Go to my Facebook profile and look for a discussion started by my friend Chris Hook. Here is what I wanted to reply, but before I knew it I had posted over 8000 character or word limit. Sorry about the small print.
Hey, Hook, you addressed Lentz but actually commented on most of what I said. I have plenty of questions and ideas, but it is way too long for FB because I start typing and I don't stop. I will post it on my blog and you guys can read it if you want. Okay, if raising taxes has never increased revenue ( I don't know the history I was just speaking from the point of view of what a normal person does with their money in similar situations. If you need more money you find ways to cut spending without sacrificing things you need And you find a way to increase your income) It doesn't seem to me that anyone in D.C. seems to think this way. If increasing taxes does not increase revenue then why did we have a budget surplus after Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all raised taxes? The key reason CA and IL failed at increasing revenue through taxes is because they did not do the other essential part of the equation, cut unnecessary spending. Especially CA where they have voter initiatives that get on the state ballots for the public to vote on are always to increase something the people want. They want more government services, but don't want taxes. Who would? So, I don't think they are a good analogy of the federal government. Bills have to be introduced in congress not by the whim of the voters in a very liberal state. Your figure about what Bush achieved with the bailouts and TARP are probably (I don't have any reference material in front of me), but he did implication bailouts because the global economy was at stake, but now that Obama if holding onto that turd people keep saying stopping blaming Bush already. I do agree that Obama can't play that card anymore, but we can't just forget the underrepresented spending that Bush did because the GOP wants to make it all Obama's fault. They both had a hand in bailouts. While I understand that the choices the Administrations were faced with was global economic catastrophe unless they resorted to a "socialist" measures, if the Republicans during 2008 had stuck to their sacred religion of capitalism and allowing the "invisible hand" to come in and let those companies to collapse because they mis-ran their companies out of greed, the assumption that housing market was safe even though they were giving out loans to people they knew could not pay them then turning around and bet their own money that the housing bubble would burst and they cashed in while thousands of people that made poor decisions and were mislead by the banks that they were fine when internal documents knew they were selling shit that would fail and they could profit of of this. How were they "forced" into this practice? If Bush tried to stop this why didn't his Congressional party members support him? Why did they support him when he did start spending while cutting taxes? We all now know that Iraq was an unnecessary loss of American lives and treasure for reasons that continued to change as each explanation was discredited one after another. Is it good that Hussain is dead? Yes, but was it necessary at the time we were actually closing in on bin Laden who claimed responsibility for 9/11. Not a single Iraqi was involved, but we were all manipulated for reasons that no one can fully explain into starting an unprovoked war to this day. A vet friend of mine said he would have rather been told by his Commander-In- Chief this is all about oil and finishing what my daddy started. He would have followed his orders and even if he did not agree with them he would do his duty as a soldier and follow orders. Instead he and his brothers in arms had no idea what the hell they were doing there and seeing their friends killed or maimed by I.E.D.s. Meanwhile bin Laden spent over 5 year safe in Pakistan. Even if the recent comments by Obama on the anniversary of his death at the hands of the best special forces in the world might be seen by some as a effort to use it for political points, it doesn't change the fact the he took the intel gathered starting from before he took office to the day of the raid and made a difficult command decision and no one can take that away from him, his staff, Paneta, and SEAL team 6. To say he has been a complete failure is not true on at least this one presidential act. But, I am getting away from what you were saying. While the Prescription for the elderly bill helps thousands of seniors he did not HAVE to introduce and pass it without find some means of either spending cuts or taxes. He could have at least off-set the cost even if it was not full or substantial. This would at least demonstrate that he knew he couldn't pass bills without find some way to assist it's payment. We agree that Ryan's plan is not the right one and I agree increasing debt isn't the right path either. This goes back to my point that the parties are so polarized that in their philosophies that we can't balance the budget until they can meet in the middle where things actually get done. Having our credit down graded because the House GOP refused to accept anything from Obama because as they have famously said their number one goal is getting Obama out of office. Not job, not the economy, not healthcare, not infrastructure, nothing. When the GOP made demands and Obama gave them what they asked for and more then the House refused to accept a better deal than the one they had asked for in the first place was just shameful. They are so concerned with destroying Obama that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the country for political gains. The Dems fucked up by not attempting to balance the budget when they controlled the Congress and the White House, but where is the GOP's jobs bill? There is a lot of talk about bullshit (especially in the states) like contraception and destroying planned parenthood, but no talk of jobs. I loved a recent Jon Stewart (that is right I am an evil secular monster who takes orders from a comedian * sarcastic*) coverage of the GOP's bizarre math when it came to passing the Buffet rule. They argued that because it would only raise revenue of 3.4 BILLION dollars and that was such a small amount that it was insignificant and therefore not even voting for, but then they played clip after clip of Republicans saying that because planned parenthood cost $300, 000 (absolutely $o goes towards abortions) it was outrageously expensive and we simply couldn't afford it. So, don't bother taking in 3.4 BILLION dollars, but absolutely can't afford to provide millions of women health care services. HUH? We agreed that CEOs and fat cats of these banks and companies that fucked themselves in the ass, then took bailouts, and had the balls to give themselves bonus in a sense rewarding if not illegal, morally deplorable behavior then laying off thousand of worker because they can't afford to pay them. Maybe if those that fucked up got fired like any other working person that does a disastrous job and the people that did their jobs got promoted to those positions instead of fired maybe they might just change the way they do business. I never said anything about giving people money that don't deserve it. The people that take advantage of the system is incredibly small. This myth that there are roving hoards of welfare recipients living with plasma TV is just that a myth. The vast majority of unemployed people want to work, but either can not find a job or they are OVER qualified for certain jobs. Personally want nothing more than to find a job that can be accommodating my disability, but the case worker at career/ employment rehab told me point blank she could not think of any job that would be willing to accept the fact that Some days I am too sick to get out of bed, or if I do get to work my performance is poor due to health. For example if my blood glucose drops I risk going into shock and can lose my vision and ability to think clearly unless I drop everything and get sugar in my body as fast as possible. I have unpredictable episodes that require me to be hospitalized for days. No manager wants to deal with someone that might no show up without any notice because they are trying to be treated at the hospital. (I just got out of a 72 hour stay in the hospital today where I am treated for sever abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, dehydration, and malnutrition were I have to live off an IV saline drip because I am not allowed to eat or drink ANYTHING including H2O or oral medication. All the last few jobs I had could not flat out fire me for being unpredictable so they just cut my shifts until I was unable to pay my bills and forced to quit. MY doctor had to force me on disability and that is the case for the majority of those that get federal aid. I haven't bought any electronics, non-goodwill or Plato's closet cloths for myself since I lived in VT when I was making decent money. What I do have are gifts from my family. Without Christmas gifts like a ancient PC and internet access I would be further isolated from society. When you live off less than $800 a month in SSI (which is based on what I paid into when I worked, so I am think I am entitled to get what i paid) it is infuriating to hear people call people on disability or other forms of government assistance. The misconception that someone purposely falls and claims disability are out there, but they don't just give out disability to everyone. I was accepted straight away because of the severity and rareness of my illness. Everyone else is automatically denied the first time they file and usually several more time and have to find a lawyer (with what money I don't know) and go through a lengthy appeals process and then MIGHT get whatever they are entitled to based on work history and living expensive and dependents. If you don't have a car, a phone, or internet access how many well paying jobs do you think these (well-to-do poor) can get or their chances of getting a loan or grant for further education and retraining? I get furious when people paint us with the broad stroke of all being deadbeats and frauds. Then when I explain what life down here is like everyone if like "Well, you actually need it,". Well so do thousands of others. Why do the poor have to be extreamly poor and homeless to deserve to benefit from the government, but a hedge fund manager has to be wealthier to get more government aid (tax cuts, loop holes, etc.)?
See what insomnia can do for a ranter like me.
Hey, Hook, you addressed Lentz but actually commented on most of what I said. I have plenty of questions and ideas, but it is way too long for FB because I start typing and I don't stop. I will post it on my blog and you guys can read it if you want. Okay, if raising taxes has never increased revenue ( I don't know the history I was just speaking from the point of view of what a normal person does with their money in similar situations. If you need more money you find ways to cut spending without sacrificing things you need And you find a way to increase your income) It doesn't seem to me that anyone in D.C. seems to think this way. If increasing taxes does not increase revenue then why did we have a budget surplus after Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all raised taxes? The key reason CA and IL failed at increasing revenue through taxes is because they did not do the other essential part of the equation, cut unnecessary spending. Especially CA where they have voter initiatives that get on the state ballots for the public to vote on are always to increase something the people want. They want more government services, but don't want taxes. Who would? So, I don't think they are a good analogy of the federal government. Bills have to be introduced in congress not by the whim of the voters in a very liberal state. Your figure about what Bush achieved with the bailouts and TARP are probably (I don't have any reference material in front of me), but he did implication bailouts because the global economy was at stake, but now that Obama if holding onto that turd people keep saying stopping blaming Bush already. I do agree that Obama can't play that card anymore, but we can't just forget the underrepresented spending that Bush did because the GOP wants to make it all Obama's fault. They both had a hand in bailouts. While I understand that the choices the Administrations were faced with was global economic catastrophe unless they resorted to a "socialist" measures, if the Republicans during 2008 had stuck to their sacred religion of capitalism and allowing the "invisible hand" to come in and let those companies to collapse because they mis-ran their companies out of greed, the assumption that housing market was safe even though they were giving out loans to people they knew could not pay them then turning around and bet their own money that the housing bubble would burst and they cashed in while thousands of people that made poor decisions and were mislead by the banks that they were fine when internal documents knew they were selling shit that would fail and they could profit of of this. How were they "forced" into this practice? If Bush tried to stop this why didn't his Congressional party members support him? Why did they support him when he did start spending while cutting taxes? We all now know that Iraq was an unnecessary loss of American lives and treasure for reasons that continued to change as each explanation was discredited one after another. Is it good that Hussain is dead? Yes, but was it necessary at the time we were actually closing in on bin Laden who claimed responsibility for 9/11. Not a single Iraqi was involved, but we were all manipulated for reasons that no one can fully explain into starting an unprovoked war to this day. A vet friend of mine said he would have rather been told by his Commander-In- Chief this is all about oil and finishing what my daddy started. He would have followed his orders and even if he did not agree with them he would do his duty as a soldier and follow orders. Instead he and his brothers in arms had no idea what the hell they were doing there and seeing their friends killed or maimed by I.E.D.s. Meanwhile bin Laden spent over 5 year safe in Pakistan. Even if the recent comments by Obama on the anniversary of his death at the hands of the best special forces in the world might be seen by some as a effort to use it for political points, it doesn't change the fact the he took the intel gathered starting from before he took office to the day of the raid and made a difficult command decision and no one can take that away from him, his staff, Paneta, and SEAL team 6. To say he has been a complete failure is not true on at least this one presidential act. But, I am getting away from what you were saying. While the Prescription for the elderly bill helps thousands of seniors he did not HAVE to introduce and pass it without find some means of either spending cuts or taxes. He could have at least off-set the cost even if it was not full or substantial. This would at least demonstrate that he knew he couldn't pass bills without find some way to assist it's payment. We agree that Ryan's plan is not the right one and I agree increasing debt isn't the right path either. This goes back to my point that the parties are so polarized that in their philosophies that we can't balance the budget until they can meet in the middle where things actually get done. Having our credit down graded because the House GOP refused to accept anything from Obama because as they have famously said their number one goal is getting Obama out of office. Not job, not the economy, not healthcare, not infrastructure, nothing. When the GOP made demands and Obama gave them what they asked for and more then the House refused to accept a better deal than the one they had asked for in the first place was just shameful. They are so concerned with destroying Obama that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the country for political gains. The Dems fucked up by not attempting to balance the budget when they controlled the Congress and the White House, but where is the GOP's jobs bill? There is a lot of talk about bullshit (especially in the states) like contraception and destroying planned parenthood, but no talk of jobs. I loved a recent Jon Stewart (that is right I am an evil secular monster who takes orders from a comedian * sarcastic*) coverage of the GOP's bizarre math when it came to passing the Buffet rule. They argued that because it would only raise revenue of 3.4 BILLION dollars and that was such a small amount that it was insignificant and therefore not even voting for, but then they played clip after clip of Republicans saying that because planned parenthood cost $300, 000 (absolutely $o goes towards abortions) it was outrageously expensive and we simply couldn't afford it. So, don't bother taking in 3.4 BILLION dollars, but absolutely can't afford to provide millions of women health care services. HUH? We agreed that CEOs and fat cats of these banks and companies that fucked themselves in the ass, then took bailouts, and had the balls to give themselves bonus in a sense rewarding if not illegal, morally deplorable behavior then laying off thousand of worker because they can't afford to pay them. Maybe if those that fucked up got fired like any other working person that does a disastrous job and the people that did their jobs got promoted to those positions instead of fired maybe they might just change the way they do business. I never said anything about giving people money that don't deserve it. The people that take advantage of the system is incredibly small. This myth that there are roving hoards of welfare recipients living with plasma TV is just that a myth. The vast majority of unemployed people want to work, but either can not find a job or they are OVER qualified for certain jobs. Personally want nothing more than to find a job that can be accommodating my disability, but the case worker at career/ employment rehab told me point blank she could not think of any job that would be willing to accept the fact that Some days I am too sick to get out of bed, or if I do get to work my performance is poor due to health. For example if my blood glucose drops I risk going into shock and can lose my vision and ability to think clearly unless I drop everything and get sugar in my body as fast as possible. I have unpredictable episodes that require me to be hospitalized for days. No manager wants to deal with someone that might no show up without any notice because they are trying to be treated at the hospital. (I just got out of a 72 hour stay in the hospital today where I am treated for sever abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, dehydration, and malnutrition were I have to live off an IV saline drip because I am not allowed to eat or drink ANYTHING including H2O or oral medication. All the last few jobs I had could not flat out fire me for being unpredictable so they just cut my shifts until I was unable to pay my bills and forced to quit. MY doctor had to force me on disability and that is the case for the majority of those that get federal aid. I haven't bought any electronics, non-goodwill or Plato's closet cloths for myself since I lived in VT when I was making decent money. What I do have are gifts from my family. Without Christmas gifts like a ancient PC and internet access I would be further isolated from society. When you live off less than $800 a month in SSI (which is based on what I paid into when I worked, so I am think I am entitled to get what i paid) it is infuriating to hear people call people on disability or other forms of government assistance. The misconception that someone purposely falls and claims disability are out there, but they don't just give out disability to everyone. I was accepted straight away because of the severity and rareness of my illness. Everyone else is automatically denied the first time they file and usually several more time and have to find a lawyer (with what money I don't know) and go through a lengthy appeals process and then MIGHT get whatever they are entitled to based on work history and living expensive and dependents. If you don't have a car, a phone, or internet access how many well paying jobs do you think these (well-to-do poor) can get or their chances of getting a loan or grant for further education and retraining? I get furious when people paint us with the broad stroke of all being deadbeats and frauds. Then when I explain what life down here is like everyone if like "Well, you actually need it,". Well so do thousands of others. Why do the poor have to be extreamly poor and homeless to deserve to benefit from the government, but a hedge fund manager has to be wealthier to get more government aid (tax cuts, loop holes, etc.)?
See what insomnia can do for a ranter like me.
No comments:
Post a Comment