tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.comments2021-03-28T01:52:28.147-07:00The Rational MiddleMichael Chasehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-48144335555617962582021-03-28T01:52:28.147-07:002021-03-28T01:52:28.147-07:00Our web-site is is an excellent magazine in the Mi...Our web-site is is an excellent magazine in the Middle-East which is all about security so gives all of the best security news for security individuals in the Middle East. Then we also have information on the latest security equipment like cctv cameras and cyber security so you can also learn about the most effective security equipment for the Middle-East here. <a href="https://www.securitymiddleeastmag.com/" rel="nofollow">www.SecurityMiddleEastMag.com</a><br />SAMERRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09701243749588017771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-80273144910435324902011-11-17T00:01:23.662-08:002011-11-17T00:01:23.662-08:00so you're just gone from here then? hmm, i see...so you're just gone from here then? hmm, i see. ok, redirecting to rm.com then... see you over there. get ready for me, i am one bad mutha trucka.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641527439159370910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-38850892233802489222010-05-31T06:51:08.817-07:002010-05-31T06:51:08.817-07:00"I have never been restricted in what I could...<i>"I have never been restricted in what I could post, and have never had my content removed or blocked."</i><br /><br />I have. But only on 2 sites, one based on that sites owner and the other at the interference of that same person. Capisce? :-)<br /><br />I served 68/70. I managed to avoid Viet Nam by the uniqueness of my M.O.S. only. And my worst injury was a couple of whuppings sustained in fist fights and some severe hangovers! But it was still scary times. Ironic that our sacrifices secured this freedom for some people who really aren't necessarily entitled to it. And turn it against those of us who carried the water for them.<br /><br />Off to a couple of Cemeteries to honor some of the best people I have known. I've enjoyed your blog and your thorough commentary. And I have enjoyed the liberty to respond without worry of having my comments arbitrarily censored or deleted.<br /><br />See ya' at the new site.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-86339715675431466672010-05-27T20:56:06.232-07:002010-05-27T20:56:06.232-07:00As I understand, the bonuses received by bankers a...As I understand, the bonuses received by bankers and financial managers, on the top level, are higher by perhaps three orders of magnitude than they were in the Reagan years. Much of the cash does seem to circulate between private accounts, hedge funds, and the largest institutional investments. Some percentage of money earned at the top end of the income scale does find its way into the economy at large, but most of it tends to stay invested (there is only so much one can spend). Traditionally, the estate tax has been the lever (ironically) for moving wealth into the economy. It is responsible for much of the trust fund charity we see today. So the individual wealth of bankers and agents will not lead to job creation unless those folks decide to start up a bunch of new ventures. Generally speaking, supply side economics seems to have its greatest effect when large firms reinvest their profits locally. This isn't happening in the global age (the largest firms tend to offshore and outsource the most). When banks are sitting on their deposits, the money is most assuredly not moving into the economy; and that's the rub against the bailouts in the context of jobs. TARP saved the balance sheets of these institutions, and will be payed back. But the opportunity cost of the cash invested in these banks is enormous (in the area of trillions in lost opportunity). Unemployment, however, is not directly linked to banks. The collapse of the $8 trillion housing bubble led to the loss of the $2 trillion wealth effect generated by the overvalued assets. This is your home improvement, new construction, and pay down the credit debt wealth that disappeared. There were tens of thousands of jobs linked directly to that wealth, and millions linked indirectly to the spending of those direct jobs. That is the $2 trillion hole that people like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker (who saw the bubble and tried desperately to get SOMEONE to listen to him as early as 2002) talk about. That is why the recommendation on stimulus was as high as $2 trillion, and was originally proposed as a $900 billion measure composed of direct spending and unemployment insurance. These two items generating much higher economic returns than tax cuts. Jobs don't come back on their own in a down economy, and it is the nature of the market to retrench. To accept that the market would dig us out of a recession is to believe that some group of firms would bite the bullet and employ 100's of thousands of workers out of the goodness of their hearts. It sounds like great capitalism to believe in that market fairy tale, but a fairy tale is what it is. Finally, unemployment is not holding still in the sense that jobs are being created again. It takes almost 200,000 jobs created per month to keep up with natural demand, and this economy lost 8 million between Q4 2007 and Q4 2009. At 400,000 jobs created per month, it would take three and a half years to recoup those losses. Also, as in previous recessions, the jobs being created are at lower wages. It takes more jobs created to get the same economic effect. As people see signs of hope, they will get back in the job market, and that will give keep the rate climbing slowly for a while. But it is climbing, and recovery is every bit as stingy as recession.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-77859900190071272572010-05-27T20:18:48.658-07:002010-05-27T20:18:48.658-07:00I wonder about the difference in the composition o...I wonder about the difference in the composition of the agents that received the money back in Reagan days and those that are getting it now.<br /><br />As I understand it, all that Bernanke is doing now is to transfer wealth to banks who then go on to play in the stock market with other institutional players. If the players in the market in Reagan days were small players, it looks likely that the money would have more likely trickled down more efficiently than in the current scenario where banks just sit on the profits and pass very little back. Put another way, the money that is entering the system is now mostly trapped among the big players that are cozy with the Fed. <br /><br />May be the bankers bonuses would stir the local economies as would govt. contractors in DC. Care to comment or blog about what percentage of these and other transfer payments are responsible for the unemployment holding still?Kamesh Kompellanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-48218088416672562212010-05-26T13:44:17.933-07:002010-05-26T13:44:17.933-07:00Jon...the why we don't can be summarized by th...Jon...the why we don't can be summarized by the Sierra Club, Three Mile Island, cost. Nuclear has enormous fixed costs. Why not for the future...resources; we can find enough uranium to meet our demand, but only with an investment in exploration on the order of what oil companies have spent since 1900. For the same trillions, we could have a grid (perhaps 35% solar, 25% wind, 15% natural gas, 15% nuclear, 10% all other) with far less systemic risk. Space shots present the same risks as central disposal (in terms of short term exposure); but the difficulties in cleaning up and oil spill, with a precisely known initial point,in waters with well know bottom features and surface currents, should give one pause when considering the ease of cleanup of substances with far greater toxicity.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-24944919314148286942010-05-26T12:08:56.630-07:002010-05-26T12:08:56.630-07:00I've got a question, and a challenge for you, ...I've got a question, and a challenge for you, Michael. I've wondered for years why we've never developed a decent nuclear grid in this nation. It seemed obvious while I was growing up listening to fellow Nevadans hurling invectives about the waste dump at Beatty (was it Beatty? Man it's been awhile) but there came a point when I realized that I'm allowed to look at issues rationally and for myself instead of following the crowd, lemming-like, down whatever primrose path is heading toward Hell today. With that realization, the Beatty debates seemed to instantly devolve into the NOBE effect. I'm going to make things sound a little more simplistic than they are, betraying my lack of hard research and revealing my challenge to you. I understand Nuclear waste is a bummer. We've been going to space for a long time and a rocket full of Nuclear garbage fired toward our nearest nuclear-powered neighbor (the Sun) wouldn't even be noticed. In fact, it would be vaporized long before ever getting there. Personally, I would prefer this method of disposal since I don't relish the thought of sticking my trash in anyone else's back yard and we don't know who might be out there or where they might be. For those that don't relish the, "shoot all our garbage to the Sun option", for whatever reason, there is another. Launch it all off the ecliptic into interstellar space. It will far surpass it's half-life many times over before ever reaching the outskirts of the nearest galaxy.<br /> Now, my challenge to you is to provide a convincing argument that these are not viable options. Fear doesn't cut it. "What if there is an accident?" is a cop out. What if I fall down the stairs, hit my head on a nail, and die from complications because my cell phone was temporarily out of service and I couldn't call for help? Well, by all means we should stop building houses with steps or out of wood (requiring nails) and cell phones are ineffective when truly needed so that technology was just a bad idea. Please! We could "What if" ourselves to death. The risk in the nuclear scenario could be minimized by launching from a deep-ocean platform and having clean-up crews in position just in case.<br /> I'm listening :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-24793679893298345962010-05-26T09:56:03.525-07:002010-05-26T09:56:03.525-07:00You're exactly right: "It can and should ...You're exactly right: "It can and should be done." But the systemic realities present a bleak outlook for implementing a rational plan for the future of our energy supply. The market and us taxpayers as a whole, react to the immediate situation rather than properly analyzing the system of production and profit that has put us, our economy and our environment in danger of collapse. Rationally looking at the future has never been a trademark of our political system or the corporate interests that dictate our democracy. If you believe that the pressure of the voters can enact change on the legislatures who have the power to create change, then our one-party "democracy" must be taken back by "we the people" from the hands of the corporations who manufacture our consent of this system that benefits only the few.Todd Curlhttp://thetoddblog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-46057092002261885022010-05-26T08:30:39.613-07:002010-05-26T08:30:39.613-07:00That last point Todd, would be central to my argum...That last point Todd, would be central to my argument. A national energy plan would create positive market pressures through existing suppliers; cap and trade tries this, but it largely ignores current capital investment. I don't believe there are many CEO's or officers at major electrical producers (or oil companies), that think climate change is a hoax. These folks are mostly engineers by trade; but if you are responsible to shareholders for perhaps $10 billion in plants that still have a decade or more to go on a depreciation schedule...it is tough. The only entity that has the scale, the sheer muscle power to do this, is the consolidated power of the American people. We call that "the Government"...and the consolidated power is harnessed through taxes. At this point, Hank might be feeling less supportive (maybe). Energy/fuel taxes that lower demand and are funneled to new and existing enterprise to modify current infrastructure and build the new. No more playing around in the margins; no more whining. Americans adjust to fuel costs that jump by a dollar or more in a few weeks, all to support speculator profits. Adjusting to staged per unit tax increases on gas and kilowatt hours is well within the capability of Americans. I am talking in terms of a plan of twenty to thirty years, with a tax schedule that phases in over, perhaps, the first 10, then plateaus before regressing to the finish. In thirty years, we could see a new energy model comprises of far lower per person demand levels, and perhaps two-thirds of that demand serviced through renewables. It can and should be done...and if Southern Company and "ExxonSolar" are earning $4.00 per share then, fantastic!Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-63409450955142949032010-05-26T06:38:01.382-07:002010-05-26T06:38:01.382-07:00Very reasoned Michael, and accurately assessed as ...Very reasoned Michael, and accurately assessed as well. Unfortunately, no matter how rational a plan might be, it will ultimately be thwarted by a political apparatus that will make sure the "petro-dictators" continue their hegemony over energy policy, benefiting not only the profits of these modern oil barons, but ensuring that war profiteering will continue in perpetuity as we continue to destabilize the middle east for western capitalist control over their precious finite resource: OIL.<br /><br />Let us not forget about the role that the coal industry plays as well. Environmental and human catastrophes aside, coal provides 60% of the world's electricity. I don't think they're going to go away without a fight -- or at least a propaganda campaign; which they have already begun. Have you seen the ads for "clean coal"?<br /><br />Perhaps the only chance for clean energy is if the "petro-dictators" control the production, oversight and eventual profits of wind and solar energy and the construction of a new, more efficient grid.Todd Curlhttp://thetoddblog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-612086215887429232010-05-25T20:07:05.140-07:002010-05-25T20:07:05.140-07:00It may come as a surprise, but as much as I can un...It may come as a surprise, but as much as I can understand what you say here, I can't find a single thing to disagree with.<br /><br />Your three observations for why the United States doesn't have a coherent national energy strategy are about as spot on as possible. Actually, I think those three things could cover a wide range of what ails America.<br /><br />Good post.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-23626109700798892612010-05-25T10:40:16.935-07:002010-05-25T10:40:16.935-07:00Thank you Hank...and their is never a question of ...Thank you Hank...and their is never a question of being allowed here; just a request. Please continue to voice your positions.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-58993818863115361612010-05-25T07:33:13.056-07:002010-05-25T07:33:13.056-07:00(previous comment continued)
Note: I did not arg...(previous comment continued)<br /><br />Note: I did not argue with your "math" concerning Social Security. I simply say it is abhorrent for these crooks to take from you, spend the money in a cut and dried, if not illegal act of breach of fiduciary responsibility, and then be told I'm on the wrong end of the "math". When the "math" includes empowering people to take your money for one thing, then spend it for something else, how can I be at any sort of blame for mathematical irregularities.<br /><br />To my "less educated" mind, I feel you have fallen into the tired old liberal schtick with much of your argument here. "Well, you don't want Government interference with your prostrate exam so why aren't you complaining about Government efforts to safeguard the air ways?" I just find that an intellectually bankrupt position. And coming from you, I was unpleasantly surprised.<br /><br />And you call it anything you want. But if you come home with your pay on Friday, and I take $10 from you without your permission, and hand it to your neighbor who has sat on the front porch all week, sipping on his 48's and REFUSING to sully himself doing what YOU do to make that money, I call that Redistribution.<br /><br />One last thing..for your benefit and any misguided person paying attention. I participate on Liberal Blogs to learn. There are some very well constructed and presented Conservative Blogs. But I learn nothing from agreeing with people. Where I HOPE to learn the most is in exchanges such as this where I can state my opinions, however uninformed, uneducated and erroneous they might be, and participate in the exchanges telling me how and why I am wrong! Nothing to be gained from sitting around listening to or watching people pat each other on the back, commenting how witty they are and how stupid anyone is who views things differently than they do!<br /><br />If you'll allow, I don't care for your "friend's" tawdry, immature style and I'll leave it at that.<br /><br /><b><i>"There is no justice, and great harm, in diminishing the whole array of future opportunity to save a few people from a regrettable fate."</i></b>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-58601354676350276452010-05-25T07:32:15.480-07:002010-05-25T07:32:15.480-07:00(Have to do the two part thing again.)
A couple o...(Have to do the two part thing again.)<br /><br />A couple of quick points then off to make some wealth to share.<br /><br />It only takes reading one of your posts for a reasonable person to recognize your capabilities. Even if one might consider them misdirected. :-)<br /><br />Please don't tout the Obamas tax largess. At least not for my benefit. If I remember the figures correctly they paid approximately one fifth of their earnings in taxes? Percentage wise, I paid around 25%. But without revealing more personal information than anyone needs to know, in recent years I have paid MUCH more. For a couple of years, almost double what the Obamas paid last year so yes, I've paid my share.<br /><br />Also, having owned my own businesses virtually all my life, employing more than 75 people at times, my contribution to FICA has been quite substantial. And I STILL don't agree with the notion that I get NO CREDIT for that. (Nor did my high priced Workmen's Comp Insurance cover Me!) The people that worked for me are scheduled to draw much more in SS assistance than I ever will. (Actually, the way things are going now, I suspect the government will end up simply absconding with the SS money of those over a certain income bracket. Thievery! But another post.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-22809509946691727822010-05-24T22:55:42.466-07:002010-05-24T22:55:42.466-07:00Well thank you Hank...I thought perhaps the cat ha...Well thank you Hank...I thought perhaps the cat had got your tongue. If I were to lose sleep about anything, it would be the notion that I could "contract" an idea from anyone. I have a Masters in Business Administration (with an emphasis on Finance and International Business). I have a Bachelors in Supply Chain Management. I have a solid 15 year career running profitable businesses. It takes a strong argument to bring me around to a point, and I passed the point of virgin naivete a long time ago. You are of course welcome to your opinions, so long as you limit your most aggressive point making to me; criticizing Mario or any other blogger on my site just makes me feel unloved (I need my attention Hank). As for your points; first, yes, we pay government officers so they should listen. Guess what Hank...the single most underrepresented group of voters in our country is the poor. The entitlement "moochers" aren't voting. Working Democrats, progressives and liberals vote, and they pay a boatload of taxes. The President and First Lady redistributed $1.79 million of their funds to big government for 2009....how much did you pay Hank? Democrats own big companies and write big checks, just like Republicans. Secondly, anybody who has ever run a business knows that you must reinvest to grow and survive. Progressive taxation is the foundation for reinvestment...in physical infrastructure and human capital. The Father of capitalism, Adam Smith, believed it; a Founding Father of our Republic, Thomas Paine, believed it. Our periods of greatest national productivity are characterized by tax sums, expressed in GDP, of around 19%. The market cannot and will not do many things that an economy needs over time...it just isn't geared that way Hank. Corporations and industries focus on much more narrow streams of information and cash. That is why they lobby the government to build infrastructure, both physical and mental. You are of course free to continue to call the practice redistribution, and lobby against it; I'll not censor the viewpoint and would encourage you and others who comment to continue to bring these arguments to this space. But I disagree with it on principle and in practice, and will leave it at that. The math of Social Security is rather straightforward, and not the product of bias. Monies paid in via FICA over time are invested at essentially the risk-free rate, which is to say not much higher than inflation. It doesn't lose value Hank, but the money that you, your father, or my father earned and paid via FICA in 1970 won't go very far in 2010. The notion that you are questioning Hank, is the very one that conservatives base the idea of privatizing Social Security on, so you are swimming upstream against a conservative current in questioning my math on social security. One final thought sir, please remember the Middle is the place (I hope) that friendly parties come for conversation and reasoned debate, as I believe I explained in an earlier post. It is a location for parley more than a spot on the spectrum. I view programs and the taxes that pay for them through the prism of business and investment, but my post history (which I proudly put my name on) clearly defines me as left of center in the antiquated spectrum we seem so found fond of. And to everyone else...come on in, the water is fine, and the RM is listening...Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-75137275431587672082010-05-24T20:00:16.930-07:002010-05-24T20:00:16.930-07:00(Sorry but for some reason I had to break this up ...(Sorry but for some reason I had to break this up into two segments)<br /><br />On to your question #2: Every one of us that pay taxes is paying the salary and benefits of our elected officials. Most of their support staff and personnel. And who knows what else! If you work for Hank’s Trucking Service, and your salary is paid by “Hank”, why would, let’s say “Mario”, who pays you nothing, have any say over your actions? Is it not reasonable that Hank should expect to have some measure of control over your actions on behalf of his company? And on the other hand, why would you be compelled in any manner to take direction from Mario? This seems such a simple premise that I fear I may be misconstruing your intent or simply misunderstanding your question.<br /><br />Question 3: I guess I could answer more simply by saying what I do not think is an entitlement. For the most part, money that is returned to me, that I have given the Government ostensibly so they could save it for me and return it to me in my later years when I may need it, is not an entitlement. And why Michael is the math not in favor of those of us that have given the Government 5% to 8% or more of our earnings all our life? Not to mention the matching funds submitted in our behalf by our employers? Is it my fault that these pimps and whores will spend all my contribution BEFORE I am old enough to seek its return? This is a whole ‘nuther argument, but to return MY money to me is not an entitlement. I understand what you are saying, but because these thieves have misappropriated and squandered my contribution does not put me on the wrong side of the math. It just makes them incorrigible thieves and liars. Now, if you want to debate the gross mishandling of Social Security and Medicare, I think that’s gonna take another post.<br /><br />The Constitution entitles us to expect certain functions of the Government. Defense, Security, SAFEGUARDING OUR BORDERS, are but a few of the things we should willingly pay taxes for. But the Government (in my humble opinion) has overstepped its authority in the arenas of Social Engineering and has a difficulty now funding those rightful obligations to the Citizenry. Perhaps if they were to stick to those powers enumerated by the Constitution and spend less time, effort and resources buying blocks of votes through entitlement programs, we wouldn’t have States like Arizona frantically trying to protect their citizens.<br /><br />I’ve got to quit for now. But I really do want to address the balance of your post. I’m probably not quite as sharp as you are. Certainly not as well spoken. But some of the stuff you’ve written just reeks to me.<br /><br />I’ve got to say, and I’m really hesitant because I know you’re gonna lose a lot of sleep over me saying it, but I find this post very ”Un-Rational” and certainly nowhere near anyone’s “Middle”. This is way beneath the quality of commentary I’ve come to expect from you.<br /><br />This sounds more like some of the hate and fear mongering Piperni would generate from his “unique” perspective of being a Foreign Expert on U.S. Politics!<br /><br />Part Deux after a good night’s sleep and a glass (or 2 or 3 or 4 or…..) of wine.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-43225346157141058012010-05-24T19:59:34.519-07:002010-05-24T19:59:34.519-07:00Michael, Michael, Michael…..I’m not sure where to ...Michael, Michael, Michael…..I’m not sure where to start. I have to say I feared this. You’ve been hanging around Piperni’s Dump too much and have apparently contracted some sort of virus! If you’re going to insist on playing on that hateful little “Irrational” dump site, you must get vaccinated!! ;-) ;-)<br /><br />I would have to take issue with your description of “garbage” for the sentiment expressed. While I may not agree completely with this gentleman’s sentiment, one has to understand the frustration he expresses. We have given power to the “moochers”. Granted, there are many truly needy. But there are also (and this is where I feel many Liberals are naïve) many out there who have no ambition. They do not aspire to any better or greater standard of living. They are and will remain perfectly happy to exist off the productivity and accomplishments of others. And unfortunately, that is just reality.<br /><br />With the percentage of tax neutral individuals in the U.S. approaching, if not exceeding 50%, a man now is literally able to “vote” for the politician who will take away from one group and give them the most, while they contribute nothing. This is understandably a concern for those who design, build and operate the “motors” of our society. But my question to you, as well as my fear for my country, is where will it end? What happens when the moochers outnumber the producers? Is it fair for a growing number of our society to literally be able to vote in an Administration that vows to take away from one group to enrich the other?? Even thought the one group contributes nothing??<br /><br />Come on Michael. Without employing any of the “isms”, this is pure Wealth Redistribution of the most heinous type. Where those receiving have a majority stake in the process of taking and from whom it is to be taken! And no, you will not find a spot in the Constitution modifying Voting Rights. But how can you so cavalierly dismiss the concerns of one segment as “garbage”? Honestly, I have come to expect more respectful and “Rational” commentary.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-373866942377168822010-05-24T17:45:41.269-07:002010-05-24T17:45:41.269-07:00I say it's your fault Michael for taking my ha...I say it's your fault Michael for taking my hard earned tax money to spend on your genetically engineered hog research facility in Illinois.<br /><br />J. Martin, and you too Michael, of course, make some good points. Rational points -- therefore they will assuredly be lost on the average tax-hating Joe sixpack type who doesn't like his money going to all those leeching degenerates he's heard so much about on Fox News.<br /><br />I think you might want to mention that taxes also support the roads we drive on, fire, police, and a myriad of other things we take for granted. In your analysis, if we drive on a road, shouldn't we lose our vote taking advantage of the "nanny state?" If the fir department comes and puts out a fire at our house, we should definitely lose out vote.<br /><br />It's just amazing the intolerance and ignorance of some people. I was talking with some in-law types of people about a month ago. One happens to be "liberal," by that he votes democrat and rags on Republicans. He was bitching again about wasting his money on those no good lazy welfare types. I tried to explain that public welfare is a very, very small percentage of our taxes. Pretty funny considering I'm on medicaid and I think he knows that.<br /><br />I brought up the notion that he should just stop driving because I'm sick of my taxes -- yes, even a poor medicaid case like me pays taxes, quite a bit actually -- going toward supporting his no good lazy driving habit. Not sure if it made a difference, but is along the same rational lines as bitching about money going toward actual human beings who may have been historically disenfranchised.<br /><br />I won't even get into Corporate Welfare -- I guess you brought that up the other day Michael.Todd Curlhttp://thetoddblog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-91386112427314779722010-05-24T13:25:28.750-07:002010-05-24T13:25:28.750-07:00Jason, I think that the issues with the VA are qui...Jason, I think that the issues with the VA are quite complicated indeed. Many if not most of our returning heroes suffer from some level emotional trauma (to say nothing of their physical scars). We have, as a nation, done a poor job of helping vets deal with these traumas; a fact that is underscored by the percentage of homeless through time that are/were combat veterans. The folks serving as case managers in today's VA are quite simply overwhelmed by the numbers who need assistance, the difficulties in coordinating with the DOD, and shear funding deficits. Members of Congress from both parties have, historically, been much quicker to rise in support of big-ticket systems requests than programs for the emotional wounds of veterans. There is still some element that believes PTSD to be a sign of weakness, and the support or treatment of it, to be a bleeding heart project. Citizens interested in this problem should, as we approach Memorial Day, contact their representatives or the office of General Eric Shinseki, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-54513392993132946462010-05-24T11:59:31.036-07:002010-05-24T11:59:31.036-07:00(in case my original post is still up, feel free t...(in case my original post is still up, feel free to delete it. It has spelling and grammar errors I didn't see till it was too late.)<br /><br />Thanks for writing this. I'm sick to death of hearing about "the nanny state" or "the socialist plot to support the lazy" or "Obama want's to use money from hard working Americans to sustain lazy, hippy children!"<br /><br />Growing up with not a lot of money, myself and my family have had little choice (except maybe for just dying, we never used that option) but to use aid from both government and our church. As not even a married man for very long, I'm still in the position of from time to time using that same aid and I know people who have needed to use more then myself.<br /><br />What those with money who are complaining about "the nanny state" don't realize is first off how degrading it is for the majority of us who do have to use aid. I honestly feel like less of a human being at times, part mostly because of those complaining. Yes, there are some who misuse it, I know of people like this. But I also know of way more who literally could not afford to be alive without it.<br /><br />It's interesting you mention how many tax dollars go to the VA. They must not be using those dollar effectively enough. I know for a fact that the strong majority of the homeless on the streets of LA and Santa Monica are vets. I know this because besides reading new papers I talked with a lot of them. There were very few homeless that I ever encountered that did not serve in some war or another and that 9 out of 10 times it was as a result of fighting in whatever war that it led to their being homeless in the first place. I truly believe after these experiences that there are more ways then death for one to give their live to their country.<br /><br />I also know that the VA hospital in Westwood, CA at least for the longest time had empty buildings doing nothing. Gov. Schwarzenegger's brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver, who was on the Santa Monica City Council (I'm not sure if he still is) ran his original campaign with the promise to get the Westwood VA to actually use these empty buildings to house the homeless Vets. I don't remember if he was successful, I think he wasn't, but I do remember the out cry from people who "didn't want to pay for lazy bums."<br /><br />I've thought about it many times. Seems to me the ones who really are pay taxes are the poor and middle class, with the wealthy skipping out on taxes more times then not. Guys like actor Wesley Snipes who illegal skip out on their taxes, or normal wealthy folks that us their wealth and power to skip out on paying their fair share of the load and leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab. Truly if their is a "nanny state" it's us taking care of them!<br /><br />The whole things reminds me of pre-"A Christmas Carol" Scrooge, who said before he changed something along the lines of "...decrease the surplus population." when it came to his feelings about letting the poor die. I feel that many in the county fully follow the admonition of pre-changed Scrooge and most likely are in fact just waiting for the "surplus population" to just die off. It makes me sick!J. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03881089296326373436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-749066762907301222010-05-22T09:17:31.065-07:002010-05-22T09:17:31.065-07:00Well Michael, I was all poised to send back a scat...Well Michael, I was all poised to send back a scathing comment, but then, you wrote this: <b>"Most of the stories on all of the channels are just like this article; a no-holds barred attack on personality or presentation, with no focus on the substance."</b> which essentially capsulizes anything I had to say and saves me the effort.<br /><br />Also, I would second your statement concerning the "lunatics" on the left. I enjoy your even handed commentary. In my viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with lambasting those things on the one side you don't agree with. But I think you are hypocritical if you don't acknowledge there is an even share of knuckle heads on the other side!<br /><br />That's the issue I have with sites such as Piperni's Canadian Blog and take on U.S. Politics. They are wont to consider there is much wrong on both sides. Not all the lying, hypocrisy, hate, fear mongering, etc. emanates only from the Right/Conservative/Republican side. A man much wiser than myself once said something to the effect of, "I won't debate whose biases are greater."<br /><br />Your even handed commentary allows you credibility people like Piperni can never enjoy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311066766835433023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-39232858849550842032010-05-21T17:13:44.739-07:002010-05-21T17:13:44.739-07:00I accept your commentary Jake (although not the pa...I accept your commentary Jake (although not the part about having watched them enough)...thank you for your comments.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-6015262007289011502010-05-21T16:21:43.928-07:002010-05-21T16:21:43.928-07:00If you believe Matthews and Olbermann are anywhere...If you believe Matthews and Olbermann are anywhere close to raving lunatics then I humbly suggest that you have not watched them often enough to render an opinion. You might disagree with their politics or even their style (in Olbermann's case in particular) but their statements are based on fact. They reference all which they say. When they do error, they are quick to come clean and set the record straight. <br /><br />You are way off base here Michael.Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-4266322109398022062010-05-21T15:31:21.099-07:002010-05-21T15:31:21.099-07:00Chris Matthews jumps immediately to mind if the qu...Chris Matthews jumps immediately to mind if the question is "raving lunatics". Although I watch him occasionally, it is fair to see Olbermann qualifies as "raving lunatic". If you are asking who "compares" to Glenn (your word compares); I think he is a special creation unto himself.Michael Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10665821948140933568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4144072520821641238.post-49123974043511246552010-05-21T13:59:44.695-07:002010-05-21T13:59:44.695-07:00Who are the "raving lunatics" on televis...Who are the "raving lunatics" on television from the left you claim you could have mentioned but did not. I'm curious to hear who on the left you believe compares to Glenn Beck.Jakenoreply@blogger.com