...my name is Muhammad, Muhammad Ali.
Muhammad Ali is dead.
That's not the way things are supposed to be. Immortals are supposed to live forever and if anyone ever deserved to be called immortal, it was Ali. Another chair from my youth is empty and this one hurts more than most.
I remember Ali.
I remember listening with my dad on the old red AM radio that I had on the headboard above my bed when he beat Sonny Liston. Back then he was known as Cassius Clay.
I remember him declaring that his name was now Muhammad Ali. That he was giving up what he called his "slave name."
I remember him beating Sonny Liston the second time with the so-called "phantom punch."
I remember him tearing through the heavyweight division with his "bum of the month club" on Saturday afternoons. Fights I used to watch on that old black and white TV in our living room.
I remember him refusing to be inducted into the Army saying that no Vietnamese ever called him a nigger so why should he go and fight them.
I remember his exile from boxing for five long years and I remember his vindication by the Supreme Court of the United States 8-0 that he was right and everyone else was wrong.
I remember his rejecting the idea of suing those that took away his livelihood for five years because he said that would make him a hypocrite. He would be suing them for doing what they thought was right just like he did what he thought was right.
I remember his comeback when he dismantled Jerry Quarry.
I remember his loss to Joe Frasier at Madison Square Garden when Joe unwittingly acted as the pawn of the reactionary elements in the country.
I remember Ali's defeat of Frasier in the "thriller in Manila."
I remember Ali's unexpected defeat of George Foreman using the "rope a dope" technique in the "rubble in the jungle."
I remember him donating $250,000 so a senior citizens center in New York City wouldn't have to close.
I remember his declining years when his skills deteriorated and I remember his retirement.
I remember him acting like a clown to distract attention from a clearly punch junk Joe Frasier in an interview so Joe wouldn't be ridiculed or embarrassed.
I remember him lighting the torch at the Atlanta Olympic Games.
So long champ. Save a place for me by the 3rd firepot on the left in hell.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Why I'm Concerned about this Election
What concerns me about this election is the direction the Internet has taken us.
The Internet has fundamentally changed the way in which we gather information. When I was growing up there were only a handful of reputable news sources.
The primary sources, and the most trusted sources, were the major newspapers. A distant second were the major radio networks and generally pulling up the rear were the TV networks.
Of course there were always exceptions to this order. If Walter Cronkite on CBS television told you something, you believed him.
Today, between the Internet and Cable Television the places from which people can gather information has sky rocketed. You don't have to look too hard to find an information source that puts precisely the spin you like on things.
At the same time people have become insulated in how they gather information. Conservatives go to Conservatives sources and Liberals go to Liberal sources. Crisscrossing and going to a source that runs counter to your preconceptions has become rarer and rarer.
As a result there has emerged what I'm going to call the Internet Populist.
These folks are convinced they know everything and what they know they know with absolute conviction and absolute certainty. The fact that so much of what they know is just flat out wrong doesn't even seem to matter to them. To the Internet Populist facts are a matter of opinion.
They will leap to conclusions based upon the flimsiest bit of information. That wouldn't be so bad if when it turned out they were being premature in their judgement became obvious they would accept that they had been wrong. Unfortunately more often then not they "double down" on their original assessment using some rationalization as to why they were right anyway.
It's enough to drive an engineer crazy.
They're also either incredibly ignorant or incredibly naive. They have no understanding of how the political process works; they have no understanding of how economics work; they have no understanding of how science works; they don't understand the federal budget, Social Security or Medicare but they are absolutely convinced they're experts because they read an article by some asshole on the Internet.
They are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They're utterly incapable not only of recognizing their own limitations but refuse to even consider the opinions of experts if those opinions contradict what they "know" to be true.
They populate both the right and the left but the fact is there appear to be far more on the right. Those on the left often have the disadvantage of an education which prevents them from going too wack job.
There is also a big difference in that the Left Wing Internet Populist is usually recognized as being out on the lunatic fringe. The Right Wing Internet Populist now appears to represent the conservative mainstream.
But there is another aspect to the Right Wing Internet Populist.
They're also convinced that everyone is ripping them off and especially people who are even worse off than they are. None of their problems are their own fault. They're all due to people who are getting free stuff they don't deserve while they. who DO deserve everything because they're special, are not only not getting it, but are paying for those other lazy bums who are getting it.
As a corollary, those undeserving bums weren't getting that free stuff until Obama raised taxes on everyone else so he could give those bums free stuff. Yes, I've actually been told that on several occasions.
Of course 98% of the Right Wing Internet Populists seem to be Trumpettes. Not only don't they understand why what Trump says is wrong, and in some cases even dangerous, they don't seem to care because somehow big daddy is going to make everything better for them and get them everything they deserve. It's the ultimate vindication fantasy.
Now here's the bad news. I'm concerned that these nut cases make up a big proportion of the people who normally don't bother to vote but they're going to make it a point to go vote for the Donald this time around.
That's more than enough to turn this election into a disaster.
The Internet has fundamentally changed the way in which we gather information. When I was growing up there were only a handful of reputable news sources.
The primary sources, and the most trusted sources, were the major newspapers. A distant second were the major radio networks and generally pulling up the rear were the TV networks.
Of course there were always exceptions to this order. If Walter Cronkite on CBS television told you something, you believed him.
Today, between the Internet and Cable Television the places from which people can gather information has sky rocketed. You don't have to look too hard to find an information source that puts precisely the spin you like on things.
At the same time people have become insulated in how they gather information. Conservatives go to Conservatives sources and Liberals go to Liberal sources. Crisscrossing and going to a source that runs counter to your preconceptions has become rarer and rarer.
As a result there has emerged what I'm going to call the Internet Populist.
These folks are convinced they know everything and what they know they know with absolute conviction and absolute certainty. The fact that so much of what they know is just flat out wrong doesn't even seem to matter to them. To the Internet Populist facts are a matter of opinion.
They will leap to conclusions based upon the flimsiest bit of information. That wouldn't be so bad if when it turned out they were being premature in their judgement became obvious they would accept that they had been wrong. Unfortunately more often then not they "double down" on their original assessment using some rationalization as to why they were right anyway.
It's enough to drive an engineer crazy.
They're also either incredibly ignorant or incredibly naive. They have no understanding of how the political process works; they have no understanding of how economics work; they have no understanding of how science works; they don't understand the federal budget, Social Security or Medicare but they are absolutely convinced they're experts because they read an article by some asshole on the Internet.
They are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They're utterly incapable not only of recognizing their own limitations but refuse to even consider the opinions of experts if those opinions contradict what they "know" to be true.
They populate both the right and the left but the fact is there appear to be far more on the right. Those on the left often have the disadvantage of an education which prevents them from going too wack job.
There is also a big difference in that the Left Wing Internet Populist is usually recognized as being out on the lunatic fringe. The Right Wing Internet Populist now appears to represent the conservative mainstream.
But there is another aspect to the Right Wing Internet Populist.
They're also convinced that everyone is ripping them off and especially people who are even worse off than they are. None of their problems are their own fault. They're all due to people who are getting free stuff they don't deserve while they. who DO deserve everything because they're special, are not only not getting it, but are paying for those other lazy bums who are getting it.
As a corollary, those undeserving bums weren't getting that free stuff until Obama raised taxes on everyone else so he could give those bums free stuff. Yes, I've actually been told that on several occasions.
Of course 98% of the Right Wing Internet Populists seem to be Trumpettes. Not only don't they understand why what Trump says is wrong, and in some cases even dangerous, they don't seem to care because somehow big daddy is going to make everything better for them and get them everything they deserve. It's the ultimate vindication fantasy.
Now here's the bad news. I'm concerned that these nut cases make up a big proportion of the people who normally don't bother to vote but they're going to make it a point to go vote for the Donald this time around.
That's more than enough to turn this election into a disaster.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Could this be the Year of the Cubs?
I'm not a big baseball fan but I have noticed that the Cubs, at 34-14, a ,708 winning percentage, are leading the NL Central Division by 6 1/2 games and have a whopping, major league leading plus 131 run scored to runs given up differential.
Is THIS the year? Can the Cubs claim the prize after 108 years? Hell, it's been 71 years since they've even made it as far as to lose a World Series.
Will the Ottoman Empire rise from the ashes? I ask that because the last time the Cubs won a World Series in 1908 the Ottoman Empire was still a thing.
Is THIS the year? Can the Cubs claim the prize after 108 years? Hell, it's been 71 years since they've even made it as far as to lose a World Series.
Will the Ottoman Empire rise from the ashes? I ask that because the last time the Cubs won a World Series in 1908 the Ottoman Empire was still a thing.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Ah Yes, them there Confederate Monuments are for Historical Purposes
I was having this running exchange with some southern guy that was miffed about a Civil War monument celebrating the Confederacy being removed from the University of Louisville campus.
Apparently the impetus for this was a black university professor that didn't feel such a monument was appropriate.
Personally I agree with the professor. When you strip away all the horseshit about states rights and all the other rationalizations the Civil War was about slavery. If it wasn't for the underlying issue of slavery all of the other problems were resolvable.
The issue of slavery was not. Regardless of how unfortunate it may be, some problems just seem to need to be resolved in blood. Slavery in the US was probably one of those problems.
So, we went around the barn a few times because this guy was big on throwing out all sorts of tu quoque arguments including nasty stuff in the bible and the fact that both Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.
The fact is that none of this justifies a war fought to defend slavery and there is no place in this country for public monuments celebrating or glorifying such a war.
Yes, good men were duped into fighting and dying for a bad cause and that's tragic. But that happens in all wars. I'm sure there were good Germans fighting for family and the fatherland on the eastern front oblivious to the einsatzgruppen operating behind the lines.
If you can design a monument which memorializes the tragedy of these men while recognizing the fundamental wrongness of the cause they were fighting for, then be my guest. I doubt that anyone would object.
But the monuments we're talking about celebrate the Confederacy as some sort of noble struggle against overwhelming odds. Against overwhelming odds it may have been but it wasn't a noble struggle.
Once you clear away all the chaff the sole purpose for the existence of the Confederacy was to defend the institution of slavery. The defense of slavery was the cause for which it took up arms. There is no place in this country for monuments celebrating, glorifying or rationalizing such a cause.
Ultimately this guy got frustrated with me and began crying about black professors and about the black lives matter movement while implying them uppity blacks have no reason to be offended by a "historical" monument dedicated to "southern heritage" that's been in place for 120 years or more.
Scratch a white southerner hard enough and you'll expose a racist. It was true 50 years ago and it's still fucking true today.
Apparently the impetus for this was a black university professor that didn't feel such a monument was appropriate.
Personally I agree with the professor. When you strip away all the horseshit about states rights and all the other rationalizations the Civil War was about slavery. If it wasn't for the underlying issue of slavery all of the other problems were resolvable.
The issue of slavery was not. Regardless of how unfortunate it may be, some problems just seem to need to be resolved in blood. Slavery in the US was probably one of those problems.
So, we went around the barn a few times because this guy was big on throwing out all sorts of tu quoque arguments including nasty stuff in the bible and the fact that both Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.
The fact is that none of this justifies a war fought to defend slavery and there is no place in this country for public monuments celebrating or glorifying such a war.
Yes, good men were duped into fighting and dying for a bad cause and that's tragic. But that happens in all wars. I'm sure there were good Germans fighting for family and the fatherland on the eastern front oblivious to the einsatzgruppen operating behind the lines.
If you can design a monument which memorializes the tragedy of these men while recognizing the fundamental wrongness of the cause they were fighting for, then be my guest. I doubt that anyone would object.
But the monuments we're talking about celebrate the Confederacy as some sort of noble struggle against overwhelming odds. Against overwhelming odds it may have been but it wasn't a noble struggle.
Once you clear away all the chaff the sole purpose for the existence of the Confederacy was to defend the institution of slavery. The defense of slavery was the cause for which it took up arms. There is no place in this country for monuments celebrating, glorifying or rationalizing such a cause.
Ultimately this guy got frustrated with me and began crying about black professors and about the black lives matter movement while implying them uppity blacks have no reason to be offended by a "historical" monument dedicated to "southern heritage" that's been in place for 120 years or more.
Scratch a white southerner hard enough and you'll expose a racist. It was true 50 years ago and it's still fucking true today.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
The Bathroom Debate
All of this stuff about what bathroom Transgender people are entitled to use has got to be one of the dumbest things that I've seen people get all up in a huff about.
There are really two distinct levels to this conversation.
One level is the question of the individual you used to know as John who now wants to be recognized as Joan. One may run into this sort of situation at a school or in the work environment.
Then there's the Transgender individual that you don't know. You might run into this situation out in public such as in a department store.
Let's start with the second one because I think that's the easier of the two. In this case you'd probably never be able to tell the difference. Transgenders tend to look like their preferred gender. I defy the average person to recognize a Transgender if it wasn't someone they were familiar with.
Besides, in the ladies room everyone is in stalls. In the men's room a Transgender isn't going to use the urinal so they'll be in a stall as well. So, unless you're into peeking into bathroom stalls, you would never know the difference.
The first case is a bit different. I can sort of understand the possible discomfort associated with accepting that John is now Joan, except not really because the plumbing hasn't changed any. But again the stalls in use idea applies here as well.
A locker room is a bit more complicated. Other than having some sort of screened off area I don't see any particularly good idea here.
The best I can come up with is all Transgenders use a screened off area in the boy's locker room. Guys tend to not give a crap anyway and there's less parental protection foam around boys.
Of course we could just all recognize that individuals should use the facilities of their gender identity and get over it.
Do I have any direct experience? I have two actually but one doesn't really count because it didn't come into the open until years after I knew the individual involved.
The other involved a guy/girl that sort of looked like he was in transition to she. He/she worked for the same place I did. Everyone pretty much ignored it. I have no idea which rest room he/she used nor did anyone seem to be concerned about it.
There are really two distinct levels to this conversation.
One level is the question of the individual you used to know as John who now wants to be recognized as Joan. One may run into this sort of situation at a school or in the work environment.
Then there's the Transgender individual that you don't know. You might run into this situation out in public such as in a department store.
Let's start with the second one because I think that's the easier of the two. In this case you'd probably never be able to tell the difference. Transgenders tend to look like their preferred gender. I defy the average person to recognize a Transgender if it wasn't someone they were familiar with.
Besides, in the ladies room everyone is in stalls. In the men's room a Transgender isn't going to use the urinal so they'll be in a stall as well. So, unless you're into peeking into bathroom stalls, you would never know the difference.
The first case is a bit different. I can sort of understand the possible discomfort associated with accepting that John is now Joan, except not really because the plumbing hasn't changed any. But again the stalls in use idea applies here as well.
A locker room is a bit more complicated. Other than having some sort of screened off area I don't see any particularly good idea here.
The best I can come up with is all Transgenders use a screened off area in the boy's locker room. Guys tend to not give a crap anyway and there's less parental protection foam around boys.
Of course we could just all recognize that individuals should use the facilities of their gender identity and get over it.
Do I have any direct experience? I have two actually but one doesn't really count because it didn't come into the open until years after I knew the individual involved.
The other involved a guy/girl that sort of looked like he was in transition to she. He/she worked for the same place I did. Everyone pretty much ignored it. I have no idea which rest room he/she used nor did anyone seem to be concerned about it.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
The World is Coming to an End!!!
It's all over. We're doomed! The end of the world is at hand!!!
How do I know this you ask? Because yesterday I actually agreed with something that Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said.
Fischer, talking about Trump, said "there is no way in the world that guy should still be viable at this point, given the things that he's said and the things that he's done."
Holy mackerel Andy! Hell must have frozen over and the gate of heaven must have broken off their hinges because those things are a hell of a lot more likely than me agreeing with anything Fischer might say.
This is going to be a strange and terrifying election.
How do I know this you ask? Because yesterday I actually agreed with something that Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said.
Fischer, talking about Trump, said "there is no way in the world that guy should still be viable at this point, given the things that he's said and the things that he's done."
Holy mackerel Andy! Hell must have frozen over and the gate of heaven must have broken off their hinges because those things are a hell of a lot more likely than me agreeing with anything Fischer might say.
This is going to be a strange and terrifying election.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Well, it's Pretty Much Official
It's looks as if Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president since both Ted Cruz and John Kasich, the last of the clown brigade, have dropped out leaving the Trump alone on top of the garbage heap.
To say the Republican Party has reached rock bottom would not quite be true. They could have nominated Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. But wait, the Trump still hasn't chosen a VP running mate.
That could yet be terrifying.
Like I've said several times a Trump vs. Clinton campaign has all the potential to bring out the absolute worst in the American electorate.
Early polls are all over the map and I don't think they matter much at this stage anyway.
Oh well, now is the winter of our discontent and we move on to perhaps the most critical presidential campaign of our time.
To say the Republican Party has reached rock bottom would not quite be true. They could have nominated Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. But wait, the Trump still hasn't chosen a VP running mate.
That could yet be terrifying.
Like I've said several times a Trump vs. Clinton campaign has all the potential to bring out the absolute worst in the American electorate.
Early polls are all over the map and I don't think they matter much at this stage anyway.
Oh well, now is the winter of our discontent and we move on to perhaps the most critical presidential campaign of our time.
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
A Shift in the Battle Lines
Have you noticed that the emphasis of social conservatives has shifted from discriminating against Gays, about 2% of the population, to discriminating against Transgenders who are estimated to be no more than 0.3% of the population?
Of course attacks upon Gays haven't ended entirely although the battle lines there have pretty much shifted as well from Gay Marriage to non-discrimination ordinances.
So, as usual, the wing nut forces are loosing. They're not even doing very well against illegal immigrants and Muslims any more.
Here's a prediction for you. They're going to lose the discrimination battle against Transgenders as well.
What are they going to do then? They'll be out of people who are different that they can be afraid of and discriminate against.
Maybe if they have no targets for their hatred they'll grow up? I wouldn't bet on it though.
Of course attacks upon Gays haven't ended entirely although the battle lines there have pretty much shifted as well from Gay Marriage to non-discrimination ordinances.
So, as usual, the wing nut forces are loosing. They're not even doing very well against illegal immigrants and Muslims any more.
Here's a prediction for you. They're going to lose the discrimination battle against Transgenders as well.
What are they going to do then? They'll be out of people who are different that they can be afraid of and discriminate against.
Maybe if they have no targets for their hatred they'll grow up? I wouldn't bet on it though.
Mea Culpa
I'm embarrassed to have gotten so sidetracked. Hey, trust me, I had good reason for it but I'm going to try and do better in the future.
I bother to write this blog for two reasons. The first is to keep the few writing skills I have as sharp as possible. The second is to have a record of what I was thinking about stuff when it was happening. Yes, you're right, it's basically a diary.
Heaven knows that no one else actually reads it and that's more than OK with me. I really don't need to waste my time responding to internet trolls.
But I have been remiss recently.
The presidential nomination races are drawing close to the end game. Barring some convention shenanigans it looks like Trump vs. Clinton. If ever a presidential campaign threatened to expose all that is wrong and ugly with the United States, this is the one.
It's going to be much worse than 2008 and 2012 because, while I had my issued with both McCain and Romney, they were at least gentlemen of reasonable integrity.
Trump is a loud mouthed bully that is used to being in a position where he can intimidate everyone around him. He's much better suited to a clown act than the Oval Office.
But here's the REALLY scary thing.
If someone held a gun to my head, dragged me to the voting booth, said "vote Republican or I'll blow your brains out" and Trump was on the ballot, I'd pull the lever. If Ted Cruz was on the ballot I'd say "pull the fucking trigger."
Cruz is an utterly horrible excuse for a human being and his father is even worse. This is a perfect example of the apple not falling far from the tree.
As for Clinton, she leaves a sour taste in my mouth but I supported her through the Democratic primary process because, given her experience as Secretary of State, I believe she's better qualified than Bernie to be president.
So I'm going to hold my nose and pull the lever next to Clinton's name and I'll do it probably twice. Once in the New Jersey primary and once in November.
I bother to write this blog for two reasons. The first is to keep the few writing skills I have as sharp as possible. The second is to have a record of what I was thinking about stuff when it was happening. Yes, you're right, it's basically a diary.
Heaven knows that no one else actually reads it and that's more than OK with me. I really don't need to waste my time responding to internet trolls.
But I have been remiss recently.
The presidential nomination races are drawing close to the end game. Barring some convention shenanigans it looks like Trump vs. Clinton. If ever a presidential campaign threatened to expose all that is wrong and ugly with the United States, this is the one.
It's going to be much worse than 2008 and 2012 because, while I had my issued with both McCain and Romney, they were at least gentlemen of reasonable integrity.
Trump is a loud mouthed bully that is used to being in a position where he can intimidate everyone around him. He's much better suited to a clown act than the Oval Office.
But here's the REALLY scary thing.
If someone held a gun to my head, dragged me to the voting booth, said "vote Republican or I'll blow your brains out" and Trump was on the ballot, I'd pull the lever. If Ted Cruz was on the ballot I'd say "pull the fucking trigger."
Cruz is an utterly horrible excuse for a human being and his father is even worse. This is a perfect example of the apple not falling far from the tree.
As for Clinton, she leaves a sour taste in my mouth but I supported her through the Democratic primary process because, given her experience as Secretary of State, I believe she's better qualified than Bernie to be president.
So I'm going to hold my nose and pull the lever next to Clinton's name and I'll do it probably twice. Once in the New Jersey primary and once in November.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Let's Talk NAFTA
I'm always fascinated by all the comments with lots of strong opinions but no data to back any of it up and the subject of NAFTA is no exception.
Here's some data to chew on.
NAFTA was ratified in 1993 and went into effect in 1994. It was negotiated under the George H.W. Bush administration so don't just blame Clinton if you don't like it.
NAFTA has been a mixed bag. Its been credited for increasing US exports to Mexico and Canada from $340 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion by 2011 but in the meantime the AFL-CIO blames it for some 700,000 manufacturing jobs going over the border to Mexico as well.
However to put that in perspective, the US labor force is around 150 million so that represents less than 0.5% of all US jobs.
The US Real GDP (adjusted for inflation) in 1993 was $9.65 trillion or $36,473 per capita. In 2015 the US Real GDP was $16.46 trillion or $51,171 per capita. So SOMEBODY is making lots of money regardless of the drop in manufacturing jobs.
I say SOMEBODY because US Real Median income per household was $50,421 in 1993 and is now, 23 years later, only $53,657. So an increase of $15,000 per capita in GDP has only moved the household Median Income by $3.200. That implies that income in lower paying jobs has been almost stagnant while income in higher paying jobs has increased significantly.
To put it another way we've traded jobs with solid middle class salaries for jobs with lower salaries and jobs with much higher salaries in almost equal measure. So depending upon which bucket you're in, you're either unhappy, happy or, if you're at the top of the income ladder, very, very happy.
Here's some data to chew on.
NAFTA was ratified in 1993 and went into effect in 1994. It was negotiated under the George H.W. Bush administration so don't just blame Clinton if you don't like it.
NAFTA has been a mixed bag. Its been credited for increasing US exports to Mexico and Canada from $340 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion by 2011 but in the meantime the AFL-CIO blames it for some 700,000 manufacturing jobs going over the border to Mexico as well.
However to put that in perspective, the US labor force is around 150 million so that represents less than 0.5% of all US jobs.
The US Real GDP (adjusted for inflation) in 1993 was $9.65 trillion or $36,473 per capita. In 2015 the US Real GDP was $16.46 trillion or $51,171 per capita. So SOMEBODY is making lots of money regardless of the drop in manufacturing jobs.
I say SOMEBODY because US Real Median income per household was $50,421 in 1993 and is now, 23 years later, only $53,657. So an increase of $15,000 per capita in GDP has only moved the household Median Income by $3.200. That implies that income in lower paying jobs has been almost stagnant while income in higher paying jobs has increased significantly.
To put it another way we've traded jobs with solid middle class salaries for jobs with lower salaries and jobs with much higher salaries in almost equal measure. So depending upon which bucket you're in, you're either unhappy, happy or, if you're at the top of the income ladder, very, very happy.
Social Security and the National Debt
I find it interesting that it's not always clear exactly how things work. I have this bad habit of picking up rocks and very often I'm not terribly thrilled with what I find under the rock.
Let's talk about Social Security.
You pay into SS your working life, and your employer matches what you contribute, with the promise that when the time comes for you to retire you will get a small pension from SS.
Note that this is NOT meant to be your entire retirement income nor even a large part of it but it's not negligible either and can make the difference between an enjoyable retirement and one of financial hardship.
The payroll taxes go into a "trust fund" and there is currently $2.7 trillion in that fund. I put "trust fund" in quotes because like most funds it gets "invested" by the trustees. Notice those quotes again.
So, what us it "invested" in? It's "invested" in special issue US Treasury Securities. This is not something new. This apparently has always been the case.
In other words, the SS Trust Fund consists of IOUs from the federal government. This makes SS the single biggest holder of US debt. SS holds 16% of the National Debt. The civil service retirement and disability trust fund holds 5% of the debt and the military retirement trust fund holds 3% of the debt also I would assume in special issue US Treasury Securities. Another 4% is held by smaller federal funds.
That means that retirement trust funds hold a whopping 28% of the US debt. That's something like $5.4 trillion.
The federal reserve holds 12% of the debt also in Treasury Securities.
But let's focus on Social Security.
SS receives tax income and interest income. In 2014 it paid out $859 billion and received $786 billion in tax income. However it received $98 billion in interest giving it a positive cash flow of $25 billion.
But this is all accounting magic numbers since the "interest" is actually paid by the Treasury Department from tax revenues. We're essentially simply moving money from one bucket into another.
The problem of course is beginning around 2020 the total SS cash flow will turn negative. By 2036 or so the "trust fund" is expected to be depleted. All of the IOUs will have been cashed in.
What is clear from the current situation is first Social Security is NOT a current contributor to the massive US Debt. As a matter of fact it has lent the federal government more money than China and Japan combined.
Second it's about to start turning in those IOUs in the near future which is going to exacerbate the budget deficit problem if something isn't done in the near term while the problem still isn't a crisis.
There are two possible approaches. We can either make up any shortfall in payments by a budget line item by either cutting other expenditures or raising taxes OR we can increase SS payroll taxes by raising either the Social Security maximum, the Social Security percentage or some combination of the two.
I trust Hillary Clinton more to address this problem in a rational way than either Trump, Cruz or any other Republican that's ever been spawned.
Let's talk about Social Security.
You pay into SS your working life, and your employer matches what you contribute, with the promise that when the time comes for you to retire you will get a small pension from SS.
Note that this is NOT meant to be your entire retirement income nor even a large part of it but it's not negligible either and can make the difference between an enjoyable retirement and one of financial hardship.
The payroll taxes go into a "trust fund" and there is currently $2.7 trillion in that fund. I put "trust fund" in quotes because like most funds it gets "invested" by the trustees. Notice those quotes again.
So, what us it "invested" in? It's "invested" in special issue US Treasury Securities. This is not something new. This apparently has always been the case.
In other words, the SS Trust Fund consists of IOUs from the federal government. This makes SS the single biggest holder of US debt. SS holds 16% of the National Debt. The civil service retirement and disability trust fund holds 5% of the debt and the military retirement trust fund holds 3% of the debt also I would assume in special issue US Treasury Securities. Another 4% is held by smaller federal funds.
That means that retirement trust funds hold a whopping 28% of the US debt. That's something like $5.4 trillion.
The federal reserve holds 12% of the debt also in Treasury Securities.
But let's focus on Social Security.
SS receives tax income and interest income. In 2014 it paid out $859 billion and received $786 billion in tax income. However it received $98 billion in interest giving it a positive cash flow of $25 billion.
But this is all accounting magic numbers since the "interest" is actually paid by the Treasury Department from tax revenues. We're essentially simply moving money from one bucket into another.
The problem of course is beginning around 2020 the total SS cash flow will turn negative. By 2036 or so the "trust fund" is expected to be depleted. All of the IOUs will have been cashed in.
What is clear from the current situation is first Social Security is NOT a current contributor to the massive US Debt. As a matter of fact it has lent the federal government more money than China and Japan combined.
Second it's about to start turning in those IOUs in the near future which is going to exacerbate the budget deficit problem if something isn't done in the near term while the problem still isn't a crisis.
There are two possible approaches. We can either make up any shortfall in payments by a budget line item by either cutting other expenditures or raising taxes OR we can increase SS payroll taxes by raising either the Social Security maximum, the Social Security percentage or some combination of the two.
I trust Hillary Clinton more to address this problem in a rational way than either Trump, Cruz or any other Republican that's ever been spawned.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Entre la espada y la pared
Between the sword and the wall. Between a rock and a hard place. Between the devil and the deep blue sea.
All expressions that try to convey the very uncomfortable situation when none of your options appears to be very palatable.
This is the situation on the Republican presidential side.
Back in July of 2015 I started down this road. At that time there were 16 apparent candidates. That grew to 17 by August of 2015. In my initial rumblings I divide the menagerie into two groups based upon my preferences without regard to a candidates viability.
I had six below what I called the Elmer Fudd line because I considered them loony toons. Unfortunately one of my loony toons six is still in the race.
Here's what I said at the beginning about the three still in the race.
Donald Trump - If nothing else he stands by what he says. The man may not have any political experience but he knows his way around finances. He has a tendency to say some strange stuff but he's not loony toons.
He has a tendency to say strange stuff indeed. After listening to him for nine months I'm convinced he's little more than an egotistical, loud mouthed bully. He's used to being able to intimidate everyone he encounters. He could be a complete disaster as president. Or, perhaps not. He's just too unpredictable.
Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
The "others" were Scott Walker, Bobby Jindel, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. These were the six below the Elmer Fudd line. At that time it looked as if Cruz might be sliding. Unfortunately that turned out to be wrong.
John Kasich - ...given his fiscal conservative and business background this guy might actually be interesting to consider. I don't go for his abortion position but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy. For a Republican he might actually be acceptable.
I don't see Kasich winning the nomination in anything short of a wildly contested convention and I don't think that's going to happen. That means it's between Trump and Cruz. The sword and the wall.
Even given Trump's constant demonstration of the difference between having money and having class, Cruz is far more dangerous. He's crazy and his father is even crazier.
On the Democratic side Bernie is still, surprisingly enough, keeping it close. Bernie, like Trump, is talking about things that he can't deliver on in the current political climate. It's just not reasonable.
However all progress is the result of unreasonable men because they try and adapt reality to what is right rather than simply accepting what is wrong.
Perhaps the best of all words would be a Trump vs. Sanders election? Let's put the two great outsiders on the stage against each other and see which the country prefers.
All expressions that try to convey the very uncomfortable situation when none of your options appears to be very palatable.
This is the situation on the Republican presidential side.
Back in July of 2015 I started down this road. At that time there were 16 apparent candidates. That grew to 17 by August of 2015. In my initial rumblings I divide the menagerie into two groups based upon my preferences without regard to a candidates viability.
I had six below what I called the Elmer Fudd line because I considered them loony toons. Unfortunately one of my loony toons six is still in the race.
Here's what I said at the beginning about the three still in the race.
Donald Trump - If nothing else he stands by what he says. The man may not have any political experience but he knows his way around finances. He has a tendency to say some strange stuff but he's not loony toons.
He has a tendency to say strange stuff indeed. After listening to him for nine months I'm convinced he's little more than an egotistical, loud mouthed bully. He's used to being able to intimidate everyone he encounters. He could be a complete disaster as president. Or, perhaps not. He's just too unpredictable.
Ted Cruz - Cruz is hopeless but most of the others are even worse!
The "others" were Scott Walker, Bobby Jindel, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. These were the six below the Elmer Fudd line. At that time it looked as if Cruz might be sliding. Unfortunately that turned out to be wrong.
John Kasich - ...given his fiscal conservative and business background this guy might actually be interesting to consider. I don't go for his abortion position but he doesn't strike me as completely crazy. For a Republican he might actually be acceptable.
I don't see Kasich winning the nomination in anything short of a wildly contested convention and I don't think that's going to happen. That means it's between Trump and Cruz. The sword and the wall.
Even given Trump's constant demonstration of the difference between having money and having class, Cruz is far more dangerous. He's crazy and his father is even crazier.
On the Democratic side Bernie is still, surprisingly enough, keeping it close. Bernie, like Trump, is talking about things that he can't deliver on in the current political climate. It's just not reasonable.
However all progress is the result of unreasonable men because they try and adapt reality to what is right rather than simply accepting what is wrong.
Perhaps the best of all words would be a Trump vs. Sanders election? Let's put the two great outsiders on the stage against each other and see which the country prefers.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
What's with the Rise of Trump?
The sudden rise of Donald Trump to political prominence is something of a puzzle. So what makes Trump supporters tick?
To some it's due to frustration over the economy, the continued national debt and the seeming inability of Washington to accomplish anything useful.
To others it's the result of anxiety over a changing society, the fear of terrorism mixed with a dash of xenophobia.
To still others it's racism pure and simple.
I think it’s a combination.
They have this vague feeling that things are spinning out of control for them. They also have this vague feeling that there are people, the so-called elites, that don’t have this problem. Then they go looking around for people to blame over this uneasiness.
Their gaze lands on people they see as taking things from them. They see it as their taxes being used to benefit people who don’t deserve it. People who either shouldn’t be here in the first place or are just too lazy to fend for themselves. The impression that these people are people of color simply adds to the angst. The federal debt is just one more example of money being taken from them and used to benefit people that don’t deserve it.
Now, they may not understand the numbers but the numbers say they have something of a valid point. If you look at household income the lowest 40% of wage earners actually experienced a decrease in real income between 2010 and 2014 while people in the 80th to 95th percentile had their real income increase by about 5%. So the economic recovery has been unbalanced at best.
There are about 125 million households in the US. In 2015 the federal budget included payment of $402 billion in interest on the federal debt. Some of this, about $180 billion, was offset by interest received on trust funds such as Social Security but the actual interest paid was $402 billion. Now divide $402 billion by 125 million. My spreadsheet says that’s about $3,200 per household.
The federal budget also includes $446 billion for Health Care Services which includes Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP but not Medicare which is a separate budget item. Do the same division and now you get about $3,500 per household. That totals $6,700 per household which is not an insignificant amount of money. And of course we all know that not all households contribute equally and so do the Trump supporters (I'm tempted to say Trumpettes).
These two numbers are currently projected to increase to $731 billion and $632 billion by 2020. Assuming a one million household increase per year that would mean $5,600 and $5,100 per household for a total of $10,700 per household which is clearly unworkable.
For years the Republicans have been garnering votes by promising to “fix” the “cause” of these “vague feelings.” But of course in many cases the “cause” is a myth or the solution isn’t that simple so now we add to the feeling of being ripped off a feeling of betrayal and you get Donald Trump for president.
Can he win a general election?
I'm still not sure he's getting the nomination but assuming he does, then the more bad things that happen between now and November, the better his chances.
To some it's due to frustration over the economy, the continued national debt and the seeming inability of Washington to accomplish anything useful.
To others it's the result of anxiety over a changing society, the fear of terrorism mixed with a dash of xenophobia.
To still others it's racism pure and simple.
I think it’s a combination.
They have this vague feeling that things are spinning out of control for them. They also have this vague feeling that there are people, the so-called elites, that don’t have this problem. Then they go looking around for people to blame over this uneasiness.
Their gaze lands on people they see as taking things from them. They see it as their taxes being used to benefit people who don’t deserve it. People who either shouldn’t be here in the first place or are just too lazy to fend for themselves. The impression that these people are people of color simply adds to the angst. The federal debt is just one more example of money being taken from them and used to benefit people that don’t deserve it.
Now, they may not understand the numbers but the numbers say they have something of a valid point. If you look at household income the lowest 40% of wage earners actually experienced a decrease in real income between 2010 and 2014 while people in the 80th to 95th percentile had their real income increase by about 5%. So the economic recovery has been unbalanced at best.
There are about 125 million households in the US. In 2015 the federal budget included payment of $402 billion in interest on the federal debt. Some of this, about $180 billion, was offset by interest received on trust funds such as Social Security but the actual interest paid was $402 billion. Now divide $402 billion by 125 million. My spreadsheet says that’s about $3,200 per household.
The federal budget also includes $446 billion for Health Care Services which includes Medicaid, CHIP and SNAP but not Medicare which is a separate budget item. Do the same division and now you get about $3,500 per household. That totals $6,700 per household which is not an insignificant amount of money. And of course we all know that not all households contribute equally and so do the Trump supporters (I'm tempted to say Trumpettes).
These two numbers are currently projected to increase to $731 billion and $632 billion by 2020. Assuming a one million household increase per year that would mean $5,600 and $5,100 per household for a total of $10,700 per household which is clearly unworkable.
For years the Republicans have been garnering votes by promising to “fix” the “cause” of these “vague feelings.” But of course in many cases the “cause” is a myth or the solution isn’t that simple so now we add to the feeling of being ripped off a feeling of betrayal and you get Donald Trump for president.
Can he win a general election?
I'm still not sure he's getting the nomination but assuming he does, then the more bad things that happen between now and November, the better his chances.
Friday, March 11, 2016
The Economy
A series of exit polls conducted by Edison research for the TV channels and the Associated Press indicates that about 70% of Republican voters are "very worried" about the economy nad some 23% are "somewhat worried.
On the Democratic side the numbers were less but still significant with 42% saying they were very worried and 39% saying they were somewhat worried.
Yeah I can understand being concerned about the economy. Things have certainly been a mixed bag.
First the good news.
The deficit is down from a high of $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 to $440 billion in FY 2014. The unemployment rate is down from a high of 10,0% in October of 2009 to 4.9% in February of 2016. The Dow Jones Average is up from around 7,000 in March of 2009 to around 17,000 in March of 2016. The GDP is up from $14.2 trillion in 2Q 2009 to $18.1 trillion in 4Q 2015.
Now for the bad news.
The growth in GDP has been about 3.9% per year since 2010 but it only grew 2.9% in 2015 which is the worst growth rate since 0.11% in 2009. The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% down from 66.1% in 2008 so one could argue that the REAL unemployment rate is around 8.1%. However since 2008 the number of retired workers has increased by 2.6% of the population so that would suggest that the REAL unemployment rate is no greater than 5.5%. The deficit is estimated to increase back up to $615 billion in FY 2016 which is going in the wrong direction.
Now for the ugly news.
Based upon the quintile upper limit or the 5% lower limit, real income (adjusted for inflation) for the lowest quintile from 2010 to 2014 has DECREASED by about 1.3% so the poorest 20% of the population actually had less spending power in 2014 than in 2010. For the second quintile it has DECREASED by about 0.2%. So some 40% of American households were worse off in 2014 than they were in 2010. For the third quintile real income INCREASED by about 2.1%. For the fourth quintile it INCREASED by about 3.4% and for the top 5% it INCREASED by about 5.4%.
The change in real income differing by income category is typical of this increasing wealth and income inequality we keep hearing about. It's a real problem. To my mind it's #2 right behind the deficit. At #3 we have the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
I suspect, I don't know, but I suspect, that a significant overhaul of the tax system is required to address all three of my top concerns. But what do I know? I'm just an engineer.
On the Democratic side the numbers were less but still significant with 42% saying they were very worried and 39% saying they were somewhat worried.
Yeah I can understand being concerned about the economy. Things have certainly been a mixed bag.
First the good news.
The deficit is down from a high of $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 to $440 billion in FY 2014. The unemployment rate is down from a high of 10,0% in October of 2009 to 4.9% in February of 2016. The Dow Jones Average is up from around 7,000 in March of 2009 to around 17,000 in March of 2016. The GDP is up from $14.2 trillion in 2Q 2009 to $18.1 trillion in 4Q 2015.
Now for the bad news.
The growth in GDP has been about 3.9% per year since 2010 but it only grew 2.9% in 2015 which is the worst growth rate since 0.11% in 2009. The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% down from 66.1% in 2008 so one could argue that the REAL unemployment rate is around 8.1%. However since 2008 the number of retired workers has increased by 2.6% of the population so that would suggest that the REAL unemployment rate is no greater than 5.5%. The deficit is estimated to increase back up to $615 billion in FY 2016 which is going in the wrong direction.
Now for the ugly news.
Based upon the quintile upper limit or the 5% lower limit, real income (adjusted for inflation) for the lowest quintile from 2010 to 2014 has DECREASED by about 1.3% so the poorest 20% of the population actually had less spending power in 2014 than in 2010. For the second quintile it has DECREASED by about 0.2%. So some 40% of American households were worse off in 2014 than they were in 2010. For the third quintile real income INCREASED by about 2.1%. For the fourth quintile it INCREASED by about 3.4% and for the top 5% it INCREASED by about 5.4%.
The change in real income differing by income category is typical of this increasing wealth and income inequality we keep hearing about. It's a real problem. To my mind it's #2 right behind the deficit. At #3 we have the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
I suspect, I don't know, but I suspect, that a significant overhaul of the tax system is required to address all three of my top concerns. But what do I know? I'm just an engineer.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
On Bernie Sanders
Sanders claims to be a Democratic Socialist. This is a variation on pure Socilism which postulates that both the economy and society should be run to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few, in order to achieve a more "just" society.
It doesn't necessarily call for public ownership of the means of production but it does believe in government regulation of private corporations.
I put "just" in quotes because that's usually the stumbling point. Who defines what is "just?" The simple answer is it's determined by who the people elect. I think it's safe to say that Republicans and Democrats in today's society disagree on what is "just."
I think most political scientists would consider the current US a "mixed economy." Primarilly Capitalist but with some Socialist like concepts such as significant government regulation, Social Security, Medicare, SNAP and Medicaid among others.
A major problem of course is that the US government has no significant source of income other than taxation since it doesn't own any means of production. That means the government doesn't actually pay for anything but acts as a middle man that makes Tom and Dick pay for Harry's benefits.
Needless to say that often doesn't please Tom and Dick.
Republicans tend to want to push things more toward Capitalism under the theory that will result in a stronger economy and benefit everyone. The Democrats believe that society needs a government safety net of some sort because regardless of how strong the economy is there will always be people on the outer edge of society that require government aid. Therefore they tend to try and push more toward more Socialist like programs.
For the past 80 years or so there has been a steady but ragged movement to the left and I don't think that going to change any time soon. Sanders is trying to jump to where we might be 50 or 60 years from now and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
It doesn't necessarily call for public ownership of the means of production but it does believe in government regulation of private corporations.
I put "just" in quotes because that's usually the stumbling point. Who defines what is "just?" The simple answer is it's determined by who the people elect. I think it's safe to say that Republicans and Democrats in today's society disagree on what is "just."
I think most political scientists would consider the current US a "mixed economy." Primarilly Capitalist but with some Socialist like concepts such as significant government regulation, Social Security, Medicare, SNAP and Medicaid among others.
A major problem of course is that the US government has no significant source of income other than taxation since it doesn't own any means of production. That means the government doesn't actually pay for anything but acts as a middle man that makes Tom and Dick pay for Harry's benefits.
Needless to say that often doesn't please Tom and Dick.
Republicans tend to want to push things more toward Capitalism under the theory that will result in a stronger economy and benefit everyone. The Democrats believe that society needs a government safety net of some sort because regardless of how strong the economy is there will always be people on the outer edge of society that require government aid. Therefore they tend to try and push more toward more Socialist like programs.
For the past 80 years or so there has been a steady but ragged movement to the left and I don't think that going to change any time soon. Sanders is trying to jump to where we might be 50 or 60 years from now and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
Monday, March 07, 2016
Josh Nailed It
I just read an article by Josh Marshall at TPM and he has managed to clearly articulate an issue that I've been sort of trying to get a handle on for a while now.
The intensity and volume of the pro-Trump movement is only understandable "if you are dealing with a chunk of the electorate with expectations that are deeply unrealistic in the context of conventional political action."
I've seen this clearly demonstrated in interviews and in comments on articles. Many of these people are simply ignorant of what is possible in a complex world.
They don't understand how the budget process works; they don't understand how the political process works and they don't understand that the checks and balances are there to prevent things from rapidly spiraling out of control.
It's SUPPOSED to take effort to make significant changes.
Marshall goes on to observe that this "is a volatile situation when you're talking about at least a quarter of the national electorate."
He's right about that as well. That quarter appears willing to accept what amounts to a virtual dictatorship if it will achieve what they want.
Marshall's last thought, when taken to its logical conclusion, is chilling.
"That gets you Trump. It also gets you Ted Cruz. And it may get you worse still."
It could get you the unthinkable. Trump has threatened to issue what would be illegal orders to the military. Some military experts say that the military will refuse to obey them. I know better. Some of the military will refuse but others will not.
That could lead to civil war. But civil war might be preferable to allowing Trump control of the nuclear arsenal.
The intensity and volume of the pro-Trump movement is only understandable "if you are dealing with a chunk of the electorate with expectations that are deeply unrealistic in the context of conventional political action."
I've seen this clearly demonstrated in interviews and in comments on articles. Many of these people are simply ignorant of what is possible in a complex world.
They don't understand how the budget process works; they don't understand how the political process works and they don't understand that the checks and balances are there to prevent things from rapidly spiraling out of control.
It's SUPPOSED to take effort to make significant changes.
Marshall goes on to observe that this "is a volatile situation when you're talking about at least a quarter of the national electorate."
He's right about that as well. That quarter appears willing to accept what amounts to a virtual dictatorship if it will achieve what they want.
Marshall's last thought, when taken to its logical conclusion, is chilling.
"That gets you Trump. It also gets you Ted Cruz. And it may get you worse still."
It could get you the unthinkable. Trump has threatened to issue what would be illegal orders to the military. Some military experts say that the military will refuse to obey them. I know better. Some of the military will refuse but others will not.
That could lead to civil war. But civil war might be preferable to allowing Trump control of the nuclear arsenal.
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Super Tuesday
I've been away. In the Florida Keys to be exact but I return to find Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton charging to victory on Super Tuesday.
A Trump vs. Clinton debacle seems more and more possible.
I continue to be astonished that people will vote for Trump who is little more than an abrasive bully, a hypocrite and a phony.
The thing about bullies is when they are stood up to they run and Clinton is not about to be intimidated by Trump.
A Trump vs. Clinton debacle seems more and more possible.
I continue to be astonished that people will vote for Trump who is little more than an abrasive bully, a hypocrite and a phony.
The thing about bullies is when they are stood up to they run and Clinton is not about to be intimidated by Trump.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
South Carolina and Nevada
Trump wins South Carolina and Clinton takes Nevada,
For the Republicans:
Donald Trump - 32.93 % 38
Marco Rubio - 22.38 %
Ted Cruz - 21.76 %
Jeb Bush - 8.13 %
John Kasich 7.96 %
Ben Carson 6.85 %
For the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - 52.53%
Bernie Sanders - 47.41%
I'm beginning to think that Trump may in fact win the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side it's perhaps not that obvious,
I shudder at the thought of a Trump vs. Clinton election and yet that's better than Cruz being involved at any level.
For the Republicans:
Donald Trump - 32.93 % 38
Marco Rubio - 22.38 %
Ted Cruz - 21.76 %
Jeb Bush - 8.13 %
John Kasich 7.96 %
Ben Carson 6.85 %
For the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - 52.53%
Bernie Sanders - 47.41%
I'm beginning to think that Trump may in fact win the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side it's perhaps not that obvious,
I shudder at the thought of a Trump vs. Clinton election and yet that's better than Cruz being involved at any level.
Friday, February 19, 2016
An Article about Social Security
I was reading an article about why there was no Social Security (SS) Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) this year and strategies one could follow to offset a future lack of COLA increases.
The article wasn't terribly informative but, as usual, the comments were.
I understand that a lot of people are angry but their anger is based largely upon misunderstandings.
Let's start with an observation. People are pissed off at "people in Washington." I can understand that but before you allow that anger to drive your actions learn how the system works.
It's amazing now many people believe things are are just not true.
- Illegal immigrants don't collect SS. As a matter of fact they pay about $15 billion a year into SS without any hope of ever collecting benefits.
- Obama doesn't control how money is spent. Obama didn't give illegal immigrants a raise because illegal immigrants collect no benefits. Besides, Congress would have to approve any such allocation.
- Medicaid is not paid out of the SS fund. There is separate federal/state funding for Medicaid.
- No one except Congress with approval by the President can divert money from the SS fund and the only diversion this year was into the disability fund which has been a part of SS since its inception in 1935.
- People aren't getting Obamacare for free.
- If you have a retiree health insurance plan from the state or the military these plans require you to have Medicare A and B and provide a Medicare supplement. SS is not forcing you to pay for something (Medicare) that you don't use.
Now, in general terms people are angry because they vaguely understand that Congress isn't giving them any help. Well, who's fault is that? The re-election rate for Congress is 96%. If you're looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
You don't like the way things are? Do you have any idea how your Congressman stands on the things you don't like? Do you even fucking know who your Congressman is?
The article wasn't terribly informative but, as usual, the comments were.
I understand that a lot of people are angry but their anger is based largely upon misunderstandings.
Let's start with an observation. People are pissed off at "people in Washington." I can understand that but before you allow that anger to drive your actions learn how the system works.
It's amazing now many people believe things are are just not true.
- Illegal immigrants don't collect SS. As a matter of fact they pay about $15 billion a year into SS without any hope of ever collecting benefits.
- Obama doesn't control how money is spent. Obama didn't give illegal immigrants a raise because illegal immigrants collect no benefits. Besides, Congress would have to approve any such allocation.
- Medicaid is not paid out of the SS fund. There is separate federal/state funding for Medicaid.
- No one except Congress with approval by the President can divert money from the SS fund and the only diversion this year was into the disability fund which has been a part of SS since its inception in 1935.
- People aren't getting Obamacare for free.
- If you have a retiree health insurance plan from the state or the military these plans require you to have Medicare A and B and provide a Medicare supplement. SS is not forcing you to pay for something (Medicare) that you don't use.
Now, in general terms people are angry because they vaguely understand that Congress isn't giving them any help. Well, who's fault is that? The re-election rate for Congress is 96%. If you're looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
You don't like the way things are? Do you have any idea how your Congressman stands on the things you don't like? Do you even fucking know who your Congressman is?
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa
I simply hate it when I forget my own rules.
Yesterday I accepted a quote claiming that Charles Schumer (D-NY) said the following in a speech to the American Constitution Society in 2007.
"I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."
Perhaps my dislike of Schumer made me willing to accept that he said this when there was a possibility the shoe might be on the other foot in nominating a Supreme Court justice.
Besides, it was a hypothetical situation that never actually came up so it didn't strike me as being terribly important.
I forgot about the old quote mine. The dishonest practice of taking a quote out of context in order to change its meaning. In context, this is what Schumer actually said.
"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."
In other words he was talking not allowing another far right conservative on the court despite verbal assurances that they would abide by precedent and NOT about blocking any and all Bush nominees.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to approve a far left nominee that couldn't be relied upon to respect precedent under ANY circumstances.
So Schumer was talking about something totally different than what the Republicans are talking about doing.
The rule I forgot was to always, always, ALWAYS verify quotes especially when they so conveniently support someones position.
Yesterday I accepted a quote claiming that Charles Schumer (D-NY) said the following in a speech to the American Constitution Society in 2007.
"I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances."
Perhaps my dislike of Schumer made me willing to accept that he said this when there was a possibility the shoe might be on the other foot in nominating a Supreme Court justice.
Besides, it was a hypothetical situation that never actually came up so it didn't strike me as being terribly important.
I forgot about the old quote mine. The dishonest practice of taking a quote out of context in order to change its meaning. In context, this is what Schumer actually said.
"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."
In other words he was talking not allowing another far right conservative on the court despite verbal assurances that they would abide by precedent and NOT about blocking any and all Bush nominees.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to approve a far left nominee that couldn't be relied upon to respect precedent under ANY circumstances.
So Schumer was talking about something totally different than what the Republicans are talking about doing.
The rule I forgot was to always, always, ALWAYS verify quotes especially when they so conveniently support someones position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
