it's my turn to talk, George Oeser

Political translation

2012-02-13T15:16:00.000-06:00

If you read any political commentary, if you follow the news at all, if you pay any attention to the running of our country, you are aware that our nation is extremely divided, possibly more so than at any time since the Civil War. The conversations between liberals and conservatives, when they happen at all, are about as useful as having someone who only speaks English trying to carry on a conversation with someone who only speaks Chinese. Over time the English and Chinese speaker could find ways to communicate, but unless forced to they would probably get so frustrated that they would just give up before that happened. This is where we are in the US right now. Conservatives and liberals speak different languages even though they are using the same words. If our nation is to effectively move forward we have to find a way to understand each other. Well let me start trying right now.

I want to take one issue that there seems to be some agreement on and see if we can build from there. The issue I think we should start with is tax policy.

National polls are now showing pretty strong agreement that we need to change our tax policy. People on the right and left both seem to agree that we need to make our tax system more fair. The question is, what is "fair"?

Those of us on the left think it is unfair that a few individuals are multi-billionaires and control so much of our economy while others are working but still having a hard time keeping their families housed and fed. We look at fairness as a matter of proportion. We don't mind that some have more than others, but to us it seems unfair that some have more than they can ever use while others have nothing.

On the right fairness has a different meaning. If there is a set of rules that we all have to follow, and we all follow them then fairness will be the outcome. If you work hard and follow the rules you will succeed and prosper, this is fair. If you don't work hard or try to cheat the system you won't succeed and should have to deal with the ramifications of your decisions. This also seems fair. Income inequality is not a problem to be fixed by rigging the system, it is a problem to be fixed by having individuals realize that they are responsible for their prosperity or lack there of.

We all want our tax system to be fair but we have two different definitions of fairness. Lets see if I can't translate my liberal beliefs on taxation into a language that speaks to my conservative friends.

When we talk about raising taxes on the wealthy the question always comes up, is that fair? Well no, it isn't. What it costs you to be part of our system shouldn't be decided by how much you earn. If a millionaire and a school janitor both walk into McDonalds and each purchase a Big Mac they will both pay the same price. That is unmistakably fair. SO why should the millionaire have to pay a higher tax rate? Well think about it this way, if the janitor buys a Big Mac, but the millionaire travels further down the street to a restaurant where he enjoys a porterhouse steak and escargot, shouldn't the millionaire pay more for his meal?

What we pay shouldn't be based on what we make, it should be based on what we receive. Look at it this way, almost all of us use the roads in our country and almost all of us pay taxes for the construction and maintenance of these roads. Our janitor friend uses the roads to travel back and forth to work, if he is lucky he might be able to use the roads every few years to take his family on vacation, and of course he uses the roads to go back and forth to places like McDonalds and the grocery store. Our roads make his life better and easier, he receives direct and indirect benefits from our roads (there are things to buy at the grocery store because trucks used the roads to bring the items to the store). Since he receives benefits from the roads it is only fair that he helps pay for the roads, but what about our millionaire friend? It is easy for most of us to see the benefits our janitor friend receives from using our roads, are the benefits any different for the millionaire?

Let's imagine our millionaire. He studied hard in high school and was able to get into a really good university. He left the university and worked hard at a company and moved up through the ranks. With his official education and the continuing learning he did in his work he felt that he was ready, took out some of his savings, got a loan, and opened his own business. His business was very successful and grew to the point that he had a large number of employees and a large number of stores selling his products. So how does this relate to roads?

Without our roads our millionaire friend wouldn't be able to easily get his products to the stores that sell them. Without our roads our millionaire's employees wouldn't be able to easily get to work. Without our roads there would be no place to put the billboards he advertises on and he would have to increase his ad budget to cover TV commercials. Without our roads the people buying his products wouldn't be able to easily get to the store to buy his products. Oh yeah, our millionaire also uses the roads to get himself to work, to the grocery store, and to take his family on vacation.

It is obvious that our millionaire is getting a steak dinner out of our roads while our janitor friend is only getting a Big Mac. What we pay shouldn't be determined by what we make, but by what we get. Our millionaire also benefits from the public school education most, if not all, of his employees received. He also benefits from government funded research which allows him to improve his products. Our millionaire receives more from our collective tax dollars than our janitor, so shouldn't he pay more?

Of course there are those that find themselves supported by our social safety nets who are receiving more than the average person. In theory they should pay more as well, sadly that would be like trying to get blood out of a turnip. They can't pay what they don't have. This is an unfortunate complication, but we have to play the cards our society was dealt.

So should we raise tax rates on the wealthy? Probably. We must first look and see if they are paying a price relative to the value they are receiving when compared to the other tax payers across our nation. We might also want to look at why we tax wealthy individuals who don't really work for their money at a lower rate than those who put in a lot of long hours to be successful (think of people like Paris Hilton, what is it she does for her money? And the tax rates that some wealthy individuals pay on income generated for them by hedge fund managers and investment bankers, others are doing all the work, they just reap the benefits and then get taxed at a lower rate for it). We can fairly raise taxes on the wealthy and if we can we probably should. Have you seen our national debt lately?

Guns don't kill people, being uncompromising kills people.

2012-02-11T15:08:00.000-06:00

Saw a post on facebook today from a friend of mine who is a gun owner and who supports gun rights. It was a take on the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" adage that cleverly brought blame against forks for making people fat and blames pencils for misspelling words. It was pretty funny and effective. You see it really got me thinking about a few things.

First off I am not a proponent of gun control. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution states;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This has been interpreted to mean a few different things, (does the right to bear arms only apply to the need to defend the country? does the "shall not be infringed" part mean I can have any type of arms anywhere?) but it seems safe to assume that it is perfectly legal to own a gun in the US of A. That is of course where it stops being safe to assume anything.

Gun rights groups take a hard stance on gun ownership and read the 2nd amendment to mean that gun ownership is a right that should exist without restriction. Well they kind of take that stance. People like myself who engage in a lot of political discussions tend to wind up talking about the same issues over and over again with different individuals and so we build up an arsenal (pun intended) of facts and arguments that we can use whenever the need arises. On the gun control issue I just like to keep the debate centered on facts and so when someone tells me that owning a gun makes you safer I like to bring up studies showing that owning a gun actually increases your chnces of getting shot . Recently I brought this up in a discussion and my friend on the other side questioned me to see if this increased chance of getting shot involved those people who illegally own guns. This question struck me as strange. You see if you don't support gun control laws in any form or fashion how is it that you could think a gun could be owned illegally? Even staunch gun rights activists seem to, at least in the back of their minds, support some form of gun control. This is where the debate breaks down. Fearing the dangers of a slippery slope, gun rights activists feel the need to publicly claim that no substantive limits should be placed on gun ownership while at the same time knowing that there have to be at least a few common sense rules concerning the issue. They believe that if you give the gun control supporters and inch they will take a mile, and they do have a point. There are a few individuals who would like to make all firearms illegal, but to be honest their numbers are very small. We like our guns in this country and very few people want to get rid of them all together. So can we find some balance in this issue?

Lets look at limits we put on other legal activities for examples. I think we can draw a lot of parallels between driving a car and owning a gun. Driving a car is perfectly legal, but you have to be at least 16 years old, you have to pass a test showing that you can safely operate a car, you have to carry insurance, in many states you have to show that the car you are driving meets minimum safety requirements, there are greater requirements you have to meet to drive vehicles of a certain size, and if you break specific laws your driver's license can be taken away. Why can't we apply similar rules to gun ownership?

Before you could buy a gun you would have to simply show that you meet the minimum age requirement, pass a criminal records check, show that you understand how to safely operate the firearm, prove that you have insurance to cover any accidental injuries caused by your gun or guns, and acknowledge that breaking certain laws will result in your gun ownership rights being taken away. Groups like the NRA are big advocates for training people how to correctly fire and maintain their guns, this would simply mandate what groups of this sort have recommended for years. It would allow for easier, safer, and freer gun ownership while helping to protect us from those who shouldn't own a gun in the first place. One license would allow you to purchase any weapon within a certain class of guns and if you wanted to buy something in a different class you would simply go in and show that you meet the training requirements and have that class added to your license. Simple, safe, and it doesn't step on anyone's toes.

But some in the gun rights world will tell you that even common sense regulations of this type are too extreme. They will borrow from their arsenal of facts and arguments and remind you that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well they are right, but I would also want to remind them that cars don't kill people, people kill people and yet we still have regulations concerning owning and driving a car to help protect all of us. If they want to continue with their line of reasoning then they should carry it out to its logical conclusion, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. So do they support letting their neighbor buy a nuclear warhead from Pakistan and setting up a missile silo in their back yard? Why not? Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.

Missouri, Montana, Colorado, and the Tea Party.

2012-02-08T16:08:00.000-06:00

Last night was interesting to say the least. Pundits all over the internet and the airwaves are discussing the ramifications of last night's primaries and how they will effect the selection of the republican nominee. Well let me join in and do the same thing.

Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich have all been working hard to become the Tea Party candidate in this set of primaries, I think we found out who won that contest last night. Gingrich and Paul both have problems when it comes to speaking to the evangelical side of many Tea Party members. Paul is not overtly evangelical and seems to base most of his policy ideas on a populist form of libertarianism. This is not a bad thing, it does appeal to many Tea Party members, but it has considerably less appeal among more traditional Republicans and is even less of a draw to the general electorate. Gingrich combines a more traditionally conservative outlook on economics with strong words about faith and family. However Gingrich's past has caused many evangelicals to doubt the veracity of his faith credentials and more traditional Republicans are worried about Gingrich's history of uneven and spontaneously combustible governance. This leaves Santorum.

Rick Santorum has all the street cred any candidate could ever need to claim the title of "culture warrior" and he wears this title as a badge of honor. His fiscal policies are also conservative enough to appeal to traditional Republicans while being acceptable to Tea Party members. He seems to have it all and, as we saw last night, his appeal has now been noticed by voters in 4 states, which if we are counting states, puts him ahead of Mitt Romney in this race. Romney however still has one advantage that is keeping him going in this fight, presumed electabilty in the general election.

Santorum's evangelical gravitas, which is serving him very well in the primaries, is seen as very worrisome in a general election. Will independent voters support someone who believes our nation should be run based as much on the Bible as it is on our Constitution? Romney may have his own religious issue but his more moderate stance, at least that seems to be the general perception, on issues of faith and economics is seen by the Republican establishment to have broader appeal in a general election. I think they might be wrong.

Let's face facts, Mitt Romney has run a very well funded but poorly executed campaign. He has been a gaff factory since he started stumping and to many people, Republicans, Democrats, and independents, appears to be little more than a wealthy elitist with little or no connection to the average middle class American. Sadly I believe this elitism may also be why the Republican establishment is so forcefully behind Romney. Santorum is a completely different kind of animal though. He didn't grow up wealthy, he became successful but not so successful that we feel we can't trust him. He wears his faith on his sleeve like many Americans do, he is, in other words, someone many Americans can relate to.

This should make Santorum a viable candidate against President Obama who can seem a bit aloof and elitist himself. I also believe that Santorum will enjoy a considerable momentum after last night's contest and could possibly consolidate the support of the Tea Party behind his campaign. I know the Tea Party would love to find a candidate they can get behind so they can show their power in a nation wide contest the way they already have in many House and Senate elections. But while Santorum may be a more electable candidate than Romney, is he electable enough?

If the Tea Party rallies behind Santorum and he wins the Republican nomination it will show, beyond a doubt, the Tea Party's influence, but only their influence within the Republican Party. If Santorum wins the nomination and fails to win the general election, his stances in the culture war could back fire on him and being primarily known for work on social issues instead of economic issues is not where you want to be in this election, it would show that the Tea Party has limited influence outside of the Republican Party. This is make or break time for the Tea Party although I don't know if they realize it yet. I think we are in for a very interesting next few months.

Court finds California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional... what this means.

2012-02-07T15:00:00.002-06:00

Marriage equality supporters around the country are cheering the ruling from a federal appeals court today that found California's ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional, but maybe celebrating isn't the correct response. We must all remember that this is just one more step in the process of having our nation recognize same sex marriage and while this is an important step today's decision didn't really solve anything.

There are a few ways that this could play out. The supporters of Prop 8 could decide to stop their fight at this point. Why would they do this? Today's decision would only apply to the state of California, if they allow it to stand and don't file an appeal same sex marriage would become legal in California but no other state would be affected. If they think that the US Supreme Court is likely to uphold the appeals court's ruling they might believe it is in their best interest to cut their losses and not proceed any further. As a supporter of marriage equality though I think it is important to try and understand the feelings of the other side. The supporters of Prop 8 and marriage equality opponents in general shouldn't be classified as bigots or people who are against progress or homophobes as I really don't believe this is what drives them. I believe that most of the individuals who are opposed to gay marriage see it as a threat to the American family, a social structure that they believe has allowed the United States to become the great country it is today. Over the years they have seen many laws passed which they believe threaten the family by encouraging single women to have children, that have caused the divorce rate to increase, that have reduced parental control over the lives of their children. They are certain that the collapse of the family will lead to the collapse of America and so any recognition of yet another form of "family" isn't just a threat to traditional marriage, it is a threat to our nation in their eyes. They, as patriotic citizens of the United States, will fight this threat in every way that they can which means they aren't haters or bigots but instead they are the protectors of our country. At least as they see it. SO while it might make the most strategic sense for them to simply drop the case at this point I expect them to carry on with an appeal to the US Supreme Court as they believe their fight is too important to give up on.

So what happens if the case is appealed? First of the Supreme Court could simply decide to not hear the case and let the appeals court's ruling stand. This would ensure the legality of gay marriage in California but have little or no effect on any other state. They could also take the case but rule in a way that only affects California. Narrow rulings of this sort are not uncommon from the Supreme Court and could be possible in this case. Of course they could decide to hear the case and make a wider ruling on it. That ruling may not be as simple as the yes or no vote many believe it would be. Yes, the court could uphold or overturn the lower court's decision which would mean their ruling would apply nationwide. A ruling against Prop 8 could mean that same sex marriage would then have to be recognized in all 50 states. But don't get too excited over that possibility. I have almost no doubt that in this case many states that have state constitutions that have been amended to outlaw same sex marriage would then go to court and try to defend their bans on gay marriage by stating that their constitutional amendments were written in such a way as to not violate the US Constitution and so they shouldn't be affected by the Supreme Court's decision on Prop 8. The legal battles could continue for many, many years and might not end with the entire nation recognizing gay marriage. Furthermore there is the Defense of Marriage Act which currently prevents the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage. If gay marriage was made legal in all 50 states the Supreme Court's decision still wouldn't mandate that the federal government recognize it.

But lets ignore all of these problems for a moment and focus on what may be a bigger issue for marriage equality supporters. If the Supreme Court decides that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and rules in such a way as to have same sex marriage recognized in all 50 states I can promise you that there will be an immediate and strong push from the opponents of same sex marriage for an amendment to the US Constitution banning same sex marriage. If such an amendment was added to the Constitution it would mean that same sex marriages couldn't be recognized even in the states where they are legal today. It could invalidate all of the gay marriages that have already been performed. It would be the ultimate victory for those who are against same sex marriage and it would actually become more easily achievable if the Supreme Court validated gay marriage all across the United States. Suddenly finding their worst fear coming true nationwide would energize the foes of marriage equality like nothing else could and they have years of practice under their belts at organizing and rallying their forces. This is an outcome that those of us who support same sex marriage can't ignore and must prepare for.

So how do we prepare for this possible firestorm of litigation and constitutional hostage taking? We start now by paying extremely close attention to the upcoming elections. Not just the presidential election but all of the senate and house races on both the federal and state levels. A constitutional amendment is not a simple thing to put into place, it requires super majority support in the US House and Senate as well as ratification by 75% of the states. This means that to make sure it doesn't get enacted we must do everything that we can, legally, to make sure that we keep supporters of an amendment banning gay marriage out of office. As you are reading this I can promise you that opponents of same sex marriage are looking at the situation and realizing that they have to do everything they can to get as many supporters of such an amendment elected, and as much as I hate to say it they are better at winning elections than the marriage equality side is.

SO if you support marriage equality it is time for you to do something about it. Figure out right now how much time you can give to a candidate and start volunteering with the campaign of someone who doesn't support a constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage. It doesn't matter if they are a democrat or republican (not all republicans are opposed to same sex marriage) it only matters that they support freedom and liberty for every last one of us. Also take the time to try and understand where the other side is coming from. It is easier for those of us who support marriage equality to demonize our opponents instead of trying to understand what it is that they are actually thinking. If we can carrying on a conversation with them instead of just trying to shout each other down we might be able to actually change a few minds. They may not be the minds of the individuals we are speaking with directly, but someone seeing a thoughtful discussion on the evening news might decide that their pre-conceived notions weren't true. We need every single bit of support we can get and the old adage remains true, you attract more files with honey.

So, to all of my friends who support marriage equality, celebrate today because we have had an important victory, but keep in mind that this war is just getting started and things are probably going to get tougher before they start getting better. We all have a lot of work to do to make this a country that lives up to the phrase in the constitution "all men are created equal" and it is up to us to do the work. SO get ready, get organized, and get to work, this is worth the effort.

Homophobia

2012-02-03T17:21:00.000-06:00

Here in Tennessee it seems that every day another piece of proposed legislation targeting the LGBT community is brought out by one of our representatives or senators. Recently we have had local high schools shaken by the suicides of young people who had been bullied for being gay. I live in a state where being who you are can be quite difficult some times. Still there are individuals who don't seem to be able to see what is going on around them.

I have been asked by several different individuals how the proposed anti-gay legislation affects me on a personal basis. I don't have kids so the "Don't Say Gay Bill" which would prevent homosexuality from being discussed in Tennessee's public schools is something they feel I shouldn't be concerned about. Likewise the "License to Bully Bill" would have an effect on me since I am no longer in school. Obviously the bill recently publicized that would mandate which public restrooms an individual could use, even if that person is transgender, is not something that should concern me personally. I have to admit, these bills won't have a huge impact on me personally, at least from a legal perspective. The fact that my state would elect legislators who would think it was in their best interest, or their constituent's best interest effects me greatly.

Many people seem to think that members of the LGBT community are protected by the legal protections that certain other minority groups fall under. This is completely false. In Tennessee there are no real legal protections for LGBT individuals. We can be fired for who we are, we can be denied housing simply because of who we are. We are denied the ability to marry the person we love, therefore we are also denied the right to be treated equally under our nation's tax and inheritance laws. Yet many think that homophobia isn't real or exists on such a small scale that it isn't worth their consideration. Well right here in Nashville, Tennessee, a very liberal city where the LGBT community is fairly visible and suffers less from homophobia than it does in almost any other part of our state homophobia still exists.

A friend of mine is in the process of starting a new business. He previously worked for a local gay and lesbian bookstore that fell victim to the same economic and market forces that have closed so many local bookstores around our country. But my friend knows the value of having a store like this in Nashville. He has seen many frightened young people walk into the store where he worked, kids, and sometimes adults, who had never been in a place before where they could be who they are. A place where they could talk about things they couldn't talk about at school or church or with their families. A place where they could see other people like themselves who are happy and well adjusted and living good lives. A physical representation of the "It Gets Better Project" where kids could see that one day the bullying would stop and they have a reason to keep on living, a physical place where they could see hope when all of the other places they should have been able to find hope had turned them away. My friend has a business plan, but he also has a plan for a community. He wants to be able to earn a living while also giving others a reason to keep on living. Today I received an email from him describing what is preventing him from adding to our community and to our economy, homophobia. Below is his email;

Homophobia in Nashville

Dear George,

For the sixth time in the same number of months, a landowner has told us that he would not rent us his space because we are a GLBT Business. He told his agent that he had thought long and hard about it, but just couldn't rent to "those people."

We are suppose to be a pretty progressive city--a blue dot in a sea of red. Unfortunately, it sure doesn't seem like one today. This is another reminder that our battle isn't over. Just look at the legislative proposals that are coming to the hill right now and you can really see that we have a lot of work to do.

The social conservatives have not stopped their work because of the recession. In fact, they are even more active now because they know people have other concerns. Take time to support those organizations that are working for you in the state and local governments--even if it's just a small amount.

We are working hard to open a new store for our Nashville community. If you know of any GLBT-friendly owners in the midtown or East Nashville areas, please have them contact us if they have any spaces that are between 1,800 and 2,500 sf.

Our work continues!

Jim Hawk, Chief Manager

Homophobia exists, it is real, it effects people, people you know. You may not think it effects you, but directly or indirectly it effects all of us. It is time we stand up against homophobia just as we have and continue to stand up against sexism and racism. Without fairness there is no freedom, and none of us is free if all of us aren't free. It is time to make this country what it is supposed to be, a country where we all have the opportunity to succeed, a country where we can disagree but where we allow others to be who they are and believe what they believe.

Decisions, the basis of economics.

2012-01-29T02:16:00.000-06:00

Economics is a confusing and convoluted field. There are countless studies on economic subjects that rigorously follow the scientific method and because of this these studies can be quite reliable and verifiable. However you must then ask, how does any individual study relate to the economy as a whole? If I can accurately predict what flavor of hard candy 5 year olds from a single small town in Utah will buy on Tuesday afternoons would that really have any greater meaning in the overall economy?

Our economy is a huge cluster of variables and is one of the most, if not the most, complex systems any human being will ever interact with. This complexity makes it very difficult to approach economics, on the macro scale, with the same kind of scientific rigor that is used to study chemistry or physics or biology. This inability to produce hard and fast answers doesn't mean that economics is an invaluable field of research.

Lets look at the simplest unit of economics, the cost benefit assessment. Everything that we do involves a cost benefit assessment. Start at the beginning of your day, your alarm clock goes off. Do you hit the snooze button and get a few more minutes of sleep? Getting those few extra minutes of shut eye may prevent you from having a second cup of coffee before you leave the house. Is the cost of missing the second cup of coffee worth the benefit of the extra few minutes of sleep? Hitting or not hitting the snooze button depends on the cost benefit assessment you probably didn't even realize you were making. While out shopping you find a shirt for $30.00 that you really like and that would look great on you while you are on vacation the next week. But buying that shirt means you would have $30.00 less to spend on a nice meal while you are on vacation. The shirt, of course, is something you could wear once you got back from vacation while the meal is something you would only enjoy for a short period of time. Vacations though are about splurging and that extra $30.00 could be the difference between a really great meal you would remember and eating the same fast food you eat every day at home. Once again, you are forced to make a cost benefit assessment.

As you can see these assessments we make every day may or may not involve the exchange of money for goods or services, but on a basic level they are all economic decisions. We always want to make the right choice so that we gain the greatest benefit at the lowest cost, it doesn't matter of the cost is money, time, effort, or anything else. It also doesn't matter if the benefit is spiritual, physical, emotional, or monetary in nature, we want to get as much as possible for as little as possible. This is the basis of all economics.

But things start getting complicated pretty quickly. Think back to the $30.00 shirt. When making the decision to buy or not buy the shirt were we thinking about all of the costs and all of the benefits? If we were buying the last shirt in that size on the rack would we force someone else to make a cost benefit assessment on waiting for the store to restock or using their $30.00 to buy something different? If we buy the shirt would our reduced spending while on vacation force a worker at the resort you are going to into deciding if they should buy the name brand or the store brand cereal for their child because you couldn't tip as well? If you didn't buy the shirt would a cashier at the store have to decide what to do when the bonus they would have received for selling their quota in shirts didn't come through? Every cost benefit assessment we make changes the cost benefit assessments that others around us will make. Every single last decision we make creates a butterfly effect that spreads out and effects people in ways we can't imagine.

Of course we can't make decisions if we are hobbled by having to worry about things that we can't predict and so most of the time all we worry about is the personal cost we will pay and the personal benefit we will received based on our decisions, and this is the way it should be. Most of the time. Occasionally though, through personal knowledge or historical evidence we can reasonably predict the ripple effects of our actions. This is why some people choose to pay more for organic produce. This is why some people who enjoy consuming alcoholic beverages choose not to drink. Sometimes the cost or benefit to others, or our society, or to our environment effect our decisions because the cost to us may be greater than just the money we spend on a shirt or the few minutes of sleep we might miss.

This is where you get to the nitty gritty of many of the economic arguments you hear coming out of your TV or that you read in political blogs such as this one. How much do we need to think about the rest of society or the rest of our economy when making decisions for ourselves? Lately it seems that the trend has been to concentrate more on our own personal costs and benefits and ignore how our decisions effect others. Some would even try to deny that their decisions have any great impact on the world around them. Obviously this isn't true even if we don't see the effects our decisions have on others or other parts of our economy. Sometimes ignoring these collateral effects increases our personal costs in the future. Maybe if enough people bought shirts instead of spending their money at a vacation resort they might find there was no one there to serve them or to cook their food or to clean their rooms. This would be impossible to know at the moment you are buying a shirt, but if you could know it wouldn't you take it into consideration?

Economics as a subject of research and discussion is valuable for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons we value it is that it can help predict for us some of the unintended costs of our decisions. Because of this we can make better informed decisions. Well, we can make better informed decisions as long as we are willing to take the available information into consideration. No one can force anyone into considering anything more than their own, personal, short term, costs and benefits if they don't want to. I just hope they can see how it could be to their advantage to consider a broader range of information when it is available to them.

How to not answer a question

2012-01-25T11:04:00.000-06:00

In the video above you can see House Majority Leader Eric Cantor not answer a few questions about the 2012 State of the Union address. He is asked if the members of the house and the senate can focus less on their differences and more on the job at hand as we ask our members of the military to do when we send them out on a mission and as President Obama suggested that our elected officials do in his speech. Eric Cantor replied with a statement about supporting our troops.

Eric Cantor is asked if it is fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary and he responds by saying that no one wants to pay taxes and that small businesses are the backbone of our country.

Eric Cantor is the House Majority leader and apparently he is so mentally challenged as to not be able to understand the simple questions asked of him in this interview. We have seen Mitt Romney's tax returns and Newt Gingrich's Freddie Mac contract and I think it is now time that we get to see Eric Cantor's IQ test results. The answer to the question of "is it fair that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does" should be yes or no or even, "it's complicated". The answer can not be "small businesses are the backbone of our country" as that has absolutely nothing to do with the question. It would be like being asked "how are you today?" and responding with the Gettysburg Address. If Eric Cantor can't answer a question as simple as "is it fair" then he should be recalled on the basis of stupidity.

Of course we need to take a look at Charlie Rose as well. Why didn't he, upon not getting an answer to his question, ask the question again? Ask if Mr. Cantor needed the question clarified? Stay on the question until he, and us, got an answer? Our media seems willing to let any politician say anything without challenging them. Guess what, the media's job is to help hold these people accountable and the media, in general, is failing. We have elected officials not answering the questions they are asked and a media more worried about getting the next commercial in on time than they are about doing their jobs as journalists. This is America people, we deserve better than this. At least we used to, now we accept what ever comes through the screen at us without question. Maybe idiotic representatives and lazy journalists are what we deserve these days. God bless America, and God forgive us for letting what we ask you to bless go to hell in a handbasket.

Biology and the Economy

2012-01-22T17:25:00.000-06:00

Global warming, agricultural run off, and nuclear power plant disasters are good for the environment. I have the feeling that you are giving your computer screen a strange look right now, but stay with me for a minute.

As climate change causes warmer temperatures to march northward several species have been able to extend their range up the map without losing any of the Southern parts of their homelands. Armadillos are a perfect example. I can remember seeing armadillos as a child, but only on trips to a zoo or on family vacations into the very deep South. Now I occasionally spot armadillos right here in the Nashville area and scientists have found them living in parts of Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, quite a bit further North. Global warming has greatly benefited the armadillo and several other species of plants and animals and if you were able to speak with an armadillo I am pretty sure they would be very much in support of loosening regulations on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

If you are one of those people who is bright green and single celled, you probably love agricultural run off entering our waterways just as many types of algae do. Sure algae can be slimy and look disgusting to our eyes, but it is enterprising and innovative and works hard to take advantage of the situation it is in. We gave the algae agricultural run off and it made lemonade! Not to mention how altruistic algae can be; see it doesn’t just take, it gives as well. It produces oxygen and takes in carbon dioxide (at least during daylight hours). Sorry armadillos, you and the algae will have to work out the carbon dioxide thing amongst yourselves. It allows itself to be eaten by a wide range of critters, and when it dies it breaks downs and puts a lot of those nutrients it used to grown right back into the water so the next generation of algae can continue to prosper. Quite often a massive algae bloom will out compete other plants and cause fish to die off in a large scale, but you can’t blame the algae because the fish hadn’t planned ahead.

Nuclear disasters are one of the greatest things for the environment though. Don’t believe me? Just look at the area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Since this reactor melted down and exploded in the 1980s, there has been an explosion in life around the power plant. Plants and animals are thriving, everywhere you look there are trees and flowers and birds and deer. Rare species like lynx and wolves are finding a pleasant home around Chernobyl, and it is quickly becoming one of the more biologically diverse areas in Europe. Many of the trees there grow deformed and twisted because they can’t figure out which way is up and many of the animals show lots of genetic abnormalities. But hey, it has to be better than living with humans (they were all evacuated at the time of the disaster and it still isn’t safe for them to come back almost 30 years later).

So why do people complain about things like global warming and agricultural run off and nuclear power plant safety? Because, while armadillos and algae and the plants and animals around Chernobyl may have benefited from these environmental disasters, the environment as a whole is damaged by these things. While these species might think eliminating these issues would harm them and they don’t need to be concerned about other species in other parts of the world, we understand that other species, including our own species, are harmed by things like global warming. We understand that protecting the environment means that sometimes individual species might not be favored. This doesn't mean that they will be forced into extinction, but it means a sustainable balance will be met. Now, do me a favor and in your mind replace the word “environment” with “economy”.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not writing to talk about the environmental impacts of things like agricultural run off. No, I am writing to show the way many people think of the economy today as opposed to how we should think about it. I am writing to think that it benefits all of us to reach a sustainable balance in our economy instead of rigging the system to favor just a few individuals.

In the US we tend to be armadillos. We look at things like government regulations and tax laws as harming us and preventing us from reaching our maximum potential the same way an armadillo looks at a stable climate as being a barrier to colonizing Canada. But while it may be painful to the wealthy to pay a higher tax rate, while Wall Street may chafe under tough regulations, these things benefit our over all economy and in the end help all of us. Some of us are like the armadillos still living in Southern Texas. We may still be in the South, but knowing that other armadillos are making their way North excites us and we don’t want anything standing in our way of moving to Kansas when we get the chance! Sure, we look around and see water levels dropping in our own neighborhood, and food is a bit scarce, but one day we will go North too and we don’t want the see the climate cool off and hurt our chances of being the first armadillo in Greenland.

Sadly global warming might just cause an environmental catastrophe that will not only make it possible for future generations of armadillos to relocate North, but might also make it impossible for the Southern armadillos to survive. Our economy is in a similar situation except that the people who are gaining the most from our broken economic environment are also the ones controlling it. Add to this they have many of us convinced that with enough hard work our own economic situations can move North and so we should support everything they are doing to make themselves richer even if it is hurting us now. Well our economic environment is getting hit with global warming, agricultural run off, and nuclear disasters all at once and while some are most definitely benefiting our over all economy is suffering and may be at risk of collapsing.

We talk about things like redistribution of wealth and a fairer tax system and strong government regulations and many think it is just lazy people wanting to take from the rich so they won’t have to earn for themselves. That’s like an armadillo telling a polar bear to stop complaining and get off his lazy butt so he can build a boat and not have to worry about the ice melting under his feet. This isn’t about hurting the rich or helping the poor, this is about saving our economy from a disaster so we can all survive.

Sure, many think there are other ways of protecting our economy. Strangely it seems that all of their plans revolve around doing what we have been doing that got us into this mess in the first place. Some seem to want to speed up the process. Well if it didn’t work out well for the economy as a whole the first time, why do they think it would now?

We have to stop thinking about the short term, stop thinking about individual aspects of the economy, stop thinking only about how things are going to effect us personally, and start thinking about rebuilding our economy so that it can be prosperous and efficient and stable and beneficial to as many people as possible for as long as possible. Some people claim they are thinking in this way and that’s why they want to cut government spending dramatically. Well if that causes slower job growth or even more job loss, they won’t be protecting their grand kids from government debt, they might very well be giving their grand kids a completely failed economy. Think big, look for the connections. See how what you do effects others, not just how you are effected. Capitalism is a system that requires we work together on many levels. If we are all just in it for our own personal gain, the system will fail, plain and simple. If it fails, you better hope you can live where it is hot, or in a river full of fertilizer, or enjoy glowing in the dark, because only those few who do may be able to survive. No one will be able to thrive. And do you really want to live in a hot river full of fertilizer with a view of a collapsed nuclear power plant?

The South Carolina Primary

2012-01-21T19:32:00.000-06:00

Well things are looking up for President Obama after today's South Carolina primary. A week ago Mitt Romney had won Iowa, New Hampshire, and was expected to easily win South Carolina which would give him a perfect record so far. But we recently discovered that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa and today Newt Gingrich took South Carolina, but don't read this as though things are just looking bad for Mitt Romney. No, this makes things look bad for all of the republican candidates.

If Mitt had actually managed to make it three for three today, or more accurately 2 for three, he would have been seen as the presumptive nominee and could have turned all of his attention toward attacking Barrack Obama. As it stands now he has to continue to worry about the other republican candidates who will be tearing him down every chance they get. The four remaining candidates all seem to think they still have a dog in this hunt at the moment and so they will continue to tear at each other allowing voters to find more and more reasons to dislike all of them while President Obama gets to stay out of the fray and avoid getting dirty. But all of the mud slinging the republican presidential candidates will be doing doesn't just cost them opinion points with the voters, it also costs a lot of money. At this point it is hard to see how any of these candidates will manage to have any money left in their coffers, or in their super pac's coffers, by the time the general election campaign starts up. So they will have to raise more money, but since 4 of them will be competing for every dollar between now and the republican convention it is easy to see how their contributors might start having a bit of donor fatigue. None of this looks good for the republican candidates, especially when President Obama has been an amazingly effective fundraiser and already has a campaign bank account it would be difficult for any of the republican candidates to match in the best of circumstances.

So keep it up Newt and Rick and Ron and Mitt, we are learning more about each of you every day and we will be much better informed voters by the time November comes around. I just wish one of you could be categorized as either unlikable, crazy, or both, then we might have a more interesting general election to watch on TV.

The myth of solitary capitalism

2012-01-20T18:35:00.000-06:00

I have a lot of conservative friends. I also have some liberal friends who agree with much of what my conservative friends say and think. One of the things I hear a lot of people saying these days is that they don't want to pay taxes, or at least they don't want to have their taxes raised. They rationalize what they are saying by stating that they worked hard for their money, they earned it, so why should they have to give it to someone else? Let's take a look at this idea.

Imagine you are ridiculously wealthy, maybe you are, I don't know. You came by your wealth by working hard and being smart with your money. Capitalism has rewarded you and you consider yourself a staunch capitalist. Now let's imagine that someone offers you 200 billion dollars, in cash, to live by yourself on a deserted island. You agree and hop in their boat, a couple of days later they drop you off on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The island has plenty of clean, fresh water to drink. The trees are filled with delicious fruit. You have every thing that you need to live. You wave to the boat as it pulls away from the beach and hear the captain of the boat tell you to have fun and try to not get too lonely because no one will ever come back. You are completely alone with your 200 billion in cash.

Things are very different for you now, but you may not realize just how different. You see you have just stopped being a capitalist. It isn't that you have had a sudden change of heart about capitalism, you may still be a fervent believer in capitalism. The thing is that it is impossible to be a capitalist if you are alone. Sure, you could look around the island and figure out a product you could make with the items you have on hand. It might be something really wonderful, but with no one else around who is going to buy it from you? You can build a house out of the available wood and make you a roof out of palm leaves but you can't do anything to increase your wealth. With no one around to want to live in your house you have no way of transforming it into wealth. Your house has value, but only to you, capitalism demands that it be worth something to someone else and there is no one else. You aren't even rich any more. Sure, you have 200 billion dollars, but where are you going to spend them? Can you use them to hire someone to make you tropical drinks while you sit on the beach since there is no one around to hire? On your island, by yourself, your money has no value, oh sure, you could pile it up and sleep on it as a makeshift mattress but it has no value to you, and since it has been removed from a capitalist system it has no value to anyone else either.

You see capitalism requires a society to exist in for it to exist. No one can be truly self made if it requires at least the simple existence of other people for you to have any wealth. Sure, you worked hard for your money, no disagreement there. I can easily accept that you are smarter than most people and handled your money well. The simple fact remains that your money and work and intelligence is worthless unless it exists within a society.

Because of this it is in your best interest to have the society you live in be stable and prosperous. Because if your society fails you fail. This is why we pay taxes.

The phrase "redistribution of wealth" can't be spoken today without starting an argument. I believe the reason for this is that many people have a false perception of what the phrase means. It does not mean that the government will take money from a wealthy individual and give it to a poor individual. We found out recently that Newt Gingrich paid almost a million dollars in taxes last year. The government did not take his million dollars and hand it over to one or two or even three people making them really well off without having to work for it, strangely this seems to be what many people think redistribution of wealth means.

What redistribution of wealth actually means is that money is taken from individuals, wealthy or otherwise, and is given to our society as a whole. Money is being moved around so it is an obvious redistribution, but it doesn't go to specific individuals. It goes to repairing roads that we can all drive on. It goes to keeping up our schools so that we can have an educated population who can participate in our society. It goes to fund scientific research that helps save lives and makes living easier for all of us. Obviously all of these things can create jobs along the way, but that isn't the main reason why we do and should do it. In other words redistributing wealth makes a stable society possible and therefor makes capitalism possible. Paying taxes doesn't make you poorer, it allows you to become wealthier. Redistribution of wealth doesn't favor those who don't work hard, it makes it worth while for all of us to work hard. We all, even those in the top tax brackets, receive more benefits from the taxes we pay than they cost us to pay. Sadly the urge to not pay taxes has reduced our tax revenue rates to the point that we are having a hard time doing all of the things that we need to do to have a stable society. The reduction in tax revenues is forcing us to borrow money to keep our society as stable as it is so people can continue to get wealthy. Reducing taxes has got us to the point where that on a personal level we aren't saving money any more, we are costing ourselves money.

No one, and I mean absolutely no one has become wealthy based solely on their own hard work and intelligence. We all, in part at least, have gotten to where we are because of the society in which we live. Ignoring this fact could make it impossible for any of us to get anywhere.

Why things aren't that simple

2012-01-20T00:22:00.000-06:00

The above image comes from libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson's facebook page. Please click on the image so you can read it clearly and understand how it isn't quite as clever as Mr. Johnson seems to think it is.

OK, did you click on the image? Good. I'm not going to argue with the numbers listed for our national debt and budget, they seem pretty accurate to me. What I have a problem with is the comparison Mr. Johnson seems to be making between the national budget and a family budget. First of all the annual family income listed, assuming we are talking about a family of 4, seems quite low. If a family actually found itself in a situation where its income was so low as compared to its expenses the family would probably try to cut corners, but they wouldn't stop there. Maybe in this family the mother doesn't work? I bet if most American families found themselves in the situation described by Mr. Johnson they would not only try to cut expenses, they would also try to increase their revenues. Mom might decide to take a job. Maybe if Dad is the person working he would try and get a part time to job along with Mom taking a job.

It is doubtful that they would try to cut their budget by more than half , what would be required according to Mr. Johnson's example, because it is doubtful that they could afford to cut that much. To do so might involve getting rid of their car, which for many people would make it impossible to go to work. To cut their budget they would probably have to drastically reduce what they spend on food, and it is obvious from their total expenditures being only $38,200.00 that they aren't living too high on the hog. Because of this they probably couldn't afford to cut their food budget very much without sending their kids to bed hungry.

Now let's look at the family's total debt. I wonder if the $142,710.00 in debt they have is actually credit card debt. It seems like it would be more likely that most of this debt is explained by a mortgage. Why do they have such a high mortgage (I know, some of you are in parts of the country where this would be a very small mortgage, but stay with me on this)? Maybe they wanted to live in a good, safe neighborhood where their kids could play in the yard without hearing gun shots in the background and where the schools are safe and effective.

From the information on Mr. Johnson's facebook page it looks like he wants to manage our federal budget the way a family would handle their budget. I am all in favor of this. This would mean making reasonable spending cuts, but not cuts that would significantly harm members of our American family. Sadly there is no way reasonable spending cuts could lower our national debt quickly and so, just like our hypothetical family, we would need to look at increasing our revenue. Of course our nation can't take a second job and so the only option our government has is to increase taxes, and increase taxes in a major way, especially on those who can most afford to pay them.

Strangely Mr. Johnson doesn't want to make reasonable cuts and increase taxes. He wants to take care of the entire situation with spending cuts and no increase in revenue. So he wants our nation to go hungry and become homeless to conquer its debt problem, he just doesn't want to have to sacrifice any of his money, or the money of the corporations and wealthy individuals his ideas seem to mainly support. He thinks lowering taxes, i.e. cutting the family's income, and reducing regulations, i.e. allowing the family to let the grass in their yard grow out of control or keep a pet lion in the back yard, will solve our problems when cutting income and reducing regulations obviously won't help the family reduce their debt at all.

Mr. Johnson is comparing our national debt to a family's debt, and both problems could be solved using the same real world solutions. Sadly Mr. Johnson doesn't seem to want to solve the problem of our national debt, he just wants to protect the finances of those at the top of our economy. This hardly sounds like family values to me.

An open letter to the Occupy movement.

2012-01-15T14:12:00.000-06:00

Dear Occupiers,

While I have several friends who are involved in the Occupy movement I have kept my distance. It isn't that I don't agree with the overall aims and goals of the movement. Anyone who has read my blog with any regularity can see that I am very much in favor of addressing income inequality in our society and taking the control of our government out of the hands of the 1% and putting it back into the hands of the 100%. No, I have stayed away because the Occupy movement has failed to express a cohesive plan on how to achieve these goals which allows individuals to claim or appear they are speaking for the movement when their primary goals and aims differ greatly from mine or even from a majority of the occupiers. I do not support anarchy nor violence nor libertarianism and since all three of these concepts are quite common in the Occupy movement I have not been able to support the movement itself.

I have, however, been amazed at how effective the movement has been at maintaining itself and a constant stream of activities which have allowed it to stay relevant in the minds of many Americans. This steady building of relevancy is a difficult thing to do, especially when opposing groups are so willing to fight you on every front using every method they can. Many of these attacks on the occupy movement have in fact backfired on the attackers. No one will ever forget the brave US Marine who was injured during a police raid on Occupy Oakland or the image of a police officer nonchalantly spraying pepper spray in the faces of his fellow citizens. But last night an episode occurred that might not work as well for the movement's PR.

A group of Occupiers from San Diego were in route to Washington DC on a Greyhound Bus. In Amarillo Texas a bus driver, who apparently isn't a fan of the Occupy movement, forced the Occupiers off the bus and left them stranded. This was a horrendous thing for the driver to do and I can only hope that Greyhound takes some sort of action against the driver. That being said I was a bit shocked last night to see my twitter feed explode with tweets from Occupiers listing the drivers name and the bus number and Greyhound's phone number asking people to call and complain about this particular driver. A mass of calls of this sort would, understandably, lead most companies to fire the individual who was receiving the complaints and this is where I think a lack of thoughtful leadership within the Occupy movement created a problem.

You see, what this person did was horrible, but at the same time who this person is should matter more to the movement than what he did. Glassdoor.com lists the average annual salary for a Greyhound Bus driver at $38,700.00 per year. So while this person strongly disagrees with the Occupy movement he is also very much a part of the 99%. Your movement welcomes all sorts of contradictory ideals into its ranks and yet last night I saw tweet after tweet calling for action that would probably get a member of the 99% fired from his job at a time when jobs are far from easy to come by.

I know you had a limited number of characters to express your dismay with the driver's actions on twitter, but if the tweets going out had said specifically that you, as a movement, did not want this man fired, that you recognized he was part of who you are and is one of the people you are hoping to help by changing the system I think it would have shown the world, and people like this driver, that your movement is worthy of support. Instead it seems, to me at least, that you are willing to harm one of the people you claim to be standing up for if he gets in your way.

Just something to think about,
George Oeser

Bigotry, the new jobs plan.

2012-01-12T15:47:00.000-06:00

Here in my home state of Tennessee we have a republican controlled house, a republican controlled senate, and a republican governor. When all of this came about in 2010 we were told by all of these republicans that they would focus on creating jobs for Tennesseans. So what have they done to get their fellow Tennesseans back to work? At first glance, nothing. But on closer inspection I think I have figured out how our law makers are trying to reduce unemployment in Tennessee.

There have been several bills introduced by our legislators that have received national attention. Last year my hometown of Nashville passed an ordinance stating that any company doing contract work for the city must have an anti-discrimination policy that includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons. The state legislator quickly responded by passing a law that made it illegal for a city or a county to institue any laws offering legal protections in the workplace for members of the LGBT community. They also tried to pass a bill making it illegal to even mention homosexuality in Tennessee schools from the 1st through the 9th grades. This bill passed the senate but failed in the house. Never fear it is being brought back for our members of the house to vote on again this session along with a bill to amend the state's anti-bullying statute so that you can verbally harass anyone you want as long as your religion says they are bad people.

Of course these pieces of legislation don't go far enough to reduce Tennessee's unemployment rate and so we have a newly introduced bill that will force transgender persons to use public restrooms that correlate to the gender listed on their birth certificates. Are you starting to see how Tennessee's elected officials are working to reduce unemployment?

First off we will gain numerous jobs by hiring the huge number of police officers we will need to check individuals birth certificates as they enter public restrooms. This will obviously help to bring down our unemployment rate. Above and beyond this you have to remember that the unemployment rate is stated as a percentage of the population. If you can lower your states population you should be able to reduce the unemployment rate as well. By instituting a series of laws that make it very obvious that the state of Tennessee hates the LGBT community, and if it wasn't for that pesky Lawrence v. Texas US Supreme Court ruling they would probably pass a law to throw us all in jail or string us up in public executions, they are hoping that all of the LGBTers out there will pack up and move out of the state. If you are gay and unemployed then your moving to another state will reduce the unemployment rate here. If you are transgender and currently employed your leaving the state will allow a good, God fearing straight person who is unemployed to fill your position further reducing our unemployment rate. What about people moving into Tennessee to fill all of these vacated jobs though? Well lets face it, when the rest of the country sees how crazy and bigoted and hateful we are in this state very few people will want to move here so we should be able to achieve a net gain in jobs.

I know, this all sounds a bit crazy, but our elected officials stated they were going to focus on job creation and so this is the only explanation I can come up with for their actions. Well I can come up with one other explanation but I won't say what it is. I mean my mother might wind up reading this.

Rick Santorum and the wonder of believing your own spin...

2012-01-05T21:35:00.000-06:00

Today Rick Santorum was in Concord, New Hampshire speaking to a group of college students. The event was a town hall meeting and so members of the audience were allowed to ask questions of Mr. Santorum. It was an interesting view into the workings of his mind.

Mr. Santorum was asked how two men or two women getting married affected him personally, a question which he never answered. He instead wound up on a rhetorical path that at first glance might seem rather interesting, that is until you realize where this path leads. Mr. Santorum asked the students, if they are OK with two men getting married were they OK with three men getting married. This swift switch from gay marriage to the unrelated question of polygamy is a common tactic among those who are opposed to gay marriage, as they see it if you start letting 2 men get married then you have to let everyone get married no matter how the relationship is structured and who it includes. This is a completely ridiculous argument but I rarely hear people explain why it is so ridiculous.

If allowing two men or two women to get married means that you automatically have to allow polygamy then polygamy must already be legal in the US. You see, if allowing two men to join in marriage raises the question of, if two men why not three men then you have to ask, if a man and woman can get married then why not a man and two women? Obviously if you allow heterosexual couples to get married then you have opened the door for heterosexual polygamy. To carry the Christian conservative's argument all the way out I suppose you would have to ask, if a man and woman can get married then why not a man and a female dog? Don't forget that Rick Santorum has compared gay sex to bestiality before and so it is only fair to use the same arguments he does. Also Mr. Santorum, in his argument, stressed that heterosexual marriage is special because it leads to procreation. Guess what heterosexual polygamy leads to procreation too. Seems that Mr. Santorum is pretty good at arguing for the form of "traditional" marriage most represented in the Bible, one man and many women.

Yes, heterosexual polygamy must be permissible in the US because heterosexual marriage is legal in the US, at least that's what the right wing Christians seem to believe. Of course polygamy isn't legal in the US, we have laws preventing more than two individuals from entering into legal marriage. Read that again carefully. We have laws to prevent more than TWO people from entering into legal marriage. Polygamy laws are not about gender, they are about numbers. Gay marriage is about gender, not about numbers.

For once and for all these two arguments are not related and if you hear anyone making the comparison between gay marriage and polygamy ask them why they support heterosexual plural marriages. You might not get a good answer out of them though, after all they must have failed math since they can't tell the difference between numbers and genitals.

The Iowa Caucuses

2012-01-04T12:11:00.000-06:00

Well they were interesting... sort of. I think the big lesson to take from the caucuses is just how divided the GOP is right now. Normally the Republican presidential nominee is pretty much locked up before the anything happens in Iowa, but this year there is some uncertainty. I think that's a really great thing as it could keep more of the candidates in the race longer and allow voters to form stronger attachments to the candidates they support. This, of course, could make it harder for them to support a candidate in the general election if their candidate doesn't win the primaries, but hey, if there is one thing you can say about Republicans it's that they don't like to compromise, and darn-it they shouldn't have to compromise in a presidential election either.

So here is my suggestion to all of my Republican friends. If you don't like the Republican who gets the nomination, simply get your favorite candidate to run as an independent. If they won't just write them in when the general election comes around. This way you don't have to compromise and not only will you be able to say NO! to Obama but you can say NO! to what ever waffling, wishey washy, soft on communism, gay loving, tax and spend Republican gets the nomination. Or maybe you should just say NO! to the whole mess of them and stay home and not vote at all, that will show em!

The self destruction of the Republican Party?

2011-12-23T01:20:00.000-06:00

Wow, what a campaign, imagine what it will be like once people finally get around to voting!

Let's go through the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination so far, Mitt Romney is crowned the winner by the media the day he announces only to find out that most Republican voters can't seem to stand him. The voters decide that Michele Bachman is their candidate of choice until she starts saying crazy things about vaccinating children which cause the voters to drop her like a hot potato. Then the Republicans decide that Rick Perry will save them from the wishy-washy and possibly Marxist Romney. Sadly Governor Perry couldn't remember which government agencies he would kill (he was talking to Republicans, wouldn't he have been safe to say he would kill all of them?) and then made a speech that was less intoxicating than it was intoxicated. It got so bad that he couldn't even save himself by attacking gay soldiers. Next up at bat was Herman Cain who won over hearts and... well he won over hearts in the Republican party. With his 999 mantra he became the Pied Piper of the Republican primary. Sadly it seemed that saying "999" that often prevented him from remembering other words, like "Libya". Oh yeah, there was that little thing about him sexually harassing several women and having a mistress too. With the possible anti-Romneys running out the members of the GOP turned to failed politician and Tiffany's patron Newt Gingrich. Sadly as Republican voters started to hear about Newt getting paid huge sums of money by the hated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the shine started to fade from Newt. I was hoping we would get to hear more stories about the organization Gingrich runs that gives out awards to companies willing to pay $5,000.00 to receive the award.

And now, with the Iowa caucus' just 10 days away the flavor of the moment is Ron Paul. Ron Paul has attracted considerable support from younger voters, much of which seems to stem from his call to bring home all US troops and to legalize marijuana. They seem to ignore the blatantly racist statements that appeared in newsletters published by Paul and which carried his name. Paul has disavowed the statements and has said he didn't write the statements and failed to read his own newsletters before they were sent out. Today we learned of an advertising letter sent out to sell subscriptions to his newsletters. This letter was signed by Ron Paul so it seems safe to assume even if he didn't write the words in the letter he must have read them before being sent out.

This letter contains further racist statements, comments about secret plots unearthed by Paul using his skills as a doctor, and a plan by the US government to kep tabs on its citizens by changing the color of our money.

So does this mean Romney will win the nomination? Hard to say. It seems the GOP voters don't want to vote for someone in a primary election who isn't a lunatic overflowing with bluster and little else. Of course a candidate of this sort has little chance of winning over the independent vote any candidate would need to have any hope of winning the election.

The Republican party has been seemingly taken over by extremists on the right. Those on the right will of course claim that the Democrats have handed their party to extremists on the left but any honest examination of the Democrats will show that they have actually been taken over by a cabal of neo-Republicans, moderates, and spineless wimps. The republicans though seem hell bent on not winning the presidential election, then again maybe they don't care if they win the Oval Office.

Using a combination of the gerrymandering of congressional districts and new laws to help suppress the votes of likely Democratic voters the Republicans have developed a plan to lock down their control of the House and Senate. This will allow them to permanently remain the opposition party and exercise all the power and control they need to push their agendas.

Democrats often speak of the Republican party as if it is ran by a bunch of bumbling rednecks. On the contrary, with a little study of their tactics it seems that the GOP is being led by exemplary students of Machiavellian politics. The real question is who will really suffer from their extreme power grab?

A story about jobs and taxes...

2011-12-17T15:20:00.000-06:00

If you read the news or listen to the pundits on TV you are going to encounter a lot being said about jobs and how job growth would be effected by changes in tax policy. Recently a millionaire surtax was proposed but congressional members of the GOP and a few democrats started screaming that this tax would negatively effect job growth. They claimed that many small business owners would be effected by this tax and the 5.6% would cause these small business owners to curtail hiring. Of course at other times republicans have suggested that tax cuts to the wealthy would help to spur job creation. Is any of this true? Let's take a look at a short story about a small business and see how these ideas hold up.

John and Judy are a married couple in their 50's. John has managed retail operations for a computer manufacturer for the past 18 years and Judy is an accountant. They live a comfortable life but about a year ago they realized that they were tired of working for someone else and wanted to find a way to spend more time together. John loves to cook and Judy is quite a people person and so the idea came to them to open a small restaurant in the town where they live. Judy developed a plan to increase their savings so they could amass the capital they needed to open their restaurant and not have to touch the savings they had set aside for their retirement. After a couple of years of saving and studying they both quit their jobs and opened up their restaurant.

John worked in the kitchen cooking all of the food and Judy waited tables and took care of the books. From the very beginning things went well. After a couple of weeks news of their restaurant had spread and they were serving an average of 20 tables of customers every night. For just two people 20 tables is quite a bit to handle, but they both worked hard and their happy customers kept coming back. After being open for 5 months though things were about to change.

One morning Judy and John left home to go to work at the restaurant. On the way they stopped to put gas in their car and on a lark Judy bought a scratch off lottery ticket. When they arrived at the restaurant Judy scratched off the numbers and let out a yell that could be heard blocks away when she saw that they had just won $10,000.00! This was obviously their lucky day but little did they know that their good luck wasn't over. It was a good night at the restaurant and all of their customers left happy and full, it all seemed quite average until the next morning when John was reading the local newspaper. As it turns out one of their customers the night before was the food writer for the local paper and she had given their restaurant a glowing review! They excitedly left for work wondering what kind of effect the review would have on their business.

As it turns out the effect was astounding. Instead of having 20 tables of customers show up throughout the night 80 tables of customers showed up. There was no way that they could keep up with the demand and still provide the quality of food and level of service they had been praised for in the review and so they, sadly, had to turn many, many people away. John and Judy left the restaurant that night knowing that they had to make some big decisions.

They sat down the next morning to talk about how to handle the sudden influx of business they had experienced. Being good business people they knew that they couldn't count on 80 tables of customers showing up every night but knowing their competition and the area they are in they decided that 60 tables wouldn't be an unreasonable average to expect. The space that they were renting could easily handle the extra tables they would need but without adding a few employees the additional tables wouldn't help. They didn't have the man power needed to serve the additional tables. They started working up numbers and found that the additional employees they would need to deal with 60 tables worth of customers would run them around $1,200.00 a night. Their average check per table was $50.00 meaning that they were taking in about $1,000.00 a night by serving 20 tables, at 60 tables they would be bringing in around $3,000.00 a night in revenue. After subtracting the $1,200.00 per night for the total cost of the employees they would still be bringing in around $800.00 more per night in revenue, almost doubling their current revenue. Of course if they only served 40 tables a night they would be reducing their total revenue by $200.00 a night so there was risk involved in hiring any employees but they felt confident that the demand for their food would make it worth hiring a few employees.

While planning to open their business they made sure that they had enough money set aside for surprises just like this and so they ordered additional tables and plates and took out help wanted ads. Within a few weeks they were averaging around 70 tables a night as more people eating at their restaurant meant the positive word of mouth advertising about their business spread faster and created more demand. John and Judy knew that they had made a good decision and were thrilled to know that they might even be able to take some time off from the restaurant now that they had someone else to help them out with it.

So how does this relate to taxes? Did you notice how much impact wining $10,000.00 had on John and Judy's decisions to hire new employees? None. You see being good business people they had the monetary resources to handle the growth of their business. Even if they didn't have the cash on hand it would have made more sense to take out a loan for their expenses instead of spending their recent windfall. Why? Spending this money involved risk, as noted in the story when they discussed what would happen if they only served 40 tables a night. By obtaining a loan that they could pay off over time they would spread out the risk, if they had spent the $10,000.00 they won it could have been gone all at once. So just like the money they won a reduction in their tax rate would be seen as something separate from their need to hire. Hiring is based on demand, if John and Judy had won a million dollars but seen no increase in demand for their food they wouldn't have hired anyone as they would have simply been throwing their money away.

But what about a tax increase? We have been told over and over again that increasing taxes will cause businesses to stop or slow down their hiring. Again not true. The millionaire surtax that was proposed would have raised the taxes of those that it effected by 5.6%. Let's imagine that John and Judy's rent and food cost had suddenly went up by 5.6%, would they have still hired the new employees? Yes they would have. They hired because not hiring would have cost them money potentially. Hiring would allow them to make an additional $800.00 per night, not hiring would have cost them that $800.00 per night. A rise in the cost of their rent or in their food costs are unrelated to the extra demand they were experiencing just as a tax increase would be unrelated. If your weekly grocery bill goes up you don't turn your car into the finance company so you can stop making car payments. If you got rid of your car you wouldn't be able to go to work and buy any groceries in the first place. The same idea applies to a business, expenses are listed separately in their ledgers because they are individual expenses and have to be considered on an individual basis.

Taxes, and regulations, don't cause a company to hire or not hire, demand, or a lack there of, are what drives hiring. If the GOP are so pro-business why do our republican representatives seem to know so little about how businesses actually operate? Furthermore why do so many democrats sem willing to go along with their lies? The tax policies they are supporting won't create jobs, but they will allow the wealthy among us to keep more money in their pockets, and some of that money winds up being used as campaign contributions. That's what the arguments about tax policy actually come down to.

Redistribution of wealth

2011-11-02T12:38:00.000-05:00

Today a friend of mine posted a link on Facebook to a newsletter entry from financial guru Dave Ramsey in which he discusses the Occupy Wall Street protests. It is an interesting piece in which he discusses one of the most common complaints about the movement, that it has no real, firm goals. Of course he then goes on to contradict himself by discussing what he sees as the faults of the movement's goals. I have issues with several of the things that he says, but one of them really stands out for me.

Mr. Ramsey delves into the concept of income inequality by saying this;

"I've heard a lot about wealth redistribution over the past few years, and I'm sure you've heard it too. Call it whatever you want, but this is how it usually sounds to most Americans: "We are the 99% of Americans who don't have as much as the 1%, so we're mad and think the government should take their wealth and property away so that we can have a piece of it. Wealth inequality is a moral breakdown! We should all spread the money around so everyone gets a fair share!"

I have my toughest critique for those who believe this: You are a thief. When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that's called theft—whether they're using a gun or the government. At the core of this demand is envy. And that's not the same as jealousy. Jealousy just says, "I want what you have." Envy is a different beast. Envy says, "I don't think I can ever have what you have, so you shouldn't have it either." Decades of horrible economic teaching and the politics of envy have kept this monster alive and growing and moving forward."

Well here is my question, if Mr. Ramsey is so upset by redistributing wealth why hasn't he railed against the redistribution of wealth from the poor and the middle class up to the wealthy that has been going on for years in this country and that many are pushing to expand?

The US economy is not driven by the wealthy, it is driven by the poor and the middle class. No one, and I mean no one, has become wealthy in this country just by being smart, or innovative, or hard working. Every single wealthy person has derived their wealth, directly or indirectly, off of the labor and consumption of the poor and middle class. If it wasn't for the hard work of the poor and the middle class nothing would be made in factories, nothing would be rung up at check out counters in stores, nothing would be displayed in an attractive and organized way on store shelves. If it wasn't for the spending of the poor and middle class there wouldn't be enough money flowing through our economy for anyone to be rich, the goods and services provided by businesses would just sit on the shelves and gather dust and our economy would grind to a halt. Sure, the top 1% control an inordinate amount of the wealth in this country but their numbers are so small they are in no way responsible for a majority of the spending in this country. I do not in any way shape or form deny that many wealthy individuals have put in a lot of hard work and have had to be very smart to get to where they are but without the poor and the middle class they would have had no chance to get to where they are.

Somehow we forgot this basic truth and decided that we should start giving tax breaks to the wealthy. We believed that it would be good for all of us if a corporation like GE pays nothing in taxes while a family of four with both the mother and father working pays a large percentage of their income in taxes. We call the wealthy job creators when in fact only demand, demand that comes primarily from the poor and middle class, can lead a business to hire new employees. We have decided that companies should be able to go anywhere in the world to find the cheapest labor possible so they can increase their profit margins to obscene levels while jobs are lost in the US every day and the only hope we have to bring them back is to turn our country into the same kind of sweat shop based economy that we find in the other countries where the jobs have flooded in. We have decided that turning our nation into an environmental wasteland makes sense because companies shouldn't have to deal with common sense regulations that protect all of us if it means their CEO can't take home 4500 times the wages his or her average employee makes. Trickle down economics is a lie that forgets that wealth only trickles up in a capitalist economy. Sure it can produce short term booms that make most people happy, but it also produces extreme busts that make it almost impossible for people to survive and that from which our economy never fully recovers.

It seems like everyday we hear of a new tax plan that will cut taxes on the wealthy and raise taxes on everyone else. I'm not just picking on republicans here, the Bush tax cuts weren't ended by the democrat we have in office currently. But tax plans that increase the burden on the poor and middle class ignore a major fact, the wealthy get the most benefit from the government spending the revenue it takes in. Lets say you start up a car company. You will immediately be benefiting from the roads that exist in our country and that were paid for by tax dollars. The roads, after all, give people a place to use the product you want to sell and allow the market for your product to be vastly larger than it would be without the roads. You also benefit by having a road system that allows the parts for your products to be moved to your factories. Then of course you benefit by being able to use the roads to transport the cars your company makes to the dealerships where they are sold. Oh yeah, roads make it much easier for your workforce to get to your car factory every day so they can build the cars you hope to sell. You are getting a huge amount of benefit from something that was built by the government and paid for with taxes, in fact I doubt your company could exist without this important government benefit. But how much benefit do your workers get from the roads? It seems the major benefit would be the roads make it easier for them to get to work, which of course is also a benefit for the car factory owner.

Of course the factory owner also benefits from the public education system by being able to hire educated workers, and he benefits from the social security and medicare systems by not having to pay out big pensions, and he benefits from the national park system by having places that people will want to drive to which makes his cars easier to market. The list goes on and on. We all benefit from the money our government takes in from taxes, but the wealthy can benefit much more than the poor and middle class and yet people like Mr. Ramsey think that the wealthy shouldn't have to pay any extra for all of these additional benefits that they receive. Mr. Ramsey thinks that asking the wealthy to pay into a system that they are more than willing to take from is theft. Well if a theft has been perpetrated it has been by the wealthy over the past few decades and we should take such an accusatory tone towards those trying to make it right.

I mean I think I understand a little. The wealthy think they are the reason they are wealthy. We have this myth of the self made man in our national psyche and we really believe that if we work hard enough that we can all be rich. Sorry, this isn't true, plain and simple. If you are wealthy in the US the greatest likelihood is that you were born into wealth. You may have not taken loans from your parents, you may not have received an inheritance from them, but you were raised in an environment that gave you a big leg up on everyone else. You didn't learn from your parents how to put off paying the light bill as long as possible. No you learned how to pick a good stock broker who could help you increase your wealth. You didn't have to go to a community college, even if you went to a public school it is very doubtful that it was a poor inner city public school. You had fewer worries so that you could focus more on what your future would be like and didn't have to concentrate on making it week to week or day to day. If you are wealthy you probably grew up with all the tools you needed to continue and grow that wealth and so you had a big advantage on everyone else. But you think you did it all yourself, and if you could do it anyone can.

Well I am sorry to say that this just isn't true and I hate to tell you this, but those people the wealthy think are trying to steal from them with redistribution of wealth aren't thieves they are just people trying to make it by and who think it is time for the wealthy to pay us back for all the support we gave them that allowed them to be wealthy. I am all for people being filthy rich, work hard, use your smarts and the advantages you are lucky enough to have. Just get to be filthy rich in a fair and truthful way, redistribution of wealth is about being fair an truthful and I can hardly see that as theft. After all, Mr. Ramsey is very open and proud of his faith, and Jesus said in Luke 12:33, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." If Christ says that the redistribution of wealth isn't theft I'm going to believe him over Dave Ramsey.

Occupy Nashville Arrests, take 2

2011-10-29T01:43:00.000-05:00

I woke up this morning to hear that 29 individuals were arrested last night for peacefully protesting in a public location. The government of Tennessee will say that they weren't arrested for protesting, but instead for violating a curfew imposed on this one location. Of course this curfew had only been instated that day and was obviously instated to stop or at least curtail the protest.

The US Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution both guarantee the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. The state of Tennessee violated both of these rights for the individuals arrested. Tonight there were more arrests.

The information I have received via live video streams from the Occupy Nashville web site says that around 30 more people were arrested tonight. The Tennessee Highway Patrol officers conducting the arrests refused to give out their names when asked, had their badges covered, and refused to give out their badge numbers. One of the individuals arrested was apparently a reporter for a local news paper who was there covering the protest, he had his press credentials and showed them to the patrolmen, he was still taken into custody. Another reporter who questioned the arrest was also threatened with arrest. The first reporter was told that his press credentials didn't matter because he was not on public property which in fact is not the case.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press were stomped on tonight by the state of Tennessee. I have not been an active supporter of the Occupy movement simply because I won't be part of a group unless I know exactly what they stand for and the Occupy groups have been purposefully vague. I do, however, actively support the exercise of the rights guaranteed to all of us by our Constitution. We have to stand up against this type of oppression, we have to stand up against this type of governmental disenfranchisement. If you are a resident of the state of Tennessee please contact your state representative and senator and strongly voice your disapproval with the actions that have been taken by the state against these protesters. You can find contact information for your state legislators here;

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislators/

Contact information for Governor Haslam can be found here;

http://www.tn.gov/governor/contact.shtml

You can contact the Tennessee Highway Patrol as well;

http://www.tn.gov/safety/thp.shtml

How to take our country back...

2011-10-23T02:08:00.000-05:00

All around the country, in fact all around the world, people have joined the individuals in New York who are part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I hesitate to call it a movement because "movement" implies something is going in one direction or another while the Occupy Wall Street groups seems to be headed in 10 or 15 different directions at once. So if any of them are looking to stand up for something instead of just being angry at something I am offering my assistance by proposing that everyone support a three step process for taking our country back.

Step one, End corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is a legal concept, technically (and I am not making this up) a "legal fiction", that states that corporations are people and have the same rights as people in out country. Yes I agree, this is completely ridiculous but it is true. In 1886 the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and are entitled to the rights you and I are. So when a case came before the Supreme Court charging that laws against corporations funding or supporting political campaigns were unconstitutional the Supreme Court had to look at the earlier court's ruling and agree. If corporations are people then they should be able to support political campaigns just like anyone else. I am dismayed by this ruling but I can see why the Justices ruled the way they did. So now we need to fix the problem set up by the Supreme Court back in 1886 and the only way to do this is a constitutional amendment. This amendment would state that only individuals are granted rights under the US constitution and that no organization is entitled to the rights provided for in the constitution. Step one complete.

Step two, Reform campaign financing. I'm not talking doing something minor here, I am talking a major overhaul.

*Only registered voters will be allowed to donate to political campaigns. No corporations, no unions, no political action committees, no civic groups, not even political parties. If you can't vote then you can't donate.

*Individuals can only donate to candidates they can vote for. I live in Tennessee, I can see no reason why I should be able to donate to the campaign of a candidate running for the governor's office in Idaho.

*The maximum donation is $500 per election cycle per candidate. This would allow everyone to donate up to $500 per candidate in every election they can vote for. Heck they could donate $500 each to two candidates running against each other if they want to, but only $500 per candidate per election cycle.

These changes would go a long way to making each of our votes count and would take the influence of big money out of campaigns and out of running our government. The wealthy would still have their say, but they wouldn't be able to shout over everyone else with their money.

Step three, End all lobbying. We must eliminate the system of citizenship by proxy that is currently transforming our nation from a democratic republic to an oligarchy. Each of us has one vote we should each also have one voice. You could contact your elected representatives as often as you want, you could encourage others to contact their representatives as well, but no one could speak for anyone but themselves. A CEO should not be able to spend any more time with the President or a senator than I can, if nothing else we should be equal in political representation and the CEO should not be able to hire people to speak for his or her interests. One vote, one voice.

Steps 2 and 3 require that step one happen first but if we the people could yell and scream loud enough that these three things happened we the people would be in charge of our government once again.

The anti Federal Reserve cult

2011-10-22T13:41:00.000-05:00

I have been involved in a discussion with a few individuals in the Ron Paul anti-Federal Reserve cult the past few days. I call it a cult because these people have completely drank the kool-aid. They believe exactly what they have been told and completely ignore any factual information that might cause them to question their beliefs. They try to proselytize and bring others into their cult by screaming about conspiracy theories and completely ignoring facts. They talk about the Fed being run by a secret cabal of mysterious individuals who don't have to answer to anyone. They scream about all of the harm the Fed has done while ignoring the Fed's positive accomplishments. They are cultists and Ron Paul is their prophet and supposed savior.

To be honest I am not the Fed's biggest supporter, I think Alan Greenspan helped to put our economy into the crisis situation it is in now with his complete faith in the Chicago School of Economics. But the mistakes of Alan Grenspan, large as they may be, are no reason to destroy an organization that has allowed us to not suffer through the wild swings of inflation and deflation that our country endured before the Fed existed. The Fed also brought us through the transition away from the gold standard which had we stayed on it would have destroyed the middle class in the US with the fairly constant supply of gold versus the quickly increasing US population after World War II. The Fed is far from perfect and could use a bit of restructuring, as could all of our economic institutions, but to claim that it is solely responsible for everything from our current economic woes to the murder of of US House of Representatives member Louis McFadden, to the Great Depression is not a sign of political involvement, it is a sign of insanity. To those Ron Paul supporters who may be reading this, think about your vote, I worry that Ron Paul, if elected, could become the economic version of Jim Jones.

super-micro economics

2011-10-21T13:18:00.000-05:00

If you have read much of my blog you know that I talk about economics a lot. A whole heck of a lot. This post is about micro-economics, micro to the point of just being about me.

The economy is tough right now and boy am I feeling it. I am currently unemployed but making a small amount of money by selling a few nice vintage items online (come check it out and buy some stuff at my etsy store!) so things aren't quite as bad as they could be but they aren't good either. You see me and my husband have a house, but my husband is also working on his PhD in another city. I am here so we can keep the house and also to be close to our families and this means we are paying for 2 places to live, 2 electric bills, 2 water bills, etc. My husband is still working on weekends (this kind of blows since the weekends are the only time we can see each other) and gets a very small stipend from the school he is attending, but we are well below the poverty level as a household, so if you ever thought I was some well off guy just blabbering about things I don't understand, trust me, I understand things.

So if anyone knows of a part time job let me know, I can't sell plasma unless some rules are changed so that's out of the question, but I sure can pump out some articles if you need anything written :-)

The Decline of America

2011-10-20T18:49:00.000-05:00

Recently the Christian Science Monitor published an article detailing the decline in the standard of living in the United States. Income levels have been dropping, disposable income is vanishing, total wealth is on the decline with falling real estate values and the less than stellar performance of the stock market in the past few years. When I was young parents just assumed that their children would lead better lives than they had. Now many parents wonder how their children will make it which adds to the stress these parents endure wondering how they are going to make it as well. In all of this pain there is one bright spot. At least it is bright if you are in the top few percent of income earners in our country. You see while poverty and despair extends its grip all around you have seen your income go up. Corporate bonuses keep being handed out and huge donations keep getting paid to the politicians who will protect and enhance the wealth of the richest Americans no matter what the cost to most Americans.

We now have presidential candidates promoting tax plans that will shift even more of the tax burden onto the poor and middle class while saving the wealthy millions each year, that's not a typo, the wealthiest Americans would save millions if the 9-9-9 plane were to pass. We have seen the effects of "trickle down economics" and yet we allow our elected officials to keep passing laws that only benefit the wealthy and the corporations they profit from. We have allowed our country to get into this shape, easy and cheap credit allowed us to spend like we were wealthier than we were and as long as we could make the minimum payment we felt rich and saw no reason to change things. We were fooling ourselves and when it came time to pay up we realized we couldn't, we had given just a few people in our country control over our money and what control we didn't give them they bought themselves.

Tea Party supporters often scream about wanting their country back, I'm not sure what country they are talking about. A country with less regulation that ignores its poorest citizens and works only to make the rich richer while everyone else, the people that do the work and spend their hard earned money so the wealthy can be wealthy, get left behind? Well that is the country we have now, so that can't be what they are talking about. Maybe they are talking about the country that placed high tax rates on the wealthy, had a "war on poverty" created safety net programs instead of killing them so the government could save money and pass those savings onto the wealthy. The country that had strong unions which helped make sure that the workers in this country got paid a fair wage. The country that passed regulations to protect the health and safety of its people and knew that the business community was smart enough to deal with these regulations and still make a profit. The country that was prosperous and saw increasing income levels across all economic classes. If this is the country they wan't to get back, because this is the ACTUAL country that we used to have, the I will stand with the Tea Party supporters. Sadly the Tea Party people want the country that the wealthy have dreamed up in the fantasy world they live in and that so many in this country have bought, hook, line and sinker. This country never really existed in the US until now, but it bears a strong resemblance to a lot of third world countries where the rich have ben getting richer for years.

The wealthy love poor people. Poor people will work for less money and complain less for fear of loosing their jobs. Poor people make the wealthy wealthier and they hope to expand the population of the poor in the US. The wealthy will bring jobs back to the US when we are willing to work in the conditions and for the wages that people in places like China and India deal with. The Tea Party didn't take the country back but, with the permission of most of America, the wealthy took it away from us.

A question for the average American revisited

2011-10-14T01:35:00.000-05:00

Recently I asked which was more dangerous to the average American, radical Islamists or radical capitalists. So far no one has responded and so I thought that this might need a bit more explanation.

On September 11th, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists who murdered nearly 3000 people in one day. Our nation's reaction was incredible. We, for a period of time, were unified in support for each other and in our outrage at the small number of unthinkably horrible people who had committed and planned this insane attack on our country.

A 2009 study found that around 45,000 Americans die every year from a lack of health insurance. There have been several attempts over the years to create a universal health care program in the United States. These programs have been defeated by the efforts of those who profit hugely off our current system, the health insurance industry, the pharmaceuticals industry, for profit hospitals, etc. What if all of the 45,000 people who die every year from a lack of affordable health care all died on the same day at the same location? Now we don't know about their deaths unless we know an individual who dies from a lack of health care personally, and then we might know of 1 or 2 people a year who's deaths are related to an inability to receive care for a condition that could be treated if they were able to afford the treatment. But if all 45,000 died on the same day, at the same time, in the same place while cameras rolled and the news media reported on their deaths, I believe we would have a man hunt for those who profited by denying these people the care that they needed the next day and by the next week we would have universal health care in this country. No one would be talking about socialism, everyone would be talking about the injustice that had killed these 45,000 people.

On 9/11 thousands of people lost their jobs as the places where they worked were destroyed by mad men in airplanes. Since then millions have lost their jobs as our economy has been destroyed by mad men in corner offices. If all of those jobs had been lost on one day. If the pink slips had all been handed out to every last one of the currently unemployed at the same time and from the same place how would things be different? Would the people responsible for the rise in unemployment still be receiving huge bonuses and sitting in their offices on Capitol Hill or would they be locked away in jail?

We are a nation that responds selflessly to an emergency as long as the emergency can be viewed in its entirety in the time it takes to watch the evening news. But we have death and suffering going on around us every day. Each day the body count is small, but cumulatively it eclipses any earthquake or hurricane or terrorist attack our nation has ever endured. We will spend billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and more time than we could ever imagine to hunt down an enemy that does great damage in one swift and horrible moment. But extend the time frame of the disaster and we can't find it in us to overcome our own selfishness to rail against our attacker. I believe the radical capitalists are fully aware of this phenomenon, lets hope our nation's outside enemies never figure this out.

Rick Santorum, my favorite republican presidential candidate.

2011-10-12T12:28:00.000-05:00

You have to love Rick Santorum, if you google his name you will get a good laugh. He tried to blame the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests on the acceptance of the private relationships of consenting adult gay men. He compared same sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. He is an incredible idiot, but he is an honest idiot willing to say exactly what he thinks no matter how stupid it makes him look. Last night at the Republican presidential debate he got even more honest.

During a discussion on how the US should deal with China on issues like the trade debt and China's manipulation of their currency the phrase "trade war" was tossed around several times. Some of the candidates discussed how to avoid it, some seem to support starting a trade war with China. Rick Santorum had this to say;

"I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

That's an interesting thought. You see what has made China such an attractive place to do business are things like ridiculously low wages for the workers in China. A lack of labor regulations to protect workers from things like being forced to work excessive hours or to keep children from working in factories, or to make sure that conditions are safe for workers also makes China an attractive place to do business. China's lax environmental regulations mean that the country has been turned into an environmental basket case where in many areas it isn't safe to drink the water or even breathe the air, which of course also makes China a wonderfully attractive place to do business. Apparently Rick Santorum thinks it would be great if the US was just as attractive of a place to do business. I bet some of the other candidates wouldn't disagree with him on this. At least Santorum is honest about it.