Post by Hook on Oct 13, 2010 19:30:18 GMT -8
That's a lie, I don't like parties.
This post isn't about witches or history nerds that have a serious misunderstanding of how politics and media converge together. No, that makes for good humor (in its rightful place: the mouths of comedians), but there's nothing there to discuss. Unfortunately, that's all people discuss. That's what the media, the entire media, cares about. Sadly, you too.
I'll come out and say it, the saner aspects of this Tea Party have done a good job of staying on message and seem to have a very agreeable platform of staying on center (though, to be fair, some of the policies of President I-don't-do-shit are a direct consequence of his predecessor's, President all-I-did-turned-to-shit). And I almost jumped out when I saw on Colbert (so sue me, yes, I watch it religiously) one of the main guys of the movement say his people are aiming at returning to Clintonesque fiscal policy. A republican who didn't instinctively suck Ronald Reagan's dick on TV? Wow.
But here's the thing, while everyone's asking what's her name if she's a witch (guys, you have to measure her weight against a duck's, damn news outlets), the saner elements can stay on message by saying "We'll reduce the deficit". Ok. Here's what I'd rather see, but never will: "The US government spent 3.6 trillion and made 2.4 trillion. How will you fix that?" If you don't want to cut spending, like, say, stop killing Muslims overseas (remember when I said some of the bad things now are there because of The Decider?), or deal head-on with tough issues to fix, such as this Wall Street thing (and this is the reason I dislike Craig's Conservative-Liberal threads: they're narrow-minded and forget there is only one agenda shared by both; that is, to stay in office no matter what), how in hell are you going to do that?
And tell me about this tax thing. I'll get this out of the way: I think most Americans dislike the idea of taxing a bit more those who earn over $250,000 because of a delusional belief that they too will, some day, hit it big and be in that position or some ill-placed idea harking back to their formative years that a 4% tax increase is "stepping on success", whatever form that success takes, and that they, who are completely immune to this oppression, should give a crap, while simultaneously being passive-aggressive in their disdain of those successful groups they happen to dislike (Hollywood types, corporate types, etc.).
But back to the point: what's with all the income crap? It affects 750,000 Americans, 2% of the population (but you should care), yet it barely generates 700 billion over 10 years. 10 fucking years! Your balance sheet is over a trillion dollars over the line in a single year. So what's the point? Easy, democrats don't have any balls to do anything substantial yet want to give the appearance of doing something to, you guessed it, stay in office.
I only see two ways out of this: create, not jobs, Pfizer is more than willing to create those jobs, overseas, but a reason for jobs. Innovation. Get back to making stuff. Not the same stuff, God no, the world doesn't need more high-fructose corn syrup. Create a market for goods the world will want and/or, better yet, need. And do that without shitting all over other economies. Or how about growing some balls and increase the corporate tax ("Labor costs! We're gonna fire! We promise!" Hint: They are going to do that anyway or haven't you spoken to "Ed", from Minneapolis, with the harsh-sounding, eastern European accent merrily helping you out with your desktop PC issues, putting you on hold so you may talk to "David", from Portland, who's every word sounds dirty because he pronounces them like someone from Sao Paulo would?)?
Better yet, forget income tax. Instead of properly pissing 750,000 people off (and the morons who are told they, too, should be pissed off), how about only 400 people (as defined by the law)? Supposedly, the combined net worth of the Fortune 400 is $1.2 trillion. Tax them 1% and that's 12 billion a year. Or a tax on wealth. Yes, wealth, imagine that. Warren Buffet says he pays little income tax because, well, he doesn't have that much income. He's only the second richest man in the world. Tax people like him and, in his case, you get a good $400 million dollars a year. And he sounds willing to pay.
My overall point is that I find the spirit a positive one: government screwed the pooch over most of these financial set-ups and has created numerous wasteful programs, more if you consider war a "program", and neither side knows (or cares enough to seriously put any thought into it) what to do to undo their own mistakes. But that's not enough. And, if we really are in a crisis, why in hell are you so angered/scared by/of taxes? Used reasonably, they're a helluva drug.
My message (fuck yeah, I get to have a political message, and hell yeah I prove of it) is, come November, Americans at the polls, cross out the buzzwords from your mind and try to concentrate and think only of this: $2.4 trillion in, $3.6 trillion out.
This post isn't about witches or history nerds that have a serious misunderstanding of how politics and media converge together. No, that makes for good humor (in its rightful place: the mouths of comedians), but there's nothing there to discuss. Unfortunately, that's all people discuss. That's what the media, the entire media, cares about. Sadly, you too.
I'll come out and say it, the saner aspects of this Tea Party have done a good job of staying on message and seem to have a very agreeable platform of staying on center (though, to be fair, some of the policies of President I-don't-do-shit are a direct consequence of his predecessor's, President all-I-did-turned-to-shit). And I almost jumped out when I saw on Colbert (so sue me, yes, I watch it religiously) one of the main guys of the movement say his people are aiming at returning to Clintonesque fiscal policy. A republican who didn't instinctively suck Ronald Reagan's dick on TV? Wow.
But here's the thing, while everyone's asking what's her name if she's a witch (guys, you have to measure her weight against a duck's, damn news outlets), the saner elements can stay on message by saying "We'll reduce the deficit". Ok. Here's what I'd rather see, but never will: "The US government spent 3.6 trillion and made 2.4 trillion. How will you fix that?" If you don't want to cut spending, like, say, stop killing Muslims overseas (remember when I said some of the bad things now are there because of The Decider?), or deal head-on with tough issues to fix, such as this Wall Street thing (and this is the reason I dislike Craig's Conservative-Liberal threads: they're narrow-minded and forget there is only one agenda shared by both; that is, to stay in office no matter what), how in hell are you going to do that?
And tell me about this tax thing. I'll get this out of the way: I think most Americans dislike the idea of taxing a bit more those who earn over $250,000 because of a delusional belief that they too will, some day, hit it big and be in that position or some ill-placed idea harking back to their formative years that a 4% tax increase is "stepping on success", whatever form that success takes, and that they, who are completely immune to this oppression, should give a crap, while simultaneously being passive-aggressive in their disdain of those successful groups they happen to dislike (Hollywood types, corporate types, etc.).
But back to the point: what's with all the income crap? It affects 750,000 Americans, 2% of the population (but you should care), yet it barely generates 700 billion over 10 years. 10 fucking years! Your balance sheet is over a trillion dollars over the line in a single year. So what's the point? Easy, democrats don't have any balls to do anything substantial yet want to give the appearance of doing something to, you guessed it, stay in office.
I only see two ways out of this: create, not jobs, Pfizer is more than willing to create those jobs, overseas, but a reason for jobs. Innovation. Get back to making stuff. Not the same stuff, God no, the world doesn't need more high-fructose corn syrup. Create a market for goods the world will want and/or, better yet, need. And do that without shitting all over other economies. Or how about growing some balls and increase the corporate tax ("Labor costs! We're gonna fire! We promise!" Hint: They are going to do that anyway or haven't you spoken to "Ed", from Minneapolis, with the harsh-sounding, eastern European accent merrily helping you out with your desktop PC issues, putting you on hold so you may talk to "David", from Portland, who's every word sounds dirty because he pronounces them like someone from Sao Paulo would?)?
Better yet, forget income tax. Instead of properly pissing 750,000 people off (and the morons who are told they, too, should be pissed off), how about only 400 people (as defined by the law)? Supposedly, the combined net worth of the Fortune 400 is $1.2 trillion. Tax them 1% and that's 12 billion a year. Or a tax on wealth. Yes, wealth, imagine that. Warren Buffet says he pays little income tax because, well, he doesn't have that much income. He's only the second richest man in the world. Tax people like him and, in his case, you get a good $400 million dollars a year. And he sounds willing to pay.
My overall point is that I find the spirit a positive one: government screwed the pooch over most of these financial set-ups and has created numerous wasteful programs, more if you consider war a "program", and neither side knows (or cares enough to seriously put any thought into it) what to do to undo their own mistakes. But that's not enough. And, if we really are in a crisis, why in hell are you so angered/scared by/of taxes? Used reasonably, they're a helluva drug.
My message (fuck yeah, I get to have a political message, and hell yeah I prove of it) is, come November, Americans at the polls, cross out the buzzwords from your mind and try to concentrate and think only of this: $2.4 trillion in, $3.6 trillion out.