JUST ANOTHER LIE, BUT....

From time to time I listen to Rush Limbaugh and humiliate and embarrass him here. But to do it on a regular basis would be a full time job and, frankly, it gets boring. It is fun to watch him react when I call him out, though.

Recently I crushed one of his tea drinkers on a public website when he mimicked Rush and claimed that Congress makes the budget and the President only says “yes” or “no”. The stooge went on to berate “low information voters”. I destroyed him when I pointed out that President is required by law to present a budget to Congress. That, I pointed out, is his job. One of the very important aspect of his job. Congress approves the budget. They're the ones saying “yes” or “no”.

Apparently this moron was a very important associate of Rush's since Limbaugh is now trying to once again weasel his way out of his lying and has been trying to inform his brain dead followers. Now he finally has his facts straight. Now he's doing his usual backpedaling and complaining that Obama isn't doing his job...submitting a budget. Just...like...I...said. And Rush still won't admit that he reads this. At least his listeners are finally getting some truth.

But that's not why I'm writing this. If I referenced every time I sliced Rush or one of his stooges to pieces...well, like I said, it would be a full time job. But today Rush told such a big lie, such a blatant lie, such a whooper of a lie that I just had to flog him in public yet again.

After referencing some interview between Anderson Cooper and John (I have no idea who he is, either) King, Rush was livid that they would dare compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan! Of course he got that 100% wrong. Or, to be more accurate, he once again blatantly lied about it. (BTW, listen to Rush in the coming days and count the number of times he says 'blatant lie”. Hi Rush!)

I won't go in to the absurdity that he stumbled through. Eventually the whole point of his rambling was to make the unfounded claim that Democrats were desperately trying to compare Obama to Reagan...for some reason. He ended his rant by saying (quoted directly from his website) “But just so you know, by his fourth year in office, if you want a comparison, by his fourth year in office, after Reagan's policies of cutting taxes, reducing regulations, we were in the midst of massive economic growth.”

Unless he is indeed a blatant liar, Rush seems to think that “massive economic growth” is an unemployment rate of 7.3%. It seems that during Reagan's first four years that unemployment went from 7.5% to (drum roll, please) 7.3%, after peaking at 10.8% (taken directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website). So let's compare. Obama came in to office with a 7.8% unemployment rate and at the end of his first term had a rate of 7.8% with a peak of 10%. Hmmmm. Does that difference of ½ of a per cent make the difference between a crashing economy and massive economic growth? Rush seems to think so. He may be right but that would be a first.

The indisputable fact is, they are pretty much the same by any reasonable comparison. Not that anyone should care. The point is Limbaugh is praising Reagan for having a dazzling economy that isn't any different then the one we have now. Can you say “major hypocrite”?

THEY ARE LYING

As the country nears the dreaded, though fictional fiscal cliff some blabber is turning toward Medicare cuts. Let me tell you here and now, no matter what you hear, no matter what they may be saying, they are lying.

No, nobody's “stretching the truth”. Nobody is putting any “spin” on it. THEY ARE LYING. Get that? All it takes is some very simple research to get the truth. No part of the fiscal cliff involves Medicare. Here's the undeniable, indisputable truth.

Directly from the government's own website. “Medicare is paid for through two trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.” And where do those funds come from? Again, from your government's own website. “Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed. Other sources, such as income taxes paid on Social

Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Part A premiums from people who

aren’t eligible for premium-free Part A.”

Know what you're contribution to medicare is? It's 1.45% of your income. It's part of your payroll tax (the other part is 4.2% for social security). Your employer pays a matching amount. Everybody with a job pays it...at least as far as I can determine. There's probably some exceptions involving civil servants (there always is) and some other deals arranged by special interest groups that we never were told about. But, in general, every week the government collects 2.9 cents for every dollar paid to every person who has a job...regardless of their wages. If you work for minimum wage at McDonald's, part time, you will pay 1.45 cents out of every dollar you earn. Mickie Dee will pay an additional 1.45 cents. So even if you work 10 hours a week at $7.50/hour you will pay $1.08 in federal taxes specifically to fund Medicare. And the people writing the check will match that. That also holds true if you're an investment banker earning the magical $250,000 a year. That 1.45% comes out to $3,625 plus the matching contribution from the firm they work for. And, by the way, those leeches on disability? They pay that 1.45% federal medicare tax, too. And the federal social security tax. I mention that only in passing and to point out that anyone repeating the blatant lie that “47% of the population don't pay any federal taxes” is an ignorant fool. And you're being played big time.

So when it comes to cutting government spending what's the point in focusing on Medicare? It's a separate fund. The government says so. Last year, Medicare spent $549,000,000,000 to help 48,700,000 Americans. We've spent over $800,000,000,000 on the war in Iraq with no funding for it. It was all borrowed money. The problems facing Medicare are mostly fabricated. Because of high unemployment the fund isn't collecting as much as it should. The current lie is based on the assumption that employment won't increase substantially in the near future and wages won't go up. If I have to explain how that works to you, maybe you should join the Tea Party.

The simple (non-political) solution is to “temporarily” raise the Medicare tax. Think your paycheck can take the hit? The kid working the drive-thru probably won't miss another buck o eight from their check. But think of all the damage it might do if Billy Gotbucks has to pay another $3,625. That might effect his annual tax deductible contribution to the GOP. Is there an alternative? Of course. Instead of doubling the tax how about a 50% increase? And why not tax all income at the same rate? You know, investment income. Hell, if we just taxed investment income at the current 1.45% rate there would be no need to raise anybody else's rate.

Take Mitt Romney for example. In the last two tax returns he allowed the public to see he earned over $42,600,000, most of it in capital gains. Most of it was not subjected to the 1.45% medicare tax (if any). Overall he paid about 14% in taxes. Including his Medicare taxes and Social Security taxes in to that may bump it up to 15%...less then you probably paid. Try as I might, I'm not seeing how paying the full 1.45% on all his income would alter his life style. So how about that? Instead of raising the tax rate how about everybody paying the same rate on all their income? The kid at the fast food joint and the multimillionaire all pay the same rate. The same penny and almost-a-half on every dollar earned. And millions of fellow citizens get medical care. I don't see a downside. But your Congressman does.

We're headed for a fiscal cliff and the only way to avoid it is to cut medical care for those that need it most. I can't imagine the stupidity involved in making that assessment. How Medicare is even involved in the issue defies rational explanation. But then again, we're talking about Congress. There's no component of the National Debt involving Medicare except for the part where the government borrowed the excess funds and has to pay it back. It's clear that anybody even mentioning Medicare as part of the solution is nothing more then a liar.

NAIL IN THE COFFIN #104

As with a lot of the “minor” reasons the Republican Party is about to plunge over a cliff of their own, the current ripple of secessionists petitioning the White House is one of the most telling. Leading the pack, to no one's surprise, is the great state (soon to be an independent nation?) of Texas. As I write this, a petition to the government to “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government” leads the pack with some 111,000 signatures. That's almost twice the number of the third most popular petition, legalizing marijuana (58,000). What's that tell you?

Also in the mix are Louisiana (28,446), Florida (21,270), Georgia (20,026), Alabama (19,862), and a bunch more, including New York with 11,217 signatures. When a petition hits 25,000 signatures within 30 days it is supposed to generate a response from the White House.

The governor of Texas ( and former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination), Rick Perry, has (through a spokesperson) come out and said he no has interest in succeeding despite what he may have indicated in the past. Ah, good old Conservative Republicans. They never actually “say that” and yet, thousands of people “heard” that. No wonder they have such a hard time communicating their message.

Just before election day I thought I heard Rush Limbaugh suggest that on the day after the election, if Obama won, that perhaps the country should divide itself between red and blue states and see how each half does. Of course, he didn't suggest that himself, he was just sharing an e-mail he had gotten from “a friend”. Hell, he didn't actually mean it.

The whole secession concept is absurd. It's stupid. And everyone knows it. Probably most of the signers of such petitions understand that, too. But they want to send a message. And just what is their message? They think they're telling the country “We don't like the direction our nation is headed and we want our country back!”. What they're actually saying is “We have no idea what America is all about and refuse to accept the will of the people expressed through the process our country was founded on. So there!”.

The threat of secession isn't new. It was called the “Civil War”. Of course various groups roll out the whole secession thing in a more subtle manner now. Remember Sarah Palin? Her husband, Skeeter (or something like that), was part of a group aspiring independence for Alaska. Now Conservatives are petitioning the White House (one of the freedoms I believe they'll put in their own Constitutions) to “Peacefully grant the State of (put your state here) to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government”. SPOILER ALERT! It's not going to happen.

Right now, the topic is a joke. It hardly rated comment from John Stewart. Sean Hannity tried to jump start it, Rush Limbaugh won't touch it, and the general consensus is “let 'em”. And that's too bad. It's not Liberal Democrats petitioning the White House for independence. They have better things to do...like getting marijuana legal. And a better chance. No, while I'm sure all six members of the Libertarian Party are involved, it's pretty obvious this whole thing has been set in motion by Conservative Republicans. You know, the guys that lost the last election (again)? The guys claiming they love America, they love the Constitution and all that, but don't want to recognize the will of the people. The country's headed in the wrong direction and now they want to jump off the train. Patriots.

The Republican Party should be glad the main stream media is letting this one die and just treating it as a novelty item. The message they think they're sending has been coming out of Fox News for years. What the growing majority is hearing is a bunch of spoiled whiners who don't want to play by the rules. The real message here is how the Republican Party is slowly working it's way to irrelevancy. If the whole secession idea had (or maybe it still can) caught on any real Republican would have to distance themselves from it. And that would piss off the base. That “base”, anyway. And there's always a whacky third party advocating that particular issue. And they can't afford to lose even that little voting block.

But most importantly, whether this concept gains any real traction or not, it would seem Republicans tend to forget this is the “United States”. We all work together. What exactly would the country of Florida do if a couple of hurricanes hit? Heck, what would the country of New New York do after hurricane Sandy? Seems like we're all in this together. And that's the whole idea.

Remember Republicans, in 2016 how many people do you think are going to want to vote for the guy that advocating separating their state from the rest of the country? Somebody's going to bring it up. I know I will. This alone won't sink you (though I don't know why) but it is another of the hundreds of nails you've put in to your coffin.

I COULD ALMOST VOTE FOR ROMNEY

Sometimes I'm not as smart as I like to think. Sometimes major events happen around me and I fail to notice. Take for instance the unemployment numbers. I generally hear them, shrug, and laugh out loud at anyone's interpretation containing the word or words “improving”, “up tick”, “positive” or whatever happy adjective one could apply to 380,000 people losing their jobs. And if it wasn't for Mitt, I never even thought for a minute that 342,000 of those 380,000 were women!

How did that major story escape the attention of the national press? According to the numbers Mitt provided, week in, week out something like 9 out of every 10 people filing for unemployment were/are women! That's a national disgrace!

Not even Fox News paid any attention until Mitt pointed that out. Personally, I'm stunned. Seriously, I find that revelation hard to swallow but since not a single person has come forward to disagree and, in fact, Mitt has the full weight of Fox behind him.

Not that I would doubt Mitt or Fox I decided to just check it out. After all, that's such a major, major, major story it deserves more then a casual mention.

I started at the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since this happened exclusively during the Obama administration I found that 8,924,000 people were unemployed at the end of 2008. At the end of 2011 13,747,000 people were out of work. Over that three year period 4,823,000 jobs were lost. Bad in general, but much, much worse for women! Of those 4,823,000 jobs lost, 4,437,160 were lost by women! Good news for the guys, though. Only 385,840 men lost theirs. That comes out to scant 2,473 jobs lost by men on a weekly basis. Women on the other hand were losing 28,443 jobs a week and nobody noticed! At least nobody mentioned it until Mitt did! What a guy!

Not being a drone from Fox News or a desperate idiot Conservative or Teabagger I figured why not check the unemployment numbers for both men and women during those years. At the end of 2008, 2,782,000 women were unemployed. For men, the number was 3,727,000. At the end of 2011, 4,440,000 women were unemployed and 6,476,000 men. Huh? For one thing the numbers don't add up. From the end of 2008 to the end of 2011, 1,662,000 women lost their jobs as opposed to the 2,749,000 men that did. That's 37.7% of the lost jobs belonging to women and 62.3% were men.

Here's a direct quote from Mitt: "Do you know how many women - what percent of the job losses were women? 92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years has been women who've lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy," he said.”

It sounds fantastic and fishy and indeed, it turns out to be a bald faced LIE! But I admit, I am a bit confused. It was pretty obvious he was lying. That “92.3%” number sounds outrageous and indeed, it is. As Republicans/Conservatives/Teabaggers know, the bigger the lie the more likely simple minds will believe it.

Now I'm sure the strategy here is to throw that outlandish number out there, have a back-up lie to cover your ass, and then let your mindless accomplices run with it (see Fox News). In the event anybody actually would call him on that none sense I'm sure Mitt's handlers have their “spin” to put on it to make it look like poor Mitt is being hammered for something he didn't actually say/mean. And the suckers will buy it.

Meanwhile the Obama administration is in the awkward position of attacking the liar with a response that will have to highlight the job losses, a subject they wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll. Apparently no one in the media is bright enough to challenge that garbage (until they read this...and they will) and that number will be thrown around in the weeks ahead.

In any case, this isn't just a typical lie. This is a huge one. After being caught spouting this intentionally deceptive falsehood there is simply no way any one could ever believe a thing that comes out of his worthless mouth.

A BIT OF TRUTH

So Rush lied again today. Nothing new there but this one was so big, such a whopper that I simply can't ignore it. Not to mention that he did it within 15 minutes of starting his show and announcing that he is 99.7% accurate. He does that a lot. While I don't have the time or inclination to prove that a lie I'll start with a real overt one. I can't quote him exactly but what he did say was that President Obama has raised the National Debt more in three years then the last three presidents combined. Of course that simply isn't true and anyone just partially aware of reality and having more then a few dozen brain cells would immediately know he was wrong. So, for all you Rush listeners I'll demonstrate exactly how wrong he is.

The last three Presidents were George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George H.W. Bush (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents ).

Since the President is sworn and his term starts January 20 I will use those dates. That would mean I need to check out the day George H.W. Bush took office (January 20, 1989) to the day Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009.

My resource for the debt is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ that offers a program to find the debt to the penny. Unfortunately it doesn't have a starting point in 1989 to use the direct calculation so the best I could do was November 29, 1989. Then it was $2,857,430,960,187.32. When Obama took office the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08 So, the last three presidents increased the debt $7,769,446,088,725.68 (actually a bit more since Bush got a pass for 8 months).

Today the debt is $15,585,576,040,333.70. That makes the current administration liable for $4,958,698,991,420.62 substantially less then the $7,769,446,088,725.68 Rush claims. That number is staggering, the burden is horrendous, and many factors play in to those numbers. But I'm not here to analyze that right now. I'm just proving Rush is a liar. It is, after all, totally and undeniably 100% not true that Obama increased the debt more then the last three presidents combined. (Side note: if I went strictly by the 3 year claim he made it would be less since on January 20, 2012 the debt was $15,236,271,879,792.78 but that's not necessary since I proved Rush wrong anyway).

After he or one of his staff members read this Rush may very well try and cover his butt by once again diverting attention and manufacturing some other lies but I'll cut him off at the knees right now. George H.W. Bush presided over a 46% increase in four years. William J. Clinton saw about a 30% increase over eight years, and George W. Bush ran up an increase of over 100% in his eight years. So far, Barack Obama has seen an increase of 32% in just under four years. Good thing he left out Reagan who also doubled the debt in his eight years.

Just the facts, just the truth. 

LET'S GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT

(Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams 1770)

ALL (without any exception that I have ever experienced) politicians are liars. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals. In fact, lying in politics is so pervasive that supporters of both parties knowingly buy in to the lies , perpetuate the lies, and support the lies and, I suspect, do so knowing they are lies. There are still plenty of people running around screaming “Death Panels” in response to so-called Obama Care. If you happen to be one of those keep your ignorant opinions to yourself and just go some where else.

While it's totally impossible to chronicle every lie and I get a real laugh when reading supposed “fact checker” sites there are some indisputable facts one needs to seriously consider before deciding to support a candidate. So I'm going to clarify a very salient fact … we have not had a balanced budget in over 50 years. The last time the national budget was “balanced” was in 1955 when the debt was $274,374,222,802.62 and dropped to $272,750,813,649.32 in 1956. That was followed by another drop to $270,527,171,896.43 in 1957. The following year the debt ballooned to $276,343,217,745.81 and has not seen a reduction since. Therefore, the last president to achieve a balanced budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Republican if you think that really matters) back 1956. Plain, simple, and 100% indisputable.

In order to have a balanced budget regardless of the accounting tricks an administration may choose to use the proof is in the debt tally. One can simply not declare a balanced budget while the debt increases by billions of dollars on an annual basis. If you're spending less then you take in the debt will decrease. That is the only demonstration of a balanced budget. It has not happened in recent history.

Now I'm very much aware that many ignorant and/or lying supporters like to point to the Clinton administration as having achieved a balanced budget with some liars even declaring a surplus was generated but that clearly isn't true. During his administration the debt rose about 30% in eight years with no point that it actually decreased. Conclusion: Budget not balanced. By the way, that 30% translate to an increase of nearly $1,400,000,000,000 or an average growth of $175,000,000,000 a year. Hardly a budget anyone would call “balanced”. At least that's what an honest person would say.

I'm well aware of the more prominent accounting tricks and I'm sure there are multiple ways I'm not aware of to make it appear things are balanced but there is simply no way to avoid the hard fact that the debt is growing. It's pretty much like you pretending to have balanced your personal budget without taking in to account the ever growing balance on your credit cards. You haven't balanced your budget. Until you cover your expenses while paying down your debt, your budget is not balanced. Pretty simple.

I'm motivated to write this because, in particular, Newt Gingrich is running around taking credit for balancing the budget something like four years in a row while he was Speaker of the House. Since I'm pretty sure he didn't serve during the Eisenhower administration (though I haven't actually looked that up) he is lying and on more then one level. He's obviously appealing to the ignorant who believe the lie of Clinton's non-existent balanced budgets. Well, why not? If you believe one lie you're probably gullible enough to buy the other. But neither is true. The proof is right here.

Now, as I stated earlier, you can interpret (lie) about the budget in any number of ways but ultimately if you need to borrow almost two hundred billion dollars a year you haven't balanced anything. Credit where credit is due, he did reduce the rate of growth but did not balance the budget.

Of course there are multiple factors that occur every year during every administration that contribute to the deficit but that is what the job is all about. I've actually heard from more then one liar that Clinton was experiencing the benefits of Reaganomics which is a incredibly foolish thing to say. Clinton raised taxes. I'll leave the complete and utter failure of Reagan's voodoo economics for another time (like just in case some idiot is foolish enough to refer to it in some kind of positive manner).

Too many people will accept what ever drivel they get from their favorite source and cast their vote in a manner that will only encourage the lying. Most people really don't understand the debt, can't grasp the concept of a balanced budget, and will continue to weaken the country. Who has the answers? No one currently running for the job including the guy who now has it. But if you read this, at least you might be able to understand what kind of liars we're dealing with.  

Update

I'm putting Rush under more pressure then I realized and more then I had hoped for (tell him I said “Hi” by the way). Right after I posted the last blog I got in my car, turned on my radio and Rush was still harping on the “Post” story making sure (at least three times) that he mentioned the article was in yesterday's paper. While I'm sure he did mention that earlier I simply missed it. Now he was stressing it. In an obvious attempt to discredit any criticism that may come he probably felt safe emphasizing that the article was from yesterday, setting himself up to blow me off by simply saying something like “he never even read the story. How can he evaluate anything...blah, blah, blah”. And he would have a partial point except for the glaring fact that I admitted that and regardless, I was dead-on that he was once again evading the real issue.

And, just playing it safe, he took the opportunity to respond to a caller's comments that simply reading the article would not give anyone the impression he was trying to make. One had to read in to it like he did. So I did. Unlike his audience, I actually read the story and it bears absolutely no resemblance to the article he talked about.

Now since I didn't listen to his entire borecast I can't say for sure he quoted anything from it but if he did I didn't hear it. There's plenty to quote no matter what side you're on

“That last condition was a problem. For years, Democrats have mocked the Republican argument that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy, an assertion for which evidence is scant. Many independent budget experts say the effect, if it exists, would be almost impossible to measure and useless in crafting a budget. Fiscal “snake oil,” some Democrats say.”

See, I almost fell for it! The whole point of the article was describe the sausage-making that took place during debate over raising the debt ceiling. The article clearly reflected the opinion of the author and participants of both sides of the deal making lied about what actually happened. What is very, very, very, very clear is that the Republicans refuse to raise tax rates despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence that it is the only viable solution to the rising debt.

He can not make a case otherwise so he avoids discussing the real issue. And he's on very safe ground knowing full well his listeners won't bother reading the story themselves and those that do will view it with Rush's unique slant. Once again he avoids the real problem and manufactures a totally irrelevant scenario to avoid any focus on the real issues.

Sorry that this may be a little fragmented and rambling but I don't have the luxury of time but the point is clear and easy to make. Now I have to post this and once again ruin Rush's day. His show is about to start and I want to make sure he sees this so I can tune in and hear him fumble to try and evade the facts yet again.

Faster Response Then I Anticipated

True to form (though a bit faster then I anticipated) the right-wing is already trying to hide the truth by trying to deflect attention from the point I made in my previous post. Right now, as I write this, Rush Limbaugh (whose staff has apparently been closely monitoring this blog) has rolled out some insignificant article he scrounged from the Washington Post purporting to portray the president as an obstructionist when debate over raising the debt ceiling was in full play. As always his observations are laughable but his pitiful attempt at obfuscation highlights more then a few elements of his consistent hypocrisy:

1) He's referencing the Washington Post! The unreliable, state run media organ. A source he continuously derides and criticizes. While I don't share his view of the 'liberal media" it is hypocritical for him to reference them. In fact, it is more proof that Rush only chooses to comment on stories that can be spun to buoy his beliefs.
2) I tried finding the article he was talking about, but I couldn't. Admittedly, I had a limited amount of time to do so but, it just wasn't any kind of major story and, judging by Rush's own comments, deservedly so.
3) While trying to steer people away from the the very significant point I made Rush has actually accentuated just how accurate I am. He simply can't address or deal with the facts exposed. Go ahead, re-read my last post. No way he can challenge me so he has to try and change the subject.

While I didn't think my insightful observation was all that significant it is clear that Conservatives/Republicans are more then anxious to keep anyone from thinking too much about how Republicans worked to keep the country down. Not mention additional proof that the Bush-Reagan tax cuts for the rich were detrimental to America.

Thanks Rush for once again proving how right I am.

I'm Back

With the presidential race looming I realized it's time for somebody to start telling the truth. While Republicans are rejoicing that the price of gas is rising and they can whole-heartily lie about how they can change that, they will also be deflecting attention from the rising National Debt they are 100% responsible for. My information comes from the most unlikely source...Fox News.

As equally surprising as getting some truth from Fox is their employment of Shepard Smith. This guy is actually a journalist who asks real questions and has a great deal of insight. I just can't imagine how he fits in to the Fox format.

The clip below is an interview Shep had with an "expert" regarding the then critical vote on raising the debt ceiling back in August. Don't just notice that the "expert" was dead wrong about the effect of the downgrade America got from S&P, but also try and notice how the two of them agreed on one very salient point:



The video was accompanied by an article that sort of boiled down the essence while avoiding the biggest point made in the interview. "...had they not extended the Bush era tax cuts...we'd be two (trillion) dollars better off then we are...". There was no disagreement on that by the guest. (Note: Shep actually said "two million dollars ahead" but he mis-spoke. The universal view is that the tax cuts cost the economy some $2,000,000,000,000 and Shep is smart enough to know that).

I certainly don't want Shep to lose his job over this but there it is, on Fox News of all places, that by forcing the president to extend the cuts that have obviously created no jobs we were forced by the Republicans to once again increase our debt despite what everyone at the time prophesied would be disastrous.

Now I know that too many people will view this as old news since the disscussion did take place last year, but the facts are the facts. I imagine shortly after I post this the link will be taken down but that will only help to prove my point.

Time For Some Truth

As the 2012 Presidential season begins to heat up so does the lying. One of the main issues should be (in a rational world) the economy. While I can understand why both parties will lamely try to dodge the issue, it will eventually come up and the lies will start pouring out. Unfortunately facts are facts and I finally found the time to compile the facts. The numbers are taken from www.treasurydirect.gov which may explain why dates are all September 30 instead of December 31. I also added the Presidents and their term with the Debt they inherited and the Debt they left. I separated the terms by using bold print. Since most people don't own a calculator (or don't know how to use one) I did a little math for you.

I put this together because I'm tired of hearing “unbiased” analysis and the results of “impartial” committees. I've been interested in this particular aspect of government ever since I heard that the National Debt had passed the $1,000,000,000,000 (Aside: I always write out those big dollar amounts. “One trillion dollars” doesn't nearly make the point a 1 followed by 12 zeroes makes) mark.

So here's the raw data with a few facts concerning the Presidential administrations associated with the Debt. Sorry I didn't lay it out neater but I lack the computer skill to format it any better without putting in a lot of time and I just don't want to bother. Besides, fancy graphs and colorful charts are designed to influence your perception.

And last, and most important, I am not unbiased. I've gone over these numbers many times in the past and things look pretty clear to me. I'll save that for the end.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999
5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993
4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992
4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991
3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990
3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989
2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988
2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987
2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986
2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985
* 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984
* 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983
* 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982
* 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981
* 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980
* 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979
* 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978
* 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977
* 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976
* 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975
* 533,189,000,000.00


Gerald Ford 1974-1977 $533,189.000.000 to $698,840,000,000 = $165,651,000,000 or an increase of almost 25%. That comes out to about $3,100 for every man, woman and child in the US.

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 $698,840,000,000.00 to $997,855,000,000.00 = $299015000000 or an increase of about 30%. That comes out to about $4348 per person.

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 $997,855,000,000.00 to $2,857,430,960,187.32 = $1,859,575,960,187.32 or an increase of slightly less then 100%. That comes out to about $11,577 per person.

George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 $2,857,430,960,187.32 to $4,411,488,883,139.38 = $1,554,057,922,952 or an increase of about 46%. That's about $17,115 per person.

Bill Clinton 1993-2001 $4,411,488,883,139.38 to $5,807,463,412,200.06 = $1,395,974,529,061 or an increase of about 30%. That's about $20,636 per person.

George W. Bush 2001-2009 $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,102,365,591,311 or increase over 100%. That's about $39,000 per person.

Barack Obama 2009- present $11,909,829,003,511.75 to $15,503,030,151,312 = $3,593,201,147,801 or an increase of about 32%. It's currently $49,631 per person.


So, what to do with the facts? If your a politician you can do one of two things: You can take the most common route and lie about the historical data or, being used to lying, you can embellish the facts with outrageous claims since a basic rule in politics is that you never let the facts speak for themselves.

It should go without saying that the raw data needs to be viewed in context with the events at the time. Of course I have already done that. That's one of the reasons I compiled this list. In future posts I'll be referencing it to prove various points. In the meantime, here are some facts that are clear and concise and can easily be verified by the above:

1) From the above data it is very clear that in the years listed above, we have never had a balanced budget. NEVER! When constructing a budget you can lie in any number of ways with any kind of accounting method you choose but the Debt is a nasty thing. It's the money we borrowed to cover expenses we don't have the income to meet. Consequently, at some point the debt shouldn't increase. At some point, the Debt should actually decrease. Never happened.
2) Every President on the above list inherited massive Debt from the previous administration. And you can go a lot further back in history and say the same about almost any President. At one point in time (1919) the Debt began to drop from $27,390,970,113.12 to $16,185,309,831.43 (1930). After the Great Depression the Debt rose 250% from 1931( 16,801,281,491) to 1940 ($42,967,531,037). Did we spend our way out of the Depression?
3) It's easy to distort the truth based on being selective. For instance, Ronald Reagan entered office with a Debt slightly under $1,000,000,000,000 and left office with the economy almost $3,000,000,000,000 in the red. After eight years in office the Reagan administration added twice as much money to the Debt as the country had run up to that point. Based on the numbers, that is absolute, 100% true and totally indisputable. What that means can be interrupted by any number of people in any number of ways. Currently the Obama administration has upped the ante by raising the Debt almost $3,600,000,000,000 in half the time. What's that say?

Two things are readily apparent to me and that's just one of the reasons I put this together. As I noted in #1, Bill Clinton never balanced the budget but he did manage the Debt to a degree. Under the current trend that is commendable. But why lie about?

But since the myth of Clinton's Balanced Budget exists why shouldn't the opposition grab it's coattails? Newt is claiming he was the driving force behind 10 balanced budgets. That may be true if he was a member of Congress over 40 years ago. He may look it, but I doubt Newt is over 100 years old.

Now, you see, if you didn't know the facts you may well be suckered in to buying in to one or both of the above lies. Now I know full well a lot of people will be quick to point out it depends on circumstances and definitions. Maybe so, but if you tell me you balanced the budget, the budget better well be balanced. And by that I mean you better not be spending more then you take in. If it has some other meaning then you better clearly define it so we actually know what you're doing.

Sorry folks, but facts are facts and over the years we've all been suckered in to believing garbage just because somebody makes a statement with authority. Personally I find them all to be liars. Factually, the above proves it beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

REPUBLICANS ARE SCUM, DEMOCRATS ARE STUPID

The only issue anybody cares about lately is if the Bush tax cuts for the rich will be extended. AS can clearly and indisputably be seen the Republicans are totally supportive of giving a break to the exact same people totally responsible for our current economic conditions (including the new record unemployment) and there seems to be some question as to what the right thing is. In order to make perfectly clear how stupid the whole situation is, I will make it so easy to understand that even a Teabagger can get it:

1)Whatever their purpose, the Bush tax cuts did not work. It's perfectly clear since we are currently experiencing the worst economy since the Great Depression. Whatever anybody had thought would happen I'm pretty sure no sane person figured on our economy collapsing. More then ever, we need more revenue going to our government. Plain and simple fact. You may not like some of the policies in place (i.e. health care), you may not agree with the massive additional debt we've incurred (i.e. the war in Iraq), but facts are facts. All that money has to come from somebody. Why not the wealthiest that pay less in taxes then you do?
2)The Republicans have offered a compromise. They are willing to extend unemployment benefits to the people who lost their jobs in return for tax cuts for the people directly responsible for the job losses in the hopes of creating new jobs despite the fact that hasn't happened while the proposed tax cuts have been in place.
3)The Democrats, of course, could simply do the right thing and allow the tax cuts to lapse. But then taxes would go up for every one and the Republicans would characterize that as a tax increase on everybody, regardless of how slight that would be for 98% of the population. The fact is, if the current tax cuts lapsed the average person still working would hardly notice a difference. In fact, when the laughable cuts were instituted for the average citizen there was collective laughter at how insignificant they were.
4)Instead, there will be a compromise. The Republicans will get a tax cut for their friends and primary donors and unemployment benefits will be extended to those who are out of work because of the previous policies of the last Republican administration. So, despite their objection of refusing to extend unemployment benefits unless there was a way to pay for them, Republicans will allow the extension while eliminating the most obvious way to pay for them.


The Bush tax cuts have clearly been demonstrated to be a very bad idea. Now I'll be the first to admit there is no definitive correlation between the Bush tax cuts and the current economy that's worse then anything since the Great Depression. On the other hand, they plainly didn't help. Absolutely no one can point to the cuts and in any way show that any benefit has been derived from them. The only thing any one can say to defend the cuts is the tired old excuse that things would be worse if they weren't in place. In that case, the economic stimulus plan is a raging success! You can't have it both ways.

Undoubtedly the Republicans are lying scum. All their claims about “fiscal responsibility” are now totally proven to be lies. They really don't care. They have proclaimed, with no doubt about it, that they would rather cater to their supporters then look out for the best interests of the country. Essentially, if they ever meant a word they said, they have completely and 100% sold out. There is no doubt about that.

On the other side, the Democrats have perfectly defined themselves as totally inept at handling the responsibilities they were given. They are, quite clearly, simply scrambling to keep their jobs. They are pathetic. And stupid. By agreeing to extend the tax cuts and giving control to the minority Republicans they have forever stamped themselves as cowards. Why vote for some one who doesn't have the brains or integrity to do the right thing?

Now for the most decisive proof anyone (I'm looking at you Teabaggers) could ever want:

(The numbers here are estimates. However, they are not based on lies and are more accurate then anything any so-called expert could ever come up with).

There are approximately 130,000,000 working Americans, though that number will most likely continue to drop over the coming months. Approximately 98% of them make less then $250,000 a year. That means 127,400,000 make less then that. So, since I own the marvelous tool known as a calculator that no member of Congress seems to own or knows how to operate, that means 2,600,000 Americans fall in to the $250,000 category. Instead of making convoluted changes in the taxes laws let's keep everything the same as it is now. Yeah, the Republicans win. Now let's add a flat $2 a week tax to everybody earning less then $250,000/year. That would generate an annual $13,249,600,000. Now let's charge everybody earning over $250,000 an extra 10 bucks a week. That comes out to $1,352,000,000 a year. Add 'em up. That's over $14,000,000,000 a year in additional revenue that none of the effected would actually notice.

Now that's a very clear, very reasonable way to increase much needed revenue with very little thought (Hey!!! I may have a career in politics forming!). By designing a graduated method of charging that flat rate, it would be an easy and painless way to more then double the generated revenue I've proposed here.

Of course, that was the whole idea when the current tax system was first implemented. Eliminate deductions, charge flat rates based on income, and the government will be flush with money. I can't take credit for this insight-fullness that borders on pure genius since it has been proposed a number of times by some of the wealthiest people in the country (and the world). Why anybody would be stupid enough to ignore them is beyond me. Not subscribing to that notion is so idiotic that I simply can't shut my brain down enough to even begin the thinking of anybody opposed to the idea. I can certainly grasp why the majority of corrupt and irresponsible politicians don't pursue the idea, but I really can't begin to understand why 99% of the population isn't clamoring for that change.

I'm the last guy to say the government doesn't waste money. I'm the last guy to say that any member of Congress isn't more interested in retaining their job then do the best thing for America. I'm the last guy to say Congress will ever do the right thing. But I'm the very first guy to say that every responsible American needs to support massive tax reform and needs to stop blindly following some “pundit” on TV or the radio who is exclusively looking out for their own best interests.


As always, I welcome any one to try and dispute the overwhelming facts I've presented here. Feel free to embarrass yourself by attempting to dispute the logic and reason here. I'm actually looking forward to humiliating you.

HAPPY 9/11

It’s actually September 9th as I write this but it’s a post I’ve been planning since the beginning of the year. In fact, I could have written this on January 20th (and indeed, that’s when I thought of it) but I waited. I wanted to see how things would unfold during this remarkably historic period in US politics. Everything developed in such a contrived manner that it really is impossible to conceive how the Republican Party can avoid extinction. The absolute, inarguable, final nail-in-the-coffin for the GOP will occur on September 11, 2009. I’m jumping the gun a bit but I feel fully confident that on that day it will be proved beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise) that Republicans are far inferior to Democrats when it comes to defending the country, and isn’t that what it’s all about?

On this day, eight years ago, terrorists were putting the finishing touches on the greatest attack on American soil in history. On this day, eight years ago, the Republican lead administration was totally oblivious to one of their major responsibilities…protecting the citizens. There’s no doubt whatsoever that they failed miserably to protect us. In those first months of a Republican administration 2,993 people were murdered. Comparatively, on September 11, 2009 no such slaughter has occurred under a Democrat administration. Using the rationale Republicans have campaigned on during the last two elections they are failures. By their own “reason” and “logic” they are far worse then the current administration when it comes to one of their fundamental principles, protecting the US. The resulting campaigns launched due to Republican negligence has created an even bigger body count. We’re now embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their total incompetence. I won’t bother with death counts as of the end of the Bush administration versus the current administration since I’m not pretending to be a prophet. I suppose that aspect could go either way.

My point here is in no way to trivialize what happened eight years ago. Rather, it’s to mock and shame every single (without any exception at all) politicians. Every one of the evil bastards fed on the fears of the American public to keep their job. Not a single one had the courage or honesty to step forward and declare that the government had totally failed in one of their major responsibilities. Now, on September 9, 2009, every single one of the weasels are totally ignoring the most important issue of our time and are totally abdicating their responsibilities in order to just keep their jobs. Sure, without a doubt, a bunch of these sub-human scumbags will make a speech, lay a wreath or two, and make meaningless vows in memory of the disaster they allowed. And you’ll be more then happy to buy in to it.

Facts are facts (sorry to have to be this blunt) but every one of you idiots that voted for failed policies are the ones who are 100% responsible. You’re not only responsible for 9/11, you’re responsible for the current Bush Depression, you’re responsible for the sorry state of health care, you’re responsible for the $11,000,000,000,000 national debt, and you’re responsible for every single problem we will be facing in the coming years. That’s because you simply vote over and over again for the exact same people that have been ruining this country for decades. You want your guy or party to win so badly that you’ve ruined my life, your life, and the lives of your children and/or grandchildren because you’re too stupid to think for yourself. The irrefutable logic goes like this:

1) Since it’s the anniversary of 9/11 I’ll start there. You voted back in to office the very same person who presided over the disaster. Being a reasonable, rational person, I can’t even begin to understand the rationale there. I really can’t. I’m going to try and imagine the thought process that went in the mind of some one pulling the lever to re-elect George Bush. I suppose it went something like this: Let’s see…who should I vote for? They guy that was in charge when terrorists attacked us and started an irrelevant war in the meantime, or John Kerry, who actually served in the military, actually “defended” this country, and didn’t allow thousands of Americans to be massacred? Hmmmm, I’ll go with my party since Democrats are total evil or, worse yet, LIBERALS! Yeah, that will make the country better! That’s the only “thinking” I can come up with.
2) Let’s disregard the whole 9/11 thing for the moment. With the national debt at around $9,000,000,000,000 and social security in a state of collapse, did you think for an instant that the very same people who had four years to address those issues would actually do something in the next four years? Nobody bothered to address the national debt since 99% of the voting public have no idea what it is, but social security was, at the time, a major issue and the only solution was a stupid proposition to “privatize” it. In hindsight it was an overtly moronic proposal but, even at the time it was incredibly stupid. If that would really work, why would we need social security in the first place? Think about it…and if you can’t wrap your brain around that then you’re hopeless.
3) But, this is about 9/11 and lying, useless politicians. The number one reason either party should have been in office (by their own philosophy) is to protect the US. They simply don’t. They haven’t physically, they haven’t financially. And nobody is doing anything any different now. But, I admit, I could be wrong here. Unlike your favorite politician I haven’t bothered checking the polls lately. Frankly, I don’t care what the “majority” of ignorant morons think. Most people don’t care about another terrorist attack since they have financial concerns (like they had on September 10, 2001). Today, the number one concern is health care or employment or some other garbage. There will be a lot of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” come 9/11 but it won’t mean a thing.

We’re screwed because the people you consistently vote for don’t care about anything other then keeping their jobs. They will prey upon your fears and concerns (according to the latest polling numbers) so they can continue to enjoy decent salaries, great benefits, and any perk they can get. But they’re part of your party so you’ll continue to support and pay them. Good for you. And thanks from the majority of people you are now screwing and the future generations you are hurting. You simply have proven you don’t really care about anything but yourself. Maybe you should run for office. .

CHUCK GETS A THIRD ONE

No sooner do I get done posting an observation that completely humiliates and degrades one of the leading Conservative spokesmen (Charles Krauthammer) the idiot in question comes out with an even more despicable column. Having completely run out of ideas (i.e. “lies”) to aid in derailing a health care reform bill to benefit American society he’s decided to dredge up a recent lie and dress it up with some twisted form of “logic”. His assumptions and those of anybody who agrees with him refer to the non-existent “Death Panels” that will be instituted if any kind of change in the current health care system takes place.

He tones down the patently absurd rhetoric and then makes an even more preposterous assertion: Your doctor would rather see you die then undergo any further treatment if your case appears to be terminal. A provision in the proposed health care reform allows for reimbursement for “end of life” consoling which every doctor would gladly pounce on for a few quick and easy bucks. I can’t imagine what the pay is for a physician to offer you alternatives when facing the grim reaper but apparently you doctor is in favor of death (or, as Chuck says” we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.”).

The sum and substance of his column is that there’s so much more profit in it for your doctor to pull the plug that he’s bound to encourage you in that direction. Apparently the fee for counseling you to die is more profitable then continuing to administer treatment. In the Conservative world doctors are only in it for the money. Apparently there’s some kind of bonus in it for them to get in you in the ground rather then treat the illness.

Chuck even cites a personal example though I’m really not sure what course he chose. He claims the decision was obvious, but the rational choice completely contradicts the point of his column. So, allow me to explain my own circumstances when dealing with an end-of-life-consultation:

My older brother was determined to be brain-dead after a brief hospitalization. I sat down with the Chief of Neurology and he explained the situation and the alternatives. I sat down with the family and discussed the alternatives and we decided to terminate any further treatment. I don’t know how much longer the insurance carrier he had would have continued to pay to keep him on the respirator. The cost was never a factor. The doctor I talked to was sympathetic and open to the alternatives. There was no additional charge for that end-of-life-consoling. Frankly, there was more money in it for the hospital if they kept him there rather then pull the plug. So how does the Conservative lie of “Death Panels” or alternative form thereof make any sense? It’s always more profitable to continue “treatment” then to terminate the patient. Why would any greedy, capitalistic doctor choose the path of least riches?

In order to believe any Conservative viewpoint on this matter you have to believe that every doctor (including yours) wants nothing more then to get you “out of the way”. You have to believe that the only reason any doctor (including yours) went to Med school was to make a lot of money. You have to believe that every doctor (including yours) is a pawn of the government and one of his main objectives is to eliminate the infirm and elderly from society. You have to believe that there’s a conspiracy among all the doctors (including yours) to reduce your care and encourage your death. There’s absolutely no other way to interrupt the gross stupidity being asserted by moronic Conservatives spouting such outrageous nonsense.

Even though I’ve just made it crystal clear as to why Conservatives are complete idiots and liars, they will continue to influence a large number of people. Fortunately (and amazingly) more and more Americans are beginning to realize what liars they are. They have become relatively insignificant as their desperation continues to grow. However, they do seem to have enough influence on the American public to further wreck our society. I can only hope that Chuck’s Living Will is adhered to. In his own words “If I have anything so much as a hangnail, pull the plug.” Let’s hope so.

WHY CONSERVATIVES HAVE LOST

One of the leading and realistic spokesmen for the conservative movement isn’t the blowhard Rush Limbaugh or his idiot cousin Sean Hannity but the “distinguished” moron Charles Krauthammer. Chuck is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and has the onerous responsibility of representing the conservative point-of-view. Apparently he makes a decent living spouting any nonsense that appeals to the ignorant masses. So, in order to collect his check, he defends the conservative point-of-view at any cost and will lie like a rug to convince anybody near brain death that there’s some validity in the conservative philosophy.

A recent column of his (read it yourself) makes the idiotic “point” that prevention is even more costly then simply letting people suffer or die. In his opinion column he sites like thinking idiots that preventive medicine will in no way save any money and will actually cost more. I’m going to rip him a “new one” and I certainly hope you have enough functioning brain cells to realize how stupid he actually is. I’m using the word “stupid” because if he actually believes what he says he clearly is an idiot. It’s crap like this that is making health care reform totally impossible. So, here are the indisputable facts:

1) Quote from the column: “The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense.” This statement of his is clearly nonsense. That, or the moron has never heard of (or understands) the concept of vaccinations. Polio has been completely wiped out (he’s obviously too stupid to understand what the Salk vaccine accomplished). Nor does he have the common sense to understand what your annual flu vaccination does. Currently the CDC is feverishly working on a vaccination for the Swine flu. Regardless of how you feel about the coming “threat” getting a shot that will preventive you from becoming infected and spending money on over-the-counter medications to relieve your symptoms and the lost time at work don’t factor in to the obvious costs of being ill. No, (and this is sarcasm for all you die-hard Conservatives) preventing hundreds of thousands of people from contracting the flu and developing further complications is clearly a waste of money.
2) Not vaccinating the general population from something as “simple” as the flu would result in billions (if not trillions) of dollars being spent on treatment and the dreaded “lost time” that conservatives love. What could this idiot possibly be thinking?
3) Again, he quotes an equally moronic “authority”, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf who says.” "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness." The idiot (and I mean the idiot Elmendorf) adds “we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses.” Really? No kidding? Gee if only we did know in advance which patients would develop costly illnesses! I got an idea…why don’t we test them!
4) I was just in for a physical and the doctor tested my blood pressure, my lung capacity, and gave me an EKG. So far so good. Everything’s fine. I could relate the story of a friend of mine who went in for the exact same tests and much to his surprise he found that he had suffered two major heart attacks in the recent past (no, he didn’t realize that. It happens.) His doctor immediately admitted him to the hospital and he had a triple by-pass that saved his life. And, it also eliminated all the potential expenses related to his having a third attack. True, it would have been more cost effective if the first one would have killed him. Sorry about Conservatives.

The whole point of Krauthammer’s ranting is that he’s attacking one of the proposed features of health care reform. Preventive health measures would reduce medical costs in the long run. That seems pretty odd considering insurance companies that provide health care for a profit routinely approve any number of tests recommended by a physician. Whether you or Chuck realizes it or not, if you’ve been to a doctor you’ve been checked for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart and lung damage, and probably a lot of stuff I’m not aware of. And I’ll just through vaccinations in here just to rub Chuck and Doug’s faces in it one more time.

I’m supposed to schedule myself for a colonoscopy. Yeah, I’m putting that off but I’ve decided to schedule one. It’s a standard test guys my age are supposed to get. And my doctor who doesn’t have any overt political affiliation that I know of and actually understands medicine informed me that it’s one of the few ways a cancer can not only be detected early but totally prevented. Obviously my insurance company agrees with him but for a different reason. I have no idea what a colonoscopy costs but my insurer sure does. And they know that the aggregate cost of early detection is more cost effective then shelling out even more money for treatment. Chuck probably hasn’t had one since his head seems to be up there most of the time.

I’m pretty sure, without “researching” the cost of every conceivable test to be administered to every citizen, that the cost of such tests would exceed the cost of treatment. But, I have a solution for that little “sticking” point: as the other idiot (Elmendorf) said, we just don’t know who would benefit from what test if we blindly administered them to everyone. That being the case, why don’t we get a bunch of highly trained, highly skilled people to examine individuals and recommend the appropriate tests. You know, people like doctors!

The entire point of the foolish column was to argue against the case that improved health care would save money by preventing major illnesses. So-called “researchers” have done the work and declared it to be so. Well, those guys can skew (i.e. “lie”) the numbers anyway they want. The guys that depend on accurate, profit making research (i.e. “the insurance companies”) have already done the work and have determined that it’s better to give the tests and vaccinations rather treat the illness, even if they don’t know in advance who’ll get sick.

Billions (oh hell, let’s say “trillions” since that seems to have more impact) have already been saved on preventive health care measures. Even the insurance companies agree with that and that’s their business. You can be sure if a columnist from say “The Washington Post” develops any kind of symptom he’ll be expecting a full battery of tests to determine the cause. After all, diagnostic medicine isn’t part of his job description. Pandering to mindless followers with any kind of drivel that can get him noticed is.

WHEN I’M RIGHT MOST EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG

As I pointed out well before any one else, there will be no meaningful health care reform. Forget “meaningful”…there will be no health care reform. There will eventually be some form of mock health care legislation passed that will be trumpeted as “reform” but nothing will change. The more cynical among us will attribute the failure to the usual politicizing of the issue or be even more accurate by attributing the failing to the usual greed and corruption running rampant in Washington. The trillion dollar a year health care industry has too many palms to grease, too many “donors” to satisfy and too many special interests to placate. Couple that with the almost total ignorance of the general population and what ever measures are passed will be insignificant since no one will really know the difference. But, as usual I understand the real reason things will only get worse regardless of what pitiful changes emerge from the health care debacle.

There isn’t anybody smart enough or committed enough to propose a real plan. Either party coming away from the health care debate without having formulated and enacted a real solution will be proving beyond any doubt that are totally ineffective and useless as leaders. Of course the Democrats will be the biggest losers since they brought the critical issue up in the first place and actually pursued it. But they were too stupid to design a program that could be easily understood and implemented. Nobody even knows what the basic components of their “plan” is.

Taking much less heat will be the Republicans who have made no attempt to have a plan and spent all their time and energy stonewalling any potential improvements. They lose big time if anything substantial happens but that would in no way benefit them. In fact, it’s in their best interest if no plan is implemented. Any meaningful health care reform would only benefit the other party and maybe the country. But that isn’t their goal. They’ve made it their goal to lie about the costs and scare people about the possible consequences in order to be able to point to the failure of the current administration in hope of getting their jobs back.

Both parties suck at what they are being over-paid to do. Democrats achieved control because the previous Republican administration demonstrated clearly they were either too corrupt or too incompetent to run the country (take your pick). Democrats won control because of the ineptitude of the past administration and the promise to change things which they simply haven’t done. The coming failure of health care reform will be ample proof of that.

SO WHAT ABOUT ME

A couple of weeks ago I dropped my wife off at the apartment of her daughter. I walked her to the door, talked a few seconds and got back in my car. I drove to the corner, made a right-hand turn and saw flashing lights from an unmarked car in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over and a police officer approached my side…I didn’t notice another officer had approached my passenger side. The officer asked for my driver’s license and insurance. I asked why I was stopped. He didn’t answer. As I looked for my ID and insurance I asked again. He responded that I didn’t signal when I pulled away from the curb. After I gave him the requested papers the other officer (on the passenger side) tapped on my window and asked me what was in my glove box (where my insurance card had been). He thought he saw something suspicious. I had no idea what he was talking about and when he asked if he could check I said “sure”. He reached in, fumbled through the compartment and came up with something that looked like a button (there wasn’t much else in there and I still don’t exactly what it was he came up with.).

The next thing I knew I was asked to step out of the car. I complied and then went through “standard procedure”. I was lead to the back of car, told to place my hands on the trunk, and an officer then “frisked” me. Somewhere in there yet another policeman arrived. The officer frisking me asked the standard questions that I’ve seen on the TV show “COPS” numerous times:”do you have any weapons on your person, do you have anything that can stick me, etc.”. I said “no” and he went about his business. I was clean.

Meanwhile, the other officer went through my car. A total search. It wasn’t long after that when they realized what I knew all along…they were wasting their time. I explained more then once my reason for being there, where I lived, and why I was there at that hour. One of the officers made some small talk, acted jovial, and they eventually “let me go”. So what’s my point? Pay very strict attention because despite you’re upbringing, you may learn something:

I’m a white man. As white as any Republican or any other Patriot. My wife is black. Her daughter lives in one of those “questionable” neighborhoods. I also have an IQ well over 100. I knew I was stopped because I was a white guy in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time in the company of a black female. My failure to signal when pulling away from the curb was an obvious ploy to try and determine if I had been engaged in some other illegal activity. I knew that at that very moment when I saw those flashing lights in my rear-view mirror. Any rational person would have come to exactly the same conclusion. I was profiled.

No way, no how, will anybody ever convince me that racial profiling doesn’t exist. Not now, not ever. I know, with 100% certainty that I was stopped because I was a white guy escorting a black woman to a residence in a “high crime” area that happens to be populated by minorities. There are a very limited number of reasons (in the mind of the authorities) why such an encounter would be taking place. And I admit, statistically, they would be dead-on. But in this case, they were dead-wrong.

I know that I didn’t have to give permission to the cop on the passenger side of my car to search my glove-box. But I didn’t care. In fact, once the initial “shock” wore off, I figured “what the hell”. I was actually having some fun. Besides I knew that they could give me a very hard time if they wanted to. They did have a “legitimate” reason for stopping me. But when the stop expanded to a personal search and the complete inspection of my vehicle I began to get more then a little annoyed. I was being totally abused for no other reason then I was a white guy observed in the company of a black female in the wrong neighborhood.

Before you even try and use the argument that they had a legitimate reason to stop me ask yourself the obvious question: how many times were you cited for such a violation? The fact is, even though they stopped me for my failure to signal, I received no such citation. No ticket, no problem. Should I be grateful? I’m not sure, but I have to wonder…how many tickets are issued to drivers who fail to signal when pulling away from the curb?

The laws of this country are designed to protect the average citizen from harassment by the authorities. In plain language, the cops just can’t stop you because of the way you look or act. They need justifiable reasons and there are plenty of them. And they know each and every one of them. So, when a Harvard professor is intimidated by the police I now have to wonder if they were strictly doing their job, or if something else might have been in play.

When Harvard professor Louis Gates was arrested I had mixed emotions. I fully understand his position. He was clearly targeted because he is a black man associated with a break-in. Without complete compliance and submission he would be considered a threat. His personal feelings of being assaulted and profiled would fall on deaf ears. But, then again, maybe he knew he was completely justified and would prevail regardless of the circumstances. I, being a white man, unaccustomed to police interrogation didn’t have the comfort of knowing that. I passively allowed an illegal search of my person and vehicle since I knew there was nothing to hide. But that’s not the real point, is it?

I knew that I had nothing that would incriminate me for being where I was, when I was there. As did professor Gates. One of us was led away in handcuffs and the other simply drove home. One was white, one was black. Professor Gates was confident in his understanding of the law and I was squeamish because I knew I was at their mercy. I’d very much like to think that the officer involved did his best to follow the law but now, I have a bit of a problem trying to comprehend that. After all, all I did was drop my black wife off at the home of her daughter and was treated like a criminal because I didn’t signal properly when I pulled away from the curb. Gates had a tough time opening his own door.

It’s a tough and dirty job trying to keep a community clean and I understand that. I don’t want the job, but there is a price you pay to live in a “free” society. Count among many of the costs a restraint on authorities. Yes, I want them to protect me. Yes, I want them to patrol crime ridden neighborhoods and protect the citizens. Yes, I want to know I’m 100% safe all the time. But I know that isn’t a remote possibility. As a citizen of the United States I want to be treated the way the Constitution intended for me to be treated. I want authorities to restrain their power. I want them to respect me as an individual. I very well realize that white guy in the company of a black woman in an unsavory neighborhood would arouse suspicion for a variety of reasons. Hell, it arouses a bit more suspicion in better neighborhoods, but that’s another story.

I’m not a Harvard professor and probably fall pretty low on the social food chain. If I had raised a ruckus I’d probably be writing this from a jail cell since not only would I be unable to post any kind of bail, but I wouldn’t be able to afford any kind of lawyer. I realized that the minute the officer asked me to “step out of the car”. My best choice at the moment was to comply.

I’m not an idiot. I knew that when the officer peering in my window asked to inspect the glove box I was passively giving him permission to search not only that but the entire vehicle. At that moment I had relinquished my rights to “unlawful search and seizure”. And they took full advantage. I could have easily said something like,” there’s nothing there for you to look at” and opened a whole can of worms (or more likely, whoop-ass). The situation could have gone anywhere at that point and it was a hassle I didn’t need or could afford. The very simple fact is that I was intimidated and even though I knew my rights I also knew the potential problems that would ensue if I escalated the situation. I chose the path of least resistance.

In all “fairness” I have to say at the end it turned out to be nothing. The four of us actually joked about the situation and one officer actually appeared sympathetic. When they got to the part of the search when they asked me open my trunk one of them joked,” there’s no body in there is there?” “No”, I replied,” I dumped him last week”. At that point they were going through the motions. And in the end I didn’t even get ticketed for failure to signal when I pulled away from the curb. Do you really think that’s why they stopped me in the first place?

Profiling certainly and unquestionably exists. And I do understand it. It makes sense. Personally, I think the “middle-eastern” gentleman nervously standing in line at the airport poses a bit more of a threat then the 85 year-old grandmother in the wheel chair. So, do I think every “middle-eastern” gentleman should be thoroughly investigated when taking a plane ride? Or, do I think that no “middle-eastern” gentlemen should be “hassled by the man”? I honestly don’t know. But, exactly like the ideals of the Constitution, I would prefer we err on the side of the innocent.

A white guy in a particular neighborhood may very well be soliciting drugs and/or sex from a black woman. A black man in an upscale neighborhood forcing a door open may well be “breaking and entering”. But then again, they may not. The white guy may be reluctant and unsure of his rights. He may be intimidated by the possible consequences of his actions be he right or wrong. The black Harvard professor may be well aware of his rights and have the resources to back up his opposition. He may resent whatever treatment he received. I can’t blame him.

We’ll never know the specifics of what happened between the professor and the cop. They only thing we know with any certainty is that no crime was committed until the police officer actually showed up at the scene and those charges have been dropped. Something happened regarding the black professor and he was lead away in handcuffs. The white guy was basically mute and allowed authorities to blatantly violate the Constitution.

Indeed, in my case the police had variety of issues they could have used to cause me considerable discomfort. I simply don’t know the nuances of the law and I certainly can’t afford to challenge the veracity of those officers. I’m sure they have a hard job and are good at it. They were courteous and polite. They were actually pleasant at the end. They also used their knowledge of the legal system to basically violate the very same rights they are sworn to uphold and protect. They weren’t dealing with a Harvard professor.

In the meantime the President of the United States has weighed in on the issue and resolved the matter with a round of beers. I’m just flipping on my blinker every time I pull away from a curb. I’m more law-abiding then ever. I’ve given my personal incident a lot of thought in the meantime and realized that I was degraded. I failed to stand up for my rights. I failed to speak-up for myself. I feel a little less of a human being for being so complacent. I’m not losing sleep over it, it hasn’t wrecked my life, there’s no long-term effect on my ability to function but, I will be sure to use my signals every time the law declares it. And every time I do, guess what I’ll be thinking about? And guess what I’ll be thinking about every time I read or hear of some issue that may or may not involve racial profiling?

WHY THERE WILL BE NO HEALTH REFORM

The chances of any effectual health care “reform” are slim to none, and “slim” just took the last train out of town. Despite all the talk nobody has come close to “solving” our current health care situation. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to discern the facts of our current system and, frankly, there doesn’t seem to be a lot (if any) factual material out there. I did find a relevant article on the “Slate” website (of all places) that addresses the situation in an offhand manner. It does “confirm”, in a sense, the real situation:

“Take health care. Before this recession started in late 2007, there were 45 million people without health insurance, of whom 21 million worked full time, according to this exhaustive Census report. In 2007, the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell to 59.3 percent, or 177.4 million people, down from 64.2 percent in 2000, while the number of people covered by government health insurance rose from 80.3 million to 83 million. (But the Census definition of "government health insurance" applies only to those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, the military or S-CHIP programs. If you add in the millions of people who work for the government and in public-sector jobs (i.e., teachers), the private sector probably covered about 160 million people in 2007.) Since December 2007, however, the number of Americans receiving insurance from private sector companies has dropped sharply, since the private sector has shed 6 million jobs during that period.”

I tend to accept the above since it is based in fact and has a very logical extension. 83,000,000 people directly have government funded health care. Health care paid by your taxes. Add to that all the government employees and you certainly can conclude that some 160,000,000 people have health care total funded by taxpayer dollars. Since the population in the US is around 306,000,000 it’s a pretty safe bet to say that half the country receives health care funded by your tax dollars. Add to that the 45,000,000 with no insurance and you can easily determine that 2/3 of the American public either receive health care 100% funded by tax dollars or have no coverage at all. That means that only 1/3 of the country actually pays for (or contributes to) the cost of their own medical care. And, since nobody I know actually has 100% medical coverage through their employer, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that just about everyone with medical coverage is paying for it whether they use it or not. Now for the facts:

1) Half the population is already covered by government sponsored (that’s your tax dollars) health care. What part of that is hard to understand? Half the citizens in this country already receive health care sponsored by your tax dollars and, here’s the kicker, the ones with the very best health care your money can buy (that’s Congress…just in case you can’t figure that out for yourself) are making the decision as to whether or not the rest of us should get some kind of minimum care.
2) Consequently 1/3 of the country is paying for their own insurance to some degree and supporting the other 2/3 with their taxes. What part of that is hard to understand?
3) Oh yeah, just to clarify….the “uninsured” in this country (the 45,000,000 with no insurance) will get health care in one form or another if it’s necessary. County and/or state run hospitals generally function under the principle that they can’t turn patients away and are funded by taxpayers’ dollars. So while nobody is truly denied health care in emergency circumstances all those uninsured people do have access to the health care system. And if they can’t/don’t pay, guess who foots the bill?
4) Insurance companies exist for one reason and one reason only. They make money. Lots of it. Some part of your premium pays for all the overhead and executive salaries and bonuses. They pay out less money then they take in because that is the whole point of them existing. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be business. I pay $18.69 a week for some very decent insurance coverage. My employer pays the rest (I have no idea how much that is). Point is, there’s lots of money already being paid out to insurance companies for the health care services that are providing profits to the companies providing the coverage.
5) At some point me (or some other poor soul) may face the prospect of needing a medical procedure not (fully) covered by the insurance. The decision will be made solely by an individual concerned with the bottom-line profits of the provider. So, who would you rather have making the decision? Some guy in Washington who has no concept of money or some guy on the board of directors of a profit-making organization that’s only concerned with the bottom line? There’s tons of anecdotal evidence out there but this site is committed to reason and logic so I’m not going there.
6) The cost of health care will never, ever go down. That’s a simple and obvious fact. It never has and it never will. It will only increase. The reason it will increase is because more and more people will need care as the population ages and, that’s the way insurance companies work.

There is no current proposal that addresses the concept of initiating a national health care policy. Ultimately 1/3 of the population will continue to pay for their own care while supporting the care of the other 2/3 while insurance companies will continue to rake in massive profits at your expense. The only “solution” is to put everyone under the exact same coverage administered by a central agency. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the government can’t manage anything. Go ahead, use that argument and then tell me what a great job they do waging war. Want to privatize that?

Of course relying on the government to run health care is a bad idea since the government running anything is a bad idea. That’s because you keep voting for the exact same people to run things. Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they are totally inept at running the country yet you keep pulling the same lever every time you step in to a voting booth. But that’s another topic. In the meantime, by not allowing the government to institute a policy to provide health care to the population you are clearly, unquestionably, supporting policies that are proven failures. There’s always the possibility that at some future point a competent person will assume office and actually do something constructive. Supporting the status quo will only discourage real reformers from seeking to correct anything. It’s clear and simple: anybody standing in the way of any type of health care reform is directly responsible for the incredible burden that will be placed on all members of society in the future. Like it or not, it is directly your responsibility to encourage reform in any manner. Otherwise it will be business as usual and, as I have clearly pointed out, that won’t be a good thing.

I KNEW IT

When I pointed out in a previous post (which you’ll have to look up yourself) I knew beyond any doubt that President’s current stimulus package would be a total failure. Unlike everyone (without exception) my insightful analysis wasn’t based in any kind of political bias but common sense and overwhelming logic.

I actual tried to read the Economic Recovery Plan and realized that it was simply more political gibberish. If there was anything (anything at all) that was designed to directly help the US economy emerge from the Bush Depression well, I missed it. The gist of the plan was merely an increase spending in every current government program. Billions of dollars were allocated to financing the spending. In the end, the “plan” overtly failed to put funding where it was most needed and would do the most good. Despite the fact I clearly solved that problem (a previous post you’ll have to look for) I knew that it didn’t have a chance. Logic is simply one attribute government officials lack.

So, am I saying Obama’s administration is a failure? Not at all. I am saying that it is simply no different then any of his predecessors (make of that what you will). Complete and total failure to grasp economics, indifference to the best interests of a vast majority of citizens, and poorly thought out. Nothing new here. Admittedly, for better or worse, he did manage to stave off the complete failure of two of the largest businesses in the world and thereby preserved a great number of jobs. The deserved ruination of GM and Chrysler was adverted by government intervention and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs was adverted. Whether it was a good idea (which I adamantly instance it wasn’t) or not is one of those “time will tell” things.

Given the political climate, or should I better refer to that as “given the current political ineptitude” he did the only thing he could do. It was a poor, miserable idea, but I don’t expect anything better from the very people who have failed so completely in the past. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are totally responsible for the mess we’re now in and neither has done a single thing to put American on the right track. Democrats had a bad idea and Republicans stood by hoping it would fail so they could blame the current administration for the screw-ups incurred over the past decades. It was “Quick, Superficial Fix” versus “We Haven’t A Clue”. In the end, America is the loser.