This story, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-21/girl-scouts-and-abortion-pro-life-groups-target-gsusa/#, is further proof that I am truly conservative and that the "conservative" label is erroreously applied to others who are anything but.
This story headline beggers the question, "Why Are Pro-Lifers Targeting The Girl Scouts?" There are so many things wrong about this including using the label "Pro-Lifers" for people who are, again, anything but.
Then there is the subhead that says, "They sell cookies, they earn merit badges, they---promote abortion? ...two teens from Texas are accusing the Girl Scouts of creating boot-stomping, sexualized radicals."
After I put my eyes back in my head and stopped saying, "What?!?!!?!," I updated my Facebook status with this:
But that isn't the m.o. of people who have a radical, regressive and double-standard agenda.
I use the same label, radical, on these folks as they do on those who are not on their ideological track because that is a favorite, and often effective, tactic they use to put others on the defensive. If they call you what they are first, you waste your time and energy defending yourself and arguing that you aren't, instead of proving that they are.
Equally suspect about that subhead are the words "boot-stomping" and "sexualized." What, I can't help but wonder, is wrong with boot-stomping girls, particulary when the mission of the GS is to promote girls' independence and self-sufficiency. I would far rather girls know how to stomp their boots when they spy a spider or a mouse or other pest than to squeal and leap onto chairs.
And sexualized? Well, what the heck! Girls are sexual beings. That's what makes them girls, shes and hers, and not things and its.
I salute and congratulate this organization for girls that is contributing to their awareness and understanding of their sexuality and to help them understand the the responsibilities associated with that. Perhaps it is the weak, misguided thinking of these true radicals that talking about sex, reproduction, birth control and related topics is going to turn them into wildly promiscuous sluts.
If these Texas teens and others of their ilk have a problem with that they need to look elsewhere for their social wants and needs, and not be so liberally impose their constipating ignorance and psychological chasity belts on others.
They might believe that their objection to the mission, policies or programs of scouting organizations gives them the right to impose their ideology on mainstream organizations or to change them. Well, I have very strong objections to the agendas, philosophies and politics of organizations these Texas teens and those behind them, but my tax dollars support them anyway.
So what else is wrong about this story and the offended teens? How about calling themselves "pro-life" when they, or at least their adult enablers, are generally pro-death penalty, pro-war, and pretty much life-neglecters once the unborn become born---at least so far as the generic "unborn" is concerned. How much more accurate the label "pro-unborn" is.
Then there is the double-standard aspect.
Again, generalizing, the same folks who ascribe to the uber-Christian, sexuality-denying, ignorance-promoting agenda are hauling a whole lot of water for the small, and even anti-, government "get your nose out of my business" crowd.
Translation for that kind of rhetoric is "get your nose out of my business, but it's OK for me to get government to let me poke my nose into your business." And that applies mostly to the most personal and intimate aspects of other people's lives that does not impact economically or in any other way on the lives of the sanctimously self-righteous, publicly pious who are advocating their impositions.
So why are these radical, regressive and double-standard people so successful at injecting their ideology into mainstream society? Because we let them. We are so reticent to offend---particularly when anything smacks of so-called Christian/Christianity---or to lay claim to the legitimacy of our own beliefs, life choices and humanity.
When I asked on Facebook why the insanity of these morality police and their surrogate children trumps everyone else's beliefs/daily life, a Friend opined that it is, "The confidence of bigotry."
Monday, May 23, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Reinvention of the Internet
I have made my share of mistakes and misstatements, including in print as a journalist and as a blogger. I do try to be as conservative as I can, though, in refraining from doing so and think those charged with informing others -- particularly those in official and/or professional positions -- should do the same.
On NPR this morning, Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon, in observing that the world didn't come to an end as some religious proselytizer had predicted, listed what he apparently thought were other infamous false claims, including that former Vice President Al Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet.
It might not make any difference, but I sent Scott Simon the following email:
Dear Scott Simon:
I'm shocked that you, of all people, would perpetuate the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. He didn't. He was, however, instrumental in sponsoring legislation that created what Gore called "The Information Superhighway." Here are excerpts from Wikipedia (verified by other sources):
(1) "Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that, 'As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high-speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.[3]'
24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduces S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986 [4]
Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and the Gore Bill as a critical moment in Internet history:
(2) "A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George H.W Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13–14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking.[8]
The bill was passed on Dec. 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[9] which Gore referred to as the 'information superhighway'."
(3) Here is Gore's claim: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."[52]
(4) "Former UCLA professor of information studies, Philip E. Agre and journalist Eric Boehlert argued that three articles in Wired News led to the creation of the widely spread urban legend that Gore claimed to have 'invented the Internet,' which followed this interview."[53][54][55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology
I think you are a journalist, Mr. Simon. As such, your code of ethics includes these words, "...speak the truth." Even if you're not, as a radio -- particularly a National Public Radio (which holds itself to pretty high standards) -- you have a responsibility to inform your listeners, not misinform or perpetuate myths just so you can be snarky. For the sake of NPR's and your own credibility, I think you have an obligation to your listeners to correct the record. Thank you.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Call Big Oil Execs What They Are. Narcissistic Socialists
An email landed in my inbox today from President Barack Obama's re-election campaign manager Jim Messina that caused a visceral reaction. Here's the reply I sent him. (I've pasted in Messina's email in below this reply.)
Dear Jim, et al,
I am amazed that smart people like you, your boss and all (D) pols, whether in the Senate or otherwise, don't call those sanctimonious hypocritical oil executives and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers what they are: Socialists.
At least so far as how they want the U.S. government to treat them.
They want government handouts. They want, nay demand! that taxpayers--Middle Americans like me--to give them public assistance.
You need to tell them to get off the dole. Tell them they don't need to be on the government welfare rolls. Tell them that taking government handouts is not the American Capitalistic Way.
Those sanctimonious hypocritical oil execs and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers who stick "free enterprise" and "free market" labels all over themselves like race car drivers' sponsor logos need to be told to practice what they preach. A true "free market" doesn't rely on government subsidies, tax incentives or anything but the sweat of their own brow, their own boot straps, their own ingenuity.
For them to want, to ask for, to demand, to take government assistance makes them the same kind of parasites they accuse others who receive government assistance of being.
Let Middle Americans like me hear you and your (D) leaders call out these parasitic freeloaders for what they are.
Call them on their blackmailing rhetoric. No way are they going to stop or reduce drilling in this country just because the government stops coughing up ransom that is a pittance to them, but is big bucks to us and to the federal budget. They say that if you take away their government subsidies and "raise" their taxes (how about just make them pay taxes at all!), they'll have to pass those costs along to consumers. Three thoughts:
(1) Isn't "private enterprisers" passing operating/production costs along to customers what American Capitalism is all about?
(2) Rather than using the elimination of government subsidies and acting like patriotic Americans (even though these companies are multinational) as just one more excuse to further gouge Middle Americans, how about those companies take those costs out of their ever-burgeoning, ever record-setting profits?
(3) How come those esteemed senators firing questions at thes oil queens at the Senate Finance Committee hearing weren't gagging on laughter and falling out of their chairs in hysterics when those simpering queenies threatened to withhold their drilling if the government cut off the payola. Surely, the good senators know there's way, way too much money to be made from drilling for and pumping oil from this fair land for these oligarchs to let a fraction of a percentage of their revenues, which is what the subsidies and tax breaks amount to, get in their way.
So, you want our support, Jim? You want our contributions? You want our votes? Then, let us see and hear you and all (D) pols and operatives take a stand, use that fantastic bully pulpit at the President's disposal, strip these leeches --and that includes the freeloading mega rich who dodge paying a true proportionate share of their income/assets in taxes -- of the tax-funded largess that's being lavished on them. And not being used on so many other really substantive uses that truly benefit Middle Americans.
Champion it! Make it a major plank in President Obama's re-election platform. Prove to us Middle Americans that he is truly on OUR side. If you do...
I guarantee Pres. Obama will win re-election.
Sincerely,
Jerrianne Hayslett
(Messina's email)
Dear Jerrianne,
I spent this week moving boxes and getting set up in our new campaign headquarters in Chicago, but something happened in Washington that I want to make sure you know about.
The CEOs from the five major oil companies -- which together booked $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone -- went to the Senate on Thursday to try to justify the $4 billion in tax giveaways they're receiving this year.
It's a head-smackingly obvious example of how broken Washington is that there's even a question about this. These companies don't need and don't deserve taxpayer money -- especially with a budget deficit to close and gas prices at or near record highs.
Even worse is the fact that when the Senate tries to strip these oil company giveaways, it's likely that a minority of senators will block a vote from happening. And even if the Senate manages to pass a bill eliminating the giveaways, there's little chance it will be brought up for a vote in the House.
Here's why: These five companies are expert manipulators of the money-for-influence game in Washington that the President is working to change. It's simple math -- they spent more than $145 million last year on nearly 800 lobbyists whose job is to defeat bills like this one. The $4 billion they'll likely get to keep as a result represents a 2,700% return on their investment.
I'd like to be able to say with certainty that you can do something to help pass this bill, but the fact is that at this stage we may not be able to affect the outcome of next week's vote.
What we can do is build a campaign that will keep a spotlight on issues like this and the fundamental reasons why Washington doesn't work.
Our campaign doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. This organization will be a living example of doing politics a different way -- from the bottom up; of, by, and for ordinary people.
That example and the results we achieve on Election Day are the biggest blows we can strike against a dysfunctional system and the distorted outcomes it creates.
But we have to start building right now. Add your name to our call for a new kind of politics today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
While the oil industry has been earning billions in profits, gas prices have surpassed $4 a gallon in some parts of the country.
As the President has said, "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's."
But on Thursday, one of the CEOs went so far as to say that cutting oil giveaways would be "un-American."
Right now, we're building a grassroots campaign that's led and funded by people like you. We're opening up offices not just in Chicago but all over the place, and putting organizers on the ground in communities across the country.
So if you're frustrated by the way business gets done in Washington, I'm asking you now to channel that feeling into building a massive grassroots organization to change it. Add your name to join our campaign to change Washington:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
Thanks,
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Dear Jim, et al,
I am amazed that smart people like you, your boss and all (D) pols, whether in the Senate or otherwise, don't call those sanctimonious hypocritical oil executives and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers what they are: Socialists.
At least so far as how they want the U.S. government to treat them.
They want government handouts. They want, nay demand! that taxpayers--Middle Americans like me--to give them public assistance.
You need to tell them to get off the dole. Tell them they don't need to be on the government welfare rolls. Tell them that taking government handouts is not the American Capitalistic Way.
Those sanctimonious hypocritical oil execs and their (R) -- and let's face it, some (D) -- enablers who stick "free enterprise" and "free market" labels all over themselves like race car drivers' sponsor logos need to be told to practice what they preach. A true "free market" doesn't rely on government subsidies, tax incentives or anything but the sweat of their own brow, their own boot straps, their own ingenuity.
For them to want, to ask for, to demand, to take government assistance makes them the same kind of parasites they accuse others who receive government assistance of being.
Let Middle Americans like me hear you and your (D) leaders call out these parasitic freeloaders for what they are.
Call them on their blackmailing rhetoric. No way are they going to stop or reduce drilling in this country just because the government stops coughing up ransom that is a pittance to them, but is big bucks to us and to the federal budget. They say that if you take away their government subsidies and "raise" their taxes (how about just make them pay taxes at all!), they'll have to pass those costs along to consumers. Three thoughts:
(1) Isn't "private enterprisers" passing operating/production costs along to customers what American Capitalism is all about?
(2) Rather than using the elimination of government subsidies and acting like patriotic Americans (even though these companies are multinational) as just one more excuse to further gouge Middle Americans, how about those companies take those costs out of their ever-burgeoning, ever record-setting profits?
(3) How come those esteemed senators firing questions at thes oil queens at the Senate Finance Committee hearing weren't gagging on laughter and falling out of their chairs in hysterics when those simpering queenies threatened to withhold their drilling if the government cut off the payola. Surely, the good senators know there's way, way too much money to be made from drilling for and pumping oil from this fair land for these oligarchs to let a fraction of a percentage of their revenues, which is what the subsidies and tax breaks amount to, get in their way.
So, you want our support, Jim? You want our contributions? You want our votes? Then, let us see and hear you and all (D) pols and operatives take a stand, use that fantastic bully pulpit at the President's disposal, strip these leeches --and that includes the freeloading mega rich who dodge paying a true proportionate share of their income/assets in taxes -- of the tax-funded largess that's being lavished on them. And not being used on so many other really substantive uses that truly benefit Middle Americans.
Champion it! Make it a major plank in President Obama's re-election platform. Prove to us Middle Americans that he is truly on OUR side. If you do...
I guarantee Pres. Obama will win re-election.
Sincerely,
Jerrianne Hayslett
(Messina's email)
Dear Jerrianne,
I spent this week moving boxes and getting set up in our new campaign headquarters in Chicago, but something happened in Washington that I want to make sure you know about.
The CEOs from the five major oil companies -- which together booked $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone -- went to the Senate on Thursday to try to justify the $4 billion in tax giveaways they're receiving this year.
It's a head-smackingly obvious example of how broken Washington is that there's even a question about this. These companies don't need and don't deserve taxpayer money -- especially with a budget deficit to close and gas prices at or near record highs.
Even worse is the fact that when the Senate tries to strip these oil company giveaways, it's likely that a minority of senators will block a vote from happening. And even if the Senate manages to pass a bill eliminating the giveaways, there's little chance it will be brought up for a vote in the House.
Here's why: These five companies are expert manipulators of the money-for-influence game in Washington that the President is working to change. It's simple math -- they spent more than $145 million last year on nearly 800 lobbyists whose job is to defeat bills like this one. The $4 billion they'll likely get to keep as a result represents a 2,700% return on their investment.
I'd like to be able to say with certainty that you can do something to help pass this bill, but the fact is that at this stage we may not be able to affect the outcome of next week's vote.
What we can do is build a campaign that will keep a spotlight on issues like this and the fundamental reasons why Washington doesn't work.
Our campaign doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. This organization will be a living example of doing politics a different way -- from the bottom up; of, by, and for ordinary people.
That example and the results we achieve on Election Day are the biggest blows we can strike against a dysfunctional system and the distorted outcomes it creates.
But we have to start building right now. Add your name to our call for a new kind of politics today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
While the oil industry has been earning billions in profits, gas prices have surpassed $4 a gallon in some parts of the country.
As the President has said, "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's."
But on Thursday, one of the CEOs went so far as to say that cutting oil giveaways would be "un-American."
Right now, we're building a grassroots campaign that's led and funded by people like you. We're opening up offices not just in Chicago but all over the place, and putting organizers on the ground in communities across the country.
So if you're frustrated by the way business gets done in Washington, I'm asking you now to channel that feeling into building a massive grassroots organization to change it. Add your name to join our campaign to change Washington:
http://my.barackobama.com/Making-Washington-Work
Thanks,
Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Saturday, May 7, 2011
How to Reduce the National Debt
A friend read my posts about the sessions Paul Ryan held on his proposed budget. Here is his comment about them:
I honestly haven't heard any real suggestions to reduce the debt. I am in favor of lots of the proposed social programs, especially some sort of health care for all, but how are they to be funded?
I am disappointed that we hear no real suggestion for reducing our National Debt from the other side of the aisle.
The National Debt of the Nation is terrible and its a burden we are leaving our children and grandchildren to solve. I fear that life for them will not be as good as life for us has been.
I believe this problem has no single solution but requires MORE taxes for the rich and the not so rich. I also believe we will all have to made some sacrifices.
Most important we need those in office opposed to Ryan's plan to make suggestions of there own and I believe the President needs to bring the sides together to address the problem of our unsustainable Debt. Without some sort of a solution on the debt we are headed in the same direction as Greece, Spain and Great Britain. If we continue as we are it wouldn't be long until we are a second rate nation.
I am disappointed that we hear no real suggestion for reducing our National Debt from the other side of the aisle.
The National Debt of the Nation is terrible and its a burden we are leaving our children and grandchildren to solve. I fear that life for them will not be as good as life for us has been.
I believe this problem has no single solution but requires MORE taxes for the rich and the not so rich. I also believe we will all have to made some sacrifices.
Most important we need those in office opposed to Ryan's plan to make suggestions of there own and I believe the President needs to bring the sides together to address the problem of our unsustainable Debt. Without some sort of a solution on the debt we are headed in the same direction as Greece, Spain and Great Britain. If we continue as we are it wouldn't be long until we are a second rate nation.
If we reject what Paul Ryan is suggesting as a means to reducing our National Debt and I am sure it is full of wrongs and faults, what than do we do to reduce a 14 trillion National Debt?
Here is my reply to my friend:
That's the fallacy of Ryan's plan. It doesn't reduce the debt. Many non-Republican accounts I've read say that his plan actually increases it. Here's what one Republican -- Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, who's hardly a flaming liberal -- says about it:
The other side of the aisle does have a proposal. You can read about it here:
And here is what the New York Times' Paul Krugman has to say about that plan:
You want to erase the debt? Here's how. Raise taxes--and close the loopholes that enable the richest and mega corporations to skate free. (A report in the news just yesterday said that 50 percent of the biggest corporations in this country paid no taxes last year.)
Start with the capital gains tax by making it apply to actual capital gains so it can't serve as a tax haven for millionaires' and billionaires' income. Hedgefunders who made billions in just one year--one took in $13 billion last year alone -- get away with claiming that income as capital gains, which is taxed at 15%, so they can keep from having it taxed at the highest income rate of 35%. (No wonder the multimillionaires in Congress want to reduce capital gains tax to zero!)
Second, end corporate charity, particularly to multinational companies that pay no -- zero -- taxes on the profits they make in the U.S. AND actually receive tax credits in the billions of dollars. Some, like oil companies, receive tax-funded subsidies DESPITE making record profits -- up from 21% to 46 % this past quarter from the previous quarter, which itself was a record-breaking quarter as has been every quarter in recent memory. Ryan voted to continue those credits and subsidies, but when asked why at the local town hall-type sessions he's held (some of which I attended) he obfuscates and turns the discussion to small businesses. Those are an entirely different animal and dear to the hearts of most average Americans -- and Ryan knows that, which is why he wants to talk about them and avoid having to explain why he pumps more and more welfare, funded by you and me, into the coffers of the rich. The rich have benefited greatly from this welfare that has become rampant since Reagan. Here are some interesting charts.
No wonder Congress doesn't want to change things.
Third, reform the healthcare industry, including some aspects of Medicare -- and that doesn't mean privatize it. I can't think of a single instance in which something was privatized or deregulated that benefited average, everyday people. Why the big push to privatize? It benefits corporate CEOs and other top execs, big-time investors, Wall Street and politicians who pander to them to get reelected and become multimillionaires themselves, thanks to fat campaign chests, money they get to keep if they don't spend it all on their campaigns.
Private companies have to make a profit -- and that's on top of their administrative costs, which are generally 10%-30% of their revenues. The only way they can do that is to pass those costs along to you and me. That's where healthcare costs have fallen off the rails. Hospitals, clinics, HMO's, etc. were not-for-profit until the industry caught Pres. Richard Nixon's attention and convinced him how wonderful it would be to allow the healthcare industry to be for-profit, thus Nixon's 1971 "New Health Strategy" and the birth of for-profit HMOs.
Granted, advanced techniques like MRIs and by-pass surgeries that weren't available in "the good old days" goose costs too, but a lot of that -- particularly in the pharma industry -- is simply b/c they can get away with it. Drugs that cost in the hundreds and even thousands of dollars a month for Americans are available in other countries for a fraction of that cost. Phamas claim those countries' governments subsidize those costs and that they (Phama companies) need to charge high prices so they can recoup their research and development costs, yet they fail to mention that much of those costs are already covered by government grants and other public funding. So the U.S. subsidizes drug costs too. The difference is the U.S. government a la laws and rules passed by Congress just gives the subsidies to the pharma companies instead of to patients.
Get industries with a vested interest, such as pharmas, out of the law-writing business. The Medicare Part D law was literally written by pharma company reps. And what did it get us? Big profits for pharma. The government (Medicare) law that was passed can't get competitive bids, can't buy less expensive from other countries, such as Canada. The bill had a huge gaping hole in the middle that futher enriched private industry but impoverished those on Medicare. They have to buy supplemental insurance to cover that hole--which it does only partially. So who benefited from that? Insurance companies.
Americans have been brainwashed into believing that privatizing is the American capitalistic way. Capitalism can be good if it doesn't run wild and turn into national cannibalism, which is the direction the country is currently headed. A healthy economy needs a population that can afford to buy the goods and services produced by the private sector. Thanks to unemployment, depressed pay, etc., that "buying public" is shrinking, and along with it tax revenue and other community benefits, such as public education.
Medicare's administrative cost is 3%. Social Security's is 1%. There is nothing and no way privatizing can approach that kind of operational costs. The way Medicare needs to be reformed is to establish a reporting mechinism that pays a percentage of the money wasted via fraud, duplication, etc., to whoever reports it. Medicare premiums, benefits and eligibility needs to be means tested. Why should taxes (you and me) pay for millionaires to be on Medicare? Ditch Part D completely and include perscriptions in regular Medicare like it is in other healthcare coverage plans with means-tested deductibles and co-pays.
That Medicare add-on is but one huge unfunded program Bush foisted onto this country. Others include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. During WWII, not only did everyone share the sacrifice (well almost everyone, the ultra rich remained the ultra rich. I'm convinced those elites -- the true elites in this country, not acadmics or public employees or others the actual elites turn into punching bags as a way to keep us from retaliating against them -- will never have to ever feel any pain). But the country sold war bonds during WWII as a way to help finance the war. What did Bush do when he invaded Iraq? He told us to go shopping!
That's another way to help erase the enoumous debt Bush left us with. Sell war bonds now and dedicate the revenue to pay off the nation's debt. I attended a listening session last week held by two WI Democratic Assemblymen. At least half of those who spoke -- and they were all working, middle-class people, a couple of whom had young families -- said they were willing to pay more taxes if it would help the economy/debt situation. So, even though the affluent would consider those people schmucks and would scoff at the idea of buying something like a war bond that wouldn't pay off big dividends, if that listening session was any indication, a lot of civic-minded, patriotic middle Americans would.
This country has also been brainwashed into believing that taxes are evil and raising them is shear heresy. At the same time, the nostalia du jour is those wonderful, prosperous, Americana years of the 1950s. Ryan preaches cutting taxes and a flatter tax structure. Yet, ignored or denied is that the tax structure in the 1950s was anything but flat. Top income bracket was 90 percent. Here's an interesting chart:
If cutting taxes creates jobs and improves the economy, why did the economy go into a nose dive and unemployment start to soar after Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts?
Here's what happened to jobs in this country after Bush cut taxes (in red) and after Obama took office (in blue).
Instead of any (R) plan that I've heard of erasing the debt or leaving those who come after us to pay it off, the policies they support simply continue to kick the can down the road. And, thanks to their ideology re: the environment, global warming, and conservation, all those children and grandchildren they're so worried about inflicting a national debt on will have higher rates of cancer, respiratory disorders and myriad other toxin- and pollution-induced illnesses.
But, don't get me started... 
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)