Upset that car manufacturers and Wall St received a bailout? Angry conservatives with "middle america" (inbred) values keep HARPING on the bailout taxpayers supposedly paid to banks and car manufacturers. A previous post (my first one, in the archive http://thebigfuscrew.blogspot.com/2010/09/main-street-did-not-bail-out-wall.html) proves that they never paid enough in taxes to bail out their own state deficit let alone a wall street firm or car manufacturer. If they were educated enough to work for one of these firms they might understand how budgets and deficits work instead of blindly believing what the conservative and liberal media tells them, all the while selling them products through advertisements from these same firms they deride.
The US government currently pays $20 billion per year in direct subsidies to farmers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy) through US farm bills dating back to 1922. The government has been bailing out farmers and "middle america" for over 80 years, since the Great Depression (the original one). Back then, 25% of the nations population resided on farms as opposed to 2% now. Want more ridiculous numbers? How about "the total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006". That's right, over 1.2 billion dollars in subsidies for farms in Iowa. I might be guessing, but isn't that more than the actual property value of every piece of land in Iowa? We (the ACTUAL tax payers) will never see a dime of those subsidies back.
Meanwhile, "the U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year treasury bonds, enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades" ( http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9o7o63mXBnA ). This article was buried in the Bloomberg website news archives.
Even more shocking and relevant to my argument, "The $25 billion TARP return could fund the SEC for more than 20 years, based on the agency’s proposed 2011 fiscal year budget. It could pay for all farm subsidies in the U.S. for more than two years. Bloomberg compiled the TARP data from reports by the Treasury, FDIC and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program" (Again same article). The banks helped bail out "middle america", YET again, FOR 80 YEARS RUNNING.
The bailout of Wall St and car manufacturers is actually paying off, with the government getting a better ROI (return on investment) than its own treasuries. Wall street was expected to PAY THE MONEY BACK, and IT IS PAYING IT BACK. I am still waiting for "middle america" to pay their subsidy back, but why should I? I know what the word "subsidy" means, and apparently, Wall St should have asked for a "SUBSIDY", not a bail out. Even worse, the only way to fix this is to get away from the electoral college because I still cannot stand the fact that the majority of ACTUAL tax payers and the ACTUAL population do not reside "in the middle" or on a farm. We reside in overpopulated congested areas, support the nation monetarily, and get crap for it daily.
The Big FU goes to all of the media, liberal and conservative, for bowing to the minority angry (uneducated) mob of impressionable dimwits. Use your BRAIN people. I am accused of having a closed minded opinion repeatedly, yet find proof to the contrary. The information I use is available to all and no one uses it. I do not have a talk show on FOX or CNN probably because I'm not so pretty and my IQ is higher 50, so my audience is limited to a few smart people I know.
Next week, why does our economy, our budget, and our overall decision making (as a country) rely on a government that is made up of the moral minority's elected officials? I think it is about time population and census numbers should determine how many politicians should be representing us. Perfect example was our most recent election, which did not surprise me when NO tea party backed candidates won an election in a state with a majority of educated people (sorry O'Donnell and Paladino, or the witch and the warlock as I like to call them). If they want to start reducing "big government", they should start by eliminating the politicians representing 300 people in "middle of nowhere" places across the country and we can finally get a more accurate representation of our population both physically and mentally.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Fighting War Conventionally? We Would Still Be Colonies.
In the headlines the last couple of days: "Mail bomb in Dubai sent on 2 passenger planes" and "Suicide bomber wounds 22 in Istanbul's main square". Similar plots threatened against France, Britain, the United States, etc, daily on websites and Islamic television. Why do we seem to be losing (innocent people) on both sides? Because the people we are fighting are attacking the innocent, and hiding amongst the innocent, counting on our sense of morality and the media to protect them.
The media around the world (and sometimes our own) portrays us as the "big dumb bullies" that get our way, regardless of the fact that we are the first to be called upon for help and defense when the need arises, at our own expense (human lives and financially). I can understand based on our recent presidential and political choices (elected and nominated: W, Palin, Obama) who are in the media spotlight do not help us defend the "dumb" label easily, but the bully part of it I just get annoyed hearing repeatedly. We are always damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
We are being fought against the same way we fought against the British in the revolution. They lined up and fought conventionally; we attacked them from the woods, on all sides, from all angles. The difference is we fought on our own land, we knew the terrain and the British brought mostly soldiers not civilians. In the new world landscape we have the disadvantage the British had; terrorists hide amongst the civilians and are more familiar with the terrain, only they have no remorse and a lack of respect for the human lives they put at risk when they hide amongst their own people. They believe the lives of the innocent are worth sacrificing, as well as their own (unless you are a terrorist leader, they seem to follow the "Do as I say, not as I do" approach to suicide bombing). They also come here to attack our innocent, but that is all right, they are allowed, they do not have to fight with rules, only we have to follow the rules.
If we were going to fight any of these wars we committed to in Afghanistan and Iraq and expect any remotely successful result, it would make sense to either fight like the over sized "big bully" we are, or fight the way we are being fought against. Both sound simple, why complicate the situation? Either way we look bad in the media, including the way we have participated up until now.
Fighting as an over sized bully: "Surrender and walk away from all civilians and innocents, you have 3 days to comply before we level the area." Start with the last known and most probable locations of terrorists. After the first city is annihilated, wait for the response. If the response is not favorable, wipe out the next largest city. During World War II, this took two cities before surrender, and I am not saying use nuclear weapons, the regular ones will do the job. I am not saying it was the right thing to do, but could be proof we should be taken at our word. Threaten us, and we will turn your cities and countries into large parking lots.
Fighting the terrorist way: We have departments that do covert operations, and I am not a conspiracy theorist or a militia nutcase, but our own armed forces have people trained to do what terrorists do against us. Let us use them, and use them effectively. Enough with the sacrifice of our soldiers at the expense of "doing what is right" in the eyes of the media, or the world. If we or any other people wanted to do the right thing, we would not be at war at all.
Why do we make a big production and a media friendly name like "Operation Desert Storm" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? If we weren't trying so hard to sell our reasons for war, or blatantly hide the fact that it is for a boost in military spending, we might not be looked upon as big dumb bullies. We actually were (are) trying to either defend ourselves, or help others, but politicians make it an expense and excuse to make money. How about "no name, just pain". Pain for our lost soldiers, pain for their families, and pain for some of us reading and watching, knowing there is a better way, or a safer way, but that is not the political way.
The Big FU goes to our politicians, and the media around the world, including our own. They all seem to put us in harms way, all while claiming to be protecting us, and giving us the "real story". We, the general public, will never have the real story with its layers of lies, media spin, and orders for more goods and services through companies with a vested interest in delaying peace.
See you hopefully next week, sorry for the skipped week.
The media around the world (and sometimes our own) portrays us as the "big dumb bullies" that get our way, regardless of the fact that we are the first to be called upon for help and defense when the need arises, at our own expense (human lives and financially). I can understand based on our recent presidential and political choices (elected and nominated: W, Palin, Obama) who are in the media spotlight do not help us defend the "dumb" label easily, but the bully part of it I just get annoyed hearing repeatedly. We are always damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
We are being fought against the same way we fought against the British in the revolution. They lined up and fought conventionally; we attacked them from the woods, on all sides, from all angles. The difference is we fought on our own land, we knew the terrain and the British brought mostly soldiers not civilians. In the new world landscape we have the disadvantage the British had; terrorists hide amongst the civilians and are more familiar with the terrain, only they have no remorse and a lack of respect for the human lives they put at risk when they hide amongst their own people. They believe the lives of the innocent are worth sacrificing, as well as their own (unless you are a terrorist leader, they seem to follow the "Do as I say, not as I do" approach to suicide bombing). They also come here to attack our innocent, but that is all right, they are allowed, they do not have to fight with rules, only we have to follow the rules.
If we were going to fight any of these wars we committed to in Afghanistan and Iraq and expect any remotely successful result, it would make sense to either fight like the over sized "big bully" we are, or fight the way we are being fought against. Both sound simple, why complicate the situation? Either way we look bad in the media, including the way we have participated up until now.
Fighting as an over sized bully: "Surrender and walk away from all civilians and innocents, you have 3 days to comply before we level the area." Start with the last known and most probable locations of terrorists. After the first city is annihilated, wait for the response. If the response is not favorable, wipe out the next largest city. During World War II, this took two cities before surrender, and I am not saying use nuclear weapons, the regular ones will do the job. I am not saying it was the right thing to do, but could be proof we should be taken at our word. Threaten us, and we will turn your cities and countries into large parking lots.
Fighting the terrorist way: We have departments that do covert operations, and I am not a conspiracy theorist or a militia nutcase, but our own armed forces have people trained to do what terrorists do against us. Let us use them, and use them effectively. Enough with the sacrifice of our soldiers at the expense of "doing what is right" in the eyes of the media, or the world. If we or any other people wanted to do the right thing, we would not be at war at all.
Why do we make a big production and a media friendly name like "Operation Desert Storm" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? If we weren't trying so hard to sell our reasons for war, or blatantly hide the fact that it is for a boost in military spending, we might not be looked upon as big dumb bullies. We actually were (are) trying to either defend ourselves, or help others, but politicians make it an expense and excuse to make money. How about "no name, just pain". Pain for our lost soldiers, pain for their families, and pain for some of us reading and watching, knowing there is a better way, or a safer way, but that is not the political way.
The Big FU goes to our politicians, and the media around the world, including our own. They all seem to put us in harms way, all while claiming to be protecting us, and giving us the "real story". We, the general public, will never have the real story with its layers of lies, media spin, and orders for more goods and services through companies with a vested interest in delaying peace.
See you hopefully next week, sorry for the skipped week.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (AND RACE)
The moral majority apparently have a dislike for New York City, but manage to light up a pulpit and cross with more lights than they have in all of Times Square(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2279/2137369712_0bb9fc28b8.jpg)(http://www.taintedcanvas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/lakewoodmegachurch.png). They have multiple infomercials and used car salesmen (I mean televangelists and reverends) that are almost as believable as the "ShamWow" and "Slap Chop" guy, Vince. I could hear it now, "you will love my nuts". No shortage of nuts out there, and they love their fellow nuts.
It seems a very greedy few prey on the simple, honest, and hard working people from rural America, brainwashing them into giving a percentage of their income (like taxes) for their own personal gain, and advertising to further their wealth(http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html). How can people be so gullible to fall for these scam artists? Some people believe they have no other choice, they genuinely need help, and need guidance, but do not know where to go, or have anywhere to go. I believe part of that smokescreen is being blown by the politicians who get elected with the money and support of these religious entertainers.
It also comes as no surprise that when doing my research, politicians names are speckled throughout the articles and searches (IE: Gingrich, Palin, etc.). If there really was an all knowing God, some of these truly self serving people would have been aborted or never born, which is probably why they fight abortion so fervently, and preach against birth control. Notice I said preach and not practice, there seems to be no limit to their blatant disregard for the average person's intuitiveness and plain common sense. I seem to come across many articles involving sex scandals of the "moral right" politicians and also the religious leaders that support them. Why do their followers continue to support them? How stupid do they think the rest of us are? Do as I say, not as I do.
And as much as I hate to admit it, stupidity runs rampant everywhere. I can't excuse Al Sharpton in New York. He intimidates his audience into believing whatever crap comes out of his mouth through the use of race, when race is not even the issue. Stupid is not prejudiced, but people are afraid to oppose him, for fear they are labeled racist. To make matters worse, he is a Reverend as well as a politician. So much for separation of Church and State. Not only are you a racist for questioning him, but blasphemous as well. I do have to say that he did figure out two ways to raise tax free money, and he manages to get it from both ends. I just do not think I should be taking it from the wrong end. Someone should figure out how to separate his church from his state. The left is just as bad as the right, that's why I am stuck in the middle.
What do these politicians and self proclaimed religious leaders have in common (other than the obvious sales pitches)? They manage to find enough people dumb enough to listen and donate, and when there aren't enough people, they support each other to gain more supporters: An inbreeding of supporters. Fortunately for them, stupidity has no racial or gender bias, there are plenty of stupid people in all walks of life. Unfortunate for the rest of us who have to sit quietly and take it, and in some cases even forced to suffer the political consequences. They take advantage of their own kind, and then believe that you should fall for it as well.
The BIG FU goes to the abusers of power within church and state, preying on the weak (of mind), instead of using their abilities for the actual good their organizations originally stood for. Donations are meant to help the hungry, the homeless, the sick, and the poor...Not fuel their private jets, furnish their mansions, go straight to their paychecks, and pay for another advertisement to get more votes or donations. If they want all of those material things, they should get a REAL job, work hard, and buy those things with their own damned money(blasphemy intentional). Do unto others as you would have done unto you.[Matthew 7:12]
Next week......I believe in god, with a lowercase g.
I do donate to my local church, I can see where they put in their time and our donations and the good that they do with them. I see how they help people who need help, and not abuse their positions of influence for their own personal gain.
It seems a very greedy few prey on the simple, honest, and hard working people from rural America, brainwashing them into giving a percentage of their income (like taxes) for their own personal gain, and advertising to further their wealth(http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html). How can people be so gullible to fall for these scam artists? Some people believe they have no other choice, they genuinely need help, and need guidance, but do not know where to go, or have anywhere to go. I believe part of that smokescreen is being blown by the politicians who get elected with the money and support of these religious entertainers.
It also comes as no surprise that when doing my research, politicians names are speckled throughout the articles and searches (IE: Gingrich, Palin, etc.). If there really was an all knowing God, some of these truly self serving people would have been aborted or never born, which is probably why they fight abortion so fervently, and preach against birth control. Notice I said preach and not practice, there seems to be no limit to their blatant disregard for the average person's intuitiveness and plain common sense. I seem to come across many articles involving sex scandals of the "moral right" politicians and also the religious leaders that support them. Why do their followers continue to support them? How stupid do they think the rest of us are? Do as I say, not as I do.
And as much as I hate to admit it, stupidity runs rampant everywhere. I can't excuse Al Sharpton in New York. He intimidates his audience into believing whatever crap comes out of his mouth through the use of race, when race is not even the issue. Stupid is not prejudiced, but people are afraid to oppose him, for fear they are labeled racist. To make matters worse, he is a Reverend as well as a politician. So much for separation of Church and State. Not only are you a racist for questioning him, but blasphemous as well. I do have to say that he did figure out two ways to raise tax free money, and he manages to get it from both ends. I just do not think I should be taking it from the wrong end. Someone should figure out how to separate his church from his state. The left is just as bad as the right, that's why I am stuck in the middle.
What do these politicians and self proclaimed religious leaders have in common (other than the obvious sales pitches)? They manage to find enough people dumb enough to listen and donate, and when there aren't enough people, they support each other to gain more supporters: An inbreeding of supporters. Fortunately for them, stupidity has no racial or gender bias, there are plenty of stupid people in all walks of life. Unfortunate for the rest of us who have to sit quietly and take it, and in some cases even forced to suffer the political consequences. They take advantage of their own kind, and then believe that you should fall for it as well.
The BIG FU goes to the abusers of power within church and state, preying on the weak (of mind), instead of using their abilities for the actual good their organizations originally stood for. Donations are meant to help the hungry, the homeless, the sick, and the poor...Not fuel their private jets, furnish their mansions, go straight to their paychecks, and pay for another advertisement to get more votes or donations. If they want all of those material things, they should get a REAL job, work hard, and buy those things with their own damned money(blasphemy intentional). Do unto others as you would have done unto you.[Matthew 7:12]
Next week......I believe in god, with a lowercase g.
I do donate to my local church, I can see where they put in their time and our donations and the good that they do with them. I see how they help people who need help, and not abuse their positions of influence for their own personal gain.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ignorance and Tolerance: The difference between Hate and Respect
Years ago I was chosen to be best man at a wedding in Hawaii. I was honored to be chosen, and excited about the location. This was the second time I was chosen to be a best man, and both times the weddings took place in Hawaii! Both took place on the beach, with the pacific ocean in the background. The couples were nervous, excited and happy at both occasions. Both occasions sound very similar, don't they? Well, they are not. At the first wedding, my male friend married his girlfriend, at the second wedding, my female friend married her girlfriend.
I remember when I first asked my friend (the female one) to go out to have a drink after work, after working together for a few months, how defensive and nervous she was talking about "her roommate." If you didn't pay close attention to the conversation, you would think her roommate was just another friend and they moved across the country together. While we were out, she mentioned that her roommate was much more than her roommate, she was actually her girlfriend and she thought from all the times speaking to me at work that I "figured it out". I didn't completely figure it out, until she actually told me.
She asked, "does this bother you?" to which I replied "No". She didn't expect that answer, so I guess she believed me to be ignorant and closed minded. The next thing she said was, I guess I shouldn't assume that most people are like back home (out west, conservative country). From that day forward, we began a friendship we still have today. I consider her one of my closest friends.
What made me think of her was the story in the news about the "Rutger's suicide" that resulted from an illegally taken gay sex video of the victim by another student who happened to be his roommate. What if this had happened to her? What if this had happened to any of my friends (straight or gay)? What if it was one of my children? I think back to when I first met her, and what if I was just an ignorant jerk?
My friend would have kicked my ass(verbally), and whoever else stood in her way(physically). Turns out that I am more tolerant than I even thought, more through rationalization than anything else. She was a nice person, that's all, why wouldn't we be friends? Seems so simple and yet so difficult for a vast majority. Normally bible thumpers, major religions, and the self proclaimed "moral majority" think that gay and lesbian people are going to bring humanity to a standstill.
Did you know that in the places where people fear the gay community, in some cases going as far as outlawing certain types of gay sex(all repealed in 2002), it is still legal to marry your first cousin? I believe it is also still legal to have sex with an animal(http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoophilia.htm)? Every religion makes note of it (great writing and imagination), yet it is frowned upon. I thought religion was supposed to be about loving all of "god's" creatures; do not hurt anyone, do not murder, cheat or steal, etc. I guess gays are not "god's" creatures?
Pedophile priests get protected by the church, but gays and lesbians having consensual sex is just plain against the rules? Inbreeding is OK, but two adults having consensual sex is a sin? Everyone should just grow up. I am a straight man but I can't remember ever being attacked by "straight" bashers, or a band of rogue gays out to convert me. Gays didn't lobby to block opposite sex marriages. They do not fight to prevent me from providing health insurance to my wife and kids. Why do conservatives fight against them?
I can tell you that my friends after getting married moved back west, to Arizona, from where they were originally from. The biggest misconception is people thinking everyone from "the middle" are ignorant and intolerant. My friend's partner comes from a conservative republican family, and they were one of the most supportive and caring families I have ever met. They were even nice to the "rude" New Yorker who came to visit (I met them all at the wedding as well) for the second reception. Unfortunately, they are the minority in our country, otherwise, same sex marriages would be legal across the country, and eighteen year olds wouldn't be jumping off of the George Washington Bridge to avoid facing public humiliation.
The Big FU goes to the ignorant self proclaimed "moral conservatives" who have no problem protecting pedophilic clergy, inbreeding amongst their constituents, and hate mongering groups, all in the name of fighting against a group they fear will infiltrate our society. Not to say they are a little slow, but gays and lesbians have been around since societies were formed.
I remember when I first asked my friend (the female one) to go out to have a drink after work, after working together for a few months, how defensive and nervous she was talking about "her roommate." If you didn't pay close attention to the conversation, you would think her roommate was just another friend and they moved across the country together. While we were out, she mentioned that her roommate was much more than her roommate, she was actually her girlfriend and she thought from all the times speaking to me at work that I "figured it out". I didn't completely figure it out, until she actually told me.
She asked, "does this bother you?" to which I replied "No". She didn't expect that answer, so I guess she believed me to be ignorant and closed minded. The next thing she said was, I guess I shouldn't assume that most people are like back home (out west, conservative country). From that day forward, we began a friendship we still have today. I consider her one of my closest friends.
What made me think of her was the story in the news about the "Rutger's suicide" that resulted from an illegally taken gay sex video of the victim by another student who happened to be his roommate. What if this had happened to her? What if this had happened to any of my friends (straight or gay)? What if it was one of my children? I think back to when I first met her, and what if I was just an ignorant jerk?
My friend would have kicked my ass(verbally), and whoever else stood in her way(physically). Turns out that I am more tolerant than I even thought, more through rationalization than anything else. She was a nice person, that's all, why wouldn't we be friends? Seems so simple and yet so difficult for a vast majority. Normally bible thumpers, major religions, and the self proclaimed "moral majority" think that gay and lesbian people are going to bring humanity to a standstill.
Did you know that in the places where people fear the gay community, in some cases going as far as outlawing certain types of gay sex(all repealed in 2002), it is still legal to marry your first cousin? I believe it is also still legal to have sex with an animal(http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoophilia.htm)? Every religion makes note of it (great writing and imagination), yet it is frowned upon. I thought religion was supposed to be about loving all of "god's" creatures; do not hurt anyone, do not murder, cheat or steal, etc. I guess gays are not "god's" creatures?
Pedophile priests get protected by the church, but gays and lesbians having consensual sex is just plain against the rules? Inbreeding is OK, but two adults having consensual sex is a sin? Everyone should just grow up. I am a straight man but I can't remember ever being attacked by "straight" bashers, or a band of rogue gays out to convert me. Gays didn't lobby to block opposite sex marriages. They do not fight to prevent me from providing health insurance to my wife and kids. Why do conservatives fight against them?
I can tell you that my friends after getting married moved back west, to Arizona, from where they were originally from. The biggest misconception is people thinking everyone from "the middle" are ignorant and intolerant. My friend's partner comes from a conservative republican family, and they were one of the most supportive and caring families I have ever met. They were even nice to the "rude" New Yorker who came to visit (I met them all at the wedding as well) for the second reception. Unfortunately, they are the minority in our country, otherwise, same sex marriages would be legal across the country, and eighteen year olds wouldn't be jumping off of the George Washington Bridge to avoid facing public humiliation.
The Big FU goes to the ignorant self proclaimed "moral conservatives" who have no problem protecting pedophilic clergy, inbreeding amongst their constituents, and hate mongering groups, all in the name of fighting against a group they fear will infiltrate our society. Not to say they are a little slow, but gays and lesbians have been around since societies were formed.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
JOIN THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT? I LIKE COFFEE BETTER.
I do not like Tea. I do not like the Tea Party. The only gathering I will attend is my daughter's pretend Tea Party. Pat the teddy bear is her featured guest. He does not keep notes in the palm of his hand. He is confident he can handle the conversation, and can remember his own agenda.
Pat most likely will not be attending a Tea Party rally or protest any time soon. You see, he is a brown teddy bear, and he does not pay taxes. The "real" Tea Party does not like brown bears, and does not like tax breaks for the poor. I say, join the coffee party.
The coffee party does not stand still. We move and think at the same time! We don't wait to vote on a "top10" of agenda items, or put those items in a "Contract from America". America already has a contract, it is called the Constitution, and it keeps getting misinterpreted by both Republicans and Democrats. We do not need an extreme right "tea party" to misinterpret it further.
Contract is the wrong name or word to be used for this. All parties have to agree to a contract, and right now, a limited "few" wrote this contract, and are pushing the majority (a whole country) to accept it. If you have any common sense, or business sense, you would just say no and refuse the contract. Where's my attorney review?
The coffee party has no hidden agenda. We believe and do what is right. All it takes is a little common sense, and we can make a decision in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee. Everyone should get taxed equally, a flat (percentage) tax. Do not over tax the rich, do not over tax the poor, do not over tax the middle class. There is a reason for using a percentage calculation for taxes: the dollar amount changes incrementally when you multiply a larger number (like a larger income) by the same percentage. Of course if you make more money, you are going to pay more taxes. Put a cap on total taxes at the top, and a floor for taxes at the bottom. This means everyone has to pay something, always, and it hurts (helps) everyone equally.
Why are politicians lawmakers? Shouldn't they be required to have a law degree? Or an economics degree to head finance committees? An MBA or business degree, or even a management degree? Did you ever try to apply for a job that you were not qualified for? Usually common sense told you NO, but politicians are being voted into (applying for) well paying jobs, by us, and most are not qualified for them. Fair taxation makes sense, but shouldn't we have a group of politicians (lawmakers) with the ability to actually calculate a percentage, balance a budget, and decide what is fair?
I read the "contract from America", it does not sound bad, and some points even make sense. One that does not, however, is creating a committee to audit federal agencies for constitutionality, primarily to avoid duplication and waste. This is pointless because we have three branches of the government and a system of checks and balances supposedly in place, thus the committee itself is duplication and waste.
Unfortunately "the contract" is designed to get normal educated people to donate their money and their time to try and get seemingly ignorant (or insert a nice word for stupid here) politicians (like Palin, O'Donnell, etc.)elected who will push an underlying narrow minded agenda normally associated with staunch republicans. Repealing the recovery act, repealing abortion, repealing gay rights: Republicans and tea party supporters have been unsuccessful at all of these. What have they been successful at? Creating the need for a recovery act, creating a justification for abortion (i.e. inbreeding), and never balancing a budget, ever.
The word extremist is not generally used in a positive way. For example: Religious extremist, political extremist, left wing extremist, and right wing extremist (or tea party activist). All of the examples are used to describe a small group within a group that interprets (actually misinterprets) the larger group's general principles to an unhealthy extreme. How do you fight against a woman's right to choose and condone the death penalty? or vice versa? There is a common sense reason for both sides of every issue, but it is drowned out by the extremists.
Any normal person with common sense knows the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even when someone is trying to shovel a load of crap down his or her throat. It is why I am not a democrat or a republican. I do not believe any one side is completely right on every issue. I believe in a woman's right to choose, but do not condone the use of abortion as another form of birth control. I believe in the death penalty, but only in extreme and definite cases.
This is why I am a part of the coffee party movement. I can think for myself, do for myself, and I just generally like coffee better. Three great reasons, none written from notes on the palms of my hands.
The Big FU goes to the Tea Party Movement and the politicians they elect, which seem to be more of a Bowel Movement than anything else. Same shit, different extremist delivery. And if you want to move bowels, everyone knows that coffee just works better.
Come back next week, I have not decided what has annoyed me the most yet, so the topic is to be determined...
Pat most likely will not be attending a Tea Party rally or protest any time soon. You see, he is a brown teddy bear, and he does not pay taxes. The "real" Tea Party does not like brown bears, and does not like tax breaks for the poor. I say, join the coffee party.
The coffee party does not stand still. We move and think at the same time! We don't wait to vote on a "top10" of agenda items, or put those items in a "Contract from America". America already has a contract, it is called the Constitution, and it keeps getting misinterpreted by both Republicans and Democrats. We do not need an extreme right "tea party" to misinterpret it further.
Contract is the wrong name or word to be used for this. All parties have to agree to a contract, and right now, a limited "few" wrote this contract, and are pushing the majority (a whole country) to accept it. If you have any common sense, or business sense, you would just say no and refuse the contract. Where's my attorney review?
The coffee party has no hidden agenda. We believe and do what is right. All it takes is a little common sense, and we can make a decision in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee. Everyone should get taxed equally, a flat (percentage) tax. Do not over tax the rich, do not over tax the poor, do not over tax the middle class. There is a reason for using a percentage calculation for taxes: the dollar amount changes incrementally when you multiply a larger number (like a larger income) by the same percentage. Of course if you make more money, you are going to pay more taxes. Put a cap on total taxes at the top, and a floor for taxes at the bottom. This means everyone has to pay something, always, and it hurts (helps) everyone equally.
Why are politicians lawmakers? Shouldn't they be required to have a law degree? Or an economics degree to head finance committees? An MBA or business degree, or even a management degree? Did you ever try to apply for a job that you were not qualified for? Usually common sense told you NO, but politicians are being voted into (applying for) well paying jobs, by us, and most are not qualified for them. Fair taxation makes sense, but shouldn't we have a group of politicians (lawmakers) with the ability to actually calculate a percentage, balance a budget, and decide what is fair?
I read the "contract from America", it does not sound bad, and some points even make sense. One that does not, however, is creating a committee to audit federal agencies for constitutionality, primarily to avoid duplication and waste. This is pointless because we have three branches of the government and a system of checks and balances supposedly in place, thus the committee itself is duplication and waste.
Unfortunately "the contract" is designed to get normal educated people to donate their money and their time to try and get seemingly ignorant (or insert a nice word for stupid here) politicians (like Palin, O'Donnell, etc.)elected who will push an underlying narrow minded agenda normally associated with staunch republicans. Repealing the recovery act, repealing abortion, repealing gay rights: Republicans and tea party supporters have been unsuccessful at all of these. What have they been successful at? Creating the need for a recovery act, creating a justification for abortion (i.e. inbreeding), and never balancing a budget, ever.
The word extremist is not generally used in a positive way. For example: Religious extremist, political extremist, left wing extremist, and right wing extremist (or tea party activist). All of the examples are used to describe a small group within a group that interprets (actually misinterprets) the larger group's general principles to an unhealthy extreme. How do you fight against a woman's right to choose and condone the death penalty? or vice versa? There is a common sense reason for both sides of every issue, but it is drowned out by the extremists.
Any normal person with common sense knows the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even when someone is trying to shovel a load of crap down his or her throat. It is why I am not a democrat or a republican. I do not believe any one side is completely right on every issue. I believe in a woman's right to choose, but do not condone the use of abortion as another form of birth control. I believe in the death penalty, but only in extreme and definite cases.
This is why I am a part of the coffee party movement. I can think for myself, do for myself, and I just generally like coffee better. Three great reasons, none written from notes on the palms of my hands.
The Big FU goes to the Tea Party Movement and the politicians they elect, which seem to be more of a Bowel Movement than anything else. Same shit, different extremist delivery. And if you want to move bowels, everyone knows that coffee just works better.
Come back next week, I have not decided what has annoyed me the most yet, so the topic is to be determined...
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Protect the Amish Country Popcorn Factory from Terrorists!
The Mule Day Parade in Columbia, Tennessee (which, according to the city’s website, draws over 200,000 spectators each year for the week-long event) is part of the National Asset Database, as well as the Amish Country Popcorn Factory. What is the National Asset Database(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33648.pdf)? A list of over 77,000 "national assets" that are critical to the nation's infrastructure. Indiana had over 8600 "critical assets", almost as many as New York and California combined.
Who put these "critical assets" on the National Asset Database? A bunch of local politicians and officials across the country, mostly in hopes to secure more homeland security funds. The two "assets" above are just examples of how ridiculous these unnamed officials and politicians can be. How do you actually take these people and who they represent seriously?
These "politicians" are the people that represent the vast majority of our country, in congress as well as the senate. Seems like Wall St has been bailing out Main St for as long as there has been a United States. I can tell you personally that this is why I write these weekly articles. How stupid do you think I am? How stupid do you think we all are? My 4 year old has a better sense of what is critical to the nation's infrastructure, and he can even say "national infrastructure", which is more than some of these politicians and there constituents can say.
How do these politicians, and the idiots who elect them, go on to become senators and high ranking politicians who manage committees that spend our vast majority of tax dollars where it matters? The general media (extreme left OR right) prop up these people and their "Mule Day parade" or "Popcorn factory" into positions of national prominence.
The Big FU goes to these politicians, and the morons that keep electing them. I am educated, as are my friends and family, so stop shoveling this "mule" crap down our collective throats. If you want our country to run properly, stop the "Mule Day" master of ceremonies from having a say in matters of national importance, after all, a mule is just another type of "ass".
Next week, the tea party. Apparently, its more than a bunch of little girls talking to their teddy bears, but not much more.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Mortgage Meltdown: Stop Blaming the Banks!
"I'm a cleaning lady who makes $200,000.00 a year. I want to buy a 2 family investment property home for 450,000.00 so I can collect the rent. I do not want to put any money down, and I cannot verify my income (because I'm self employed?)."
This was a potential client sitting in front of me in a top 3 bank in the United States, wanting to apply for a mortgage. My first reaction was, I should quit my job and become a cleaning lady, because I do not make that much money. Aside from the fact that I am not a woman, I do not believe I could become a cleaning lady, at least one that makes $200,000.00 a year. I do not clean that well.
Unfortunately, her credit score was actually very good (well over 700), and she would qualify for what we called an 80/20 stated/stated loan. What this means is that I could give her a first mortgage of 80% of the purchase price, and a second mortgage of 20% of the purchase price, and just state her income and assets on the application. When reviewing her credit, she had her current mortgage (for about a year) and 4 other accounts (a store card, and a few small credit cards) with minimal balances and limits, with about a 2 year history. She banked with us, and had minimal money in the bank (hundreds of dollars, not hundreds of thousands). In over 10 years of reviewing credit reports, she did not make enough money to qualify for her current home, let alone another one. The rent she could possibly receive would only cover two thirds of the new mortgage payments, not counting property taxes and insurance.
I declined the loan.
A year later she comes back to the same bank, sits in front of me, and demands I help her refinance this mortgage she has with our bank? I remember her and told her I declined her mortgage. She said we have the mortgage, and sure enough, it is in the system. The realtor who sold her the home referred her to an "in house" mortgage broker who brokered it to a subprime lender, and subsequently sold it back to the bank I worked for. She could not make the payments, she did not make 200,000 dollars a year, and she was not receiving any rent. Her current home's mortgage payment (her primary residence) was also not being paid. She demands that I (we) help her, to which I replied, "I did, when I told you that you did not qualify a year ago".
How did she get this mortgage, and this house? The government said she HAD to, because she is no different from the random doctor (who is self employed and states that he/she makes 200k/year) with a 10 + year credit history and a demonstrated capacity of paying larger, longer term debts, all on time, because her credit score is the same as his/her credit score.
No, actually, they are not the same, but the government told me they were, and I could lose my job if I do not make the loan. I could be personally fined as well as the company I worked for and even worse, lose my career. All because I refused that loan when she first applied. I was right, but that did not matter.
Fast forward three years and that same cleaning lady cannot get a mortgage, and neither can the doctor. Not unless they show all of their income and assets, pay taxes on their income (it has to show on their 1040s), and we will pull our own copy of the 1040s direct from the IRS to verify it was the tax return they filed.
Who created these stated/stated loans? The banks, to cater to those with higher credit capacities, and a low tolerance for disclosing 1000's of pages of personal documents. Who was placed into these loans? Everyone, because it was easier to qualify, and the government said that everyone should be equally placed into them, regardless of my ability to ACTUALLY analyze and interpret a credit report and credit capacity. Who made these loans? Unscrupulous loan officers and mortgage brokers who didn't even need a high school education to complete one of these mortgage applications and figure out that "there was money to be made". Who bought these loans? FNMA and FHLMC, those same private government agencies claiming they did not know. In fact, the goverment monitoring processes in place forced lenders to give these loans equally to people who really did not qualify. I (and the experience and ability I have) were taken out of the equation.
And as for the subprime loans and the mortgage backed securities associated with them that collapsed: These loans began life as "subprime" and the banks that made these loans were forced to buy them back by the investors who pooled the loans into mortgage backed securities (MBSs) because of "early payment default". The people who were given these loans had a history of credit that was in past and present default, and that is why they had a high rate of return. Why would investors expect a secure rate of return that high?
If you have a pool of loans that are subprime, made at a higher rate due to a higher associated risk, yielding a higher rate of return, and only 5 or 10 percent of the loans are experiencing an early payment default (not foreclosure) out of a group that is made up with 100% of people with some sort of past and present defaulted credit, 90 to 95% of your portfolio is performing, isn't it? Why would investors demand you buy back the bad loans? I would demand the good ones too, and all the profits that came from them as well.
What most people seem to forget is the word "investment", which normally means "RISK". If you want a guaranteed rate of return, put your money in the bank and make .2% interest. You want 10%+ returns, you can lose your investment, or not. Just don't cry about it, because now, no one gets a loan, except the people who do not need one. They are the only ones that qualify, and guess who's buying those loans? The government.
The BIG FU SCREW goes to us, the people, who cannot get a loan, unless we do not need one, and the government, who wants to blame the meltdown of the economy on banks and Wall St, when their regulations are what forced banks into "bad lending policies and guidelines" which they decided and determined. If they can't balance a budget, what makes them think they can understand finance and investing? (Just google government deficit)
Next week, why are all of our high ranking politicians people from "nowhere". I still cannot get over the fact that they cannot pronounce words like "nuclear" (its not "nucular" George, if you had the power to push the button, you should have been able to read what it says), and we rarely have heard of them. For example, take a poll, and ask a person who the mayor of NYC is, and then one of the two senators of their own state. 9 out of 10 will know the mayor of NYC, and 1 out 10 will know the name of their senator. And why do we allocate homeland security dollars to protect: national treasures in Indiana? (What is it, the first popcorn factory? http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/homelandsecurity/priceofperil.html)
This was a potential client sitting in front of me in a top 3 bank in the United States, wanting to apply for a mortgage. My first reaction was, I should quit my job and become a cleaning lady, because I do not make that much money. Aside from the fact that I am not a woman, I do not believe I could become a cleaning lady, at least one that makes $200,000.00 a year. I do not clean that well.
Unfortunately, her credit score was actually very good (well over 700), and she would qualify for what we called an 80/20 stated/stated loan. What this means is that I could give her a first mortgage of 80% of the purchase price, and a second mortgage of 20% of the purchase price, and just state her income and assets on the application. When reviewing her credit, she had her current mortgage (for about a year) and 4 other accounts (a store card, and a few small credit cards) with minimal balances and limits, with about a 2 year history. She banked with us, and had minimal money in the bank (hundreds of dollars, not hundreds of thousands). In over 10 years of reviewing credit reports, she did not make enough money to qualify for her current home, let alone another one. The rent she could possibly receive would only cover two thirds of the new mortgage payments, not counting property taxes and insurance.
I declined the loan.
A year later she comes back to the same bank, sits in front of me, and demands I help her refinance this mortgage she has with our bank? I remember her and told her I declined her mortgage. She said we have the mortgage, and sure enough, it is in the system. The realtor who sold her the home referred her to an "in house" mortgage broker who brokered it to a subprime lender, and subsequently sold it back to the bank I worked for. She could not make the payments, she did not make 200,000 dollars a year, and she was not receiving any rent. Her current home's mortgage payment (her primary residence) was also not being paid. She demands that I (we) help her, to which I replied, "I did, when I told you that you did not qualify a year ago".
How did she get this mortgage, and this house? The government said she HAD to, because she is no different from the random doctor (who is self employed and states that he/she makes 200k/year) with a 10 + year credit history and a demonstrated capacity of paying larger, longer term debts, all on time, because her credit score is the same as his/her credit score.
No, actually, they are not the same, but the government told me they were, and I could lose my job if I do not make the loan. I could be personally fined as well as the company I worked for and even worse, lose my career. All because I refused that loan when she first applied. I was right, but that did not matter.
Fast forward three years and that same cleaning lady cannot get a mortgage, and neither can the doctor. Not unless they show all of their income and assets, pay taxes on their income (it has to show on their 1040s), and we will pull our own copy of the 1040s direct from the IRS to verify it was the tax return they filed.
Who created these stated/stated loans? The banks, to cater to those with higher credit capacities, and a low tolerance for disclosing 1000's of pages of personal documents. Who was placed into these loans? Everyone, because it was easier to qualify, and the government said that everyone should be equally placed into them, regardless of my ability to ACTUALLY analyze and interpret a credit report and credit capacity. Who made these loans? Unscrupulous loan officers and mortgage brokers who didn't even need a high school education to complete one of these mortgage applications and figure out that "there was money to be made". Who bought these loans? FNMA and FHLMC, those same private government agencies claiming they did not know. In fact, the goverment monitoring processes in place forced lenders to give these loans equally to people who really did not qualify. I (and the experience and ability I have) were taken out of the equation.
And as for the subprime loans and the mortgage backed securities associated with them that collapsed: These loans began life as "subprime" and the banks that made these loans were forced to buy them back by the investors who pooled the loans into mortgage backed securities (MBSs) because of "early payment default". The people who were given these loans had a history of credit that was in past and present default, and that is why they had a high rate of return. Why would investors expect a secure rate of return that high?
If you have a pool of loans that are subprime, made at a higher rate due to a higher associated risk, yielding a higher rate of return, and only 5 or 10 percent of the loans are experiencing an early payment default (not foreclosure) out of a group that is made up with 100% of people with some sort of past and present defaulted credit, 90 to 95% of your portfolio is performing, isn't it? Why would investors demand you buy back the bad loans? I would demand the good ones too, and all the profits that came from them as well.
What most people seem to forget is the word "investment", which normally means "RISK". If you want a guaranteed rate of return, put your money in the bank and make .2% interest. You want 10%+ returns, you can lose your investment, or not. Just don't cry about it, because now, no one gets a loan, except the people who do not need one. They are the only ones that qualify, and guess who's buying those loans? The government.
The BIG FU SCREW goes to us, the people, who cannot get a loan, unless we do not need one, and the government, who wants to blame the meltdown of the economy on banks and Wall St, when their regulations are what forced banks into "bad lending policies and guidelines" which they decided and determined. If they can't balance a budget, what makes them think they can understand finance and investing? (Just google government deficit)
Next week, why are all of our high ranking politicians people from "nowhere". I still cannot get over the fact that they cannot pronounce words like "nuclear" (its not "nucular" George, if you had the power to push the button, you should have been able to read what it says), and we rarely have heard of them. For example, take a poll, and ask a person who the mayor of NYC is, and then one of the two senators of their own state. 9 out of 10 will know the mayor of NYC, and 1 out 10 will know the name of their senator. And why do we allocate homeland security dollars to protect: national treasures in Indiana? (What is it, the first popcorn factory? http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/homelandsecurity/priceofperil.html)
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Burn the Koran? On 9/11? Are You Morons?
The Koran is a translation/interpretation of the Torah (Hebrew) or the Old Testament as we call the translation/interpretation as Christians. Burning the Koran? You are burning a version of the Old Testament you idiots.
Not that I believe any religion is right or wrong, I pretty much believe they are all wrong. If there is a "God" or "Allah" or whatever you want to call him (or her), bad things would not happen to good people. I do believe there are forces out there we cannot explain that do cause the unexplainable, but these forces cannot consciously decide what happens when, and why.
These same people who want to burn the Koran, also would want you to believe in "Creationism" when it has been scientifically disproved. These people (extreme religious right, tea party patriots, uneducated middle of the country people, extreme right wing republicans, insert your favorite synonym for idiot or inbred, etc.) went so far as to call it "Intelligent Design", though intelligent in this case is an oxymoron. Intelligent Design is actually the "PR" name for creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy), or as I like to call it, dumb ass ignorance(a double entendre, not oxymoron).
How could people be so ignorant? None of the people I know, work with, speak to on a regular basis, even come into contact with in a normal day believe this crap. I still am amazed at how impressionable these people could be. Christian terrorists? Yes, they are. They want to teach their religious extremist ideas in school, and raise their children close minded and insulated from the outside world. They kill people at abortion clinics (another oxymoron) to justify not terminating pregnancies. Maybe they are afraid that they would have been aborted, and people like themselves would be as well. Maybe if their father/uncle (it is possible for your father to also be your uncle where these people live) knew there was an abortion option, they would never have been born.
All major religions preach along similar lines: be good to others, don't steal, cheat, murder, etc. but all religions have another common theme: terrorist extremists. Israelis? Check. Christians? Check. Muslims? Check. (Buddhism is probably as close as you get to the truth, a wise fat guy who grants you wishes when you rub his belly, kind of like Santa Claus, but no extremists, just wise old sayings. Maybe I'm partial because I am a fat guy who doesn't cheat, steal, murder, etc.)
Religion is great for people who want to believe, and more importantly for people who need to believe. Some people like to hear the rules over and over, while others need to be reminded of them constantly. That is fine, I wish I had more time to practice at golf, I would probably be a lot better at it, but the rules to life, I'm good. Religion is not so great when religious leaders bend and twist the rules (IE: interpret them) in a way that condones violence, acts of terrorism, and hatred towards others. Unfortunately, all major religions are guilty of this as well. The problem lies with the religious leaders themselves, not because they aren't good people in general, but because of the simple fact that they are humans (not God, prophets, or Intelligent Designers) and are subject to human nature, just like the rest of us.
The power does get to them. The followers give this power to them. Ultimately, ambition gets to them (they want to move up the ranks, to grow their "flock", to stake their claims to land, to convert others to their faith, to influence politicians and government) and this goes against every religious belief system, but you cannot eliminate human nature or emotion, proof of evolution again! If people wonder why religion and politics should not mix but always do, re-read the previous 3 sentences, and then think about what religion resembles most closely. Wouldn't you guess the Government (any country's government)?
Both tax you, both want your votes, both tell you the rules (to your private and public life), both use your "taxes/donations" to further promote themselves and their beliefs, and both have fundamental (for the mental) extremists. They both promote peace, and both promote wars, which brings us back to today, 9/11.
War does not protect the innocent, obviously, or terrorists would have attacked our military bases and our government, not a densely populated major city known as the capital of the world. My only concern with this is why did we wait so long to fight back, and why didn't we just eliminate every single person known to be a terrorist or extremist? Why are we supposed to fight a war with different rules? Is our country's public relations department so incompetent that we cannot justify fighting back under our own terms? The Koran itself speaks of "an Eye for an Eye" but the world would be outraged if we turned the mountain range between Afghanistan and Pakistan into a parking lot. All of these terrorist attacks are because of religion? Because we defend Israel? Because we defend democracy for all who need defending?
If you hate Israel, attack Israel, or are you afraid to? The one airline you never see getting hijacked is El Al, the Israeli airline. That's because if you try to hijack one, you get killed. No questions asked, bad PR be damned. The world might hate us, but they will think twice before attacking us again. And another newsflash, the world already hates us (Americans), so why are we so worried about what everyone else thinks? Probably because our politicians (past and present) always have something to gain financially through war, and they just can't justify a war to be solely about the safety of the American people, which brings us back to bad PR.
The Big FU goes to the people who burned the Koran, and the people who wanted to, for being too stupid to realize that it is their own religion as well, and to our leaders who should take their dress off and fight the war we should have fought. The burning of the Koran will just get more of our soldiers killed, its just more bad PR. Go after the terrorists, and if they hide behind civilians, eliminate them. I do not remember seeing any of our soldiers hiding at the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan on 9/11/2001, but for some reason, they hit not once, but twice, into two buildings filled with civilians of all faiths, who were just going to work that day, or just visiting tourists.
I was about to finish writing the mortgage meltdown article I was writing when I realized what date it was today: 9/11/2010. It has been 9 years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The mortgage meltdown could wait another week, it happened already, but my opinion above could not wait.
I am fortunate enough to have many family members and friends who live in the area and work in the area who all survived that day. Some are police officers, some firemen, some who worked in lower Manhattan, mostly all living in the vicinity.
I remember working from home on my computer, "sportscenter" in the background on ESPN, and then my cell phone ringing. I answered the call and that is when I started listening to sportscenter, but it was ABC news in NY on ESPN, and my friend on the phone saying "Do you know what is going on right now?" I went to the TV and saw the 2nd plane crash into one of the World Trade towers, the other one already smoking. My friend yelled "did you see that!?", I said yes, what the hell is going on? Eventually everyone found out. The news seemed to be on a continuous loop for days. Cell phone service went out and was intermittent for days.
The only thing I could not figure out that day was the last plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, on its way to Washington, DC. I recall hearing on one news report that there was one plane unaccounted for, and not responding (all other flights had been grounded/rerouted) and that military fighter jets were following this plane. They did not mention which plane and where it was, but it makes sense when you hear the phone conversations people had with their family and friends who were on that flight that went down in Pennsylvania, and one of those people/recordings mentioned that the wing was on fire before they fought their way into the cockpit. I know I tried to switch to multiple channels and news sources, but I only heard that one brief report about the fighter jets, and it was never mentioned again that day, or any of the subsequent days after the tragedy. The recordings and phone conversations came much later, I believe days or even weeks after 9/11, but still no mention of the fighter jets and that last plane.
I do not know if anyone else might have remembered, but feel free to comment about any and all of the above.
Not that I believe any religion is right or wrong, I pretty much believe they are all wrong. If there is a "God" or "Allah" or whatever you want to call him (or her), bad things would not happen to good people. I do believe there are forces out there we cannot explain that do cause the unexplainable, but these forces cannot consciously decide what happens when, and why.
These same people who want to burn the Koran, also would want you to believe in "Creationism" when it has been scientifically disproved. These people (extreme religious right, tea party patriots, uneducated middle of the country people, extreme right wing republicans, insert your favorite synonym for idiot or inbred, etc.) went so far as to call it "Intelligent Design", though intelligent in this case is an oxymoron. Intelligent Design is actually the "PR" name for creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy), or as I like to call it, dumb ass ignorance(a double entendre, not oxymoron).
How could people be so ignorant? None of the people I know, work with, speak to on a regular basis, even come into contact with in a normal day believe this crap. I still am amazed at how impressionable these people could be. Christian terrorists? Yes, they are. They want to teach their religious extremist ideas in school, and raise their children close minded and insulated from the outside world. They kill people at abortion clinics (another oxymoron) to justify not terminating pregnancies. Maybe they are afraid that they would have been aborted, and people like themselves would be as well. Maybe if their father/uncle (it is possible for your father to also be your uncle where these people live) knew there was an abortion option, they would never have been born.
All major religions preach along similar lines: be good to others, don't steal, cheat, murder, etc. but all religions have another common theme: terrorist extremists. Israelis? Check. Christians? Check. Muslims? Check. (Buddhism is probably as close as you get to the truth, a wise fat guy who grants you wishes when you rub his belly, kind of like Santa Claus, but no extremists, just wise old sayings. Maybe I'm partial because I am a fat guy who doesn't cheat, steal, murder, etc.)
Religion is great for people who want to believe, and more importantly for people who need to believe. Some people like to hear the rules over and over, while others need to be reminded of them constantly. That is fine, I wish I had more time to practice at golf, I would probably be a lot better at it, but the rules to life, I'm good. Religion is not so great when religious leaders bend and twist the rules (IE: interpret them) in a way that condones violence, acts of terrorism, and hatred towards others. Unfortunately, all major religions are guilty of this as well. The problem lies with the religious leaders themselves, not because they aren't good people in general, but because of the simple fact that they are humans (not God, prophets, or Intelligent Designers) and are subject to human nature, just like the rest of us.
The power does get to them. The followers give this power to them. Ultimately, ambition gets to them (they want to move up the ranks, to grow their "flock", to stake their claims to land, to convert others to their faith, to influence politicians and government) and this goes against every religious belief system, but you cannot eliminate human nature or emotion, proof of evolution again! If people wonder why religion and politics should not mix but always do, re-read the previous 3 sentences, and then think about what religion resembles most closely. Wouldn't you guess the Government (any country's government)?
Both tax you, both want your votes, both tell you the rules (to your private and public life), both use your "taxes/donations" to further promote themselves and their beliefs, and both have fundamental (for the mental) extremists. They both promote peace, and both promote wars, which brings us back to today, 9/11.
War does not protect the innocent, obviously, or terrorists would have attacked our military bases and our government, not a densely populated major city known as the capital of the world. My only concern with this is why did we wait so long to fight back, and why didn't we just eliminate every single person known to be a terrorist or extremist? Why are we supposed to fight a war with different rules? Is our country's public relations department so incompetent that we cannot justify fighting back under our own terms? The Koran itself speaks of "an Eye for an Eye" but the world would be outraged if we turned the mountain range between Afghanistan and Pakistan into a parking lot. All of these terrorist attacks are because of religion? Because we defend Israel? Because we defend democracy for all who need defending?
If you hate Israel, attack Israel, or are you afraid to? The one airline you never see getting hijacked is El Al, the Israeli airline. That's because if you try to hijack one, you get killed. No questions asked, bad PR be damned. The world might hate us, but they will think twice before attacking us again. And another newsflash, the world already hates us (Americans), so why are we so worried about what everyone else thinks? Probably because our politicians (past and present) always have something to gain financially through war, and they just can't justify a war to be solely about the safety of the American people, which brings us back to bad PR.
The Big FU goes to the people who burned the Koran, and the people who wanted to, for being too stupid to realize that it is their own religion as well, and to our leaders who should take their dress off and fight the war we should have fought. The burning of the Koran will just get more of our soldiers killed, its just more bad PR. Go after the terrorists, and if they hide behind civilians, eliminate them. I do not remember seeing any of our soldiers hiding at the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan on 9/11/2001, but for some reason, they hit not once, but twice, into two buildings filled with civilians of all faiths, who were just going to work that day, or just visiting tourists.
I was about to finish writing the mortgage meltdown article I was writing when I realized what date it was today: 9/11/2010. It has been 9 years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The mortgage meltdown could wait another week, it happened already, but my opinion above could not wait.
I am fortunate enough to have many family members and friends who live in the area and work in the area who all survived that day. Some are police officers, some firemen, some who worked in lower Manhattan, mostly all living in the vicinity.
I remember working from home on my computer, "sportscenter" in the background on ESPN, and then my cell phone ringing. I answered the call and that is when I started listening to sportscenter, but it was ABC news in NY on ESPN, and my friend on the phone saying "Do you know what is going on right now?" I went to the TV and saw the 2nd plane crash into one of the World Trade towers, the other one already smoking. My friend yelled "did you see that!?", I said yes, what the hell is going on? Eventually everyone found out. The news seemed to be on a continuous loop for days. Cell phone service went out and was intermittent for days.
The only thing I could not figure out that day was the last plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, on its way to Washington, DC. I recall hearing on one news report that there was one plane unaccounted for, and not responding (all other flights had been grounded/rerouted) and that military fighter jets were following this plane. They did not mention which plane and where it was, but it makes sense when you hear the phone conversations people had with their family and friends who were on that flight that went down in Pennsylvania, and one of those people/recordings mentioned that the wing was on fire before they fought their way into the cockpit. I know I tried to switch to multiple channels and news sources, but I only heard that one brief report about the fighter jets, and it was never mentioned again that day, or any of the subsequent days after the tragedy. The recordings and phone conversations came much later, I believe days or even weeks after 9/11, but still no mention of the fighter jets and that last plane.
I do not know if anyone else might have remembered, but feel free to comment about any and all of the above.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Main Street DID NOT bail out Wall Street, and here is the Ugly Truth
Main street cannot spell WALL Street, let alone bail it out. The media sensationalized the news using this ludicrous explanation: "Main street had to bail out Wall St". The described 'government bailout' of Wall Street included interviews with the average uninformed person from a "middle of nowhere" state (you pick: Mississippi, Montana, Missouri, etc) saying they didn't believe their tax dollars should have been used to bail out investment/banking companies that have global economic impact. If they cannot spell Wall St, they definitely do not understand "global economic impact."
The truth is the average ignorant person does not even contribute a little bit (if anything at all) to the government in federal taxes. In fact, most states (almost all of the "middle ones") received more federal spending than taxes paid (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html#ftsbs-timeseries-20071016). Out of the remainder of states which do pay more in taxes, only a handful actually contribute a substantial dollar amount toward any possible bailout or budget item for that matter. The top 3 states contributing more than they receive (numbers are net for 2005, most recent year available at tax foundation link) are California with a 47 billion dollar net contribution, New Jersey with a 27.5 billion dollar net contribution, and New York with a 23.9 billion dollar net contribution. The only other state with a significant net contribution (above 10 billion dollars) was Illinois (thanks to Chicago) with a 19 billion dollar net contribution. What do these states all have in common? Major cities that employ many of the people who work at these Wall St banks and investment firms that generate enough income to pay the taxes the government needed to bail out these firms. Those top 4 states also happened to pay the majority of taxes (644 billion dollars) to the government.
If your tax dollars are supposedly being used to pay for a bailout, you have to actually pay tax dollars, not receive back more in benefits from the government. This is the part the media does not tell you because it isn't popular and just doesn't make a compelling story.
The most ironic part of the bailout is that most of the companies that received bailout money were forced to take it, and did not want it. These companies' competitors who did need the money would not borrow it unless the majority of the industry did. Most of the money was used to acquire companies in trouble, and all of it was a LOAN, not a bailout, and a substantial portion of it has been paid back to the government, and at a better return on investment than any of the middle states could contribute in the next ten years.
So who gets the Big F.U. Screw? The ignorant middle states and their politicians, who couldn't bail water let alone bail out Wall street.
Comments welcome, responses will not be immediate (I do have to work and pay taxes).
Next week-The mortgage meltdown, caused by the government (with help from FNMA and FHLMC), not Wall St, from an insider with over 13 years of experience, and a perspective at the point of sale. Come back to see the next Big F.U. screw.
The truth is the average ignorant person does not even contribute a little bit (if anything at all) to the government in federal taxes. In fact, most states (almost all of the "middle ones") received more federal spending than taxes paid (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html#ftsbs-timeseries-20071016). Out of the remainder of states which do pay more in taxes, only a handful actually contribute a substantial dollar amount toward any possible bailout or budget item for that matter. The top 3 states contributing more than they receive (numbers are net for 2005, most recent year available at tax foundation link) are California with a 47 billion dollar net contribution, New Jersey with a 27.5 billion dollar net contribution, and New York with a 23.9 billion dollar net contribution. The only other state with a significant net contribution (above 10 billion dollars) was Illinois (thanks to Chicago) with a 19 billion dollar net contribution. What do these states all have in common? Major cities that employ many of the people who work at these Wall St banks and investment firms that generate enough income to pay the taxes the government needed to bail out these firms. Those top 4 states also happened to pay the majority of taxes (644 billion dollars) to the government.
If your tax dollars are supposedly being used to pay for a bailout, you have to actually pay tax dollars, not receive back more in benefits from the government. This is the part the media does not tell you because it isn't popular and just doesn't make a compelling story.
The most ironic part of the bailout is that most of the companies that received bailout money were forced to take it, and did not want it. These companies' competitors who did need the money would not borrow it unless the majority of the industry did. Most of the money was used to acquire companies in trouble, and all of it was a LOAN, not a bailout, and a substantial portion of it has been paid back to the government, and at a better return on investment than any of the middle states could contribute in the next ten years.
So who gets the Big F.U. Screw? The ignorant middle states and their politicians, who couldn't bail water let alone bail out Wall street.
Comments welcome, responses will not be immediate (I do have to work and pay taxes).
Next week-The mortgage meltdown, caused by the government (with help from FNMA and FHLMC), not Wall St, from an insider with over 13 years of experience, and a perspective at the point of sale. Come back to see the next Big F.U. screw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)