Article/Blog Comments Reveal Scary Stuff

As I perused political articles and blogs, checking "the pulse" of America one fine morning, I noticed a common thread among the comments -- lack of a complete understanding of the issue these people are commenting on. Now, don't get me wrong, this is not a scientific study on what the average American thinks. I know that the average American is probably not commenting on online articles and blogs. However, these people are more likely to be vocal when it comes to politics. So to brush off their comments is to miss an important piece of the American political landscape.

I'm not saying that they all have bad information or a lack of information. Perhaps some of them purposely leave out pieces of an issue to suit their beliefs and desires. That’s what our elected officials do all the time, so it's not a stretch to believe that they've picked up that bad habit.

I recently read an article about the proposed tax increase on those making over $250,000. One person made a seemingly innocent comment that just because people making over $250,000 COULD afford higher taxes, doesn't mean they should be subject to them. Of course not. That’s not how the tax system works, so that’s not even an argument. If we did base taxes only on who could afford more, our government would have a lot more money because many rich people would be paying and paying. And that commenter probably needs to read my post about what makes people bad voters. Taxes are government revenue that’s spent on defense, education, infrastructure and, of course, many other things. SOMEONE has to pay for it, and when you get right down to it, people making over $250,000 can absorb the extra taxes a lot easier than Jane and Joe Lunchpail, who on average make about $50,000.

Which leads to a totally ridiculous comment on the same article, stating that any money that goes to the government is wasted, so why give them more money to waste. It's all wasted? Really? Do you drive to work, sir? On paved roads? Then thank the government. Do your parents, or maybe even yourself, benefit from Medicaid/Medicare? Then you need to give props to the good ol' gov'ment. Do you have children in public schools? Government. And I certainly hope you're not against government testing of medications, food, toys and a whole slew of other consumer products that could cause serious problems if not carefully regulated.

So you may not like all of what the government spends money on, and you may think the majority of it is pork. I can't argue with that. I agree that there is too much extremely irritating pork barrel spending out there. But before I go spewing vitriol about it, I check myself to make sure I'm not benefitting from said pork. After all, it's only pork if it's going to someone else's state, right?

And that's the final problem. The "I want mine and screw everyone else" attitude that is somehow becoming acceptable now. Probably due to the perception that anyone who is NOT making $250,000 has only themselves to blame. Which is, quite frankly, stupid. Many people bust their butts their entire lives and just barely get by. Others work hard and see it pay off. So there's clearly some bit of luck involved. Read “The Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell before you disagree with me.

There are also those who are lazy and suck off they system. I'm clear on that. But I don't want to penalize the hard-working, unlucky folks who legitimately need help just because a few bad apples are content to let others support them. Do I want to support freeloaders? No. Do I understand that we just have to do it? Yes. Let's not forget that there are usually kids involved, too. Kids who are completely blameless for their parents' shortcomings. Kids who will be part of the future of this country. And we can stop acting like welfare recipients are living the good life sucking off the system. Would you want to trade places with them? So you could enjoy that fabulous work-free life? I didn’t think so.

We need to think about the entire issue and ALL the ramifications before we decide one thing or another. Just because a policy benefits a few people who "don't deserve it," doesn't mean the policy is bad. It just means that we need to work harder to prevent the undeserving folks from taking advantage. Although, you may want to rethink THAT position, too. After all, it would require more government intervention, a.k.a. more money.

Two Habits That Make YOU A Bad Voter

I'm not saying you have these habits, but if you do, please stop immediately. And friends don't let friends act this way, either!

Habits of Bad Voters
1. You get ALL your political news from one source.
2. You don't realize the U.S. budget has two simple components.

Let's start with #1. This would make you a bad voter because you could be getting all the WRONG facts from whatever your one source of news is. This holds true whether you get your news from Air America or Fox "News" or The Daily Show.

Here's an example. There is nothing wrong with watching Fox "News" as long as you realize it's mostly conservative opinion. Believe it or not, that is NOT fact. And any good American voter should get all the facts before hopefully coming to a decision about public issues (instead of being just another bs slinger). Otherwise, you're hurting us all.

There is irony in the fact that this is generally a conservative problem (not entirely, though, don't get me wrong). These are the same people who say that we need checks and balances in government, thus you should be voting conservative right now regardless of how you feel so that no one party has too much power. Well, how about getting your information from more than one source? You know, like your own checks and balances? Duh.

Habit #2 I just can't understand. Listen up, cause I'm only going to say this once. The government's budget is just like your budget. There are two parts -- revenues (money coming in, i.e. tax receipts) and expenses (money going out, i.e. program spending). Details are complicated, but overall it's easy.

So when someone's trying to sell you "tax cuts for all" it sure does sound nice. I certainly want a tax cut for me. But it also means taking away revenue, which has the EXACT SAME effect on the budget as spending more.

The easy way to NOT get into these habits is as follows. First, get all the facts from each side. Go right to the source and find out what each side is saying, don't rely on what other people tell you secondhand. Then, carefully weigh the effect on the budget and who the proposal helps/hurts. YOU can have your own opinion. Just because you haven't heard a news person say it/blog it/twitter it, it doesn't mean you're wrong!

Lobbyists Kick Your Ass Again

Remember way back a few months ago, when the words "too big to fail" were usually accompanied by a snarky tone and a look of anger? Back when we needed to overhaul our financial system so that tax payers don't have to bailout banks again? Hey, sorry suckers -- now that the stock market has made its recovery and big banks have paid back TARP, nothing needs to be done. Taxpayers should just prepare themselves for the bailout that will surely follow the next financial crisis. At least, that's what you would think, based on the way Congress is dealing with the situation.

Naturally, any bill that pushed derivates onto regulated platforms was on Wall Street's "Do Not Do" list. So their lobbyists worked overtime, particulary on the "New Democrats," which is a group of so-called "fiscally conservative" Democrats. The New Democrats got worked over by the lobbyists and of course the regulated platform got scrapped. Back to the same-old, same-old.

Congress also talked about creating a national consumer protection agency. How protective will it be? Well, the original House bill called for states to be able to implement their own, more strict regulations. Of course, big business didn't like that, so they again went for the New Dems and got language included that allows federal regulators to override state consumer laws. And the new group wouldn't oversee nonfinancials like real estate and automotive companies. Screwed again, people. This supposed consumer protection group is turning into a stamp-of-approval-for-whatever-the-hell-businesses-want-to-do group.

The Senate couldn't agree on anything in regards to reform until recently and they say they won't have a bill ready until the spring, at least. Wall Street lobbyists must be overjoyed! Plenty more time for them to lobby and fight against anything that will help taxpayers.

We need to remind our Reps and Senators that taxpayers ARE paying attention. Contact your Congressional Representatives TODAY. Tell them to show you they have the courage to support YOU, the voter and taxpayer, instead of being the dupes of Wall Street.

Why Only Independents & Moderates Matter

It's another election day ... albeit a less exciting one than last year. But I was just looking at an article on CNN about anger fueling this Election Day. But that only serves to make voters more predictable.

Nowadays, with so much divisiveness between the parties, politics has turned all ugly, all the time. Both parties will lie or "stretch the truth" to fit support their political views. And sadly, there are plenty of not-so-bright voters who will just blindly believe these lies, especially if they're designed to play on people's fears (i.e. your granny will be killed if health care reform passes).

Combine the lying with the bitter divisiveness between the parties and what you've got are a bunch of voters who don't matter. Die-hard liberals (because they'll always vote for the Democrat) and die-hard conservatives (because they'll always vote for the Republican. Who's left over? Independents and moderates. And there you have it.

The solution? Having a viable third party candidate would shake things up. A viable third AND fourth party would be even better. Not gonna happen for a while. U.S. voters writing to their Congressman/women EVERY TIME they lie or skew the truth ... and posting it all over the web (hello social media!), etc., may help. But CNN and the like debunking lies hasn't worked so far. Likely because most stupid/lazy voters aren't spending a lot of time watching national news.

Dear Wall Street Execs: Too Damn Bad!

Kenneth Feinberg's report (he's the special master of compensation ... talk about a grand title!) yesterday detailing cuts in exec pay was a welcome sight. All of us schlubs on Main Street were happy to see that at least something was being done about the ridiculous amount of money these losers on Wall Street are making. Yes, that's right, I said losers. After all, they're responsible for a large portion of the mess the economy is in right now.

Basically, regular folks are happy and bankers and financiers are not. We'll surely hear the blah, blah, blah about how these salary limitations mean that these brilliant, highly capable people are going to go to other companies. What no one has explained yet is why we should care. These are the same people who screwed up in the first place, right? The same people whose companies needed to be bailed out by taxpayer money, right? So, I'm not sure what the big deal is if they leave. I bet there are many, many other supposedly less capable people who could take over these positions and do just as bad a job.

And fellow Main Streeters, don't get too excited about the pay cuts. These execs will STILL make millions of dollars. Look at the top 20 losers over at Citi, one of the few mega banks that still appears to be struggling. Out of the top 20, 14 will make MORE than $5 million. Makes you a little nauseous, doesn't it?

So if a big ol' brain drain is about to take place on Wall Street, so be it. Until someone can prove to me that no other supposed financial geniuses want these jobs for "only" $5 million ... I won't lose any sleep.

The "You Can't Force Me" Health Care Cry Babies

“All I’m trying to do is protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." That's what Republican State Rep. Tom Emmer from Minnesota said, talking about a ridiculous attempt (being made in several states) to pass a law prohibiting mandatory health insurance.

Interesting ... since what it really means is, "All I'm trying to do is pander to a constituency that will help me win re-election." Hear me out. There are three sides to this issue. One is the side of the politicians who will say anything for votes. I think we're all familiar with how that works, so enough said there.

Second is the group of people who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance. Sounds good when you think about it, right? The government should mind its own business, right? Not so fast. If it didn't affect anyone else, sure, I'd agree. But it DOES affect someone else. Namely, EVERYONE with insurance.

Because don't forget the third side of this -- the people who do have or will have health insurance. They get screwed when others don't bother to get insurance, even though it's free or the price is greatly reduced. If you don't have insurance, you can still go to the hospital and get care. Who do you think is footing the bill for that? It gets spread around among all the suckers paying for insurance, of course.

So if you don't make insurance mandatory, everyone who does have it ends up paying. That's part of the spiraling cost of health care. D'uh. So if you DO have insurance, make sure you hear what the politicians who are against mandatory coverage are really saying -- "I'd like you to subsidize my re-election, so please let me pander to these people who don't bother to find out all the facts about health care and insurance and then you pick up the bill for their coverage." And make sure you say "no, thanks."

Evolution is F-A-C-T!

This isn't so much directly special interest, but I thought it might be helpful to some of my readers. See, when I get into a "creationism vs. evolution" argument, I'm often frustrated with the ridiculous, nonsensical arguments (where's the "missing link"? I didn't come from any monkey!) ... they're not even arguments, really. Just statements that are tough to answer because they don't make sense in the first place.

That being said, here's an excerpt from Richard Dawkins' book, The Angry Evolutionist, that was posted by Newsweek. Good reading, folks, good reading! I look forward to reading the book, because just this little nugget pretty much sums up all the arguments about why evolution is, in fact, fact. Or as close to fact as you can get in the scientific world. And certainly more factual than a completely fictional tale about what people thought happened ... before there were scientists to clear things up.