Great. His flat tax wouldn't work, but the VAT (consumption tax) is awesome and we should do that. (Don't mention to him that is what most of Europe (socialists!!) does). O'Reilly's whine about all of the taxes is dumb. It's not the FEDERAL government's fault that his property, state, sales, etc are so high. Jon then brings up the good point about how little the top 1% pay in income taxes. O'Reilly's attempt to hide behind the other taxes he has to pay is lame, because EVERYONE else is paying those taxes too. Rich people pay income taxes because they have all the money.
O'Reilly's 10% across the board cuts is...nuts. A LOT of spending can be cut, but not across the board. Some government programs work a lot better than others.
Stewart should have brought up the class warfare comments that are all over Fox news, then asked him if Eisenhower is a socialist for having a 90% tax on the wealthy after WWII. It's a shame, as I would have enjoyed hearing O'Reilly's comments on the subject. Stewart's constant giggling was a little irritating, and something I wish he did less of that.
Oh well. Overall, a good interview even with a mildly disappointing performance by Stewart. I think O'Reilly has reasonable views, but he is so bombastic that I just can't be a fan.
Equality
Why do very wealthy people get indignant when someone points out to them how crazy their wealth is (5 homes, private jets, yachts, etc) then these same folks think that it is just fine to point out how 'crazy' it is for low income people to call themselves poor when they own a fridge or a dish washer.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
When things are going bad
I'm worried about the future. I'm worried that my kids will live in a world that is much worse than it is now. We can all see the signs. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, the world is heating up. Prices are going up while wages stay stagnant. I don't know what to do about it. A lot of Baby Boomers don't seem to get this. It's a crying shame, really. Here we have one of the most privileged generations to ever walk the earth, and they are convinced that the best way forward is to tear everything down (except those things that benefit them directly). I know I'm doing my share of bashing the Boomers, but it's hard not to.
Here is one Boomer who gets it:
HUGE government investment in schools, roads, and other infrastructure were done while the Boomers were growing up. Never has the world seen such expansion and prosperity among so many. But that was mostly low-hanging fruit. After the Boomers came up through that system, they looked at how well their parents were doing and wanted a piece of that action. But somehow it has become acceptable in the past 30 years that selfishness leads to prosperity for all. That is so wrong. Yet the war on those who are less fortunate is gaining steam in its death throes. Jon Stewart points this out well:
And the second part of the segment here:
For a look an how bad income inequality is in this country, look at what Business Insider put together.
Last week, the President made a good speech. But why NOW?? Why wasn't he saying this 2 YEARS AGO!!! Like Jon Stewart said in last night's Daily Show, he's a TRANSFORMER!! "
We will only see things get better when we learn that selfishness is not the way forward.
Here is one Boomer who gets it:
HUGE government investment in schools, roads, and other infrastructure were done while the Boomers were growing up. Never has the world seen such expansion and prosperity among so many. But that was mostly low-hanging fruit. After the Boomers came up through that system, they looked at how well their parents were doing and wanted a piece of that action. But somehow it has become acceptable in the past 30 years that selfishness leads to prosperity for all. That is so wrong. Yet the war on those who are less fortunate is gaining steam in its death throes. Jon Stewart points this out well:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives | ||||
| ||||
And the second part of the segment here:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over | ||||
| ||||
For a look an how bad income inequality is in this country, look at what Business Insider put together.
Last week, the President made a good speech. But why NOW?? Why wasn't he saying this 2 YEARS AGO!!! Like Jon Stewart said in last night's Daily Show, he's a TRANSFORMER!! "
Americans must give up the pipe dream that an inspirational leader can govern successfully, and embrace an America whose greatest resource is campaign-driven drivel."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Transformer | ||||
| ||||
We will only see things get better when we learn that selfishness is not the way forward.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Who likes Maternity leave?
Megyn Kelly was against Maternity Leave before she was for it. Thank you, Daily Show!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Lactate Intolerance | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)