Trying to break the economic impasse.
It seems Obama is still obsessed with trying to spend our way out of the trouble we are in, and at this point we just cannot afford it. Most people want the economy to improve, but most know we cannot afford more debt. The infamous debt cliff is coming up again and even the average Joe knows this isn't going to be good. We still need economic stimulus, but we cannot saddle the future with so much debt we never get our economy on sound footing.
" Big Business" is so obsessed with keeping Obama out that they will not do anything to help out the economy. Any improvement just looks too good for Obama and they cannot have it, even at their own expense.
And Congress, well what can you say. Congress should be the most representative of the people (meaning persons) yet is so hunkered down with their turf wars that no one they should be helping is getting any representation nor ideas to help our economy. Basically what the people should be able to most rely on is a total failure for them at this point.
So what do we do.
Well first off, there are some businesses that might want to rethink where their loyalties lie. Most large corporations are taking their cue from Wall Street, but if you really want to have a successful business now, maybe that isn't the best path. Wall Street is loving this economic mire we are in now. Wall Street investment companies and mega banks are getting to borrow money at virtually no cost to them and then they are trading that money within their own system to make money. Sure they can do well if they pay attention (yes lets throw in a dig at JP Morgan for screwing up their trading) to what they are doing. They can get outsize returns by playing the day to day fluctuations in the market here and abroad. Its no secret if you know what you are doing it doesn't matter if the market is up or down, as long as there is action/movement you can make money. So the current situation works for Wall Street and if say they aren't taking advantage of the system, then they are either lying or stupid.
So what is the difference in companies either supporting Wall Street or something else. Lets take a look at what would happen if many of the companies that thrive off our consumer society put their eggs back into what makes real money for their companies. This can be the retail outlets and the manufacturers, any company that believes in making money not from playing with money, but actually moving goods. True capitalism, get back to the real free market kind of stuff.
Examples of companies that might fit into this thinking, GM Ford, Chrysler,any hotel chain, luxury, mid, or budget, Macy's, Kohl's, Sears etc, Disney, both Theme parks and entertainment, Apple,Google, any movie company, any cinema chain, suppliers to these companies, plastic makers, just about 90%+ of all restaurant chains, new and developing energy companies, and this is just a very very small sample of who should be thinking differently about how they should be viewing the political situation.
Personally I am not voting for Obama or Romney, but we are going to be stuck with one before the year is out. At this point no one wants to give Obama anything and if you think Romney is going to benefit anyone but a select few, well you are either lying or stupid.
And this is where the impasse lies, most corporations think they should support Romney etc, but they will only be shortening their business life. And I could go on and on about all this, but where is the answer.
So the corporations that need to stop this madness we are in and whether they know it or not, they are the ones we need to turn things around. And believe it or not, if they break from Wall Street and go back to working on what makes their business do well, which is have a strong customer base, things will turn around for us. Not the only answer, but definitely one of the largest pieces of the puzzle.
No matter who gets elected these corporations need to band together and demand A B and C
A) give us real tax breaks, and make them conditional so they work. We get breaks for true investment, in new products, creating exportable goods, and hiring people at home. And we have to be the ones that demand they are conditional on actual production, not the government requiring, why this difference, because tax breaks for tax break sake doesn't work. The tax breaks have to be for actual results, that is the "D" given back.
B) Work with countries to accept our new exports, create completely new economic trading groups. For example and this is big. Not every country on planet Earth wants to be dependent on oil ours or OPECs or anyones. Many developing countries want something new, we should be working with our corporations to create these products. Lets work with third world countries to develop entirely new lines of products that fit their needs and help them develop their economy. Detroit should be huge in developing electric and non fossil fuel cars and they can be small and even made in third world countries. We should also be developing wind, solar, and geothermic energy sources so these cars can run. We also sell these products as exports and keep for our consumption. We have our corporations developing high skill jobs and exporting technology including building the factories in the third world, but not like China, we instill framework to create a middle class, this benefits us because now they can afford to buy from us. (this isn't coming out the way I first thought of it earlier today). So lets say Detroit develops and builds a new electric car. We slowly sell here, not everyone wants a SUV, and at the same time we are building solar and wind plants abroad, (our technology) this gives the new country the resources to use our cars, we build small so they can take over production for the product within their country, but we supply parts, technical manpower, and expertise. This even develops some job exportation. This is one example of what I am trying to say. So if the Government goes out and rebuilds our credibility, opens new trade, supports real free trade, we give you "E" a commitment to develop jobs here first, reasonable wages, and reinvestment in our education system both arts and sciences.
C)Give me the cheap money wall street is abusing and take it away from them until they decide to reinvest in me. Basically create the expectations that the stock market is for people to invest in a company to see it grow and the growth of the share price is a reflection of the health of the company. I need my stock to reflect what I am doing as a company not the machinations of a few highly educated and over bonused traders.
And an aside here, going back to "A", you can create tax policy that is flexible. You read all the time about how the Fed is running out of ways to affect the economy. One of Bush's best ideas was expiring tax breaks, not because they expired, but because they had built in flexibility. Outside of some very basic tax law, nothing should be so hard in stone it cannot be changed. And this can be simple changes, for example tax heavily short term institutional trading gains ( and I have posted this idea before), but don't make them permanent, put timers on them, ie if x happens then they can be dropped or if y happens we do something else or just put review timers on them. Who knows one day we may decide we want people to contribute more to charities so we raise the overall rate a slight bit, but give bigger breaks for charitable contributions for a short time; just an example of different things you can do. For now though the higher rate for short term institutional trading to me is good, but along with it, lower rates for people in certain income brackets to encourage savings. And that also goes back to bringing the stock market back to helping companies stock prices reflect how they are doing so the average investor can get back to choosing stocks or mutual funds for long term savings. And to me it is maddening that the mutual fund companies haven't revolted against the current situation on wall street, aren't they suppose to protect their shareholders?
GOING BACK TO C: Give me the support I need to invest with cheap capital, and I will give you "F" living wages for my employees, growth opportunities, and executive pay that reflects how the company is doing, not just outsize bonuses and salaries. IE not be American Airlines
Yes this is a different type of compromise, and all these ideas really have been around, we just haven't implemented them effectively. My ramblings haven't done my thoughts justice this evening so I beg your indulgence on the the above, but if you can see we need compromise that reflects a commitment to reigniting investment in core businesses to develop new business and a government that rewards productive behavior instead of dictating everything in our lives we have a chance.
Growth means more people work, pay taxes, and need less federal benefits which is the start of balancing the budget, one of the next most important challenges facing our country.
Coming soon some new ideas for the budget and for social security. And social security has some fixable ideas, may not solve everything especially with medicare etc, but basic saving for retirement is possible. And these ideas have some job growth in them, that sounds like it may come from Obama, but lets take the federal government out of it and use local governments and other endeavors instead. Keeps the federal government under wraps for the money, just helping with the coordination. And I am not talking about involving Wall Street, but investing the money other ways, plus fixing other issues facing our country. the tease: revenue bonds. Is all this new, no, but putting together a more comprehensive policy that reflects my concept of bringing back the progressive conservative party.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Who is who
If you really think about it neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are who they say they are
For example, how can the Democrats keep calling themselves the liberal party when the more traditional liberal is really the group that creates more democracy, yet the current Democrats keep building a larger and larger central government. We just cannot accept the fact that a large central government is the answer to our problems. The government is here to protect the people, but not to control all aspects of our lives.
And the Republicans keep wanting to turn our government over to a small group of elitists, which truly goes against democracy so how can you call yourself a conservative and believe in individual rights when you support a economic oligarchy as the answer to our problems. No true conservative of a democracy can believe giving more power to a few is truly supporting democracy. No one group should have more free speech than another. Or more rights. Or more influence. Any argument to the contrary and you are saying you don't care about our constitution. Conservative--to conserve our values, not a select few's way of life.
Our constitution gives us the ability to elect leaders to make decisions in the best interest of the whole country and protect the rights of all of us. Why do we accept less?
For example, how can the Democrats keep calling themselves the liberal party when the more traditional liberal is really the group that creates more democracy, yet the current Democrats keep building a larger and larger central government. We just cannot accept the fact that a large central government is the answer to our problems. The government is here to protect the people, but not to control all aspects of our lives.
And the Republicans keep wanting to turn our government over to a small group of elitists, which truly goes against democracy so how can you call yourself a conservative and believe in individual rights when you support a economic oligarchy as the answer to our problems. No true conservative of a democracy can believe giving more power to a few is truly supporting democracy. No one group should have more free speech than another. Or more rights. Or more influence. Any argument to the contrary and you are saying you don't care about our constitution. Conservative--to conserve our values, not a select few's way of life.
Our constitution gives us the ability to elect leaders to make decisions in the best interest of the whole country and protect the rights of all of us. Why do we accept less?
Monday, June 18, 2012
what is a platform and putting it together in pieces
Well I actually did it. I went to Obama's and Mitt's campaign websites. I just had to give in and as you might have guessed I am disappointed. First off, you have to give your email to enter Obama's site, so I didn't. Of course this leaves me without any concept of what he has to say, but anybody that forces me to do something for their benefit always irks me.
For Mitt, well he has what he considers the critical issues laid out. All ten of them. A paragraph or so on each. Now this becomes interesting because I know people's attention spans are pretty short nowadays. So does he sacrifice content to try and catch you with a few catch phrases. And this is where I am disappointed. I understand on TV and radio you have to be quick, but a place where people can choose to take their time and really read through a policy you think he would have given the reader the choice of the quick hit and a more comprehensive look for those that might want to read further. Oh yes on the home page four issues are highlighted and it says, read further for more info, but the read further is just a few more sentences. Along with the rest of the blurbs on the ten critical issues.
So it gets me to thinking, if I was to write a platform, how in depth should I go? How much is too much and what is not enough. And with the blog format I can put together a bit more than a paragraph for each issue and just write them separately. But Mitt, but Mitt, but Mitt, you have hundreds of people working for you, they cannot come up with something better than ten critical issues and more in depth discussion. Oh well, goes back to the original question, how much do you include For now though:
One of my ten, or however much, critical issues is poverty in this country. I have discussed before, but it is something that the candidates don't seem to address. With poverty many other issues are also affected such as healthcare, which is one of Mitt's big ones. Got to get rid of Obama care you know, just got to according to Mitt. Healthcare is a critical issue. Today though is poverty and a couple of other interlinking concerns.
The overall health of our country would be enhanced by a comprehensive policy to well lets say eradicate poverty, we will make that the goal, but truth be told it will not ever be completely removed. You have to start somewhere though. The first thing we know is the war on poverty has failed so government spending to solve poverty is out. But doing nothing which seems to be the Republican mindset hasn't helped. One of the interlinking issues is the drug and sex trade. And how is that going,? ask people living on the border about the success on the war on drugs. So we got to change tactics here. And for the war on drugs I have some really controversial ideas, and I do mean controversial, so much so that I am not ready to put them on paper. Many, many people would not be ready for these ideas, but hey what we are doing now is a complete failure so it is time to change. Again I feel they are so controversial I am not ready to accept them and I thought of them. I am trying to find a more middle ground, but the situation is so bad maybe there isn't middle ground anymore. The same goes for the sex trade. Real radical ideas may need to come to the forefront to attack these problems. And I mean much more controversial than legalizing pot.
Reducing poverty though is one way to reduce the ongoing growth of the drug and sex trade. And another issue real quick about poverty now is that there is a uniqueness to American poverty. There is poverty throughout the world,but in our country there is a fast developing sub country/sub cultural within our borders that is different. And this sub culture is becoming entrenched within the lower middle class, some to the middle class and starting to creep into the upper middle class. It is hard to describe and somebody could probably write a social science doctorate on it. We have to be aware of what is going on or there will be some serious fall out and not just what you expect like rampant crime, but feudal territories, run by drug lords or other modern versions of crime and political bosses. I mentioned this in a previous post so to move on. And yes other world poverty areas have these aspects, but within a first world country that prides itself on individual success and with the resources that people in poverty have, it does present itself differently. Yeah poor people with serious amounts of resources at their disposal. Serious problems are on the horizon if not already dawning if we don't act.
So how do we act, we have to start removing some of the growth aspects of poverty and redirect the youth into something more positive and this won't be easy. Probably why the two major candidates ignore this, no one wants to have to tell people the truth. Now a chicken and egg question, does poverty beget the sex and drug trade or does the sex and drug trade beget poverty, well this one is somewhat easy. Sex and drug trade grows because of poverty. There are the obvious examples, the woman that becomes addicted to drugs sells her body to pay for the drugs, or the young man that feels no hope in the traditional job market sees income coming from the drug trade. Yes even poor people want a nice car and to impress the ladies. Think about it, for some dealing drugs is a job. Remember the idea of a job.
The above goes back to the generational welfare problem we have which I have mentioned in previous posts. We will have to educate children and reeducate adults/parents. And at the same time remove the side issues like the drug and sex trade so they can be rehabilitated back into a more normal/productive way of life. Which means we have to work with individuals in poverty that are now benefiting from poverty. We have to redirect and give purpose to those now in charge in these areas to lessen the fight with the masses. I think there would be some that would be surprised there are many smart people running the show in certain areas. They may not be well educated in the traditional sense, but they have a real good idea of what works for them. Yes I am only hinting at some of my ideas for now.
The other part of the attack for the new war on poverty involves working with the general population with the education and re education part. This means everything to getting kids in school to developing job retraining and folks some of them are not going to want to work, why, because we, as a society, taught them not to work. And don't blame them, if you haven't done anything but complain about it you are 100% part of the problem. If you see something not working and complain without purpose why are you shocked there is a problem. But I am trying not to play the blame game, but get people to be aware, there is benefit to all in eradicating poverty.
Education also means more than schools though, we are talking better parenting skills, better eating habits, (oh yeah helps with health care if poor people eat well) and most importantly we need the business community to reinvest within certain areas. And in a previous post I talked about one plan on how to reinvest in certain neighborhoods. See Martin Luther King day post about 2/3 way down or so. And for it to be successful you have to throw certain preconceived notions out the door. It is like the story of the mustard seed, you have to plant even the smallest seed and if you work with it, nurture it, etc (oh yes, readings from last Sunday) you eventually get the more dynamic mustard plant that grows strong with sheltering leaves that protects.
And if Mitt's Republicans want lower taxes,okay lets give it to those that contribute, (really contribute) to reinvesting in our country, not just for the new war on poverty, but for the country as a whole, helping with poverty is just one aspect of how people can earn tax reductions. Trickle down failed, but I have no problem with lowering taxes to those that improve the outlook of the country, by improving the economy,more people can pay taxes, more paying means everyone pays a bit less which then reduces deficits, then reduces more deficits, (less debt) and now we have changed the growth curve of our economy around and balanced the budget constructively.
Oh gee willickers Mr Wilson, even a five year can see that with the right effort we have our country back better than ever. And that is a seriously bad reference, but it is late and this is getting long. How much is too much. This went far and I still haven't said as much as I want to about real concrete proposals. So a quick hit recap.
Community reinvestment with tax incentives to those that contribute and participate
Education for parents and children, not just school education, but life skills education, can be done through the current public school system. And use of successful people to teach. Yeah even use sports to help people develop new skills, but in ways different than current system.
Stop giving money away,but build a reward system for those that participate, of course the long term reward is the goal of economic self sufficiency such as a career job, or even owning a small business. Education will be needed to change attitudes. This is not going to happen overnight, and starting as young as possible to lower the time frame.
Aggressive engagement with the leaders of the current poverty system to remove them completely from the environment or get their buy in to change and be part of the rebuilding process. Think about it, some have money to reinvest.
Understand that most immigrants don't come here to be poor, but because of barriers they end up in certain areas that are not productive for them and yes get involved in crime etc. We have to rethink the entire immigration quotas, processing, and working with certain countries to improve their economy to reduce unnecessary immigration.
Accept that what we have done and not done over the last fifty years has not worked, it may have seemed the Christian thing to do to feed people with food stamps etc, but that was only half the solution. To truly be Christian we need to treat them with respect and give them purpose, not ignore their plight, but engage it, meet them face to face, shake their hand and treat them as an equal that needs help.
Okay the above is one issue with some solutions and true solutions take more than a paragraph, so treat this as a beginning and see what you might think of to be part of the solution.
For Mitt, well he has what he considers the critical issues laid out. All ten of them. A paragraph or so on each. Now this becomes interesting because I know people's attention spans are pretty short nowadays. So does he sacrifice content to try and catch you with a few catch phrases. And this is where I am disappointed. I understand on TV and radio you have to be quick, but a place where people can choose to take their time and really read through a policy you think he would have given the reader the choice of the quick hit and a more comprehensive look for those that might want to read further. Oh yes on the home page four issues are highlighted and it says, read further for more info, but the read further is just a few more sentences. Along with the rest of the blurbs on the ten critical issues.
So it gets me to thinking, if I was to write a platform, how in depth should I go? How much is too much and what is not enough. And with the blog format I can put together a bit more than a paragraph for each issue and just write them separately. But Mitt, but Mitt, but Mitt, you have hundreds of people working for you, they cannot come up with something better than ten critical issues and more in depth discussion. Oh well, goes back to the original question, how much do you include For now though:
One of my ten, or however much, critical issues is poverty in this country. I have discussed before, but it is something that the candidates don't seem to address. With poverty many other issues are also affected such as healthcare, which is one of Mitt's big ones. Got to get rid of Obama care you know, just got to according to Mitt. Healthcare is a critical issue. Today though is poverty and a couple of other interlinking concerns.
The overall health of our country would be enhanced by a comprehensive policy to well lets say eradicate poverty, we will make that the goal, but truth be told it will not ever be completely removed. You have to start somewhere though. The first thing we know is the war on poverty has failed so government spending to solve poverty is out. But doing nothing which seems to be the Republican mindset hasn't helped. One of the interlinking issues is the drug and sex trade. And how is that going,? ask people living on the border about the success on the war on drugs. So we got to change tactics here. And for the war on drugs I have some really controversial ideas, and I do mean controversial, so much so that I am not ready to put them on paper. Many, many people would not be ready for these ideas, but hey what we are doing now is a complete failure so it is time to change. Again I feel they are so controversial I am not ready to accept them and I thought of them. I am trying to find a more middle ground, but the situation is so bad maybe there isn't middle ground anymore. The same goes for the sex trade. Real radical ideas may need to come to the forefront to attack these problems. And I mean much more controversial than legalizing pot.
Reducing poverty though is one way to reduce the ongoing growth of the drug and sex trade. And another issue real quick about poverty now is that there is a uniqueness to American poverty. There is poverty throughout the world,but in our country there is a fast developing sub country/sub cultural within our borders that is different. And this sub culture is becoming entrenched within the lower middle class, some to the middle class and starting to creep into the upper middle class. It is hard to describe and somebody could probably write a social science doctorate on it. We have to be aware of what is going on or there will be some serious fall out and not just what you expect like rampant crime, but feudal territories, run by drug lords or other modern versions of crime and political bosses. I mentioned this in a previous post so to move on. And yes other world poverty areas have these aspects, but within a first world country that prides itself on individual success and with the resources that people in poverty have, it does present itself differently. Yeah poor people with serious amounts of resources at their disposal. Serious problems are on the horizon if not already dawning if we don't act.
So how do we act, we have to start removing some of the growth aspects of poverty and redirect the youth into something more positive and this won't be easy. Probably why the two major candidates ignore this, no one wants to have to tell people the truth. Now a chicken and egg question, does poverty beget the sex and drug trade or does the sex and drug trade beget poverty, well this one is somewhat easy. Sex and drug trade grows because of poverty. There are the obvious examples, the woman that becomes addicted to drugs sells her body to pay for the drugs, or the young man that feels no hope in the traditional job market sees income coming from the drug trade. Yes even poor people want a nice car and to impress the ladies. Think about it, for some dealing drugs is a job. Remember the idea of a job.
The above goes back to the generational welfare problem we have which I have mentioned in previous posts. We will have to educate children and reeducate adults/parents. And at the same time remove the side issues like the drug and sex trade so they can be rehabilitated back into a more normal/productive way of life. Which means we have to work with individuals in poverty that are now benefiting from poverty. We have to redirect and give purpose to those now in charge in these areas to lessen the fight with the masses. I think there would be some that would be surprised there are many smart people running the show in certain areas. They may not be well educated in the traditional sense, but they have a real good idea of what works for them. Yes I am only hinting at some of my ideas for now.
The other part of the attack for the new war on poverty involves working with the general population with the education and re education part. This means everything to getting kids in school to developing job retraining and folks some of them are not going to want to work, why, because we, as a society, taught them not to work. And don't blame them, if you haven't done anything but complain about it you are 100% part of the problem. If you see something not working and complain without purpose why are you shocked there is a problem. But I am trying not to play the blame game, but get people to be aware, there is benefit to all in eradicating poverty.
Education also means more than schools though, we are talking better parenting skills, better eating habits, (oh yeah helps with health care if poor people eat well) and most importantly we need the business community to reinvest within certain areas. And in a previous post I talked about one plan on how to reinvest in certain neighborhoods. See Martin Luther King day post about 2/3 way down or so. And for it to be successful you have to throw certain preconceived notions out the door. It is like the story of the mustard seed, you have to plant even the smallest seed and if you work with it, nurture it, etc (oh yes, readings from last Sunday) you eventually get the more dynamic mustard plant that grows strong with sheltering leaves that protects.
And if Mitt's Republicans want lower taxes,okay lets give it to those that contribute, (really contribute) to reinvesting in our country, not just for the new war on poverty, but for the country as a whole, helping with poverty is just one aspect of how people can earn tax reductions. Trickle down failed, but I have no problem with lowering taxes to those that improve the outlook of the country, by improving the economy,more people can pay taxes, more paying means everyone pays a bit less which then reduces deficits, then reduces more deficits, (less debt) and now we have changed the growth curve of our economy around and balanced the budget constructively.
Oh gee willickers Mr Wilson, even a five year can see that with the right effort we have our country back better than ever. And that is a seriously bad reference, but it is late and this is getting long. How much is too much. This went far and I still haven't said as much as I want to about real concrete proposals. So a quick hit recap.
Community reinvestment with tax incentives to those that contribute and participate
Education for parents and children, not just school education, but life skills education, can be done through the current public school system. And use of successful people to teach. Yeah even use sports to help people develop new skills, but in ways different than current system.
Stop giving money away,but build a reward system for those that participate, of course the long term reward is the goal of economic self sufficiency such as a career job, or even owning a small business. Education will be needed to change attitudes. This is not going to happen overnight, and starting as young as possible to lower the time frame.
Aggressive engagement with the leaders of the current poverty system to remove them completely from the environment or get their buy in to change and be part of the rebuilding process. Think about it, some have money to reinvest.
Understand that most immigrants don't come here to be poor, but because of barriers they end up in certain areas that are not productive for them and yes get involved in crime etc. We have to rethink the entire immigration quotas, processing, and working with certain countries to improve their economy to reduce unnecessary immigration.
Accept that what we have done and not done over the last fifty years has not worked, it may have seemed the Christian thing to do to feed people with food stamps etc, but that was only half the solution. To truly be Christian we need to treat them with respect and give them purpose, not ignore their plight, but engage it, meet them face to face, shake their hand and treat them as an equal that needs help.
Okay the above is one issue with some solutions and true solutions take more than a paragraph, so treat this as a beginning and see what you might think of to be part of the solution.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
it never hurts to be a bit positive
I always rail about the incompetency of our leaders, current politicians, state of government etc, but you just have to remember even with all that, our constitution is still the best government on our planet. Lets not lose it.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
and now back to sports
I know this is week old news, but real shame I'll Have Another didn't get a chance to run for the Triple Crown, especially with the way the race went. already was a good race, imagine if I'll Have another could have been in it, oh well not to be
And is it me or are you tired of hearing about James and the Heat. Give OKC some credit here, the media just plays up the Heat too much. Durant has proved to be a phenom himself and seems to be more of a down to earth person. It is somewhat refreshing to have a superstar that puts playing the game first. ( and yes I hated OKC beat my Mavs in a sweep, but you have to give credit where credit is due)
And is it me or are you tired of hearing about James and the Heat. Give OKC some credit here, the media just plays up the Heat too much. Durant has proved to be a phenom himself and seems to be more of a down to earth person. It is somewhat refreshing to have a superstar that puts playing the game first. ( and yes I hated OKC beat my Mavs in a sweep, but you have to give credit where credit is due)
Enemies of the state
Some of our country's biggest enemies are: apathy, selfishness, and aggressive partisanship. Oh yeah the enemy within.
CNN did it again,now they have an article by James Carville talking about the 40% loss of middle class value. Tried tweeting this blog to be read since I have been saying the loss of the middle class is the loss of democracy for over a year now. Tweet never got posted, I know I don't always have something new, but the fact is we need to stress rebuilding our middle class to rebuild our country. One of our top priorities and yet..... do you know a current elected official in Washington or one running for Washington who has an idea?
I thought not
CNN did it again,now they have an article by James Carville talking about the 40% loss of middle class value. Tried tweeting this blog to be read since I have been saying the loss of the middle class is the loss of democracy for over a year now. Tweet never got posted, I know I don't always have something new, but the fact is we need to stress rebuilding our middle class to rebuild our country. One of our top priorities and yet..... do you know a current elected official in Washington or one running for Washington who has an idea?
I thought not
Monday, June 11, 2012
One snapshot
There is an article on CNN Money section online titled 40% Drop in family net worth. Basically if you built a collage of pictures that represented the problems facing our country this is a snapshot that should be in the center of the collage. Yes some of the facts are cherry picked for the article, but any candidate running for office should have this as a number one priority to fix. Reversing this trend is one of the most important goals Republicans or Democrats should have.
Lack of understanding of this situation is incompetent public awareness. And we need more than lip service to this. Obama gets this, but is going about it in the wrong way or at least he is giving it lipservice. The Republicans have not said or done anything that shows they are aware.
Real economic development by the private sector is greatly needed and tax breaks just aren't going to do it without accountability of action with the tax breaks.
If either party doesn't get this soon, well......what are we to do.
Lack of understanding of this situation is incompetent public awareness. And we need more than lip service to this. Obama gets this, but is going about it in the wrong way or at least he is giving it lipservice. The Republicans have not said or done anything that shows they are aware.
Real economic development by the private sector is greatly needed and tax breaks just aren't going to do it without accountability of action with the tax breaks.
If either party doesn't get this soon, well......what are we to do.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Accountability and reliability and if I remember some other things
Caught again having some thoughts miles from a keypad.
Anyway was watching Jon Stewart on the Daily show the other evening and a couple of things that happened made me think about accountability in political ads. He was doing a spoof on the new New York laws, first the soda law that you cannot drink over 16 oz. and the State legislature making small amounts of marijuana a fine instead of a misdemeanor. He basically did some comparing that ended up with it is now more illegal to drink large amounts of soda than have small amounts of marijuana which on the surface seems to be true.
The second was his interview with an author and by the end of the TV portion of the interview he admitted he set up some of his comments unfairly. Said would get into it on the full version continued on the internet. Never saw the rest, but for my purpose here it was the show that got me thinking.
Hate to say it, but the original thoughts I had were a few evenings ago and earlier today when I was out and about. So here goes trying to re piece together my brain.
As you well know campaign season will be in full swing soon and with it all sorts of claims and promises by candidates. Now promises will always be full of stuff to make the basic constituents happy, but it is the claims and "facts" that are interesting. Not to pick on Mitt, but I am going to use one of his examples as part of this post. He has recently been saying he was able to balance the Mass state budget without raising taxes and if you have been reading through all this in the press you hear that yes no taxes, but they increased fees pretty significantly and that had a big part in the balance. And this is pretty common news now. So how does it affect accountability. Well you have to let him have the pass in this situation, sure it is mincing of words, but unfortunately we have come to expect that in political ads and speeches. Which should be a shame, but at this point in time we just are stuck until we start holding politicians accountable we get this. This isn't the exact incident or situation I am trying to address today.
What happens though is there is no official (and yes who would be in charge) verification of facts and even more important consequences. There are some news sites that have fact checker reports, but this is unofficial and even that tends to be biased at times. Like the example above because with the way that was done you can play around with it and each partisan side will pick their own definitions to try and promote the success or derail the facts. Again we cannot stop these nuances for now, but what about inaccuracies or even downright lies? At what point can we stop some of the crap that is about to happen? Who judges and what consequences do we hold these politicians to? Seriously every year is getting worse and we are talking about people who are trying to make policy for the general good of the country, state, or their locality. Do we accept this as the way it is, or can we as a society say, hey wait a minute I have to trust you to make good decisions for me, even if I voted for you, are you the best choice? Most in this country will say my last question is moot. We want our side to win, and win at all costs. Well when it comes to the greater good, maybe that isn't the best course of action.
Yes no answers yet, because they are hard to find. Lets say the country can agree on some type of fact monitoring and having to publicize them. What next, do we fine the candidate? At this point in our history, fines are useless. Everyone makes plans to fight them when assessed. Athletes, corporations, individuals with speeding tickets all plan not to pay them even if they know they are wrong. Fines have become a useless way to affect behavior. So what do we do, say the candidate can't run if they lie so many times. That won't work because there is actually a fairness issue to the constituents that originally supported the candidate through primaries etc. Some sports are starting to bypass fines or add to them by suspending players and taking away pay. We will have to see if this becomes effective, but a team has a bench player to replace the starter that gets suspended. There are no bench players in a political race. And yes no answers yet, but I wanted to get it out there to get people thinking more seriously about this problem. Going back to my comment, we are talking about people we are trusting with public policy and public money, where can we hold them accountable to their actions before they get elected. Is this pie in the sky thinking, unfortunately I thinks some of you will feel that this is, but I say to you are you sure? Sooner or later this comes back to haunt us, we just cannot accept this behavior as the way it is and go on.
The above is fragmented memories of what I thought earlier, but it still gets most of the thought process out there. There was more about ineffectiveness of fines, but more to support the premise, not new ideas.
Reliability is also part of the above. Can we count on candidates and politicians that behave one way and expect them to change once elected? Piggy backs on above, we have got to find ways to hold everyone accountable. These days we have way too many problems that are fixable to rely on what has gone on historically.
And I cannot remember the other things, some attempts at semi humorous thoughts around the above.
And I have been bungling about in my brain for a more comprehensive Progressive Conservative platform. I haven't clarified in my thinking what I think is most appropriate or fits the concept of progressive conservative, but I want to post a platform. I see the coming election to be nothing more than a charade of past policies, nothing new, and there is some serious economic problems on the horizon. Re: Europe. We need to get creative and be prepared. I feel we can do more than survive if we take the bull by the horn and build our job base now, not rely on what others do and go our own way. Europe is headed for socialism if the people in charge demand too much. Right now it is not inevitable, but you have to think ahead and head off disaster by getting ahead of the job curve there too, plus keep individual wealth more spread out. Not the best way of expressing it, but I hope you see the point.
Just cannot put to paper my thoughts today, they are coming and going faster than a 14 year old girl changes clothes for a party.
Have a good rest of your weekend and if I can I will try and come back to some of the above to better piece it together and soon hopefully I will have a more clarified definition of the Progressive Conservative platform.
Oops one last thought, why is it that conservatives don't realize that protecting the environment is just as conservative as being pro life. It amazes me that letting our planet go to shit is considered okay.
And yes I know campaign reform and laws exist; that this isn't a new thought, but I have a hard time as a person to sit there and be lied to and accept it. We would all love the wonderful world of dream land that would exist above, but at some point we have to stop the madness.
Anyway was watching Jon Stewart on the Daily show the other evening and a couple of things that happened made me think about accountability in political ads. He was doing a spoof on the new New York laws, first the soda law that you cannot drink over 16 oz. and the State legislature making small amounts of marijuana a fine instead of a misdemeanor. He basically did some comparing that ended up with it is now more illegal to drink large amounts of soda than have small amounts of marijuana which on the surface seems to be true.
The second was his interview with an author and by the end of the TV portion of the interview he admitted he set up some of his comments unfairly. Said would get into it on the full version continued on the internet. Never saw the rest, but for my purpose here it was the show that got me thinking.
Hate to say it, but the original thoughts I had were a few evenings ago and earlier today when I was out and about. So here goes trying to re piece together my brain.
As you well know campaign season will be in full swing soon and with it all sorts of claims and promises by candidates. Now promises will always be full of stuff to make the basic constituents happy, but it is the claims and "facts" that are interesting. Not to pick on Mitt, but I am going to use one of his examples as part of this post. He has recently been saying he was able to balance the Mass state budget without raising taxes and if you have been reading through all this in the press you hear that yes no taxes, but they increased fees pretty significantly and that had a big part in the balance. And this is pretty common news now. So how does it affect accountability. Well you have to let him have the pass in this situation, sure it is mincing of words, but unfortunately we have come to expect that in political ads and speeches. Which should be a shame, but at this point in time we just are stuck until we start holding politicians accountable we get this. This isn't the exact incident or situation I am trying to address today.
What happens though is there is no official (and yes who would be in charge) verification of facts and even more important consequences. There are some news sites that have fact checker reports, but this is unofficial and even that tends to be biased at times. Like the example above because with the way that was done you can play around with it and each partisan side will pick their own definitions to try and promote the success or derail the facts. Again we cannot stop these nuances for now, but what about inaccuracies or even downright lies? At what point can we stop some of the crap that is about to happen? Who judges and what consequences do we hold these politicians to? Seriously every year is getting worse and we are talking about people who are trying to make policy for the general good of the country, state, or their locality. Do we accept this as the way it is, or can we as a society say, hey wait a minute I have to trust you to make good decisions for me, even if I voted for you, are you the best choice? Most in this country will say my last question is moot. We want our side to win, and win at all costs. Well when it comes to the greater good, maybe that isn't the best course of action.
Yes no answers yet, because they are hard to find. Lets say the country can agree on some type of fact monitoring and having to publicize them. What next, do we fine the candidate? At this point in our history, fines are useless. Everyone makes plans to fight them when assessed. Athletes, corporations, individuals with speeding tickets all plan not to pay them even if they know they are wrong. Fines have become a useless way to affect behavior. So what do we do, say the candidate can't run if they lie so many times. That won't work because there is actually a fairness issue to the constituents that originally supported the candidate through primaries etc. Some sports are starting to bypass fines or add to them by suspending players and taking away pay. We will have to see if this becomes effective, but a team has a bench player to replace the starter that gets suspended. There are no bench players in a political race. And yes no answers yet, but I wanted to get it out there to get people thinking more seriously about this problem. Going back to my comment, we are talking about people we are trusting with public policy and public money, where can we hold them accountable to their actions before they get elected. Is this pie in the sky thinking, unfortunately I thinks some of you will feel that this is, but I say to you are you sure? Sooner or later this comes back to haunt us, we just cannot accept this behavior as the way it is and go on.
The above is fragmented memories of what I thought earlier, but it still gets most of the thought process out there. There was more about ineffectiveness of fines, but more to support the premise, not new ideas.
Reliability is also part of the above. Can we count on candidates and politicians that behave one way and expect them to change once elected? Piggy backs on above, we have got to find ways to hold everyone accountable. These days we have way too many problems that are fixable to rely on what has gone on historically.
And I cannot remember the other things, some attempts at semi humorous thoughts around the above.
And I have been bungling about in my brain for a more comprehensive Progressive Conservative platform. I haven't clarified in my thinking what I think is most appropriate or fits the concept of progressive conservative, but I want to post a platform. I see the coming election to be nothing more than a charade of past policies, nothing new, and there is some serious economic problems on the horizon. Re: Europe. We need to get creative and be prepared. I feel we can do more than survive if we take the bull by the horn and build our job base now, not rely on what others do and go our own way. Europe is headed for socialism if the people in charge demand too much. Right now it is not inevitable, but you have to think ahead and head off disaster by getting ahead of the job curve there too, plus keep individual wealth more spread out. Not the best way of expressing it, but I hope you see the point.
Just cannot put to paper my thoughts today, they are coming and going faster than a 14 year old girl changes clothes for a party.
Have a good rest of your weekend and if I can I will try and come back to some of the above to better piece it together and soon hopefully I will have a more clarified definition of the Progressive Conservative platform.
Oops one last thought, why is it that conservatives don't realize that protecting the environment is just as conservative as being pro life. It amazes me that letting our planet go to shit is considered okay.
And yes I know campaign reform and laws exist; that this isn't a new thought, but I have a hard time as a person to sit there and be lied to and accept it. We would all love the wonderful world of dream land that would exist above, but at some point we have to stop the madness.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
a bit about healthcare, but not Obamacare
Well as I have said before I am not sure about Obamacare, but I really don't have any opinions yet on whether good or bad. Way too complicated and hard to believe either pros or cons on it because both sides have way too much at stake for a non biased opinion. It is Obama's baby, but the AMA and Health insurance lobbied on it while it was being written and now they are against it along with the Republicans and Fox News. I don't know how anyone can trust what anyone is saying about it.
Yet we still have a major health problem in this country. So I am addressing a few points for now.
In a previous post I mentioned that some of the cost of health care should be readdressed based on how people take care of themselves. We are spending way too much on elder care, not that I want to take any away, but lets get real about personal responsibility. The only problem with this is how does a system measure health maintenance or lack of to reassign premiums for insurance or down the road medicare? Or you could make it even crazier, but there should be some adjustment for people who try and for those who don't. So some of this goes back to health education and responsibility.
An example is our current welfare system. I heard one person say shouldn't poor people look like they are hungry (thin). Person was complaining and somewhat rightfully but with ignorance that poor people shouldn't look fat. And on the surface person has a good point. Dig a little deeper and you really see the problem. People on welfare buy what is available. Yes and I have seen that they do buy snack food with food stamps, even junk food. And that is why they are fat. The food they can afford to buy is loaded with crap. Yes they tend to buy 20 $1 pizzas from the frozen food section and there is no health benefit at all to this type of food. Again this is the problem, we give money away and don't hold these people to using it responsibly. ( Another post is about a better welfare system and this would be part of it). Generational welfare doesn't help people learn to manage money or manage a healthy food budget. So one way to help with health care is to put some parameters on what can be bought with food stamps. And no this is not taking away anybody's rights. If we are to help the poor we need to do so responsibly and that means we take some onus on ourselves as society to make sure the children get healthy meals. Food stamp use should come with limits and education. And yes I know no one is going to drastically raise food stamp amounts, but something has to be done because healthy eating is more expensive than eating junk food and other crap. Better use of the program if we aren't going to change it is needed. Really though major change is needed and this is one area that needs to be addressed in the change. And people on food stamps use medicaid so better food stamp policy to fight obesity helps keep medicaid expenses down. Not the whole health problem, but an example of how to find ways to improve our lot.
And this is different than what Mayor Bloomberg's misguided 16 oz soft drink limit imposes on people. This is a really bad stop gap measure to a serious problem and in some ways this does infringe on people's rights. An admirable thought at best, but not as good a concept as maybe cutting back on people smoking in public areas because people shouldn't be subjugated to other people's bad behavior. That can be workable, but just imposing a arbitrary limit on a size of a soft drink will fail. At the very least restaurants will charge more for the 16 oz and let people get unlimited refills. Which is pretty standard in some places now anyway. We need new solutions to the health problem of this country, but we, as a society, need to put it back on ourselves. And I am sure there have been many comments, posts, etc with this same thought, just wanted to address that we need more than this PR ploy or whatever this is suppose to be.
And it seems common sense is missing from this country and this may go back to all the fumes we breath every day pumping our own gas. Yes this is half mocking and half serious. No way it can be good that we breath some fumes every time we fill up our tank and if you don't fill up you are going more often. Gasoline is made up of some serious poisons and you got to have your head buried in the sand if you don't think there is some health concerns breathing in all those fumes. Even if a little bit at a time. Or getting behind a car with serious emission problems. Yes I believe in a diversified energy policy and quite frankly this is one reason why. Even if you don't believe in global warming you have to realize the health concerns are enormous with this stuff. And if you don't think so quit breathing the crap for awhile and then think about it.
Yet we still have a major health problem in this country. So I am addressing a few points for now.
In a previous post I mentioned that some of the cost of health care should be readdressed based on how people take care of themselves. We are spending way too much on elder care, not that I want to take any away, but lets get real about personal responsibility. The only problem with this is how does a system measure health maintenance or lack of to reassign premiums for insurance or down the road medicare? Or you could make it even crazier, but there should be some adjustment for people who try and for those who don't. So some of this goes back to health education and responsibility.
An example is our current welfare system. I heard one person say shouldn't poor people look like they are hungry (thin). Person was complaining and somewhat rightfully but with ignorance that poor people shouldn't look fat. And on the surface person has a good point. Dig a little deeper and you really see the problem. People on welfare buy what is available. Yes and I have seen that they do buy snack food with food stamps, even junk food. And that is why they are fat. The food they can afford to buy is loaded with crap. Yes they tend to buy 20 $1 pizzas from the frozen food section and there is no health benefit at all to this type of food. Again this is the problem, we give money away and don't hold these people to using it responsibly. ( Another post is about a better welfare system and this would be part of it). Generational welfare doesn't help people learn to manage money or manage a healthy food budget. So one way to help with health care is to put some parameters on what can be bought with food stamps. And no this is not taking away anybody's rights. If we are to help the poor we need to do so responsibly and that means we take some onus on ourselves as society to make sure the children get healthy meals. Food stamp use should come with limits and education. And yes I know no one is going to drastically raise food stamp amounts, but something has to be done because healthy eating is more expensive than eating junk food and other crap. Better use of the program if we aren't going to change it is needed. Really though major change is needed and this is one area that needs to be addressed in the change. And people on food stamps use medicaid so better food stamp policy to fight obesity helps keep medicaid expenses down. Not the whole health problem, but an example of how to find ways to improve our lot.
And this is different than what Mayor Bloomberg's misguided 16 oz soft drink limit imposes on people. This is a really bad stop gap measure to a serious problem and in some ways this does infringe on people's rights. An admirable thought at best, but not as good a concept as maybe cutting back on people smoking in public areas because people shouldn't be subjugated to other people's bad behavior. That can be workable, but just imposing a arbitrary limit on a size of a soft drink will fail. At the very least restaurants will charge more for the 16 oz and let people get unlimited refills. Which is pretty standard in some places now anyway. We need new solutions to the health problem of this country, but we, as a society, need to put it back on ourselves. And I am sure there have been many comments, posts, etc with this same thought, just wanted to address that we need more than this PR ploy or whatever this is suppose to be.
And it seems common sense is missing from this country and this may go back to all the fumes we breath every day pumping our own gas. Yes this is half mocking and half serious. No way it can be good that we breath some fumes every time we fill up our tank and if you don't fill up you are going more often. Gasoline is made up of some serious poisons and you got to have your head buried in the sand if you don't think there is some health concerns breathing in all those fumes. Even if a little bit at a time. Or getting behind a car with serious emission problems. Yes I believe in a diversified energy policy and quite frankly this is one reason why. Even if you don't believe in global warming you have to realize the health concerns are enormous with this stuff. And if you don't think so quit breathing the crap for awhile and then think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)