1. The deficit is actually shrinking.
2. The deficit grew under George W. Bush.
3. The deficit has grown in the last four years mostly due to the recession.
4. The stimuous cost much less than Bush's wars and tax cuts.
5. Investors are now paying us to borrow money.
6. Investors aren't running away. They are buying Treasury Bonds.
7. The Health Care Reform Act reduces the deficit.
8. The US is borrowing much less from Foreign countries now than before the recession.
9. We are spending 20% of the budget on defense.
10. We are spending 21% of the budget on healthcare.
Monday, September 17, 2012
I'm not looking but it's ok because I believe...
Why don't people open their eyes? Why do many people believe the loudest voice on the TV or radio? Why are the same mistakes made as history is ignored? There must be profit in it for someone. Not me; of course, I am in the lower half of the "middle class". One thing that President Obama, Mitt Romney, George Will, and most other national politicos have in common is that they are so out of touch they cannot conceive how much of a luxury going out for a $5 McDonald's lunch is for me. To realize evidence of this it is only necessary to listen to many who say that this or that government program or tax hurts small business people. Of course, the term "small business" includes many businesses that routinely trade over a million dollars. Of course; to them, I could be making $200,000 a year and still be considered "middle class". To me a small business is the mom and pop bookstore on 3rd street that has half a dozen employees. Most people don't think to ask what is meant by "small business" or "middle class" because they are too busy believing in someone or some philosophy.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that we can have the society we have without government regulation and by reducing taxes on those who can afford them most. I know it doesn't seem fair that Warren Buffet should have to pay a higher percentage of his money in taxes than me, but the aforementioned hamburger costs us both the same. If my taxes are a larger percentage of my available income (for food) than his, it affects me more. If we both routinely buy the $5 hamburger, I don't get to buy new shoes this year and he still gets to buy a new Rolls Royce. Many "middle class" people cannot afford new shoes at all.
The belief function of the brain and the thinking part of the brain are separate. You can't do both at the same time. This is a big part of the problem. When people start believing in someone or something they stop thinking. Remember that when your candidate of choice says something will hurt or help small businesses or the middle class: they cannot relate to what a small business or middle income level is to you and me.
Please people: stop believing and start thinking.
.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Mom baked cookies
My mom loved everybody. Personal space be damned; mom was a hugger. Everybody knew my mom's smile and hugs and of course: her cookies.
Mom was a professional woman. She had a 4 year college degree and was a registered nurse. She only worked as a nurse when she needed to. She was always a full-time mother and housewife. I guess you could say she was liberated because she was free to do what she wanted; and what she wanted was to raise her boys and take care of her household. She loved housework. My mother ironed our tee shirts just for the joy of doing it! She also had dinner on the table promptly at 5:30 each night. Somewhere in there she found time to bake. Apple pie and strawberry shortcake were seasonal delights but brownies and cookies were regulars.
When my bothers and I grew up and moved away, mom retired from nursing and did volunteer work at Northside and North Fulton Hospital. She never let on to them that she was a nurse. This way she could care for people (the way she loved) in an environment she knew well, without any pressure. With a home that didn't have three growing boys and their friends constantly messing it up, and with a whole lot less laundry to do, mom baked more. She settled on sugar cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Now Mom wasn't the greatest baker in the World. She did cook with a whole lot of love and it came through even when the edges were a bit brown and the texture somewhat overly crunchy (hard as rocks). Of course, Mom firmly believed a cold glass of milk could fix any miscalculation in baking times. The fact is: she didn't pay a whole lot of attention to baking times and everything got baked at 350 degrees.
I'm not really sure where the sugar cookie recipe Mom used came from. When I was small and insecure Mom's form of therapy involved teaching me to bake brownies or chocolate chip cookies which she never used a written recipe for (I think that this is why she never baked bread). The improvisational method of baking has it's successes and failures but I never remember a bad batch of brownies. Until later in life though sugar cookies were reserved for Chirstmas cutout cookies. Between having to wait for the dough to chill, adding lots of food coloring and decorating with colored nonpareils, sugar cookies were a major production to be eagerly anticipated. Still never a recipe. Sometimes they were hard and sometimes the green Christmas trees looked like they had the blight, but they were always tasty. When she "retired" and sugar cookies became a weekly thing for Mom she actually wrote down her recipe and Dad sent it in to a magazine contest which she won. Even after that I don't think she ever referred to her own recipe. It was this, that and a pinch of something else. Chill the dough, cut them out (simple rounds now) throw them in a 350 degree oven for awhile. Nothing fancy, but they filled the cookie jar.
That cookie jar never stayed full though. If you visited Mom and Dad's the cookie jar came off the fridge and you had a cookie. Most likely you left with a bag of cookies. The mailman got cookies. The UPS man left with cookies. The flower delivery person (Dad loved to send Mom flowers as often as he could afford to) left with cookies. The preacher and every neighbor knew my Mom's sugar cookies. She did venture out once in awhile and try molasses cookies (my Grandmother's specialty) ginger snaps, or snickerdoodles. But she always came back to sugar cookies and everybody got them.
When my mom died peacefully in her sleep we had to decide upon a vessel of some sort to put her ashes in for the memorial/interment service. Even though we thought it might raise a few eyebrows, there was really only one thing we could use: her cookie jar. At the funeral when the pall was removed and there sat Mom's earthly remains inside her cookie jar, there was not a murmur, chuckle or any little old ladies gasping to be heard. There were a whole bunch of smiles though. Everyone knew Mom baked cookies.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Really stupid stuff..........
As I read the paper today I came across (as I often do) several items in the news that are just plain stupid.
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Now stupid is word I use lightly (it would be stupid not to do so). It was one of those words I taught my kids to never use; however, the experience of my advanced age has convinced me that stupidity does exist and should be discussed with the hope of eliminating some of it from the World.
I have decided; therefore, to create a list of things I find really stupid and explain why I feel that way (as time allows).
The list so far:
The Chik-fil-a controversy.
The uproar about where the USA Olympic uniforms were made.
The "need" to personally own assault weapons and justify it Constitutionally.
People who support the "right to life" yet are also warmongers.
Trickle down theory.
Long drawn out trials for people whose guilt is not in doubt.
The amount of money spent on elections.
"the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.
President Obama agreeing to kill a US citizen (terrorist) abroad rather then bring him back to the US for trial.
The criminalization of teenagers for possession of alcohol at 18.
Please feel free to add to my list. Please don't load me up with things you just don't like. I don't like black-eyed peas but they really are not stupid in anyway. Remember: this is my list and my opinion. Don't take it personally. If you disagree, tell me why. You just might teach me something.
stw
Liberative conservial
Political parties aside, according to Webster's: a conservative is one who adheres to traditional methods or views. Nowhere does it mention that a conservative is ante-liberal. Additionally, according to Webster's: a liberal is one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways. Again, no mention that a liberal is ante-conservative. The irony of course is that the one word (traditional) common to both definitions is the thing that is in most opposition to the meaning of these two nouns. Untie that one philosophy majors!
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
I've often described myself as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal anyone could meet. I really don't like either characterization because the truth is I am one on some issues but the other on different subjects. Is it really necessary to be one or the other? I think this is what hangs up our government more than anything else. Politicians seem to feel the need to be either liberal or conservative.....PERIOD! And somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that in order to be a Democrat you must be a liberal and in order to be a Republican you must be a conservative. I won't pretend to be a history scholar here but if studied it is interesting how these two parties came about in the United States and the ideas that brought them about.
The Universe has allot of black, white, and yes, grey in it. Perhaps things would work better if we all accepted that fact. I know this is idealistic talk and I admit having a pair of rose colored glasses. I just believe that every one's opinion is valid. An opinion is just that. There are some truths but most of what divides the state of the World is only right or wrong according to one's point of view. What gets me the most is how often a person's point of view is guided by someone who has no real credibility. Most radio show hosts and TV personalities fall into this category (another great subject to wax poetically about sometime!). If you only listen to those who you agree with then where does the opportunity to grow come from? I suggest that one should listen to and open the possibility to learn from those we don't agree with. I doubt anyone will change my mind about Rush Limbaugh being a loud mouthed, uncaring, rich actor who loves to hear his own voice; however, if I listen to him once in awhile, I will hear him say something outrageous that causes me to investigate something a bit more and I might just learn something I didn't know or gain an understanding I didn't have previously. One example: a local politician (who I don't particularly like for a number of reasons) was recently involved in a forum with his opposition (from the same party). When the candidates were asked about major issues facing the state, his opposition mentioned education, tax reform and ethics reform. Mr. Incumbent replied: "If we don't elect Mitt Romney as President we will be saddled with Obamacare. If Obamacare stays in place, instead of 1.7 million Georgians on Medicare we will have 2.5 million." Now the singularity of the answer was enough to enrage me, but it made me want to learn a bit more about Medicare, and how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect it. I learned allot after about 10 minutes worth of research. What I learned: Medicare costs allot. Medicare provides allot of medical care for pennies on the dollar, whereas companies like AEtna provide the same level of care for multiple dollars. The population of the United States is aging and there will be many more people in need of help to provide the health care they will need as they age.
A close acquaintance of mine is retiring soon. He has worked hard for 60 years. He falls into the so-called "doughnut hole" where coverage stops because his pension and Social Security will pay him just enough to keep him above the Federal Poverty level. He will not be able to afford the medicine he and his wife need to keep them alive. The PPaACA will close this gap. Yes we will have to pay for it. And yes, I believe that the 1-2% of the people in this country who made their money off the hard work and backs of people like my friend should pay higher taxes to help pay for it.
My point is this: Be liberal and learn something new. Be conservative and make decisions carefully with traditions and history in mind. You can do both. It is quite alright to lean one way or the other (the news media should be liberal and banks should be conservative) but don't be opposed to growing and changing by examining a different point of view.
stw-----Do your very best to be better than humanly possible and not be selfish.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Help! Healthcare Hell!
What a mess! First of all let me say I hate the term "Obamacare"; and not just because it was coined by that actor guy named Limbaugh. The healthcare plan President Obama tried to get through Congress and the plan Congress passed are very different. What the President attempted would have really changed things (good or bad) and what we got is a bit of a water downed mess that won't change the big picture dramatically. Doctors, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, and mostly lobbyists will still make plenty of money, the upper 1-2% of Americans will get the greatest healthcare available in the World and the rest of us will pay allot for healthcare coverage. Don't misunderstand me here: I like what has passed. It is better than what was in place before. My premiums have gone up but I have known for three years they would. And I still pay very little for excellent coverage. Thanks to the new provisions: I didn't have to pay a dime for a routine colonoscopy, my wife gets a free mammogram, my children who are out of school and under the age limit are still on my policy, and family members with pre-existing conditions cannot be turned down for coverage. I know it is not a perfect solution but for Mr. Average Middle Class the changes have and will be good.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Perhaps at some point I will wax on the idea of socialized medicine. I think there are good things and bad things about it, but a good exploration will need more time than I have right now. I do think that is is unfortunate that because of the inclusion of the term (social-) many people will not consider anything that they think is linked to communism.
So healthcare reform is constantly being linked to partisan politics. If what we presently have is linked with President Obama and the Democrats, what is the Republican plan? Mitt Romney supported about the same thing in Massachusetts but now has changed his mind (OK by me to change your mind if it is done for thoughtful, principled reasons rather than cynical, political ones). What is Mitt's plan? He hasn't said. When a FOX reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to describe his party's (R) plan to replace "Obamacare" (ugh!) he said that first the GOP had to repeal Obamacare. When asked the simple question two more times McConnell continued to refuse to offer any plan. He just kept saying that the GOP (not Congress mind you) must first repeal Obamacare. The most powerful man in the Republican party will not speak about a specific alternative healthcare plan. Of course this is the same politician that said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” This powerful Congressional leader (remember Congress? supposed to by our lawmakers and overseers of the common good) cares more about dumping his political opposition then passing any meaning good legislation. And you wonder why I don't like politicians and especially the GOP right now.
The only way to get any good done for the common man is to be open to ideas. No matter who comes up with them or what words they contain. Listen. Debate the points not the ideology.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Now that my muse has kicked me in the...................
Since my muse has visited me and I hope will be around for awhile, I decided publish some stuff I wrote but never got around to complete or post. The following is something I wrote 3 years ago and for whatever ever reason never shared it. Needless to say, there has been much water under the bridge since I wrote this. I promise to revisit the subject with today's view.
OPTIMISM IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY
OPTIMISM IN A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY
What do capitalism, communism, free enterprise, and socialism all have in common? Well they all suck in their own ways, and if you talk about them you might just as well stand on a busy street corner and shout “abortion!” over and over. I think some of the worst parts of each are endemic to humans. Free enterprise and capitalism are disastrous without regulation. Communism and Socialism deny individual rights and lead to fascism. History proves that each system fosters greed. You can, however, have common good and the individual right to make a profit.
I’m like mostly everybody else in many ways. I am concerned with people losing jobs, not having healthcare, not having enough money to pay all the bills, etc...
Add to that a worry about war, the possible threat of terrorist attack at anytime, and a flu or chicken plague,,,,, hey! There is much to be concerned about. I am also like most other people in that I worry about me; me and my family; how I will get by and provide for them. Is this selfish? Yes, but since I am human (and I think this is the common flaw) it is how I relate to everything.
I read through the President’s economic stimulus plan and wondered how it would affect me. I’m not sure it will. Don’t get me wrong…….I trust President Obama and his financial advisors because I am optimistic and haven’t been thrilled with our government in many, many years. I am very hopeful that this plan will help the Economy in general and therefore eventually make my life a bit easier, more enjoyable, or at least a bit less laden with stress. I just hope so.
In order for me to figure out how this latest economic stimulus plan will help me I must look at how the present economy is affecting me. Basically this is my situation: I think I am pretty typical middle class. I am a government worker (job pretty secure for now) with good health insurance, retirement plan and fifteen years of loyalty (both me to them and them to me). I am about to have 3 kids in college, and my wife works at home. I have a mortgage, a cell phone, 2 dogs, 2 cats and more consumer debt than I would like. Does any of this sound familiar? I hope so, because I think I am pretty typical. I have a second job, and I am barely making ends meet. I have it good.
Really! My life could fracture at any time for a number of reasons but why focus on what if? I am paying my obligations…….all of them. I am feeding my family. I have no car payments. I occasionally take my wife out for dinner or to see a show.
The biggest problem I see that many people have right now is consumer debt. I have many friends whose stories go like this: One day "Bob's" bank and one of his credit card companies fail to agree on the paying/posting date of a bill. Of course, they each said that Bob needed to deal with the other about it. So what happened is that one payment got messed up and this caused all of Bob's other credit card companies to cut his credit in half, which in turn made his balances very near or at their limits, which in turn made Bob's credit score go down, which in turn made his interest rates skyrocket. Talk about a snowball effect! Many, many, many phone calls resulted in no help. Eventually (maybe in 10 more years) Bob will get everyone paid off and have mountains of available credit. But wait! No one has credit anymore…….it doesn’t exist because when the Government bailed the big banks out they still paid big salaries, big bonuses and according to CNBC bought: “curtains for $28,000, a pair of chairs for $87,000, fabric for a “Roman Shade” for $11,000, Regency chairs for $24,000, six wall sconces for $2,700, a $13,000 chandelier in the private dining room and six dining chairs for $37,000, a “custom coffee table” for $16,000, an antique commode “on legs” for $35,000, and a $1,400 “parchment waste can.” Lest I forget about the $50 million corporate jet (French made) Citicorp just bought.
The present state of the economy is directly affecting me very little. If things don’t get better or if gas prices rise again I will have a tough time. So my hope is that President Obama’s stewardship will help things improve in general and therefore I will be able to look forward to better times.
Some Republicans in Congress are worried that if money were sent out to taxpayers directly we would save it instead of spending it to stimulate the economy. Heck! When the Government sent me a stimulus check last year I paid bills with it. I didn’t save it or “spend” it on anything. I gave it to the banks just like they did. But I owed it to them. The American people owe the money grubbing banks and Wall Street firms nothing. I read the fine print and I understood what the banks backing my credit cards could do. I just really believed that would act in good faith and they haven’t. I want the Government to make the banking industry act in good faith. Most of us bear some responsibility for the place we are in but the greedy money mongers at the top (who may be losing more then anyone else but who also are feeling it the least) need to act in good faith. They can make things better simply by making it as easy for people (like me) to get in better shape just as they made it easy for us to get into trouble. Why not sacrifice some profit (profit: making anything more than what it cost you) to get the money moving again? The Government could make them do this. If Mr. “A” could afford to buy House “B” at 5% interest but not at 10% interest and Bank “C” lent money to Mr. “A” to buy House “B” (money that Bank “A” borrowed at less then 5%) then the Government should force Bank “A” to only charge 5%. In my case; as long as I am acting in good faith (I pay them every month) the interest rates on my credit cards should not be automatically raised across the board because of an error. If I showed any pattern of mistakes or missed payments then all bets could be off………I would deserve it. It doesn’t take an idiot to see that the Banks have not acted in good faith. I think the Government should step in and make sure that profit is made at no ones great expense. Regulate the amount of profit that can be made and measure profit realistically. Just because I made $100 profit this year and last year I made $125 profit doesn’t mean I lost money. I still made $100 profit.
As humans we can overcome ourselves if we will only choose to think of each other at least as much as we think about ourselves. Communism could work if not for greed, and I am sure that Capitalism can too.
Lamentations of a middleman
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am....." with all due reference to Gerry Rafferty and Stealers Wheel: I feel like I am stuck in the middle........again. Maybe it is because I was born a middle child. Well, I wasn't really born a middle child. I was born a baby; the baby in my family......the youngest. I hated being "the baby of the family". This lasted until I was thankfully given a younger brother when I was 8. So at first, I loved being in the middle. I most certainly wasn't the "baby" anymore (at 8 years old this is important for a boy). I soon learned however, that being in the middle wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
I worshiped my older brother. He is only two years older (and wiser) than me, but he has always been a larger than life, monster of a guy in my eyes. He knew everything I didn't and he knew how to manipulate the world around him to exist. He was god and I was his minion, shadow and best friend. Then one of his peer group would come around and my status instantly dropped to "tagalong" & "little butthole". Mom was always a great solace during these times of utter rejection. I didn't understand what horrible thing made me lose my older brother's love, but Mom could always distract me by saying something like "let's bake a bunch of brownies" or "come help me plant some these flowers". Thus I learned to love cooking, digging in the dirt and the wonderful power of the smile. You never get over rejection, you just learn to deal with it as part of life (humans' ability to choose,,,,,,,,another subject for another day) and go on until it rears it's ugly head again.
So Mom was always there to prop me up when life dealt me a blow. Then the new baby came along and I became the middle child. Seemingly this was great. Now I had someone to look up to me. It soon became apparent that because my younger brother was so much younger then me he needed and got the majority of Mom and Dad's attention. I understood. I had to learn self-reliance. I learned how to see and understand things from both sides and decide which way was the path of least resistance. This is both a blessing and a curse.
Where is the worse place to be in any conflict? The guy getting pummeled? No,,,,,the guy who has to step in and stop the guy whose animal instincts smell a kill. When you are in the middle you become the defacto peace maker who tends to fight for survival of the underdog. This puts you at risk for being pummeled too. To survive in the middle you understand that discretion is the better part of valor because that is all you believe you have, and it very often works.
Being in the middle means you come across as being non-committal. I do commit: just after much analysis. So am I a Democrat? Oh heck no! Idealist ideas I might have but I do keep an eye on what is,,,,,I call it reality. And unlike Will Rogers I really need organization in my life. So a Republican? I am too kindhearted and trusting. Also, I believe in looking real hard at this thing reality: shit flows downhill and the those with money have the power and the golden toilet seats at the top. There must be reason a gold toilet seat is cold. So I get pegged as being "moderate". Not really true. I have strong feelings about many things. I am not a fence sitter. Whatever the subject I stand on one side or the other. I just can usually understand why the other side feels the way they do. I like to claim that I am either the most liberal conservative in the world or the most conservative liberal in the world. I just very much hope that I am open minded.
I'm not sure whether I like being in the middle or not. It has served me pretty well. I have survived this way for a number of years. It is somewhat safe as long as you listen to both sides. I liken it to a scene in the movie "Shenandoah": the Confederate and Union armies are facing each other across a field taking a break from an obviously bloody stalemate. Just before the fight begins again, a skinny cow marches out into the field between them, oblivious to the fact that it looks like a good meal to both starving armies. All the men on both sides have a good laugh before a brave sole with a white flag rides out and chases the poor animal away. Then the reality resumes. Like the cow: the middleman has little hope of changing anyone's mind. But the middleman is almost always good for a laugh, and laughing is a good thing.
I worshiped my older brother. He is only two years older (and wiser) than me, but he has always been a larger than life, monster of a guy in my eyes. He knew everything I didn't and he knew how to manipulate the world around him to exist. He was god and I was his minion, shadow and best friend. Then one of his peer group would come around and my status instantly dropped to "tagalong" & "little butthole". Mom was always a great solace during these times of utter rejection. I didn't understand what horrible thing made me lose my older brother's love, but Mom could always distract me by saying something like "let's bake a bunch of brownies" or "come help me plant some these flowers". Thus I learned to love cooking, digging in the dirt and the wonderful power of the smile. You never get over rejection, you just learn to deal with it as part of life (humans' ability to choose,,,,,,,,another subject for another day) and go on until it rears it's ugly head again.
So Mom was always there to prop me up when life dealt me a blow. Then the new baby came along and I became the middle child. Seemingly this was great. Now I had someone to look up to me. It soon became apparent that because my younger brother was so much younger then me he needed and got the majority of Mom and Dad's attention. I understood. I had to learn self-reliance. I learned how to see and understand things from both sides and decide which way was the path of least resistance. This is both a blessing and a curse.
Where is the worse place to be in any conflict? The guy getting pummeled? No,,,,,the guy who has to step in and stop the guy whose animal instincts smell a kill. When you are in the middle you become the defacto peace maker who tends to fight for survival of the underdog. This puts you at risk for being pummeled too. To survive in the middle you understand that discretion is the better part of valor because that is all you believe you have, and it very often works.
Being in the middle means you come across as being non-committal. I do commit: just after much analysis. So am I a Democrat? Oh heck no! Idealist ideas I might have but I do keep an eye on what is,,,,,I call it reality. And unlike Will Rogers I really need organization in my life. So a Republican? I am too kindhearted and trusting. Also, I believe in looking real hard at this thing reality: shit flows downhill and the those with money have the power and the golden toilet seats at the top. There must be reason a gold toilet seat is cold. So I get pegged as being "moderate". Not really true. I have strong feelings about many things. I am not a fence sitter. Whatever the subject I stand on one side or the other. I just can usually understand why the other side feels the way they do. I like to claim that I am either the most liberal conservative in the world or the most conservative liberal in the world. I just very much hope that I am open minded.
I'm not sure whether I like being in the middle or not. It has served me pretty well. I have survived this way for a number of years. It is somewhat safe as long as you listen to both sides. I liken it to a scene in the movie "Shenandoah": the Confederate and Union armies are facing each other across a field taking a break from an obviously bloody stalemate. Just before the fight begins again, a skinny cow marches out into the field between them, oblivious to the fact that it looks like a good meal to both starving armies. All the men on both sides have a good laugh before a brave sole with a white flag rides out and chases the poor animal away. Then the reality resumes. Like the cow: the middleman has little hope of changing anyone's mind. But the middleman is almost always good for a laugh, and laughing is a good thing.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Here I am again.....
Now is the time to write! I just found two blogs I never "blogged". The ability to sit down and write has escaped me for a couple years.
Of course: now that I have discovered my blog again, I don't have time to write anything. Having two jobs is a bitch, but I know how fortunate I really am.
Of course: now that I have discovered my blog again, I don't have time to write anything. Having two jobs is a bitch, but I know how fortunate I really am.
Therapy,,,,,,,,,I need it, so I shall write again,,,,,,,soon,,,,,,I hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
