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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)