The irony is so thick, this will require a chainsaw

If the ridiculousness of the right-wing stays on trend this way, we are going to have pie tosses & seltzer water by Senators in giant shoes by the end of next year. Now they are calling for people to teabag Democratic congressman & The White House to oppose the deficit spending of the Obama administration.

REALLY??

Have these nutjobs really forgotten that Bush inherited a surplus and raped that to the highest deficit levels we've seen in decades. While he destroyed our financial position we also began experiencing the worst recession and highest unemployment since the Great Depression?

This shows the real power and danger of the right-wing. People who are suffering the worst economic fate possible are being convinced to protest against a president that actually will create growth in our country. 

The point of the original Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation" which is exactly what we had the past 8 years. We had a government that took our taxes, but gave nothing back. The irony is so thick here. Obama is making government responsible for its constituents, and its spending. 

Problem is, it seems as if common sense is not what that portion of the population wants. They want nonsense, and they are getting it in abundance.

Oh yeah... Also I should point out that this whole "teabag" concept was created by wealthy corporate lobbyists. 

Why's everybody picking on poor Chaffetz?

In my usual fashion, I'm slow to getting around to the next blog post. But figured I needed to since there has been so much great conversation about our esteemed friend Jason Chaffetz.

Why is our freshman Congressman being picked on so much? Because he deserves it.

For a guy who criticized Chris Cannon and the Republican leadership so much to get into office, he sure isn't doing much to oppose the corruption and inaction of his party.

On March 27, the infamous cot-sleeper sent a letter stating his opposition to the President's plan for climate control. The "cap & trade tax" as it is being called would increase costs to utility companies, but what is debatable is how much, if at all, it would affect residential energy users. But Chaffetz was quick to distribute scare tactics to everyone. Simply because he is one of our nation's most partisan puppets.

I'm not going to get involved in the debate of the details of the budget proposal, but simply illustrate how flawed Congressman Chaffetz argument is. Let's keep this nice and simple.

According to his "research" (which is heavily assumptive and highly disputable) the increased energy costs for the state of Utah is $3.01 billion. Chaffetz simply takes this number, and divides it by the population to illustrate how much each person will be affected. To which he points out that it divides out to $1,115.47 per person, or, almost $290 per month, per family (again, simply estimating that a family is 3.01 people). 

Here's the obvious problem. Who uses power, and how much is used? Looking at only the population ignores that there are offices, stores, and other buildings that use power. So you must add every Walmart, shopping mall, restaurant, sports arena, etc. to the number that $3.01 billion is divided by. Now, do we really think that the average Utahn consumes the same amount of power as a Walmart Supercenter, or the Energy Solutions Arena? How about Trax, which consumes electricity to power their trains? All considered, a residential household's average power consumption is dwarfed by these businesses. 

Commercial and industrial buildings account for much more energy use than a household. So if we just thought about it for a second, we'd realize that the $290 per family would be considerably less, even if the estimates are correct. Then we'd also need to consider the larger mansions, apartment buildings, and other structures that would create a large variability in energy consumption.

So obviously, the figures that Chaffetz is proposing are nothing more than a fear tactic to promote his horribly partisan beliefs. When we ignore the facts is when we are mislead as a nation. Tell Congressman Chaffetz to do his job and represent us, not try to scare us into supporting partisan politics. 

Taxes, taxes, taxes... It's always all about taxes

Just wanted to emphasize something, since the noise machine simply will not be quiet about the T word.

Even if the Republicans cared at all about tax cuts for anyone who was not already a billionaire, would it matter? Let's assume they really are about tax cuts.

When you're unemployed, how does a tax cut help you?

When you can't pay an insurance premium, how does a tax cut help you?

When sales taxes are increased on groceries to cover your state's budget deficits, how does an income tax cut help you?

People in the middle class, please understand that your taxes could be cut to zero and that doesn't help you keep your house from being foreclosed on. If you're not making enough (or any) income to survive, what do tax cuts accomplish for you?

By the way, when the ultra-wealthy get bigger tax cuts do you really think they're just going to give that money away through new jobs? Why do they care? That would be a form of their wealth being redistributed.

Think about it.

Fireside conversation about economics, with a drunk conservative sympathizer

Sitting at the pub last night when a friend introduces a Twitter n00b to me. I honestly don't remember how an introduction turned political, but somehow it did. The young girl tells me that she likes what the Democrats do for us socially, but likes the Republican's economical policies much more. To which I had to reply that the only Republican economical policy is "Screw you all!"

She wanted to explain her argument to me, which I was happy to listen to, yet warned her that she can tell me why she feels that way only for me to prove everything she says is wrong. She had a look of surprise, but wanted to justify her position.

"Did you know that 1% of citizens pay 40% of all taxes? Do you really believe that is fair? As most of those people are small business owners who are struggling to survive right now."

She made this too easy on me. First, I asked her if she had any concept of what those top 1% make. She replied that her parents were in that number, clarifying that her parents were wealthy, she was not. So I asked her if her parents made more than $40,000 per day, why does she work, and further, why is she drinking Bud Light in a place like this. If her parents were in that top 1% they would make more than the average person's annual salary each day. Therefore, why would she work at all when her parents could hand her two days worth of pay and have her rolling in cash. 

Further, does she understand that the statement "pays 40% of the taxes" doesn't mean paying 40% taxes on their income. The real number is about 22% for these people. Let's do the math, and that means your parents make at least $10,000,000 annually, we're rounding down for simplicity. 22% would be 2,200,000 in taxes. Leaving them with only a measly $7,800,000 in their pocket, which is more than 150 times what the average American earns. (It's actually 177 based on these numbers, but I didn't break out the calculator right there).

So it takes 150 or more average Americans to pay the same amount of taxes that the top 1% do. Further, that is personal income tax you're talking about, which doesn't mean the total taxes collected in the country. So of course those who are extremely wealthy pay a greater share, the average person does not make anywhere near the amount of money so how could they contribute more? But the real point is this, you and your family do not benefit from Republican economics. Actually, you are worse off than you should be. You've been poisoned with lies to convince you to vote against your best interests by a power-hungry mob who despise the social good which you say you like. My only question to you now is, shouldn't it be time to talk to your parents about real economics and beg them to stop supporting and propagating this ridiculous mentality?

This is what is wrong with our nation today. Average people with modest lifestyles have been convinced to follow a system that hurts them. Sensationalism gets all the attention and people fall for it because very few of us are happy with our incomes and lifestyle. But the way to make things better is not by following the myths of tax breaks. Tax cuts can put maybe a thousand dollars in our pockets annually, when we are spending more than that each month in interest & insurance costs alone. So what would truly enhance your life? A measly tax cut, or health care reform that could save each of us $1000 per month?

Socialist! (Really? That's your best argument?)

If you ever want to understand political media, you just need to drive to your local elementary school, find a group of boys playing something competitive, and wait for the insults to fly. 

"Stupid!"

"Four-eyes!"

"Dickweed!"

"Turd burglar!"

"Socialist!"

Wait, socialist? Sorry if that threw you off. I put that word right where it belongs in our context today. Hasn't that been the best argument against everything President Obama is trying to do? Immediately, the right-wingers resort to calling him a socialist. Here is why:

Schoolyard insults are the result of being upset and not having the mental capacity to effectively argue with the person you are upset with. The rage of emotion is greater than the brain's capacity to construct a solid reason why one is upset. So rather than, "I don't like you because you're more popular than me and I'm jealous of your shoes. I am a great softball player, but you won't choose me for your team because of your personal feelings against me." The child says, 

"Your mom's a slut!"

Socialist simply is being used because "communist" is no longer a believable term for the American people. It has become passe. So they all agree to use the term "socialist" to make people believe that progressing society is bad for them.

This last Tuesday, President Obama held a press conference to discuss the economy. First, I think it is amazing and respectable that he was willing to take questions rather than deliver an oval-office speech and hide behind a "no further comment" press secretary. If you listened to what he said, there was nothing even remotely close to socialism. He spoke of private employers creating jobs, of people financing homes, and of strengthening the economy. There was no mention of work-houses, handouts, forced employment, wealth redistribution, nor is any of that in the actual policies of our president.

I propose that since the right-wing is simply playing schoolyard games, that they at least should be creative and entertaining. Therefore, can we agree to never call anyone a socialist and purely make every attack on politicians a "your mom..." joke?

Capitalism debunked

I remember hearing it repeatedly during business school, the purpose of the corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. This was the doctrine of our world. In every business decision we were to consider whether it increased shareholder wealth. Now the "King of Modern Management," Jack Welch, who is attributed to have started this belief has come out to deny the intelligence of that statement.

“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world,” he said. “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy . . . Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

So all this time companies have been doing business wrong? You would think having the focus on the wrong aspects would lead to a catastrophic event like... what we are currently experiencing. 

This does not mean that shareholder wealth is not important. What it means is that looking at the short-term financial manipulations to cover for the inadequacies of your plans to take care of your employees, who will satisfy your customers with your products is what a company is meant to do. When you succeed at that is when you will increase shareholder wealth through actual sustainable activity.

Write that down.

Don't deny the billionaires their new car of the month

The court of public opinion is so confused over what to think of the AIG bonuses. On one hand, the outrageous payroll and the concept of retention bonuses for rich executives who contributed to the failure of the company. On the other, the legality of fulfilling the contracts made. So what is right?

I'm not going to analyze the legal aspects, but just point out the double-talk by the conservative media and the majority of the Republican party. They are against big government spending, but then rally around AIG and try to sell us on the fairness of these contracts. They wanted auto-workers to have their contracts renegotiated, but want these million dollar bonuses paid. If you are still not convinced that the Republican party is being wagged by wealthy elitists who want to screw over the working class, shouldn't this be all the proof you need?

See Representative Gary Peters discuss the double standard that is happening here. This is the problem that people need to be aware of. So many of our representatives preach how much they are doing for the average working man, but in reality everything they do is exactly against what is good for each and every one of us.