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.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be equal and counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com