If you consider things like helping someone after a Hurricane, the idea is simply to provide assistance and get the job done, not talk about what a wonderful job you are doing or who is complementing who.
Get the job done.
Its an idea that seems lacking in this administration where trying to sway public opinion is more important than keeping people alive.
Now I am in no position to judge the administration's efforts but I know that arguing about it isn't the way to help.
Its not just hurricane relief, its pretty much everything where we now are defining everything as winning or losing.
Take the recent health care fiasco's.
The general idea is to insure more Americans, improve coverage offered and reduce cost.
None of those three things are political in nature and the Affordable Care Act helped in all three situations, although it had some flaws.
Now if we had a non partisan discussion of how to improve one or more of those things we might be able to get somewhere.
I read a recent analysis which quoted one of the authors of the latest plan as saying he didn't really know much about health care at all, but thought others did, only to find out they were as ignorant as he was.
Maybe learning about the issues is something that should be a priority, rather than simply echoing some position that you can use for political purposes.
Its sort of amazing how gullible our representatives are. They get told the plans do something but aren't told that in the "fine" print you can get out of it (pre-existing condition coverage). I think we should demand real analysis and action and less politics by both sides.
I think we have a situation where all they care about is getting re-elected and just need a "story" to help that happen.
How about a story that happens to be fact based about how you tried to do your best for your constituents and all Americans at the same time?
Maybe they would like that.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Friday, September 29, 2017
Hey Everybody, Take a Knee
If someone you didn't know called you up and asked you to stand on a corner handing out a bunch of pamphlets about some random issue you may sort of support the odds are you wouldn't do it, because it would require a certain amount of work.
However on Facebook and Twitter you just have to hit a button or two.
Now there is a lot of evidence coming t that campaigns were organized by various interests including the Russians to both influence the election and sow discord in America.
Take the current silliness over the NFL players.
Racism in our country probably isn't getting worse, just more visible but it is there.
Taking a knee during the playing of a song was designed to call attention to that.
A peaceful and even respectful protest that hurts no one, disrupts nothing and is protected by the constitution.
Now we have a tweet war and people acting like its the worst thing since the attack on the World Trade Center.
What is the problem with everybody?
Well we know that certain parties are fanning the flames including the Russian Stooge in the White House.
Of course the trolls on the Internet are having a field day with it and passions are getting inflamed.
Now this simply isn't a real issue. No one buried in a National Cemetery cares and from what I can tell most veterans just want to watch a good game.
Real issues, like racism, disaster relief, pollution, jobs, border security and health care are not impacted.
If you don't want to watch football because of this, fine, watch a show about constitutional freedoms.
it wouldn't hurt.
However on Facebook and Twitter you just have to hit a button or two.
Now there is a lot of evidence coming t that campaigns were organized by various interests including the Russians to both influence the election and sow discord in America.
Take the current silliness over the NFL players.
Racism in our country probably isn't getting worse, just more visible but it is there.
Taking a knee during the playing of a song was designed to call attention to that.
A peaceful and even respectful protest that hurts no one, disrupts nothing and is protected by the constitution.
Now we have a tweet war and people acting like its the worst thing since the attack on the World Trade Center.
What is the problem with everybody?
Well we know that certain parties are fanning the flames including the Russian Stooge in the White House.
Of course the trolls on the Internet are having a field day with it and passions are getting inflamed.
Now this simply isn't a real issue. No one buried in a National Cemetery cares and from what I can tell most veterans just want to watch a good game.
Real issues, like racism, disaster relief, pollution, jobs, border security and health care are not impacted.
If you don't want to watch football because of this, fine, watch a show about constitutional freedoms.
it wouldn't hurt.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Tax Reform? Tax Tinkering?
We had a couple of public relations events yesterday that claimed to be the roll outs of the administrations tax reform efforts.
Since the amount of detail provided was virtually nothing, its hard to say whether the plan is going to accomplish very much.
There were some broad outlines which reduce the number of brackets, reduce the corporate tax rate increase the standard deduction and reduce some other deductions.
Of course the wealthy's estate tax is to be eliminated and a few other perks are there to help them, since they are so needy.
Now this isn't tax reform, its tax tinkering.
Tax reform would address the underlying system and change it to achieve some goal
The goal of this plan seems to be to reduce corporate taxes and tinker a bit with everything else.
Some will benefit, some will lose and at the end of the day the Government will collect less taxes.
Now since at this point spending isn't going down, that means the deficit will increase and the national debt will get worse.
The rejoinder to that is that the reduced taxes will lead to a bounce in economic activity that will increase taxes even at lower rates.
That theory has never worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future, primarily because the spurt in economic growth can't happen without a big increase in demand.
The basis or our economy had become consumer spending and increasing that is the only real way to grow our economy.
The amount of money going to consumers isn't enough to move the needle meaningfully.
Meanwhile the area that needs additional spending is infrastructure. That means more Government spending and more debt.
I need to see the details on this tax tinkering plan to see how it actually impacts people and corporations, but if you just want hoopla you got the old razzle dazzle yesterday.
Feels swampy.
Since the amount of detail provided was virtually nothing, its hard to say whether the plan is going to accomplish very much.
There were some broad outlines which reduce the number of brackets, reduce the corporate tax rate increase the standard deduction and reduce some other deductions.
Of course the wealthy's estate tax is to be eliminated and a few other perks are there to help them, since they are so needy.
Now this isn't tax reform, its tax tinkering.
Tax reform would address the underlying system and change it to achieve some goal
The goal of this plan seems to be to reduce corporate taxes and tinker a bit with everything else.
Some will benefit, some will lose and at the end of the day the Government will collect less taxes.
Now since at this point spending isn't going down, that means the deficit will increase and the national debt will get worse.
The rejoinder to that is that the reduced taxes will lead to a bounce in economic activity that will increase taxes even at lower rates.
That theory has never worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future, primarily because the spurt in economic growth can't happen without a big increase in demand.
The basis or our economy had become consumer spending and increasing that is the only real way to grow our economy.
The amount of money going to consumers isn't enough to move the needle meaningfully.
Meanwhile the area that needs additional spending is infrastructure. That means more Government spending and more debt.
I need to see the details on this tax tinkering plan to see how it actually impacts people and corporations, but if you just want hoopla you got the old razzle dazzle yesterday.
Feels swampy.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Our Radical Two Party System
Americans in general hate the House of Representatives and the Senate.
This seems a bit odd since we elect these people and then grow to despise them.
It used to be political wisdom that people hated the institution but liked the guy they elected.
However, its becoming less true and now it seems that we also hate the guy we elected, at least in many cases.
Now let's be clear, we have a system that allows candidates to get nominated with a small percentage of their parties voters.
This is because the number of people who vote in primaries are a small percentage of the eligible voters.
In the 2016 Presidential Election where primaries were actually raising a lot of interest the average turnout for was still significantly under 50% of eligible voters.
In most cases it was around 30%.
So a challenger who can get his base to turn out has a significant advantage in primaries where a lot of the party's regular voters stay home.
This is leading to the radicalization of our candidates but seems more pronounced in the Republican party, at least right now.
Now as our more agitated people get to select more extreme candidates we see a Congress that can't make deals or pass legislation.
It leads to candidates who are only supported by very unhappy people who are willing to turn on their own candidate quite quickly.
Of course many voters didn't like their parties candidate in the first place, but they didn't vote in the primaries.
Now, its sort of interesting in the sense that a lot of these people used to feel disenfranchised and complained about the way things were going. Now they get to send people to congress who keep most anything from happening.
Guess going no where is an improvement.
Of course things are likely to start falling apart.
It may have already started.
This seems a bit odd since we elect these people and then grow to despise them.
It used to be political wisdom that people hated the institution but liked the guy they elected.
However, its becoming less true and now it seems that we also hate the guy we elected, at least in many cases.
Now let's be clear, we have a system that allows candidates to get nominated with a small percentage of their parties voters.
This is because the number of people who vote in primaries are a small percentage of the eligible voters.
In the 2016 Presidential Election where primaries were actually raising a lot of interest the average turnout for was still significantly under 50% of eligible voters.
In most cases it was around 30%.
So a challenger who can get his base to turn out has a significant advantage in primaries where a lot of the party's regular voters stay home.
This is leading to the radicalization of our candidates but seems more pronounced in the Republican party, at least right now.
Now as our more agitated people get to select more extreme candidates we see a Congress that can't make deals or pass legislation.
It leads to candidates who are only supported by very unhappy people who are willing to turn on their own candidate quite quickly.
Of course many voters didn't like their parties candidate in the first place, but they didn't vote in the primaries.
Now, its sort of interesting in the sense that a lot of these people used to feel disenfranchised and complained about the way things were going. Now they get to send people to congress who keep most anything from happening.
Guess going no where is an improvement.
Of course things are likely to start falling apart.
It may have already started.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Divided America?
Like almost everything in today's day and age the media has proclaimed that America is hopelessly divided, broken into sides that can't agree on anything.
Oddly despite this most people manage to go through their days without actually having to get into a confrontation or altercation.
So how divided are we?
Well on some issues we do see a lot of disagreement.
However if you look at American opinions over the past 4 decades you don't see a lot of dramatic changes.
American public Opinions
So what is causing this sense of divisiveness?
Well its the accessibility to social media to a large extent.
Remember the old rule about counting to ten?
Well that's gone now so people post their instant and often unconsidered opinions.
Further we have organizations that are deliberately drumming up controversy for commercial or political gain.
This includes certain cable news which benefits by saying outrageous things to increase their audience.
Now this has led to the election of someone who traditionally would never have been a candidate.
Now he has taken advantage of this sense without having any way to fix anything.
The problem is that while you find that things haven't really changed very much, the country has become over reactive.
We turned into a country of drama queens.
Oddly despite this most people manage to go through their days without actually having to get into a confrontation or altercation.
So how divided are we?
Well on some issues we do see a lot of disagreement.
However if you look at American opinions over the past 4 decades you don't see a lot of dramatic changes.
American public Opinions
So what is causing this sense of divisiveness?
Well its the accessibility to social media to a large extent.
Remember the old rule about counting to ten?
Well that's gone now so people post their instant and often unconsidered opinions.
Further we have organizations that are deliberately drumming up controversy for commercial or political gain.
This includes certain cable news which benefits by saying outrageous things to increase their audience.
Now this has led to the election of someone who traditionally would never have been a candidate.
Now he has taken advantage of this sense without having any way to fix anything.
The problem is that while you find that things haven't really changed very much, the country has become over reactive.
We turned into a country of drama queens.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Focusing On the Wrong Thing
The protest that is going on in the NFL is a protest about he racism that still exists in this country.
Its not about changing the flag or rewriting the National Anthem.
It got everybody's attention but it hasn't generated a lot of discussion about the underlying problem.
Now you may be wandering through life thinking racism is no longer a problem or even that we now have reverse racism but the facts are clear that racism is still prevalent in this country.
When you consider how many blacks get arrested, are unemployed, live in ghettos, its pretty obvious that something is causing it.
Of course certain white nationalist might argue that they are inferior and are the cause of their troubles because of that.
Of course if you consider the achievements of black people who climbed out of the Ghetto or live in a country of their own, its clear they can achieve the same levels as any other person.
So for them to be disproportionally oppressed is clear evidence that it isn't because they lack skills or intelligence.
I do think that there is a future where we can eliminate racism, but for the current victims of it, we need to do something more immediate than to wait for a future non-racist generation.
Unfortunately we have elected someone who effectively denies racism exists and encourages racist.
We need a national discussion on racism, not about whether someone should kneel at a sporting event when the National Anthem is played.
Its not about changing the flag or rewriting the National Anthem.
It got everybody's attention but it hasn't generated a lot of discussion about the underlying problem.
Now you may be wandering through life thinking racism is no longer a problem or even that we now have reverse racism but the facts are clear that racism is still prevalent in this country.
When you consider how many blacks get arrested, are unemployed, live in ghettos, its pretty obvious that something is causing it.
Of course certain white nationalist might argue that they are inferior and are the cause of their troubles because of that.
Of course if you consider the achievements of black people who climbed out of the Ghetto or live in a country of their own, its clear they can achieve the same levels as any other person.
So for them to be disproportionally oppressed is clear evidence that it isn't because they lack skills or intelligence.
I do think that there is a future where we can eliminate racism, but for the current victims of it, we need to do something more immediate than to wait for a future non-racist generation.
Unfortunately we have elected someone who effectively denies racism exists and encourages racist.
We need a national discussion on racism, not about whether someone should kneel at a sporting event when the National Anthem is played.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
The Resentment Factor
The country is divided in a way that is a bit hard to fathom. On one side you seem to have a lot of bitter people full of resentment because they aren't getting the rewards or lifestyle they think they deserve.
They did what they were told to do mostly, finished high school, maybe served in the military, got a job, got a life got a family and watched sports on TV. The wives had the babies, did the cooking, cleaned the house and put up with her man while complaining to her friends.
Then it sort of fell apart as economics and technology made the jobs they had obsolete.
They had to take lower paying jobs or Government assistance, the wives had to get jobs, the idea of retirement faded and meanwhile all the people that used to be people they could look down upon, minorities, gays, immigrants, seemed to be doing better than them.
Now these folks were raised in the belief that they were the backbone of America and the foundation for what made our country strong, and now they became an afterthought.
You would read how the country was going to turn "White" people into a minority in the future and it brought images into their heads of their kids joining the underprivileged group they were falling into.
Now meanwhile the TV showed them all the successful people, college educated, young, liberal mostly, of all races and creeds doing well in the big cities on the coasts.
The Government and the courts seemed to push the rise of a new culture and in general no one talked about their plight except that liberal a few documentary makers.
In 2007 what was left of their world seemed to crumble more during the financial crisis and they helped elect one of those minorities, despite their suspicions about his nationality and religion.
But in office, while he reversed the crisis most of the subsequent improvements went to the new technologies and people, not to them.
Their very culture was not so much under attack as ignored by almost everybody.
It might seem odd that they placed their trust in Trump, he really has nothing in common with most of them, except one thing.
He never made it into the Hollywood elite that he aspired to, even the Apprentice only made him a B list celebrity. Most Business people also had a fairly low opinion of him since what he did didn't involve the type of complex strategies they admired. He didn't come up with financial strategies, he borrowed money, he didn't develop manufacturing plants, he sold his name.
Hell he went bankrupt running a casino.
He shared the resentment, he had enough resentment to be recognizable by those who also resented what had happened to them.
Even now he feels slighted, by the entertainment industry, by the sports world, by the world community.
He's the president they should be kowtowing to him.
Still a B list celebrity and probably a C list president.
They did what they were told to do mostly, finished high school, maybe served in the military, got a job, got a life got a family and watched sports on TV. The wives had the babies, did the cooking, cleaned the house and put up with her man while complaining to her friends.
Then it sort of fell apart as economics and technology made the jobs they had obsolete.
They had to take lower paying jobs or Government assistance, the wives had to get jobs, the idea of retirement faded and meanwhile all the people that used to be people they could look down upon, minorities, gays, immigrants, seemed to be doing better than them.
Now these folks were raised in the belief that they were the backbone of America and the foundation for what made our country strong, and now they became an afterthought.
You would read how the country was going to turn "White" people into a minority in the future and it brought images into their heads of their kids joining the underprivileged group they were falling into.
Now meanwhile the TV showed them all the successful people, college educated, young, liberal mostly, of all races and creeds doing well in the big cities on the coasts.
The Government and the courts seemed to push the rise of a new culture and in general no one talked about their plight except that liberal a few documentary makers.
In 2007 what was left of their world seemed to crumble more during the financial crisis and they helped elect one of those minorities, despite their suspicions about his nationality and religion.
But in office, while he reversed the crisis most of the subsequent improvements went to the new technologies and people, not to them.
Their very culture was not so much under attack as ignored by almost everybody.
It might seem odd that they placed their trust in Trump, he really has nothing in common with most of them, except one thing.
He never made it into the Hollywood elite that he aspired to, even the Apprentice only made him a B list celebrity. Most Business people also had a fairly low opinion of him since what he did didn't involve the type of complex strategies they admired. He didn't come up with financial strategies, he borrowed money, he didn't develop manufacturing plants, he sold his name.
Hell he went bankrupt running a casino.
He shared the resentment, he had enough resentment to be recognizable by those who also resented what had happened to them.
Even now he feels slighted, by the entertainment industry, by the sports world, by the world community.
He's the president they should be kowtowing to him.
Still a B list celebrity and probably a C list president.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Should German's Have Supported Hitler's Final Solution?
You see a lot of people argue that we should help our current President succeed. That begs the question, succeed in what?
If you are pushing a policy that disrupts and expels people who have lived here for many years when they have done nothing but contribute to this countries success, I can't support that.
If you are pushing a policy that strips health care from our poorest and most needy people I can't support that.
If you are pursuing policies that lead to an increasing danger to our planet by spewing more pollutants into our atmosphere, I can't support that.
If you are going to let commercial entities strip mine our national lands in pursuit of private gain, I can't support that.
If you are going to start discriminating against people with different sexual identities or sexual preferences, I can't support that.
If you are going to increase taxes on most of us to let wealthy people pay less, I can't support that.
If you encourage police to rough up people suspected of committing a crime, I can't support that.
If you are going to equate people who oppose hate with people who practice hate, I can't support that.
If you are going to destabilize the international community by making America's word no longer reliable, I can't support that.
If you are going to continue to lie to the American people about what you are doing for political gain, I can't support that.
Germans who stood up to Hitler's plans are rightfully viewed as heroes.
You encourage Nazi's in this country.
I just can't support that.
Why would I?
If you are pushing a policy that disrupts and expels people who have lived here for many years when they have done nothing but contribute to this countries success, I can't support that.
If you are pushing a policy that strips health care from our poorest and most needy people I can't support that.
If you are pursuing policies that lead to an increasing danger to our planet by spewing more pollutants into our atmosphere, I can't support that.
If you are going to let commercial entities strip mine our national lands in pursuit of private gain, I can't support that.
If you are going to start discriminating against people with different sexual identities or sexual preferences, I can't support that.
If you are going to increase taxes on most of us to let wealthy people pay less, I can't support that.
If you encourage police to rough up people suspected of committing a crime, I can't support that.
If you are going to equate people who oppose hate with people who practice hate, I can't support that.
If you are going to destabilize the international community by making America's word no longer reliable, I can't support that.
If you are going to continue to lie to the American people about what you are doing for political gain, I can't support that.
Germans who stood up to Hitler's plans are rightfully viewed as heroes.
You encourage Nazi's in this country.
I just can't support that.
Why would I?
Friday, September 22, 2017
Rocket Man and the Dotard
Well this is pretty much sums up where we are in dealing with the North Korea nuclear program. Name calling.
It also shows that American literacy isn't what it should be since this led to a surge on Google of people looking up what dotard means.
I admit its not used much, we don't use dotage either, pretty much replaced by senile although the meanings are subtly different.
Definition of dotage for English Language Learners. : the period of old age : the time when a person is old and often less able to remember or do things.
Definition of senile. 1 : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age senile weakness; especially : exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities (as memory) associated with old age
Its clearly insulting while rocket man isn't necessarily although it is the way Trump uses it.
At least to his way of thinking.
Now no one wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons or at least not publicly. The real question is as the technology proliferates, can we actually stop someone?
We are imposing additional sanctions which will certainly impact some North Koreans, but not sure if its going to have any impact on Rocket Man.
The latest round is going after those who violate the sanctions by doing business with North Korea and this will likely drive up the cost but will it actually stop it?
I have my doubts.
I guess the point of the sanctions is to get the Rocket Man to stop or to negotiate a stop.
Which brings us to the Iran issue, which is a place where sanctions actually worked, except the Dotard thinks it was a bad deal.
Of course all the countries that were involved don't agree and while I'm sure it didn't give us every thing we could possible want, I gather it was a difficult negotiation.
You think a deal maker would understand that.
It also shows that American literacy isn't what it should be since this led to a surge on Google of people looking up what dotard means.
I admit its not used much, we don't use dotage either, pretty much replaced by senile although the meanings are subtly different.
Definition of dotage for English Language Learners. : the period of old age : the time when a person is old and often less able to remember or do things.
Definition of senile. 1 : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age senile weakness; especially : exhibiting a loss of cognitive abilities (as memory) associated with old age
Its clearly insulting while rocket man isn't necessarily although it is the way Trump uses it.
At least to his way of thinking.
Now no one wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons or at least not publicly. The real question is as the technology proliferates, can we actually stop someone?
We are imposing additional sanctions which will certainly impact some North Koreans, but not sure if its going to have any impact on Rocket Man.
The latest round is going after those who violate the sanctions by doing business with North Korea and this will likely drive up the cost but will it actually stop it?
I have my doubts.
I guess the point of the sanctions is to get the Rocket Man to stop or to negotiate a stop.
Which brings us to the Iran issue, which is a place where sanctions actually worked, except the Dotard thinks it was a bad deal.
Of course all the countries that were involved don't agree and while I'm sure it didn't give us every thing we could possible want, I gather it was a difficult negotiation.
You think a deal maker would understand that.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Are They Evil?
You have to wonder what motivates some people to act in a manner that is designed to hurt large numbers of people.
If you consider a proposal that will undoubtedly actually take health insurance away form low income people and people with pre-existing conditions you wonder whether the proponents possess any type of moral foundation?
I mean they certainly pretend to be moral but it becomes pretty clear that in the pursuit of narrow political gains and a way to reduce taxes on people who actually have money they are perfectly willing to throw our poorest and weakest under the nearest bus.
It violates the basic tenets of Christianity and pretending that what your doing isn't going to do that means you are either a bald faced liar or really ignorant.
The current proposal takes the money we use for this, reduces it and spreads it out among the States based on a formula.
This formula will help States that didn't increase their Medicaid but will hurt States that did.
Now it also allows States to get exemptions from certain things, like group rating pre-existing conditions, which would mean in those states the cost for those people would go up.
I suppose one way to do this and still pretend to have morals is to say well the States were the executioners, we only passed a law that let them do it.
It should also be noted that the States acted based on commitments in the law that promised a certain level of reimbursement. So breaking a commitment is another aspect of their moral depravity.
It is primarily a desire to deliver on a promise many made about repealing Obamacare so they can claim in the next elections they delivered on that promise.
Who cares how many they hurt?
Now lets be clear, no one will receive better health care if this law passes. It reduces the funding and that will reduce coverage. Now they may argue that the wonderful States are going to find great ways to reduce the cost of Health Care leading to actual better care for all.
Sure, watch our for the flying pigs too.
If you consider a proposal that will undoubtedly actually take health insurance away form low income people and people with pre-existing conditions you wonder whether the proponents possess any type of moral foundation?
I mean they certainly pretend to be moral but it becomes pretty clear that in the pursuit of narrow political gains and a way to reduce taxes on people who actually have money they are perfectly willing to throw our poorest and weakest under the nearest bus.
It violates the basic tenets of Christianity and pretending that what your doing isn't going to do that means you are either a bald faced liar or really ignorant.
The current proposal takes the money we use for this, reduces it and spreads it out among the States based on a formula.
This formula will help States that didn't increase their Medicaid but will hurt States that did.
Now it also allows States to get exemptions from certain things, like group rating pre-existing conditions, which would mean in those states the cost for those people would go up.
I suppose one way to do this and still pretend to have morals is to say well the States were the executioners, we only passed a law that let them do it.
It should also be noted that the States acted based on commitments in the law that promised a certain level of reimbursement. So breaking a commitment is another aspect of their moral depravity.
It is primarily a desire to deliver on a promise many made about repealing Obamacare so they can claim in the next elections they delivered on that promise.
Who cares how many they hurt?
Now lets be clear, no one will receive better health care if this law passes. It reduces the funding and that will reduce coverage. Now they may argue that the wonderful States are going to find great ways to reduce the cost of Health Care leading to actual better care for all.
Sure, watch our for the flying pigs too.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Working People Health Care
Its amazing how easily the Republican establishment is willing to throw the working class Americans under the bus.
A lot of these people voted for Trump because they have seen their jobs disappear and wages sink.
They need to rely upon two family income and don't have in many cases employer supplied health care.
They have significant health issues ranging from obesity and depression to black lung and other debilitating injuries.
They have been able in many cases to obtain adequate health care under the Affordable Care Act and often the Medicare expansion part.
There are some issues with the ACA but for the people who really need it, it is a god send.
Without it, they wouldn't have any insurance or terribly expensive risk rated insurance.
Now some things people say about the ACA are true but they spin it as a problem when it really isn't.
Take high deductibles.
They reduce the premiums you pay and the idea is that it keeps you from using certain optional health services.
However, the plans cap the total amount you are at risk for and as its designed to do allows people with serious medical conditions get need care without going bankrupt.
So pay a little more each month and reduce the deductible or pay a little less and increase it.
That's a choice each person gets to make under the ACA based on the Bronze Silver or Gold plans.
Now if their was an alternative that promised a low deductible and low premiums that would be great.
However between a high deductible and no coverage at all, I think the choice is pretty clear.
Not to a lot of legislators it seems.
A lot of these people voted for Trump because they have seen their jobs disappear and wages sink.
They need to rely upon two family income and don't have in many cases employer supplied health care.
They have significant health issues ranging from obesity and depression to black lung and other debilitating injuries.
They have been able in many cases to obtain adequate health care under the Affordable Care Act and often the Medicare expansion part.
There are some issues with the ACA but for the people who really need it, it is a god send.
Without it, they wouldn't have any insurance or terribly expensive risk rated insurance.
Now some things people say about the ACA are true but they spin it as a problem when it really isn't.
Take high deductibles.
They reduce the premiums you pay and the idea is that it keeps you from using certain optional health services.
However, the plans cap the total amount you are at risk for and as its designed to do allows people with serious medical conditions get need care without going bankrupt.
So pay a little more each month and reduce the deductible or pay a little less and increase it.
That's a choice each person gets to make under the ACA based on the Bronze Silver or Gold plans.
Now if their was an alternative that promised a low deductible and low premiums that would be great.
However between a high deductible and no coverage at all, I think the choice is pretty clear.
Not to a lot of legislators it seems.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Health Care not Health Insurance
American want affordable health care. The cost of modern medicine has exceeded the ability of most people to pay for it without insurance.
In an attempt to help the uninsured in this country we saw the affordable care act which was successful in extending care to millions of previously uninsured people. It certainly wasn't perfect and as certain flaws emerged the congress because of partisan politics wasn't interested in improving it.
Now, I don't want to argue the overall benefits, it helped people who didn't have insurance already but it had some negative impact on people who previously had insurance, at least in some cases.
Statistically it was clearly a net benefit but no one likes to be in the negative part of a statistic.
Now repealing it has turned out to be a difficult task and as our current president seemed to discover, quite complex.
However, if we simply address the question of how to provide quality health care to all Americans we may see some solutions.
Now the quality care is part of the problem. Some people with good benefits don't want to see their choice of doctors or hospitals diminished.
For a long time we have had an overall shortage of doctors in this country, especially in certain areas. Increasing the number of doctors or health practitioners who can take some of the work is something that helps deliver more health care to more people.
Now, our system effectively uses commercial providers to collect money and pay health care professionals, based on the provisions of their policies. This creates in-network and out of network systems that in some cases are problematic.
People want to be able to go to a doctor to get treated without having to go through a long list of acceptable practitioners. Further, certain plans can't attracts popular doctors because the reimbursement schedules are too low.
Medicare is a system that works fairly well, although it also has some of the same issues, especially with getting doctors to accept the payment schedules. So is Medicare for all a viable solution?
It might be. Remember of course that in this country a lot is determined by who owns the most legislators and the health insurance industry has bought quite a few. It unlikely that we are going to pass anything that seriously erodes their profits.
Once again its a complex issue that begs for a simple solution, "Quality Health Care for All".
Getting there is the problem.
In an attempt to help the uninsured in this country we saw the affordable care act which was successful in extending care to millions of previously uninsured people. It certainly wasn't perfect and as certain flaws emerged the congress because of partisan politics wasn't interested in improving it.
Now, I don't want to argue the overall benefits, it helped people who didn't have insurance already but it had some negative impact on people who previously had insurance, at least in some cases.
Statistically it was clearly a net benefit but no one likes to be in the negative part of a statistic.
Now repealing it has turned out to be a difficult task and as our current president seemed to discover, quite complex.
However, if we simply address the question of how to provide quality health care to all Americans we may see some solutions.
Now the quality care is part of the problem. Some people with good benefits don't want to see their choice of doctors or hospitals diminished.
For a long time we have had an overall shortage of doctors in this country, especially in certain areas. Increasing the number of doctors or health practitioners who can take some of the work is something that helps deliver more health care to more people.
Now, our system effectively uses commercial providers to collect money and pay health care professionals, based on the provisions of their policies. This creates in-network and out of network systems that in some cases are problematic.
People want to be able to go to a doctor to get treated without having to go through a long list of acceptable practitioners. Further, certain plans can't attracts popular doctors because the reimbursement schedules are too low.
Medicare is a system that works fairly well, although it also has some of the same issues, especially with getting doctors to accept the payment schedules. So is Medicare for all a viable solution?
It might be. Remember of course that in this country a lot is determined by who owns the most legislators and the health insurance industry has bought quite a few. It unlikely that we are going to pass anything that seriously erodes their profits.
Once again its a complex issue that begs for a simple solution, "Quality Health Care for All".
Getting there is the problem.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Real Corruption in Washington
When politicians or candidates talk about fixing corruption in Washington most of them focus on things like Government malfeasance or people getting benefits they don't deserve.
Now both of those things are issues that are in need of being addressed, but they are, we have oversight and insight panels galore and the issue is that as long as humans are involved they will at times cheat.
However, while because of the scope the amounts seem large, in the scale of Government spending in Washington it really is a minor problem, similar to say shoplifting or petty theft.
Its wrong and should be policed but don't emphasize those type of crimes and ignore murders.
That's pretty much what they do in Washington where most of our politicians up to the top have sold themselves to political lobbies.
Now they mostly are guaranteed lifetime incomes and lucrative jobs when they leave but while in office they get their campaigns funded and a lot of nice perks.
They just have to take care of the right people.
Those people aren't us.
I was reading about a recommendation by the new interior secretary that wants to allow traditional uses on public lands.
Now this includes mining, forestry, fishing, grazing and a lot of other commercial activities that make public land just like private land.
Only a very small number of people would benefit from this and it is probably the most blatant form of the corruption that really is controlling Washington.
Almost everything they consider or pass is pushed by special interests and backed by lobbyist money.
This is the real swamp in Washington and its not getting drained.
The floodgates are open and the water is rushing in.
Maybe on your next trip to a national monument you can admire the strip mine recently opened.
Now both of those things are issues that are in need of being addressed, but they are, we have oversight and insight panels galore and the issue is that as long as humans are involved they will at times cheat.
However, while because of the scope the amounts seem large, in the scale of Government spending in Washington it really is a minor problem, similar to say shoplifting or petty theft.
Its wrong and should be policed but don't emphasize those type of crimes and ignore murders.
That's pretty much what they do in Washington where most of our politicians up to the top have sold themselves to political lobbies.
Now they mostly are guaranteed lifetime incomes and lucrative jobs when they leave but while in office they get their campaigns funded and a lot of nice perks.
They just have to take care of the right people.
Those people aren't us.
I was reading about a recommendation by the new interior secretary that wants to allow traditional uses on public lands.
Now this includes mining, forestry, fishing, grazing and a lot of other commercial activities that make public land just like private land.
Only a very small number of people would benefit from this and it is probably the most blatant form of the corruption that really is controlling Washington.
Almost everything they consider or pass is pushed by special interests and backed by lobbyist money.
This is the real swamp in Washington and its not getting drained.
The floodgates are open and the water is rushing in.
Maybe on your next trip to a national monument you can admire the strip mine recently opened.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Tax Decuctions
If we keep the current system and try to reduce tax rates, the only way would be to reduce or eliminate certain tax deductions.
Now you could eliminate all of them, but that would be hurtful to certain supporters that the politicians rely upon, such as Political Action Committees posing as charities.
In general they are probably not going to touch charitable deductions, although the logic behind that is pretty vague. Instead of collecting taxes and using it for the general welfare let people give the money to specific causes and deduct it from their income.
It does increase the amount contributed, but since it ultimately reduces tax burdens it is in a way federally funded and the causes could be any number of things a majority don't support.
Still, not likely to be touched.
Now state and local tax deductions are being considered, partly because they impact more blue state voters than red state voters it seems. The reason for this deduction is pretty clear, the amount of your income that is used to pay taxes shouldn't be taxed again. That assumes you consider your overall tax bill and not just the federal bit.
This is going to be a contentious issue and because of that is likely to be a deal breaker. Maybe it can be offset in some way to get the needed support or it could lead to another outcome like health reform.
Deductions on retirement savings is another area that is being considered since it is large enough to make a difference. Since it isn't going to be replaced with a better social security system, it isn't gong to help future retires prepare.
After that there are a lot of other deductions, but most don't add up to a large enough percentage of the tax to be important. Things like medical and dental have to exceed a certain percentage of your income to be used.
However every tax deduction has its proponent and this will lead to "tinkering" and not much really changed except maybe a claim of political victory.
You really have to do it all over from scratch to fix it, and I don't see much chance of that.
Sometimes its not even clear what they are trying to fix.
Now you could eliminate all of them, but that would be hurtful to certain supporters that the politicians rely upon, such as Political Action Committees posing as charities.
In general they are probably not going to touch charitable deductions, although the logic behind that is pretty vague. Instead of collecting taxes and using it for the general welfare let people give the money to specific causes and deduct it from their income.
It does increase the amount contributed, but since it ultimately reduces tax burdens it is in a way federally funded and the causes could be any number of things a majority don't support.
Still, not likely to be touched.
Now state and local tax deductions are being considered, partly because they impact more blue state voters than red state voters it seems. The reason for this deduction is pretty clear, the amount of your income that is used to pay taxes shouldn't be taxed again. That assumes you consider your overall tax bill and not just the federal bit.
This is going to be a contentious issue and because of that is likely to be a deal breaker. Maybe it can be offset in some way to get the needed support or it could lead to another outcome like health reform.
Deductions on retirement savings is another area that is being considered since it is large enough to make a difference. Since it isn't going to be replaced with a better social security system, it isn't gong to help future retires prepare.
After that there are a lot of other deductions, but most don't add up to a large enough percentage of the tax to be important. Things like medical and dental have to exceed a certain percentage of your income to be used.
However every tax deduction has its proponent and this will lead to "tinkering" and not much really changed except maybe a claim of political victory.
You really have to do it all over from scratch to fix it, and I don't see much chance of that.
Sometimes its not even clear what they are trying to fix.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Value Added Tax
First, I'd like to make a distinction between a value added tax and sales taxes. Ultimately all taxes are paid for by us, either directly or indirectly. A sales tax is added on at the point of sale and because of that is less effective as you almost encourage cheating.
Now of course value added taxes are also subject to cheating but since the people adding them are simply indicating how much the tax should be its much less likely.
Ultimately the VAT tax while identifiable becomes part of the product price, not an add on like sales tax.
The question becomes whether such a tax could replace all other taxes in this country.
The answer is it could but would the rate be so high as to make it politically undoable?
First, all taxes are in fact paid by the citizens. When businesses are taxed the cost is passed on to consumers or users.
Currently taxes by all branches of Government, Federal, State and Local is around 40% of GDP.
Since each state and municipality would have to decide whether to participate or not it would probably have to take the form of a mandated federal portion with optional add ins by the states.
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is about 25% so a value added tax for just federal spending would approach that number.
Obviously reducing federal spending would help reduce that obligation, but most federal spending is tied into programs that cant easily be reduced, like Social Security, Medicare and Defense so its likely to remain in that general area.
Now, there are some proposals out there that are similar to this, you can read about one of them here.
Fair Tax
I think a VAT simply works better and wile this makes a big deal about getting rid of the IRS, someone has to collect the taxes, whatever we call them.
It also talks about providing every citizen a prebate equal to the poverty level to make the system more progressive. This strikes me as a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare and a simpler system would be to simply exclude basic necessities from the VAR like they do in Europe.
There are a lot of advantages to a system based on consumption but the odds of tax reform really making any fundamental changes to our current system are pretty remote.
But it would be nice to simplify it.
Now of course value added taxes are also subject to cheating but since the people adding them are simply indicating how much the tax should be its much less likely.
Ultimately the VAT tax while identifiable becomes part of the product price, not an add on like sales tax.
The question becomes whether such a tax could replace all other taxes in this country.
The answer is it could but would the rate be so high as to make it politically undoable?
First, all taxes are in fact paid by the citizens. When businesses are taxed the cost is passed on to consumers or users.
Currently taxes by all branches of Government, Federal, State and Local is around 40% of GDP.
Since each state and municipality would have to decide whether to participate or not it would probably have to take the form of a mandated federal portion with optional add ins by the states.
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is about 25% so a value added tax for just federal spending would approach that number.
Obviously reducing federal spending would help reduce that obligation, but most federal spending is tied into programs that cant easily be reduced, like Social Security, Medicare and Defense so its likely to remain in that general area.
Now, there are some proposals out there that are similar to this, you can read about one of them here.
Fair Tax
I think a VAT simply works better and wile this makes a big deal about getting rid of the IRS, someone has to collect the taxes, whatever we call them.
It also talks about providing every citizen a prebate equal to the poverty level to make the system more progressive. This strikes me as a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare and a simpler system would be to simply exclude basic necessities from the VAR like they do in Europe.
There are a lot of advantages to a system based on consumption but the odds of tax reform really making any fundamental changes to our current system are pretty remote.
But it would be nice to simplify it.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Tax Reform Needs to be Bigger
There are two issues that need to be addressed in any tax reform, how do we use it to improve the economy and make it fair to our citizens.
There are a fair number of economists who argue that Government makes bad decisions on how to spend money and that the solution is to leave the money in private hands and the economy will do better.
This is in fact the heart of trickle down or supply side economics.
The one thing though is that the Government doesn't hold on to money very long, in fact everything that comes in goes out and more.
A lot of this involves redistributing the wealth in collecting taxes from people who obviously have something and giving benefits and services to some people who have nothing.
Now lets be clear, the social engineering type of programs are by no means the major portion of the federal budget.
A chart of how the budget was spent in 2015 shows the distribution but the three biggest areas include Social Security, Medicare and Military.
The first two are going to grow as our population continues to age and we also seem ready to increase military spending.
That's over 75% of our spending and if you consider the interest on the debt and Veteran's benefits we are over 85%.
Now this is a world of big numbers so even the small pieces represent billions of dollars, but its still hard to cut them enough to balance the budget.
So despite any denials the only way spending cuts can eliminate the deficit is if we cut the first three areas.
Since that is both political suicide and morally wrong, the only real alternative is to increase tax revenues.
So how would you cut taxes and fund these programs?
Well if the economy booms, tax revenues increase. Companies allowed to keep more profits are able to invest and grow, creating jobs. Putting people to work improves their incomes and promotes further growth.
Supply side as simple as it can be depicted.
Of course if the investment is used to automate the plant using foreign technology and parts the jobs are somewhere else.
We don't have a large pool of unemployed in this country we may have a number of underemployed, but they aren't likely to snag high paying tech jobs that may be created.
I got a bit off of the topic of tax reform but the reason is that I think the reform has to address how we pay our bills by collecting enough taxes. The burden on our citizens and businesses has to be fair so I'm strongly in favor of what is called a value added tax, that taxes products sold here no matter where they originate.
More about value added to come.
There are a fair number of economists who argue that Government makes bad decisions on how to spend money and that the solution is to leave the money in private hands and the economy will do better.
This is in fact the heart of trickle down or supply side economics.
The one thing though is that the Government doesn't hold on to money very long, in fact everything that comes in goes out and more.
A lot of this involves redistributing the wealth in collecting taxes from people who obviously have something and giving benefits and services to some people who have nothing.
Now lets be clear, the social engineering type of programs are by no means the major portion of the federal budget.
A chart of how the budget was spent in 2015 shows the distribution but the three biggest areas include Social Security, Medicare and Military.
The first two are going to grow as our population continues to age and we also seem ready to increase military spending.
That's over 75% of our spending and if you consider the interest on the debt and Veteran's benefits we are over 85%.
Now this is a world of big numbers so even the small pieces represent billions of dollars, but its still hard to cut them enough to balance the budget.
So despite any denials the only way spending cuts can eliminate the deficit is if we cut the first three areas.
Since that is both political suicide and morally wrong, the only real alternative is to increase tax revenues.
So how would you cut taxes and fund these programs?
Well if the economy booms, tax revenues increase. Companies allowed to keep more profits are able to invest and grow, creating jobs. Putting people to work improves their incomes and promotes further growth.
Supply side as simple as it can be depicted.
Of course if the investment is used to automate the plant using foreign technology and parts the jobs are somewhere else.
We don't have a large pool of unemployed in this country we may have a number of underemployed, but they aren't likely to snag high paying tech jobs that may be created.
I got a bit off of the topic of tax reform but the reason is that I think the reform has to address how we pay our bills by collecting enough taxes. The burden on our citizens and businesses has to be fair so I'm strongly in favor of what is called a value added tax, that taxes products sold here no matter where they originate.
More about value added to come.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Why Not Issues instead of an Agenda
We like to categorize everybody and label them. Once we do that we assume they support the appropriate agenda.
So Democrat or Republican you become bedfellows with people you don't really agree with.
Now a lot of Americans now declare themselves as independent, which is fine, except in elections they are still faced with picking one of the agendas if they want to vote. Even worse, they likely didn't have a chance to vote in a primary to help select the agenda.
Now party platforms are a bit of a tradition but because you want to reduce the national debt doesn't mean you are against gay marriage.
The two things are unrelated and lumping these things together in an agenda is a problem.
In an election that was decided by our quirky electoral system, we elected a man with a history of certain liberal leanings who was viewed as a jobs president.
Now a lot of people who voted for him likely had to hold their nose while doing so, but he catered to the anti abortion folks and pro gun folks as well as the out of work blue collar guys with a sprinkling of racists, bigot and then some business people to grab a few swing states.
Now this group is certainly not cohesive and generally aren't all going to the same parties.
Yet they sort of compose the Republican party.
Now, by pretty much any measure you can devise, I'm very liberal, especially when it comes to individual lifestyles. You want to get married, I don't care who it is, although human is preferable.
You practice an odd religion or no religion at all, not my business.
You speak a different language than I do, hell not my concern.
You want to own a gun, fine, but I do think there should be a few restrictions on where you carry it, hell even in the old westerns they did that.
Now I however do think that we could use a stronger economy and more jobs and a better tax system, although I don't know if I like any of the current proposals.
Defense is important but it has to be the right defense, that actually protects us and our allies, not just a lot more of things we don't need.
Health care should be something that everyone gets when they need it, period.
Immigration? We are a country of immigrants but we do need to keep out known criminals and terrorists. Otherwise they help build our country greater.
Now as far as songs and symbols, they don't mean much to me and whether you stand sit or do flips is sort of irrelevant. How a person behaves, obey the laws, do their part, pay their taxes sort of buys them the right to do stupid things if they want.
Now I sort of think a lot of Americans are in line with most of this, but we are sort of forced to accept things we don't like to get something we do like.
Why not have binding plebiscites? Let our idiots in Washington debate these things and then put a proposal on the ballot that people can vote yay or nay?
Guess it would cut down on the lobbying contributions but otherwise, why not?
So Democrat or Republican you become bedfellows with people you don't really agree with.
Now a lot of Americans now declare themselves as independent, which is fine, except in elections they are still faced with picking one of the agendas if they want to vote. Even worse, they likely didn't have a chance to vote in a primary to help select the agenda.
Now party platforms are a bit of a tradition but because you want to reduce the national debt doesn't mean you are against gay marriage.
The two things are unrelated and lumping these things together in an agenda is a problem.
In an election that was decided by our quirky electoral system, we elected a man with a history of certain liberal leanings who was viewed as a jobs president.
Now a lot of people who voted for him likely had to hold their nose while doing so, but he catered to the anti abortion folks and pro gun folks as well as the out of work blue collar guys with a sprinkling of racists, bigot and then some business people to grab a few swing states.
Now this group is certainly not cohesive and generally aren't all going to the same parties.
Yet they sort of compose the Republican party.
Now, by pretty much any measure you can devise, I'm very liberal, especially when it comes to individual lifestyles. You want to get married, I don't care who it is, although human is preferable.
You practice an odd religion or no religion at all, not my business.
You speak a different language than I do, hell not my concern.
You want to own a gun, fine, but I do think there should be a few restrictions on where you carry it, hell even in the old westerns they did that.
Now I however do think that we could use a stronger economy and more jobs and a better tax system, although I don't know if I like any of the current proposals.
Defense is important but it has to be the right defense, that actually protects us and our allies, not just a lot more of things we don't need.
Health care should be something that everyone gets when they need it, period.
Immigration? We are a country of immigrants but we do need to keep out known criminals and terrorists. Otherwise they help build our country greater.
Now as far as songs and symbols, they don't mean much to me and whether you stand sit or do flips is sort of irrelevant. How a person behaves, obey the laws, do their part, pay their taxes sort of buys them the right to do stupid things if they want.
Now I sort of think a lot of Americans are in line with most of this, but we are sort of forced to accept things we don't like to get something we do like.
Why not have binding plebiscites? Let our idiots in Washington debate these things and then put a proposal on the ballot that people can vote yay or nay?
Guess it would cut down on the lobbying contributions but otherwise, why not?
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Rampant Election Fraud?
In what must come as a surprise to no one the commission set up to investigate voter fraud is having disagreements among themselves.
Election fraud
Of course the odds are virtually zero that the commission will come out with anything of substance except to go over some of the same old misconceptions.
First, registering to vote is not the same as voting.
Registration rolls undoubtedly are full of people who have died or moved and that's because most states aren't that concerned once you've actually registered.
The simple fact is that people who have died and failed to notify the election commission don't show up to vote.
Now it is theoretically possible for a person to research everyone who has died, figure out where they are registered to vote and possibly have people impersonate the dead person.
The possible problem with that is that in many places the people who sign in voters are pretty familiar with the people who come back year after year and if someone was a regular voter and someone else shows up, there is a reasonable chance it might be uncovered.
Concerning people who have moved away and also failed to notify the old state's election commission, well generally travelling to multiple states to vote is pretty onerous and unlikely.
Plus, unless they vote in both places, not sure its even important.
It does seem that since we do have a system that assigns pretty much every legal citizen with a social security number, we could also have a simple system that used it to verify you only voted once.
Of course it would have to be a secure system, but we should know how to protect the data and associating a social security number with each vote cast would create an audit trail to check against social security death rolls and multiple voting.
Doesn't seem all that complex.
That is if we want to solve the problem and not make voting harder for some.
Election fraud
Of course the odds are virtually zero that the commission will come out with anything of substance except to go over some of the same old misconceptions.
First, registering to vote is not the same as voting.
Registration rolls undoubtedly are full of people who have died or moved and that's because most states aren't that concerned once you've actually registered.
The simple fact is that people who have died and failed to notify the election commission don't show up to vote.
Now it is theoretically possible for a person to research everyone who has died, figure out where they are registered to vote and possibly have people impersonate the dead person.
The possible problem with that is that in many places the people who sign in voters are pretty familiar with the people who come back year after year and if someone was a regular voter and someone else shows up, there is a reasonable chance it might be uncovered.
Concerning people who have moved away and also failed to notify the old state's election commission, well generally travelling to multiple states to vote is pretty onerous and unlikely.
Plus, unless they vote in both places, not sure its even important.
It does seem that since we do have a system that assigns pretty much every legal citizen with a social security number, we could also have a simple system that used it to verify you only voted once.
Of course it would have to be a secure system, but we should know how to protect the data and associating a social security number with each vote cast would create an audit trail to check against social security death rolls and multiple voting.
Doesn't seem all that complex.
That is if we want to solve the problem and not make voting harder for some.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Its Not Over Yet
Irma has dissipated into rain and some wind but the destruction it left behind is going to take a long time to repair.
I turns out it wasn't as devastating as it could have been, which is a good thing, although some stories make it sound like it was a mistake.
Perhaps a few people evacuated unnecessarily but better that than more deaths because people stayed.
It also is really a matter of perspective, having lived in the aftermath of a number of hurricanes where just getting power and gas were major undertakings, dealing with the aftermath is going to be painful for millions.
It should also be noted that the season isn't over yet.
Spinning in the Atlantic as I write this is Jose which apparently is doing a do si do although Irma failed to cooperate.
Hopefully it will continue the turn and head back into the Atlantic as opposed to heading to the coast looking for its partner.
It also very possible that another Hurricane could form although at least right now nothing seems imminent.
Unfortunately, with the rise in ocean temperatures this may be an ongoing phenomena where the natural cycle is enhanced.
We always had some years with bad hurricanes, but the periods between those years may be reduced and when we have them they are likely to be stronger.
There really nothing we can do that is going to change this short term, meaning for most of our remaining lives, but we can start a trend to eventually ease the impact of carbon, and we need to do that.
Meanwhile, it going to be windy and wet.
I turns out it wasn't as devastating as it could have been, which is a good thing, although some stories make it sound like it was a mistake.
Perhaps a few people evacuated unnecessarily but better that than more deaths because people stayed.
It also is really a matter of perspective, having lived in the aftermath of a number of hurricanes where just getting power and gas were major undertakings, dealing with the aftermath is going to be painful for millions.
It should also be noted that the season isn't over yet.
Spinning in the Atlantic as I write this is Jose which apparently is doing a do si do although Irma failed to cooperate.
Hopefully it will continue the turn and head back into the Atlantic as opposed to heading to the coast looking for its partner.
It also very possible that another Hurricane could form although at least right now nothing seems imminent.
Unfortunately, with the rise in ocean temperatures this may be an ongoing phenomena where the natural cycle is enhanced.
We always had some years with bad hurricanes, but the periods between those years may be reduced and when we have them they are likely to be stronger.
There really nothing we can do that is going to change this short term, meaning for most of our remaining lives, but we can start a trend to eventually ease the impact of carbon, and we need to do that.
Meanwhile, it going to be windy and wet.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Terrorism
On the anniversary of 9-11, it might be worthwhile to look at the state of terrorism and where we are in combatting it.
Now the problem with terrorism is simply that it doesn't have to be complicated elaborate plans or groups it can be as few as one individual driving a vehicle into a group of people.
Of course the damage cause by that is generally relatively minor unless of course you are one of the victims.
Preventing all terrorist attacks is not really feasible but we can prevent a lot of them, or at least make our targets hard to hit.
Now the terrorists are not limited to recent arrivers or refugees, but in many cases people who have been in this country and may even be citizens who get radicalized over some incident.
I guess the good news is that people are much more likely to dies in an automobile accident than be the victim of a terrorist.
I think the fact that terrorists actually want to hurt us is the scariest thing, it seems like there is nothing we can do.
However, of course there is.
See something, say something.
Take it seriously and in all honesty it would be better to report some one's forgotten briefcase or dropped purse hundreds of times than to ignore a planted bomb even once.
Now but you do need to see something, not just be suspicious of a person who looks a little different or dresses differently.
We can do what we can but we can't see or report every possible thing, considering that the next car coming down the street could simply veer into a crowd.
However, be alert and don't be afraid. Fear is what they want and it is giving them a victory they don't deserve.
Now the problem with terrorism is simply that it doesn't have to be complicated elaborate plans or groups it can be as few as one individual driving a vehicle into a group of people.
Of course the damage cause by that is generally relatively minor unless of course you are one of the victims.
Preventing all terrorist attacks is not really feasible but we can prevent a lot of them, or at least make our targets hard to hit.
Now the terrorists are not limited to recent arrivers or refugees, but in many cases people who have been in this country and may even be citizens who get radicalized over some incident.
I guess the good news is that people are much more likely to dies in an automobile accident than be the victim of a terrorist.
I think the fact that terrorists actually want to hurt us is the scariest thing, it seems like there is nothing we can do.
However, of course there is.
See something, say something.
Take it seriously and in all honesty it would be better to report some one's forgotten briefcase or dropped purse hundreds of times than to ignore a planted bomb even once.
Now but you do need to see something, not just be suspicious of a person who looks a little different or dresses differently.
We can do what we can but we can't see or report every possible thing, considering that the next car coming down the street could simply veer into a crowd.
However, be alert and don't be afraid. Fear is what they want and it is giving them a victory they don't deserve.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Tax Reform
There are issues with the US Tax Code, one of which is that it is overly complex.
Now Over the years special interest groups have managed to get exemptions for a lot of special interests built in but some of these have become ingrained and popular.
Its also problematic that we make individuals file tax returns on their income and deductions which inevitably is going to lead to some of the issues we have, such as wealthy individuals able to dodge their "fair" share of taxes and others not taking advantage of things they could.
Clearly it also fails us since it doesn't provide enough funds to pay our bills.
It may be that our bills are too high, but it may just be that we aren't collecting enough.
One thing that can't be ignored in this debate is that we already spend a tremendous amount on our military and much of the military spending is simply shot or blown up with no lasting benefit.
Of course we have to have a strong enough military to protect this nation, but we are one of the few countries in the world in a relatively safe location.
Assuming Canada and Mexico don't become excessively warlike we are extremely difficult to attack with conventional forces and most of our resources are devoted to force projection in foreign lands.
This is expensive and history shows us that many nations have declined trying to maintain strong military that they had to borrow to support.
Somehow the debate in this country is that we borrow to pay for other things like benefits and entitlements while we don't attribute that borrowing to military spending.
Well what we spend on defense generally is more than the deficit and in 2017 its more than twice the deficit. Now clearly we aren't going to make drastic reductions to defense, but the last surplus we experience coincided with the peace dividend under President Clinton.
So what is actually needed in tax reform? Maybe we really do need to reduce our spending to what we collect or increase our collections to what we spend. It would also be good to simplify our tax codes and I would be in favor of a system that was consumption based instead of income based, it would be easier to enforce and collect.
What is most likely though is some tinkering, some added complexity, some arguments over sacred cows and not much done to address the issue of balancing the budget.
Probably not much better than what we already have.
Now Over the years special interest groups have managed to get exemptions for a lot of special interests built in but some of these have become ingrained and popular.
Its also problematic that we make individuals file tax returns on their income and deductions which inevitably is going to lead to some of the issues we have, such as wealthy individuals able to dodge their "fair" share of taxes and others not taking advantage of things they could.
Clearly it also fails us since it doesn't provide enough funds to pay our bills.
It may be that our bills are too high, but it may just be that we aren't collecting enough.
One thing that can't be ignored in this debate is that we already spend a tremendous amount on our military and much of the military spending is simply shot or blown up with no lasting benefit.
Of course we have to have a strong enough military to protect this nation, but we are one of the few countries in the world in a relatively safe location.
Assuming Canada and Mexico don't become excessively warlike we are extremely difficult to attack with conventional forces and most of our resources are devoted to force projection in foreign lands.
This is expensive and history shows us that many nations have declined trying to maintain strong military that they had to borrow to support.
Somehow the debate in this country is that we borrow to pay for other things like benefits and entitlements while we don't attribute that borrowing to military spending.
Well what we spend on defense generally is more than the deficit and in 2017 its more than twice the deficit. Now clearly we aren't going to make drastic reductions to defense, but the last surplus we experience coincided with the peace dividend under President Clinton.
So what is actually needed in tax reform? Maybe we really do need to reduce our spending to what we collect or increase our collections to what we spend. It would also be good to simplify our tax codes and I would be in favor of a system that was consumption based instead of income based, it would be easier to enforce and collect.
What is most likely though is some tinkering, some added complexity, some arguments over sacred cows and not much done to address the issue of balancing the budget.
Probably not much better than what we already have.
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Fuel on the Fire
Had to drive from Alexandria to Long Island this morning on a crisp clear day in September.
The news on the radio was all about Irma and the expected destruction expected.
It hopefully will take yet another jag to the West and maybe spare Florida some of the worst, but its not looking good right now.
Now a single hurricane season is just weather, but what we do know is that ocean temperatures are rising.
In addition the ice on Greenland and Antarctica is melting so we can expect higher water levels.
Now lets just suppose some of this is due to natural causes, after all the earth has been through a lot of climate changes when people weren't even around.
However, the additional input form us now doesn't help.
We don't have to be the only ones responsible, there is no level of input that is acceptable.
Most of the models actually would argue that we should be in a cooling period but even if they are wrong and the earth is warming naturally, why is it OK to spew garbage into the air?
We make people who own dogs clean up after them but factory owners get a free pass?
We should allow imports from countries that pollute to even the playing field but we need to stop doing it ourselves.
The Bonfire is big enough already, time to stop adding fuel to it.
The news on the radio was all about Irma and the expected destruction expected.
It hopefully will take yet another jag to the West and maybe spare Florida some of the worst, but its not looking good right now.
Now a single hurricane season is just weather, but what we do know is that ocean temperatures are rising.
In addition the ice on Greenland and Antarctica is melting so we can expect higher water levels.
Now lets just suppose some of this is due to natural causes, after all the earth has been through a lot of climate changes when people weren't even around.
However, the additional input form us now doesn't help.
We don't have to be the only ones responsible, there is no level of input that is acceptable.
Most of the models actually would argue that we should be in a cooling period but even if they are wrong and the earth is warming naturally, why is it OK to spew garbage into the air?
We make people who own dogs clean up after them but factory owners get a free pass?
We should allow imports from countries that pollute to even the playing field but we need to stop doing it ourselves.
The Bonfire is big enough already, time to stop adding fuel to it.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Bullshit Issues
You have to wonder why so many people seemed to care why a town they probably were never in kept or got rid of a statue to a general who lost a war?
Similarly, why does anyone care if some people don't stand up for the National Anthem?
There are a whole lot of things portrayed in certain media as ruining our way of life.
My way of life involves getting up every day, going about my daily routines and eventually going back to sleep.
It doesn't have much to do with these monuments or the National Anthem or prayer in school or in fact most of these "issues".
Now there are issues out there that don't directly impact me that I do care about.
It has to pretty directly impact someone's actually well being or freedom though.
I'm against drunk driving, or distracted driving.
I don't think the Government should get involved in people's personal lives as long as they don't actually hurt someone else.
I'm in favor of a lot of things that I consider beneficial and oppose a lot of things that I consider harmful.
But I don't care about things that simply mean nothing at all.
Does someone go to church on Sunday or Friday or Saturday? I don't care if they go at all let alone what day they consider sacred.
How people dress, no real concern although sometimes I wish they had better taste.
What language they speak? Well if they are dealing with me I want English but otherwise I don't care.
Who do they marry and how they make love? TMI.
Too many people get stirred up about issues that just are bullshit and if they think about it don't mean anything.
We all need to learn to mind our own business more.
Would be a lot more pleasant out there.
Similarly, why does anyone care if some people don't stand up for the National Anthem?
There are a whole lot of things portrayed in certain media as ruining our way of life.
My way of life involves getting up every day, going about my daily routines and eventually going back to sleep.
It doesn't have much to do with these monuments or the National Anthem or prayer in school or in fact most of these "issues".
Now there are issues out there that don't directly impact me that I do care about.
It has to pretty directly impact someone's actually well being or freedom though.
I'm against drunk driving, or distracted driving.
I don't think the Government should get involved in people's personal lives as long as they don't actually hurt someone else.
I'm in favor of a lot of things that I consider beneficial and oppose a lot of things that I consider harmful.
But I don't care about things that simply mean nothing at all.
Does someone go to church on Sunday or Friday or Saturday? I don't care if they go at all let alone what day they consider sacred.
How people dress, no real concern although sometimes I wish they had better taste.
What language they speak? Well if they are dealing with me I want English but otherwise I don't care.
Who do they marry and how they make love? TMI.
Too many people get stirred up about issues that just are bullshit and if they think about it don't mean anything.
We all need to learn to mind our own business more.
Would be a lot more pleasant out there.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Compressed Time
Hurricane Harvey was described as a once in 500 year event and we have seen a large number of events that supposedly happen infrequently fairly frequently recently.
The records we rely on for these estimates are based on historical measurements, sometimes looking at evidence left by the last such event.
However, 500 years just isn't what it used to be.
Harvey was followed in a couple of weeks by Irma, another rare event.
500 years in two weeks, must be some sort of record.
Katrina was another once in a lifetime event, as was Sandy.
Now, clearly, these events are happening more frequently than they used to since the unusual conditions that used to spawn them have now become the norm.
In fact, it is clear that this is just going to get worse as the temperatures and sea levels continue to rise.
Personally I was fine with seeing maybe on of these events in my lifetime, two would have been overdoing it.
I'm up to 4 or 5, sort of losing count and I don't feel 500 years old, not even a century yet.
What's the rush?
The records we rely on for these estimates are based on historical measurements, sometimes looking at evidence left by the last such event.
However, 500 years just isn't what it used to be.
Harvey was followed in a couple of weeks by Irma, another rare event.
500 years in two weeks, must be some sort of record.
Katrina was another once in a lifetime event, as was Sandy.
Now, clearly, these events are happening more frequently than they used to since the unusual conditions that used to spawn them have now become the norm.
In fact, it is clear that this is just going to get worse as the temperatures and sea levels continue to rise.
Personally I was fine with seeing maybe on of these events in my lifetime, two would have been overdoing it.
I'm up to 4 or 5, sort of losing count and I don't feel 500 years old, not even a century yet.
What's the rush?
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Dreamers
Well thousands of young people who grew up American are now in danger of being deported in a few months.
Now these are people who came here as children and grew up much like every other child in America.
Now the fate of these people is in the hands of Congress which has trouble doing pretty much anything.
The point is that while these people who grew up here are as American as well anyone else who grew up at the same time, some people feel like they are law breakers who must be punished.
Immigration laws are odd in the fact that they impact foreign nationals who technically we have no jurisdiction over. Now of course we should be able to control our borders although I don't think a wall is the answer but this situation is about people who have been here most of their lives and whom in many cases have brothers and sisters born after them with full rights of citizenship.
I don't see immigration as the problem some do, since we need immigrants to provide us with the momentum immigrants always provide.
It should be obvious that immigrants, in most cases are preselected as the more daring people. They are willing to leave a relatively familiar place to embark on a new life with all the risks that entails.
This nation was always fueled by that immigration motivation to move forward and expand.
Now getting rid of the Dreamers is not going to serve any purpose for America, they are actually generally good young people contributing to society.
In fact it is likely they contribute more than their peers since that is generally the case for groups in risky situations.
They have to overcome more and become more invested than the native born video game players.
I'm sure they play their fair share of video games too, but as Dreamers many of them are doing so much more.
Now these are people who came here as children and grew up much like every other child in America.
Now the fate of these people is in the hands of Congress which has trouble doing pretty much anything.
The point is that while these people who grew up here are as American as well anyone else who grew up at the same time, some people feel like they are law breakers who must be punished.
Immigration laws are odd in the fact that they impact foreign nationals who technically we have no jurisdiction over. Now of course we should be able to control our borders although I don't think a wall is the answer but this situation is about people who have been here most of their lives and whom in many cases have brothers and sisters born after them with full rights of citizenship.
I don't see immigration as the problem some do, since we need immigrants to provide us with the momentum immigrants always provide.
It should be obvious that immigrants, in most cases are preselected as the more daring people. They are willing to leave a relatively familiar place to embark on a new life with all the risks that entails.
This nation was always fueled by that immigration motivation to move forward and expand.
Now getting rid of the Dreamers is not going to serve any purpose for America, they are actually generally good young people contributing to society.
In fact it is likely they contribute more than their peers since that is generally the case for groups in risky situations.
They have to overcome more and become more invested than the native born video game players.
I'm sure they play their fair share of video games too, but as Dreamers many of them are doing so much more.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Family
The one thing that has been basic to human life since the very beginning is the sense of family. This isn't unique to humans or even mammals but of course the evolution of all species required the young to survive and the best way to assure that is to afford them protection when they are vulnerable.
Now of course this varies and some don't grow up in a family situation, but for most of us our earliest memories are being safe and protected in a family unit.
Leaving this family unit is something that nature has apparently geared us up to do in our teen age years when we start to reject authority.
Now this family model has been part of our heritage and is governed by strong instinctual impulses.
It may not be as necessary as it once was for our survival but it may be just as essential as ever for our mental well being.
I the modern age we have created a number of problems for families which generally involve a number of factors.
Originally families spent the vast majority of their time together with the basic unit, mother and children almost inseparable while the fathers and older males would at time leave to hunt or other pursuits.
Everyone had to do their share whether at home or away to survive and at least until those teen-age years, the family generally superseded your own needs.
In the modern era we see a redefinition of family which may be better or it may not be. This isn't related to the sexual preferences of the family heads, more about the impact that the modern world has on the psyche of those growing up in a brave new world, to steal a phrase.
More to come.
Now of course this varies and some don't grow up in a family situation, but for most of us our earliest memories are being safe and protected in a family unit.
Leaving this family unit is something that nature has apparently geared us up to do in our teen age years when we start to reject authority.
Now this family model has been part of our heritage and is governed by strong instinctual impulses.
It may not be as necessary as it once was for our survival but it may be just as essential as ever for our mental well being.
I the modern age we have created a number of problems for families which generally involve a number of factors.
Originally families spent the vast majority of their time together with the basic unit, mother and children almost inseparable while the fathers and older males would at time leave to hunt or other pursuits.
Everyone had to do their share whether at home or away to survive and at least until those teen-age years, the family generally superseded your own needs.
In the modern era we see a redefinition of family which may be better or it may not be. This isn't related to the sexual preferences of the family heads, more about the impact that the modern world has on the psyche of those growing up in a brave new world, to steal a phrase.
More to come.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Manufacturing Labor
It labor day in the United States and one of the things that led to the election results is the weakness in our manufacturing sector in traditional areas of the country. The reasons for the weakness are mostly technological but it also does involve some foreign outsourcing.
Of course any job such as manufacturing has a multiplier effect so the decreases you see during the recession would be pretty dramatic. Further the recovery isn't necessarily taking place in the areas hit hardest as outdated plants are shuttered and new manufacturing is moved to where the talent or cheap labor is.
Labor in this country is simply not the force it once was and to view it using a 1950s-1960s filter is simply going to distort the facts.
Manufacturing will of course always exist, but the number of people needed on the manufacturing floor is still decreasing as engineering finds more and more ways to automate the factories
It was the trend that was most noticeable to me over the last 40 years, as we moved from a factory environment where everything possible was controlled under one roof to one where the ultimate supplier is more of an assembler in many cases.
Its the other factor that makes even these fairly pessimistic numbers even worse as the jobs that do remain are frequently outsourced to suppliers who pay less and offer less benefits.
It is also one of the reasons Unions have so much trouble, when multiple suppliers are bidding to get a job, one paying slightly higher rates is at a disadvantage.
However it is labor day and we do see some uptick in Manufacturing so lets not be too gloomy.
Happy Labor Day!
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Hurricane Fashion
If you are going to a hurricane area, what you wear is pretty dependent upon what you expect to do.
Now lets be honest that the visit of the president and first lady are simply public relations since there is nothing that can be done there that couldn't be done in Washington, except photo ops and taking the time of certain dignitaries.
There was of course the negative photo comments based upon the fact that the first lady wore heals on the first visit which she corrected on the next one with some new designer kicks.
What she wears has absolutely no impact on the victims suffering from the hurricane and realistically the whole concept of these visits is simply for the public.
I actually think getting briefed and watching news coverage is probably a better way to get updated on the devastation than making everyone focus on security and itineraries by visiting.
However, its something they all do and to make a big deal about visiting or not visiting is simply ridiculous.
What of course is important is what are we doing to mitigate the pain from this hurricane and prevent a future where storms just keep getting worse every year.
We already know that he is not doing anything to mitigate climate change and that's a much more dangerous situation than the immediate one in Texas.
We have made more of an issue over the fashion choices of the first lady than we have over the impending climate disaster.
We all need to get our future hurricane apparel soon.
Now lets be honest that the visit of the president and first lady are simply public relations since there is nothing that can be done there that couldn't be done in Washington, except photo ops and taking the time of certain dignitaries.
There was of course the negative photo comments based upon the fact that the first lady wore heals on the first visit which she corrected on the next one with some new designer kicks.
What she wears has absolutely no impact on the victims suffering from the hurricane and realistically the whole concept of these visits is simply for the public.
I actually think getting briefed and watching news coverage is probably a better way to get updated on the devastation than making everyone focus on security and itineraries by visiting.
However, its something they all do and to make a big deal about visiting or not visiting is simply ridiculous.
What of course is important is what are we doing to mitigate the pain from this hurricane and prevent a future where storms just keep getting worse every year.
We already know that he is not doing anything to mitigate climate change and that's a much more dangerous situation than the immediate one in Texas.
We have made more of an issue over the fashion choices of the first lady than we have over the impending climate disaster.
We all need to get our future hurricane apparel soon.
Saturday, September 2, 2017
An Ounce of Prevention
Natural disasters don't care what your politics are and no one generally is in favor of them.
Unfortunately, some will profit from them and the urgency chaos and speed involved end up leading sometimes to rampant fraud and abuse.
This is why it is important to have the structures in place that can respond to any such disasters quickly and efficiently.
Of course human nature being what it is the funding follows the disaster, and the organizations that respond whether Governmental or Private get energized by the actual disaster.
It is nearly impossible in this day and age to get the parties and the public to agree on much.
However, I do think everybody would agree that the Government should be as efficient as humanly possible.
Of course humanly possible means it wont be perfect.
The Government employs a lot of people, and since they are people they range across the spectrum.
You can find one or more of them abusing their position, but that is simply people acting badly.
In some ways the Government management, is more concerned about their political bosses than about running an efficient organization.
Of course there have been lots of initiatives to remove politics from the executive departments but clearly since they are all staffed at the top levels by political appointees it's hard to do.
Now obviously priorities change and departments need to be responsive, but if you change the CEO and all the senior executives at a corporation overnight, the stock would likely suffer because its too disruptive.
We do that to our executive departments every so many years depending on election results.
When you wonder about the inefficiency of Government, I think this accounts for a lot of it.
An organization like FEMA should have mandated goals and sufficient funding to accomplish them.
Its not really a political thing.
Unfortunately, some will profit from them and the urgency chaos and speed involved end up leading sometimes to rampant fraud and abuse.
This is why it is important to have the structures in place that can respond to any such disasters quickly and efficiently.
Of course human nature being what it is the funding follows the disaster, and the organizations that respond whether Governmental or Private get energized by the actual disaster.
It is nearly impossible in this day and age to get the parties and the public to agree on much.
However, I do think everybody would agree that the Government should be as efficient as humanly possible.
Of course humanly possible means it wont be perfect.
The Government employs a lot of people, and since they are people they range across the spectrum.
You can find one or more of them abusing their position, but that is simply people acting badly.
In some ways the Government management, is more concerned about their political bosses than about running an efficient organization.
Of course there have been lots of initiatives to remove politics from the executive departments but clearly since they are all staffed at the top levels by political appointees it's hard to do.
Now obviously priorities change and departments need to be responsive, but if you change the CEO and all the senior executives at a corporation overnight, the stock would likely suffer because its too disruptive.
We do that to our executive departments every so many years depending on election results.
When you wonder about the inefficiency of Government, I think this accounts for a lot of it.
An organization like FEMA should have mandated goals and sufficient funding to accomplish them.
Its not really a political thing.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Gullibility
There are a lot of sayings that discus the gullibility of people.
There's a sucker born every moment, a fool and his money are soon parted, etc. etc.
The reason for this is that people are partly gullible and partly greedy.
The promise of something of value for almost nothing tends to be tempting to people, enough for many to stop being skeptical.
Now in many cases its fairly harmless, as when someone asks you for a few dollars to get food, or for carfare because they lost their wallet.
In other cases the scams are much more significant costing people their savings, their homes and their health.
It doesn't matter if the victim is vulnerable or old or sick. In fact all those things are what helps define them as a victim.
The con men will lie right to your face and look very sincere doing it. Its something you have to learn and avoid and one of the reasons people in big cities sometimes appear unfriendly, they can't determine if your for real or pulling a con.
Now as sad as this is, we see that politicians engage in this behavior to get elected.
Over the years some of the most outrageous lies started to get exposed by the media, but now we see so much questionable media that the legitimate media can be branded as fake news.
So bringing back manufacturing, bringing back coal, fixing trade agreements, building a wall, improving your health care and reducing your taxes while increasing defense and infrastructure were believed by enough people to matter.
The gullibility index was at an all time high and unfortunately it might be a trend.
Hey, this must all be part of God's plan - just trust those preachers!
There's a sucker born every moment, a fool and his money are soon parted, etc. etc.
The reason for this is that people are partly gullible and partly greedy.
The promise of something of value for almost nothing tends to be tempting to people, enough for many to stop being skeptical.
Now in many cases its fairly harmless, as when someone asks you for a few dollars to get food, or for carfare because they lost their wallet.
In other cases the scams are much more significant costing people their savings, their homes and their health.
It doesn't matter if the victim is vulnerable or old or sick. In fact all those things are what helps define them as a victim.
The con men will lie right to your face and look very sincere doing it. Its something you have to learn and avoid and one of the reasons people in big cities sometimes appear unfriendly, they can't determine if your for real or pulling a con.
Now as sad as this is, we see that politicians engage in this behavior to get elected.
Over the years some of the most outrageous lies started to get exposed by the media, but now we see so much questionable media that the legitimate media can be branded as fake news.
So bringing back manufacturing, bringing back coal, fixing trade agreements, building a wall, improving your health care and reducing your taxes while increasing defense and infrastructure were believed by enough people to matter.
The gullibility index was at an all time high and unfortunately it might be a trend.
Hey, this must all be part of God's plan - just trust those preachers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)