Past GOP Presidents & Taxes

I find myself in agreement with Ronald Reagan on the tax issue. There is no good reason why capital gains shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as earned income.

Millions Living In Extreme Poverty In U.S.

We already know that about 50% of the American population is living in conditions described as "near poverty" -- defined as living on an income of less than double the official poverty level. That's more than 156,000,000 people living under or close to the poverty level as defined by the government (and those living close are only a paycheck or two from dropping below the poverty level themselves). We also know that at least one out of every five children in this country lives in a family with an income below the official poverty level.

Those numbers show just how serious the recession has been for Americans. But there are other numbers that are even more disheartening -- the numbers of those who are currently living in "extreme poverty" in the United States. In 2000, the percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty was 4.5. By 2010, that percentage had grown to 6.7. That's a growth of about 48.89%.

Extreme poverty is defined as an income below half of the official government poverty level -- or below $5,851 for a single person or $11,509 for a family of four. Now 6.7% may not sound like a large number to some of you, but what it means is that more than 21,000,000 Americans are now living in extreme poverty. And the percentage of people slipping into extreme poverty is the fastest growing segment of people in the bottom 50% of the population.

How can our members of Congress (most of whom are rich) sleep at night in light of these numbers -- especially the Republicans, who want to make large cuts in our social safety net. Do they simply not care about these fellow Americans (as long as they can give their rich buddies larger tax cuts)?

Even with our current troubled economy, the United States is still the richest nation on this planet. How is it possible for such a nation to justify allowing over 21 million of its citizens to live in extreme poverty? It's not possible, and any attempt to do so is not just mean-spirited -- it is downright immoral.

A Simple Plan

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Is Stupid A Republican Value ?

The presidency of George W. Bush is not so far in the past, and every American should remember just what the Bush administration did to this country. The Bush administration followed policies that created the biggest gap between the rich and the rest of America since before the Great Depression, deregulated Wall Street causing a meltdown that robbed the American people of trillions of dollars (and then bailed out the giant banks responsible for it), kicked off a recession that caused the loss of millions of American jobs, encouraged the outsourcing of millions more American jobs, gave massive tax cuts to the rich, and started two unnecessary and prolonged wars.

Now anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense would not want to repeat those mistakes. But the Republicans seem to have learned nothing from the mistakes of the Bush administration. Instead, they have now nominated a clone of Bush to be their nominee in the upcoming presidential election. Now some of you may think this is simply ignorance (a lack of knowledge of the facts) instead of stupidity (knowledge of the facts but refusing to accept them). I would disagree. Romney does not use Bush's name, but he has made it very clear that he will follow the same foreign, economic, and social policies instituted by George W. Bush.

As I said, the Bush administration was not that long ago. Anyone of voting age knows what happened during the Bush presidency -- they saw it with their own eyes. And yet they have decided to support a man who has nothing better to offer than a repeat of the failed Bush presidency. To me, that fits the definition of stupid. But there is more evidence that "stupid" may have actually become a Republican value.

About a month and a half ago, Dartmouth University commissioned a poll. The poll was done by YouGov Polling between April 26th and May 2nd (and had a margin of error of 3.18 points). A couple of the poll's questions show that Republicans refuse to accept facts that have repeatedly been proven to be true. Here they are:

DID IRAQ HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEN INVADED BY THE U.S. IN 2003?
Yes...............62.9%
Don't know...............19.6%
No...............17.5%

WAS BARACK OBAMA BORN IN THE UNITED STATES?
No...............63.6%
Don't know...............14.7%
Yes...............21.9%

It is absolutely incredible that anyone could still have either of these beliefs today. Iraq was scoured for any kind of mass destruction weapons, and none could be found. And that fact was widely reported by all news media. And the birthplace of President Obama has long since been proven by the release of both the long and short form birth certificates, and repeated statements from Hawaiian officials (not to mention newspaper accounts from the time of his birth).

Anyone believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or Obama was born in a foreign country is not ignorant of the facts. They know the facts, but just refuse to accept them (especially since 79.3% of them claim to closely follow the news). And that is just stupid. Even worse, they seem to be proud of their stupidity.

That's why I asked whether stupidity has become a Republican value. For at least a large majority of the current Republican Party, I think the answer to that question is quite obvious.

Job Openings

Political Cartoon is by Jeff Danziger at danzigercartoons.com.

Iran And Nuclear Power

Iran is developing a nuclear power program. That everyone knows. What is in question is whether they will use that program to also develop a nuclear weapon. The Western powers claim they will (or are already doing so), while Iran claims it is just developing a peaceful program to supply their country with electricity.

There has been a lot written about Iran and its possible uses for their nuclear program, but one of the best articles I have read is from my friend and fellow blogger over at Thurman's Notebook. He calls his post "Talking Persian Atomic Blues", and this is what he says:

 We hear a lot of big talk coming out of Washington these days regarding Iran’s “nuclear energy program.”

“Oh no, the evil brown people are ’bout to get a nukular bomb, Thelma Lou! We gotta nip it in the bud! Nip it, nip it, nip it!”

Developing a nuclear energy program might be a sensible option for any nation to think about these days. Let’s be honest, no matter how much oil there is left in the ground, the prospect of extracting it and putting it to constructive use gets more expensive and less economical every year; never mind the environmental costs of burning the stuff. If I were trying to build a sustainable energy program for a developing nation today, nuclear energy would probably be on my list of things to look into.

Don’t get me wrong, I have big qualms with nuclear energy. Having witnessed the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents during my formative years I’m not exactly comfortable with the idea; but the older I get and the deeper I dig into the real electricity needs of an advanced western civilization, the more nuclear energy looks like a viable option. Why shouldn’t the folks in Iran and other less developed countries be thinking that way to?

Of course the real issue is the suspicion that the Iranians have an ulterior motive; building a nuclear weapon. We’re kind of like the pot calling the kettle black since we not only have nuclear weapons of our own, but we also helped several of Iran’s neighbors to obtain theirs. Let’s not forget that in helping Iran’s peers to obtain said nukes, our government acted in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; a treaty which, incidentally, Iran signed when several of it’s neighbors refused.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers; Russia, China, Pakistan, India, American occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, all have access to atomic weapons. And let’s not forget about the Zionists over in Israel; possibly the biggest threat to Iranian sovereignty and security in the region. Brother Tim, over at the Blog of Revelation, got it exactly right when he asked, “How would you like to be the only one in your neighborhood without a gun?”

Iran’s mistrust and disgust with western powers, especially the British and Americans, goes back fifty years or more and are not without justification.

In 1951, the Iranian parliament elected Mohammed Mossadegh prime minister and he set about working to nationalize the oil industry, Iran’s most valuable natural resource, so that the profits could be used for the benefit of the Iranian people. In 1953, at the request of the British government, the Eisenhower administration sent in the CIA and the resulting coup returned to power the Shah, a brutal dictator and a puppet of the West.

I have to admit, I’d be more than a little bit pissed off if somebody subverted my democratically elected leaders in order to benefit of a few multinational corporations.

Do I think the Iranians have gone about addressing these issues in the most diplomatic way possible? No, of course not, nor do I condone the way either side has managed the issue, but threatening to drop our big military dime on them is not constructive. We would all be better served by making a greater effort to understand and alleviate the reasons why the Iranians, and anyone else for that matter, feels the need for nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and once a nation has them, it’s neighbors are much less apt to attack. The Iranian people are intelligent, thoughtful people with a long and rich cultural history. They are not suicidal, jihadist maniacs hell bent on death and destruction at any cost. In modern times they have neither invaded nor attacked any other nation. Odds are they just want to live peacefully and be left alone, and isn’t that pretty much what we all want?

Chinese Casino Money

Political Cartoon is by Jeff Danziger at danzigercartoons.com.

Blaming Muslims

Found at the blog of Yellowdog Granny.

Is The United States A Socialist Nation ?

We hear the word "socialism" thrown around a lot these days by those on the right. Some of them claim we are fast becoming a socialist nation, while many other right-wingers say we are already there. And some of them use the word "socialism" interchangeably with "fascism" and "communism" -- as though the three meant the same thing. They don't.

I thought with all of the ridiculous right-wing ideas floating around, maybe this would be a good time to explain just what socialism is, and examine whether or not the United States is a socialist country (or on the road to becoming a socialist country). The first thing that needs to be cleared up is that socialism, despite what many right-wing ideologues want you to believe, is NOT a form of government (like democracy, plutocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.). It is an economic system. Further, it is an economic system that can only truly exist in a true democracy or a representative democracy.

First, let me define exactly what a socialism is. I will use the definition I learned back in college, because it is still the best definition I've heard. There are three aspects to socialism -- the socialist intent, the social safety net, and the government ownership of industry critical to the nation. To meet the definition of a "socialist nation", the "socialist intent" is required along with at least one of the other two aspects. So, does the United States meet this definition? Is it truly a socialist nation? Let's examine each of the three socialist aspects as they relate to the United States.

SOCIAL SAFETY NET

The United States has adopted at least a rudimentary social safety net, which tries to prevent any of its citizens from falling through the cracks of society into an abject and debilitating poverty. One of the oldest of the socialist programs in this country is free public education. Free public education has been a remarkably effective program, giving many a path to upward mobility and making this nation a leader in the world. The program is not without its problems these days (largely due to underfunding and community apathy), but I would venture to say that nearly all Americans approve of free public education and would not want it to go away.

Then there is Social Security. This program has brought us from a majority of the elderly living in poverty to less than 10% in poverty today. It has also been remarkably effective in achieving it purpose. Medicare is the same. Because of medicare, all people over the age of 65 now have a decent level of medical care. Polls have shown that a huge majority of Americans approve of these two programs and do not want them abolished -- even though they are socialist programs.

Another social safety net program is unemployment insurance. This prevents a worker who has lost his/her job through no fault of his/her own efforts, to have some income while looking for another job. Without the program, many of these workers would fall into poverty almost immediately. Again, this is a socialist program with large community support.

Then we have the programs designed to help the truly poor. Some of these people need help for only a short time (due to an economic or other tragedy in their life), while others may need help for the remainder of their life (because of some kind of disability). These are programs like Aid To Families With Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Housing Assistance. There can be discussion over whether these programs work as well as they should, but only the hardest-hearted among us would want to abolish them altogether.

There may be other socialist safety net programs, but that is enough for this discussion. It is obvious that the United States has created and maintains the social safety net aspect of socialism. Whether it is inadequate, excessive, or at a correct level can be debated, but it is doubtful that most Americans would like to do without it.

OWNERSHIP OF CRITICAL INDUSTRY BY GOVERNMENT

This aspect doesn't need a lot of discussion. Our federal government does not own any industries -- critical or otherwise. Some state and local governments have assumed ownership of power plants or water suppies, but even most of these are owned by private interests. Critical industries, like the steel industry, are privately owned. And even in the huge military/industrial complex, which relies on government money to survive, production is controlled by and profits go to private owners. This aspect of socialism simply does not exist in the United States.

SOCIALIST INTENT

That leaves us with the final aspect of socialism -- the socialist intent (a requirement for a socialist nation). The socialist intent is to put individual citizens in charge of their own lives (including and especially economically). This would be true of the top 10% of Americans (and particularly the top 1%), but it is not true for the vast majority of the other 90% of Americans.

Most Americans are still at the mercy of corporations and businesses for their economic well-being, and they have little to no control over that. For a short while in this country, as unionism was growing, there was some movement toward this, but it has stopped. With the decline of unions and the rise of corporate power, the United States is actually moving away from putting individuals in charge of their own lives right now, and government policies like "trickle-down" economics has hastened this movement toward a corporate plutocracy (which is the exact opposite of the socialist intent).

The "socialist intent" has not been accomplished in the United States, and it is unlikely to be accomplished at any time in the near future. And the more this nation moves from a democracy to a plutocracy, the more it moves away from both the intent and reality of socialism.

CONCLUSION

Is the United States a socialist nation? No, it is not. While the United States democracy does have some socialist programs (programs that are popular even with Americans saying they abhor "socialism"), the United States is not a socialist democracy. It lacks both the government ownership of critical industry, and more importantly, the socialist intent.

The Future (GOP Version)

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Ignoring The Real Danger To Satisfy Bigotry

This nation has had two major terrorist attacks in recent years (and a bevy of smaller attacks). The major attacks are the Oklahoma City bombing on 4-19-1995 and the attack on New York City on 9-11-2001. Both of these were terrible tragedies, and it is understandable the House Committee on Homeland Security would want to investigate terrorism in this country. What is not understandable is how the committee investigation is being conducted.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-New York), is not investigating all of the terroristic threats to the United States. It is, thanks to the myopia of chairman King, only investigating the muslim community. Why is this happening? Well, here is what Rep. King recently said in a Fox News interview:

. . .the fact is even though Muslims are 1 percent of the population, almost 90 percent of the terrorist crimes are carried out by the Muslim community.

King is either the most misinformed member of Congress, or the most outrageous and bigoted liar in that institution. Not only was the Oklahoma City bombing not done by a muslim (but by a right-wing christian nut), but a quick perusal of the chart above shows that most of the terrorism in this country since 1995 was done by right-wing groups -- not muslims.

In fact, 56% of those terroristic acts have been done by right-wing terrorists, and another 30% were done by ecoterrorists. Only about 12% were done by muslims (and the remaining 2% were by anarchists). By concentrating on muslims, Rep. King has his committee ignoring 88% of the terroristic threat to this country.

I find it difficult to believe that a congressman, especially one chairing the Committee of Homeland Security, could be this misinformed. I'm sure the FBI would be more than happy to provide him with the truth (and probably have done so). That leaves only bigotry as the reason for the committee's faulty investigation.

Rep. Peter King has the stench of religious bigotry all over him.

Playing Politics

Political Cartoon is by Lee Judge in the Kansas City Star.

Please Let This Be True

The National Review (a right-wing publication) is reporting that the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney is seriously vetting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. They say that Ryan has submitted paperwork to the Romney campaign. When National Review asked Ryan and his aides about this, they were told, "Respecting their campaign's internal process, we're not going to comment."

That "no comment" response makes it sound like the story is true. If Ryan wasn't being seriously considered (and had submitted his information), he could do like many others and simply deny he is being considered. People who really aren't being considered, like Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels, don't seem to have any problem issuing a flat denial.

I hope this is true. I really do. I would love for Willard Mitt Romney to pick Ryan as his running mate. While there may be some small doubt as to what Romney thinks of Medicare (a very popular program with most Americans), there is no doubt what Paul Ryan thinks about it. He wants to abolish Medicare -- and he's proposed two budgets that would do exactly that.

Picking Paul Ryan as his running mate would allow the Democrats to pound the Medicare issue all the way to election day. Ryan, thanks to his view on Medicare, would be a giant albatross around Romney's neck.

Please let this be true!

Pay To Playstation

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.