Mar

3

Dude, I am actually with you on reforming social security but you are a numbers guy so I want you to look at these numbers. I too am a numbers guy.

I am 52. Myself and my employer have collectively paid $186,000 into Social Security thus far. By the time I retire that figure will be roughly $398,000. At 3% interest on this money (which is a very modest rate of return) the Federal Government will owe me around $793,000.

With an average life expectancy of 78, I went out to the Social Security website and calculated what I would receive if I retired at 62.  The amount I would receive would be about $632,000 (these number assume I live to 78). If I waited until I was 67, the amount I would recieve would add up to $698,000. Both these numbers fall short to what I and my employers paid into the system.

First, I am all for reform. If your idea is not going to screw me over, or the millions of others in my relative age group I am all ears.

BUT, the facts are that I paid cold hard cash into this system for well over 30 years. Real dollars. Social Security may have been an entitlement program the first 20-30 years it was run, but, it is not an entitlement for people like me. We have paid into this system and we expect back what we paid in.

The fact that you and all the elected officials before you took the Social Security surpluses and spent them is not our problem it is yours. We expect you to fix it. I am all for ideas that keep this program solvent and sustainable. I am NOT willing to give up my real investment into this (mandatory) program because of your fiscal irresponsibility, or the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties over the years. No one else that has paid into this system is willing to give their capital investment up as well.

DO NOT MESS WITH OUR MONEY! Y’all can solve this problem without screwing us.

Feb

25

More lies.

The Bush Tax cuts which were debt financed were passed by Dick Cheney casting the final 51st vote in the Senate using reconciliation.

The Bush Tax cuts represented 2.48 trillion dollars of unfunded debt from 2001 through 2010.  What may be in dispute are the numbers. If we go with the CBO’s more conservative numbers we are still at 1.8 trillion dollars. This is not a big thing?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (which are scheduled to expire in 2010) would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade dramatically increasing federal deficits. This comes directly from their report titled “An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2008″ that was released on March 2007. Here is a link to this report…

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7878/03-21-PresidentsBudget.pdf (see page 6 of the document, pdf page 16). The line item on that page is titled “Subtotal, proposed extensions.”

Also, to see what you actually received for this tax cut see my blog entry Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

 

 

 

Feb

17

Check These Items That Fit Your Belief System, and the type of America you wish to be a part of

[ ] A nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership

[ ] Authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system

[ ] Ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong

[ ] Identifies violence and war as actions that create national regeneration

[ ] Resists autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups

[ ] Blames capitalism and liberal democracies

[ ] Advocates a single-party state

I will bet none of you checked any of these. If you did, maybe one or two.  Yet if this does not spell the former Bush Administration, The Tea Party Movement, The incessant filibusters of the current minority party even on legislation they would normally support, and even many of you well educated Americans that for whatever reason cannot see the plain truth that is before you. 

This list is Glen Beck

This list is Bill O’Reilly

This list is Sean Hannity

This list is Fox News (sic)

This list is the Patriot Act

This list is two wars we still wage

This list is why you do not see a single Black, Asian, or Hispanic face in a Tea party crowd

This list is Sarah Palin

This list is Rush Linbaugh

This list is the Federal Reserve

This list is Wall Street

This list is the Health Insurance mobsters

This list is Wal-Mart

This list is what many in the Christian right have become

…This list is the very definition of FASCISM

…Joe McCarthy here we go again

Feb

16

I really do not know but I would suspect many do. So much of the Tea Party movement is sponsored by fallen Republicans and big business.

There are actually many things these people are for that I actually agree with.

- I agree that both Parties have been bought and sold by special interest and big business

- I agree we need to pay down the Federal Deficit

- I agree that many of our civil liberties have been compromised by scary legislation like the Patriot act.

- I believe the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished or radically reformed

- I believe we never ratified the 16th ammendment that is the basis for Federal income tax

What I do not agree with is their hypocrisy. If you are for fiscal responsibility in Government then you are for fiscal responsibility in Government. You are not just for it when the Democrats are in office.

You do not get to forget that the last fiscally responsible President was a Democrat (and this is coming from someone whose mother sent him a “Countdown to Clinton Calendar” when he was elected as I was a Bush guy).

You do not get to forget that Reagan ran up the Federal deficit by 1.34 trillion dollars in his eight years. If you adjust this number for inflation using the CPI the figure is 2.63 trillion.

You do not get to forget that Bush 1 racked up .93 trillion in four years (or 1.44 trillion adjusted for inflation). Or, Bush the younger racked up 1.78 trillion in his first seven years along. This did not include his 800 billion dollar medicaid drug prescription bill, or quite a bit of debt financed outside of the Federal Budget for the Iraq war.

You do not forget these things. For those of you folks on the fringe that have been consistent in your position that you do not like any government I can respect your position even if I do not agree with it.

For the rest of you, take a look in the mirror so you can see what hypocrisy looks like.

Next time you pull into that Walmart parking lot congratulate yourself on all those U.S. Factories your purchases are responsible for closing.

“Always low prices, Always”

But be proud in the knowledge that those Jeans you just bought made someone in Indonesia, paid enough to buy a 1/2 cup of rice.

Jan

20

In 7 of the 8 years Bush was in office we received a tax cut. Since I do want to spark civil unrest I will not even tell you what people with incomes over 100,000 got out of the deal (much more than the numbers you see below).

My source for this information is 100% solid. I used the IRS Tax Tables to determine this information. If you think I am snowing you, Google and look for yourself. They are readily available on the net.

If you were married with a total income of $25,000 your average tax break over his 8 years was $2.80 a month.

If you were married with a total income of $50,000 your average tax break over his 8 years was $7.55 (1.1%) a month. 

If you were married with a total income of $95,000 your average tax break over his 8 years was $39.55 (2.8%) a month. 

Share with me how those numbers increased the quality of your life? As I said, these are not B.S. numbers, they are straight out of the tax tables you and I use to file our taxes.

So, what did this cost us? [This is where Macro and Micro are worlds apart]

The Bush tax cuts will cost the American Public $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt. The tax cuts were DEBT FINANCED! China I believe covered most of the costs.

 

Nov

27

“‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’” 
   -Matthew 22:21

Excuse Me Fundamentalists, But the separation Of church and state was defined by God himself in the New Testament. Our forefathers seemed wise enough to have figured this out as well. Maybe because their interpertation of scripture was more accurate?

We are far from finished. To stop with just this quote attributed in the New Testment to Christ himself would be to take it out of context. You can read the story for yourself, I will paraphrase some of it for you here, but provide enough scripture so you know I am not taking the message out of context.

The religious leadership of the day was trying to trap Christ so they could not only discredit him, but actually have him arrested so he they could neatly “dispose of him” as the message he was preaching was not exactly a shining beacon holding up the Temple. The religous leadership of the day sent a few “plants” (sounding familiar to you?) to ask him tough some questions like…

“‘Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?’”
   Matthew 22:16-17 NASB

Now, let’s go back and think about his answer for a moment. Not only did he advocate a clear separation between “God” and “local/global politics, but he also admonished these people for being a bunch of disengenuous hypocrites.

For me, here is the real kicker. We Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God almightly in the form of a man. Most clergy in the various denominations also take it as fact that verse 22:21 in Matthew represents the actual words of God in the flesh.

In response to a question regarding TAXATION (a favorite subject of the Repulican party in America today) what exactly was God’s reply?

“‘are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin {used} for the poll-tax.’

And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them,

‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’

They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.’ 
 
And hearing {this,} they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.”

Amazed? Amazed as in, “wow I just Tiger Woods birdie the 7th”, or amazed as in “How can this dude be one of us? He is selling us out to the Roman government.”

Now this goes specifically to my fellow Christians out there. The God we believe in just told us in pretty much no uncertain terms to not confuse His kingdom with the one here on earth that is ruled by our fellow citizens (aka the power elite). How exactly are you resolving this scriptural reference in respect to some of the things Christian leadership and the Christian media is writing about and getting politically involved in?

…Listen…

When you are trying to tie your particular viewpoints and beliefs on political and social issues of the day please do not be so arrogant to do so on behalf of the name of God.

Also, do not be so arrogant as to do so in the name of your religous Christian beliefs. I am a Christian, and I do not share many of the beliefs that you expound upon citing God’s name. Trust me when I tell you I am not the only one. We may very well represent the minority of Christians, but there are far more of us than you might think!

I just showed you here scriptual evidence that God DOES not share your beliefs. In fact, God likely thinks you are being a hyprocrite for invoking his name into matters that are NOT of his kingdom.

One final thought on the subject. If we go back to the story in Matthews 22, and if we were to examine the occupying Roman government that had conquered and was ruling the area where this story took place we would find that the Romans were not exactly a “swell” bunch of folks. So, even in the face of a fairly brutual regime, look again at how God answered the question regarding taxation.

Look, you have every right to your opinions. But, you would be wise and do God a great justice by listening to him on this matter as he has spoken, and spoken pretty clearly on this particular matter.

Nov

27

My wife and I received a letter from Dr. James Dobson dated November 2009. It covers a number of subjects. The one I wish to cover is abortion. It is a clear distortion of the facts. I am calling for Dr. Dobson to set the record straight and fill in with facts things he alleges but DOES NOT support with facts.

He begins the letter …

“I’m sure many of you are aware of the assault on the santity of human life that is taking place in our nation’s captiol. It involves outrageous attempts by President Obama and liberals in Congress to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes.”

 If we examine his statement it is quite obvious most of it is an opinion. No problem. We all have opinions. We are entitled to our opinions. Further, there is no requirement that our opinions be rooted or supported by facts.

But, the line I underlined and bolded actually claims to be a fact. The question is…

Is Dr. Dobsons statement “to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes” actually a fact that can supported by some evidence?

He continues on the subject of abortion, writing…

“You may have heard that the president said in a speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 9 that ‘no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions’(3). We suspected at the time that Mr. Obama’s assurance to the American people was not valid and indeed, that suspicion has now been confirmed. Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion.”

Another fact presented by Dr. Dobson underlined and bolded.

This is the last Dr. Dobson says on this matter and switched gears to other subjects, a number of which I tend to agree with. But, I digress. Dr. Dobson also cites a reference to a government site regarding President Obama’s quote on abortion with regard to healthcare.

Throughout Dr. Dobsons newsletters he cites references. I like this as I can lookup his references and do some fact checking. I checked this reference, and indeed this is what our President said.

But, let’s take a look at the two facts  Dr. Dobson states.

to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes

and

Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion

These are both facts that Dr. Dobson claims. Dr. Dobson presents not a single source to support either of these claims. I find that odd and troubling that he would offer bilbliography to support the presidents saying that abortion would  not be publicly funded, but does not offer a bibiliography in context to these two statements which are the crux of his message and meant to outrage his audience. I am asking Dr. Dobson to offer a source of information to support the two statements he made. I searched and I could not find anything to back up either of those two claims.

IN FACT, I am currently reading the healthcare bill that is now before the Senate for debate. This is the bill that recently passed cloture. I am about halfway through reading it. If you wish to see the bill for yourself here is the link (http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf)

I did a word search across the entire bill on the word “abortion”. Abortion is never mentioned or addressed in this bill.

Next, I searched for the word abortion in the healthcare bill passed by the House of Representatives, ”H. R. 3962″ The word abortion does appear. The following is EVERY SINGLE instance the word appears in this bill. I disclose here that I have taken the liberty of bolding any verbage that directly supports or does not support funding of abortion. I also read very carefully in sections before and after what I am quoting here to ensure that I was not taking anything out of context.  I may have missed something. If so, please call me out.

Here is a link to the 1990 page House of Representatives Bill.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

 

reference page: 109 following

7 (e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
8 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
9 (1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
10 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.

reference page: 110 following

8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING
10 IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be
16 ginning of the plan year involved.
17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING
18 IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.

reference page: 147 following

3 SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS 
4 RE GARDING ABORTION.
5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
6 ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding
8 the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding
9 , or procedural requirements on abortions, including
10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
11 abortion on a minor.
12 (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
13 ABORTION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be
15 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard
16 ing—
17 (A) conscience protection;
18 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; 
19 and
20 (C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness 
21 or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
22 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
23 training to provide abortion.
24 (c) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—
25 Nothing in this section shall alter the rights and obliga- 
1 tions of employees and employers under title VII of the
2 Civil Rights Act of 1964.

reference page: 148 following 

3 SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RE SPECT 
4 FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
5 (a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or pro
6 gram, and any State or local government that receives
7 Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amend
8 ment made by this Act), may not— 
9 (1) subject any individual or institutional health
10 care entity to discrimination; or
11 (2) require any health plan created or regulated
12 under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
13 to subject any individual or institutional health care
14 entity to discrimination,
15 on the basis that the health care entity does not provide,
16 pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. 

reference page: 182

18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION
19 OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health
20 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual
21 health care provider or health care facility because of its
22 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
23 coverage of, or refer for abortions.

reference page: 246

11 (3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
12 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.—An affordability credit
13 may not be used for payment for services described
14 in section 222(d)(4)(A).

reference page: 1354 
18 ‘‘(C) the payment of salaries for health
19 professionals and other appropriate SBHC per
20 sonnel; and 
21 ‘‘(2) may not be used to provide abortions. 

reference page: 1359
16 ‘‘(E) does not perform abortion services.

reference page: 1420 following
20 (1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of
21 the Congress that the Director of the National Insti
22 tute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally rep
23 resentative longitudinal study (during the period of
24 fiscal years 2011 through 2020) on the relative men
25 tal health consequences for women of resolving a
1 pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various
2 ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and
3 parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term
4 and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and
5 having an abortion. This study may assess the inci
6 dence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the imme
7 diate and long-term mental health consequences
8 (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.

reference page: 1942 following 

1 ‘‘SEC. 804. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED
2 TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
3 ‘‘Any limitation on the use of funds contained in an
4 Act providing appropriations for the Department for a pe
5 riod with respect to the performance of abortions shall
6 apply for that period with respect to the performance of
7 abortions using funds contained in an Act providing ap
8 propriations for the Service.

The facts are as follows:

From the two Bills before us, one passed by the  House, one currently in debate by the Senate:

What was unclear to me was the section on page 110 of the House Bill. It did not offer any specific language as to what is allowed and not allowed for services funding abortion. Having read that section numerous times I still am confused as to intent.

BUT, Back to Dr. Dobson. As you are the voice to many conservative Christians who are not going to take the time to do the degree of research I have done, they are just going to take you at your word, I must conclude the following. This is my opinion, not fact…

Dr. Dobson,

I believe you are knowingly being dishonest in your discourse. I beleive this as you a) site references, have access to the same information I have, yet did not site any references supporting your two statements:

to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes

and

Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion

If you have evidence to support these claims please present it. I can find nothing to support your claims. At this point, what is IN WRITING before the American people is to the contrary.

With Matthew 7:5 heavy on my heart right now, I believe you have broken the commandment ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.‘

Many of my friends and family are against abortion and believe that Roe v Wade should be repealed. I have just as many friends and family members that are pro-choice.

I do not want to minimize this issue in the least. But, I do not want to digress from the subject at hand. Dr. Dobson, and many on the right are being dishonset and disengenous. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, I would contend that they are either a) ignorant of the facts; b) know the facts and are outright being dishonest.

Change my mind and gain my trust and backing by presenting some credible evidence to support what you are saying. What you have done is totally the opposite. If a Christian is truly driven to seek the truth, at some point those that dig deep enough will see that you are not being truthful. Fortunately, there are many of us who know Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior that have the sense to see that you are really no different than the Sadducees and the Pharisees during the time of Christ.

God was bigger than man back then, and he still is today. :-)

As a ps footnote there was an AP Story November 13th. Headline read “GOP chairman ends abortion insurance for employees.”

I am having a hard time understanding all the discourse and activism from the right attacking the current healthcare bill before congress when there are many healthcare plans underwritten by private insurance that cover abortion. I am unable to find any activism at all by these same people towards these companies.

 

Nov

27

In an age when media and access to information is literally at our fingertips anywhere we are at I am having a hard time locating the truth.

My choices seem to all be someone on the right with an agenda, or, someone on the left with an agenda. Facts, where they are presented, tend to be presented out of context, slanted toward ones agenda.

As an independent, in the past 18 months I have becomes so disgusted with just about every aspect of the right and the prople that have now become their main voices. I am disgusted because many of you trust these people to be truthful, and they are being anything but.

But, I have come to realize that the insanity and irrational behavior of the right has serverd to push me into the camp of the liberals. This too I am having a problem with as I wish to remain someone who can listen to ideas, weigh facts and opinion, and draw my own conclusions as to what I think the truth is.

We think of the word truth as an absolute. Actually, by definition, it is. Practice, however, is a far different cry. As individuals, and as coalitions and organizations, we tend to only practice one facet of the definition.

Truth is defined by Websters Online as follows:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

Any way we slice it, whatever side, or point on the continuum you stand, truth ultimately becomes subjective in most cases. Truth, whether we like it or not should ultimately be objective. I think it is hard for any one of us to be objective.

In this day and age, we have access to facts. Yet, finding them sometimes is like finding a needle in a haystack. Why? I will let you begin to draw your own conclusions on this. I have begun to draw my own.

In the process I have come to again realize one very important fact. Getting to the truth takes time, effort, and energy. We live in a world where we face so many important issues both local and global, that set against our busy lives we only get what we need from sound bites that come from people with an agenda, and a perspective either to the right, the left, or the middle.

But…

Just as important as above…

Is their a place where I can go, and get information that is concise, but seperates fact from opinion? But, that also offers me the positions of the left, the right, and the middle weighed directly against the facts?

Getting to truth takes time.

I have two goals in mind. I want to continue using this blog to call people out on their version of the truth, where I think it is distorted, and, well… not the truth. But, I also would like to create a forum where we can look at facts, and apply our opinions to these facts, doing so in a way where it is clear to others what our ideology is.

This too will take some time.

Blogroll