By Manifesto Joe
Gov. Rick "El Pendejo" Perry has already done plenty in his 63 years on this planet to make Texas, and Texans, look foolish. His absent-minded, tongue-tied participation in the 2012 GOP presidential race was embarrassing enough.
Now he's demanding an apology from the Sacramento Bee for a Jack Ohman political cartoon. Ohman's cartoon was something like this: In one panel, Perry is shown standing at a podium, next to signs proclaiming low regulations and low taxes, saying something like, "Business in Texas is booming." The next panel, on the right, depicts the deadly April 17 explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas.
Ohman's cartoon indulges in dark humor, but he raises a very pertinent point. These people had a fertilizer plant, which housed ingredients similar to the ones used by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, very close to a school and a nursing home. It's actually quite fortunate that more than 14 people weren't killed.
Not only was state oversight of the plant probably insufficient -- the fact of where it was is a crime. Such a plant should never have been located in such a place. In addition to the deaths, up to 200 people were hurt, and about 100 homes were destroyed.
Perry has said that more state oversight or regulation wouldn't have prevented the explosion. Perhaps not -- but why was such a plant even there, to begin with?
Governor, please retire and leave state government to someone who actually has a brain, and perhaps even a dark sense of humor. Sometimes it's better to laugh than to cry -- I think lots of people have done plenty of crying in West, thank you.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
I Understand The Strategy, But Obama May Be Making Worst Mistake Of His Career
By Manifesto Joe
I've taken a lot of time to weigh the pros and cons of President Obama's proposal for a "chained CPI" to bring about cuts in Social Security, etc. I've read a piece in defense of it, from the Democratic perspective. And, of course, it's not hard to find plenty of excoriations from the left.
I've decided that my sentiments are more with the left. I can appreciate that Obama is a practitioner of "real politics," but he's already tried that with the Republicans for over four years. They've made clear that they're not interested in actually governing.
Obama now stands on the verge of his worst mistake -- not just of his presidency, but of his entire political career. He is about to alienate his core constituency in one more desperate bid to "compromise."
Social Security is indeed a different program than the one created during the New Deal in 1935. Participation isn't voluntary, and demands on the system are far greater. But it has mostly done what it was intended to do. The poverty rate among elderly Americans was once around 50%. Thanks to a compulsory pension system, it's now down to about 10%.
I understand why Obama is trying, one last time I hope, to compromise here. He hasn't been able to get Republicans who still control the U.S. House to sit down at the table and give something up on their "no new taxes" (i.e., no new taxes on big corporations and the super-rich) pledges. New revenue is clearly needed, and two-thirds of big corporations are paying no federal income taxes. In addition, super-billionaire Warren Buffett has acknowledged that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal personal income tax than does his secretary. And he's far from alone among the richest elite.
Something clearly has to give. But Obama is giving first, as usual. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich phrased it, "The president throws things on the table before the Republicans have even sat down for dinner."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has strong misgivings about the president's strategy. The general feeling among Democrats was expressed well by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey: "If he's trying to do it to show he is forthcoming as a negotiator, then why doesn't he wait until he gets to the negotiating table? There's a lot of talk about the fact that politically this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security."
In America, this is the day of the locust. I spent 27 weeks unemployed just recently, and for a long time was falling through the cracks. Oh, there are plenty of part-time, temporary and contract jobs, if you want them. Having a lot of medical ailments, I don't have the option of taking jobs that don't offer health insurance. And Social Security is a cornerstone of my someday retirement. It's not an option for me, and I've been paying into the system since I was a teenager.
And the same big corporations that are offering these feces-paying jobs with no benefits are the ones getting by paying little or nothing in corporate income tax. Oh, the rates are comparatively high -- for those who don't have tax attorneys good enough to get them out of paying. It just came out that Facebook not only isn't paying any income tax for 2012, on profits of $1 billion, they may actually get a refund worth nearly $430 million.
I've understood why Obama has done much of what he's done in a game of political hardball with Republicans. But as many times as he's felt their spikes, it's time to start digging his in and saying no. Otherwise, he unwisely risks his core Democratic constituency, and it should be clear by now that nothing's going to get done anyway. The Republicans, who are interested only in power, not in governing, are already trying to score political points by turning up their noses at this idea.
The president needs to abandon the idea of the "chained" Consumer Price Index now, while he still can. Then he should take his case directly to the American people. It's been estimated that U.S. senior citizens could lose as much as $112 billion over 10 years if this idea floats. If they know the facts, they'll certainly say no.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I've taken a lot of time to weigh the pros and cons of President Obama's proposal for a "chained CPI" to bring about cuts in Social Security, etc. I've read a piece in defense of it, from the Democratic perspective. And, of course, it's not hard to find plenty of excoriations from the left.
I've decided that my sentiments are more with the left. I can appreciate that Obama is a practitioner of "real politics," but he's already tried that with the Republicans for over four years. They've made clear that they're not interested in actually governing.
Obama now stands on the verge of his worst mistake -- not just of his presidency, but of his entire political career. He is about to alienate his core constituency in one more desperate bid to "compromise."
Social Security is indeed a different program than the one created during the New Deal in 1935. Participation isn't voluntary, and demands on the system are far greater. But it has mostly done what it was intended to do. The poverty rate among elderly Americans was once around 50%. Thanks to a compulsory pension system, it's now down to about 10%.
I understand why Obama is trying, one last time I hope, to compromise here. He hasn't been able to get Republicans who still control the U.S. House to sit down at the table and give something up on their "no new taxes" (i.e., no new taxes on big corporations and the super-rich) pledges. New revenue is clearly needed, and two-thirds of big corporations are paying no federal income taxes. In addition, super-billionaire Warren Buffett has acknowledged that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal personal income tax than does his secretary. And he's far from alone among the richest elite.
Something clearly has to give. But Obama is giving first, as usual. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich phrased it, "The president throws things on the table before the Republicans have even sat down for dinner."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has strong misgivings about the president's strategy. The general feeling among Democrats was expressed well by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey: "If he's trying to do it to show he is forthcoming as a negotiator, then why doesn't he wait until he gets to the negotiating table? There's a lot of talk about the fact that politically this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security."
In America, this is the day of the locust. I spent 27 weeks unemployed just recently, and for a long time was falling through the cracks. Oh, there are plenty of part-time, temporary and contract jobs, if you want them. Having a lot of medical ailments, I don't have the option of taking jobs that don't offer health insurance. And Social Security is a cornerstone of my someday retirement. It's not an option for me, and I've been paying into the system since I was a teenager.
And the same big corporations that are offering these feces-paying jobs with no benefits are the ones getting by paying little or nothing in corporate income tax. Oh, the rates are comparatively high -- for those who don't have tax attorneys good enough to get them out of paying. It just came out that Facebook not only isn't paying any income tax for 2012, on profits of $1 billion, they may actually get a refund worth nearly $430 million.
I've understood why Obama has done much of what he's done in a game of political hardball with Republicans. But as many times as he's felt their spikes, it's time to start digging his in and saying no. Otherwise, he unwisely risks his core Democratic constituency, and it should be clear by now that nothing's going to get done anyway. The Republicans, who are interested only in power, not in governing, are already trying to score political points by turning up their noses at this idea.
The president needs to abandon the idea of the "chained" Consumer Price Index now, while he still can. Then he should take his case directly to the American people. It's been estimated that U.S. senior citizens could lose as much as $112 billion over 10 years if this idea floats. If they know the facts, they'll certainly say no.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Jim Carrey's Video Is Hysterical
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey
This hilarious video is no longer available on You Tube because too many people have been violating copyright laws. But it's well worth it to visit the address I've published above.
You can also get the lyrics of Jim's parody song at democraticunderground.com
As "Sam Elliott" says, "Enjoy the show." -- mj
This hilarious video is no longer available on You Tube because too many people have been violating copyright laws. But it's well worth it to visit the address I've published above.
You can also get the lyrics of Jim's parody song at democraticunderground.com
As "Sam Elliott" says, "Enjoy the show." -- mj
Friday, March 22, 2013
A Republican Split? Don't Hold Your Breath
By Manifesto Joe
There's been much ado in the MSM lately about change in the Republican Party. Last month, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, became the first major Republican politician to come out in favor of gay marriage, and said his son is gay. On immigration overhauls, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has endorsed a path to citizenship for legal immigrants, and his son, the very Latino-looking George P. Bush, is launching a statewide political career in Texas and appears to be making some inroads with Hispanic voters in this state. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, touted as another GOP rising star, has specific ideas for immigration overhauls that sound strikingly like what the Obama administration proposes.
These developments are anathema to the GOP's hard-core Tea Party types, who generally projectile-vomit at the mention of gay marriage and are often hard-line opponents of even legal immigration. Their reaction to these changes has primarily been bilious disgust.
This has some unsympathetic observers speculating that the Republican Party is about to break into two factions: (1) the economic royalists it has always represented, but those whose "social" views are moderate, and (2) the die-hard right wing.
Don't hold your breath. The Republicans have fought all these battles before. Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 screed A Choice Not an Echo illustrates how old this battle is. In those days, it was mainly being fought over economic issues (Barry Goldwater referred to the Eisenhower administration as "the dimestore New Deal") and general sanity about avoiding nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Gay marriage and immigration have merely taken the place of those Cold War and New Deal issues.
The Kool-Aid that both factions have drunk, and with gusto, is supply-side economics. That's different from the GOP infighting that was going on 50 years ago. They are very, very united on that crucial point, and that's the glue that will hold them together no matter what.
Dwight Eisenhower, a conservative in the more pragmatic sense of the word, realized the value of New Deal economic reforms such as Social Security and unemployment insurance. He at least privately regarded these changes as more or less permanent. Now, even the alleged "reform" faction of the Republican Party seems united on gutting Social Security and perhaps even considers benefits for the jobless to be wasteful welfare that just makes the unemployed into paunchy bums.
The Democrats have even more rifts under their tent than the Republicans have, especially now with a quasi-pragmatic centrist like Barack Obama as president. This faction, the pragmatic center, has pretty much controlled the Democratic Party since the McGovern debacle of 1972, but many on the far left remain idealists. Despite the failures of the past, they sincerely believe that "real Democrats," i.e. hard-core lefties, are what the party needs.
I'd be among the first to concede that Obama has been all-too-accommodating. He still doesn't seem to realize that the Republican concept of bipartisanship is to do everything entirely and absolutely THEIR way. But neither do the Democrats need their own version of Tea Party extremists.
The Democrats need to stay as united as possible, because they can't expect any less from the Republicans. The GOP is just doing what its rank-and-file thinks it needs to do to be electable, in reaction to losing the last two presidential races rather badly. They did the same thing starting with Alf Landon in 1936, when the moderate Republican governor of Kansas didn't flatly oppose some parts of the New Deal, he just said it was being poorly administered.
Landon lost badly, but the Republicans kept inching toward the perceived political center, until they finally came up with a winner with Eisenhower in 1952. They'll do that again, this time with gay marriage, immigration and similar "social" issues. The thing that will hold them together this time is that they all remain social Darwinists. They all agree that the poor should be punished for being that way.
Don't expect the GOP to deviate from the formula of the past. When they experience national defeats (the 1930s and '40s, and to a lesser extent now), they will move toward the center. When they start winning again, they'll move back to the far right (the 1980s and '90s, and briefly in 2010-11). They'll stay together -- and if the Democrats are to continue to win, the Democrats must, too.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
There's been much ado in the MSM lately about change in the Republican Party. Last month, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, became the first major Republican politician to come out in favor of gay marriage, and said his son is gay. On immigration overhauls, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has endorsed a path to citizenship for legal immigrants, and his son, the very Latino-looking George P. Bush, is launching a statewide political career in Texas and appears to be making some inroads with Hispanic voters in this state. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, touted as another GOP rising star, has specific ideas for immigration overhauls that sound strikingly like what the Obama administration proposes.
These developments are anathema to the GOP's hard-core Tea Party types, who generally projectile-vomit at the mention of gay marriage and are often hard-line opponents of even legal immigration. Their reaction to these changes has primarily been bilious disgust.
This has some unsympathetic observers speculating that the Republican Party is about to break into two factions: (1) the economic royalists it has always represented, but those whose "social" views are moderate, and (2) the die-hard right wing.
Don't hold your breath. The Republicans have fought all these battles before. Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 screed A Choice Not an Echo illustrates how old this battle is. In those days, it was mainly being fought over economic issues (Barry Goldwater referred to the Eisenhower administration as "the dimestore New Deal") and general sanity about avoiding nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Gay marriage and immigration have merely taken the place of those Cold War and New Deal issues.
The Kool-Aid that both factions have drunk, and with gusto, is supply-side economics. That's different from the GOP infighting that was going on 50 years ago. They are very, very united on that crucial point, and that's the glue that will hold them together no matter what.
Dwight Eisenhower, a conservative in the more pragmatic sense of the word, realized the value of New Deal economic reforms such as Social Security and unemployment insurance. He at least privately regarded these changes as more or less permanent. Now, even the alleged "reform" faction of the Republican Party seems united on gutting Social Security and perhaps even considers benefits for the jobless to be wasteful welfare that just makes the unemployed into paunchy bums.
The Democrats have even more rifts under their tent than the Republicans have, especially now with a quasi-pragmatic centrist like Barack Obama as president. This faction, the pragmatic center, has pretty much controlled the Democratic Party since the McGovern debacle of 1972, but many on the far left remain idealists. Despite the failures of the past, they sincerely believe that "real Democrats," i.e. hard-core lefties, are what the party needs.
I'd be among the first to concede that Obama has been all-too-accommodating. He still doesn't seem to realize that the Republican concept of bipartisanship is to do everything entirely and absolutely THEIR way. But neither do the Democrats need their own version of Tea Party extremists.
The Democrats need to stay as united as possible, because they can't expect any less from the Republicans. The GOP is just doing what its rank-and-file thinks it needs to do to be electable, in reaction to losing the last two presidential races rather badly. They did the same thing starting with Alf Landon in 1936, when the moderate Republican governor of Kansas didn't flatly oppose some parts of the New Deal, he just said it was being poorly administered.
Landon lost badly, but the Republicans kept inching toward the perceived political center, until they finally came up with a winner with Eisenhower in 1952. They'll do that again, this time with gay marriage, immigration and similar "social" issues. The thing that will hold them together this time is that they all remain social Darwinists. They all agree that the poor should be punished for being that way.
Don't expect the GOP to deviate from the formula of the past. When they experience national defeats (the 1930s and '40s, and to a lesser extent now), they will move toward the center. When they start winning again, they'll move back to the far right (the 1980s and '90s, and briefly in 2010-11). They'll stay together -- and if the Democrats are to continue to win, the Democrats must, too.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
'The Poor Rich': More Tiresome Mainstream Media Obfuscation
By Manifesto Joe
Several days ago, newspapers all over the U.S. had wire editors stupid enough to drink another round of strong Kool-Aid. A "story" by Stephen Ohlemacher of The Associated Press went viral in the MSM. The crux of it: The share of federal income taxes that the rich pay is close to a peak since 1979.
What this "story" amounted to was cherry-picking of the worst possible kind. It was misleading and generally beside the point. But, let's start by examining the thesis:
For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.
Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.
The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group will get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, including payroll taxes. That will give them a negative tax rate.
Please note that what this "story" by Ohlemacher (who obviously has figured out who ultimately pays his salary) focuses on is federal income taxes, exclusively. Conveniently omitted are:
(1) State and local taxes, which are notoriously regressive.
(2) Corporate income taxes. About two-thirds of U.S. corporations, among them the largest, pay ZERO federal income tax, and some even got credits.
(3) Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, which stop entirely after a certain income level, so they are by definition as regressive as a tax can be.
(4) The assorted breaks that go only to the very, very rich -- we're talking here 0.1%, not just the top 1%. Some of them are mind-blowers.
(5) The U.S. economy doubled in size in 30 years, and yet real wages for ordinary people remained about the same. Obviously somebody has been profiting handsomely from this increase in productivity, and it hasn't been the ordinary run of Americans. Given this trend, wouldn't one expect the top 20%, and even the top 1%, to pay a lot more?
What happened? When newspapers across the U.S. took a great big swig of this Kool-Aid it was, in essence, an acceptance of about one-sixth of relevant data when one honestly and thoroughly examines the effect of taxation on the growing gap between rich and poor. In other words, this "journalist" wrote a "story" based on one of six factors in the overall picture.
Mr. Ohlemacher did one-sixth of the job as well as one could expect. Here's a link to his original "story," courtesy of USA Today.
But now, let's examine the other five sets of data.
(1) A New York Times series on the growing American gap between rich and poor points out:
While the federal government has largely stuck by the principle of progressive taxation, the states have gone their own ways: tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.
I live in a state (Texas) where there is no income tax. In contast, sales taxes and user fees are very high. These obviously hit consumers at the lower income level, at which more money is spent on basic goods and services, much harder than they affect consumers who spend relatively less on such things. In essence, such taxes are an effective way of punishing the poor for being that way. Texas ranks 5th on the list of 10 most regressive tax states, according to one study. Here's a link to that one.
I'll give my home state credit for one big thing -- grocery items are mostly exempt from the sales tax (although not all convenience store operators have heard that news yet, and related enforcement is very lax). Oklahoma, where I once lived for something under a year and a half, has a state income tax. But they levy a sales tax on everything, including ALL groceries. That wipes out most of the progressive effect that the state income tax has.
(2) The corporate income tax rate in the U.S. is alleged to be relatively high. The problem is, not very many corporations pay it, and that's especially true of the largest and most powerful ones. Even economic conservatives, when pushed into a corner, will admit this. I found a New York Times piece in which Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official, came clean on this issue. (Sorry, the link no longer works.)
What has the effect been on the federal budget -- which is of so much concern to both major political parties now? Here's a hint: Barlett and Steele, the reporting team that wrote America: What Went Wrong?, reported that in 1959, corporate income taxes comprised 39% of IRS revenue. By 1989, that had declined to 17% And, by the way, those are IRS figures.
It's one thing for Worthington Farthington, CEO of Corporation X, to pay higher personal income taxes than Jack Shitt of Biloxi, Miss. But what if Corporation X, which employs Jack part time with no benefits, pays, effectively, no income tax? And that is increasingly the case.
(3) Yes, I know that corporations pay into the Social Security system, and that they support Medicare as well. But look at the bigger picture. The employee pays 6.2% for Social Security, and the employer matches that, for an effective federal rate of 12.4% But the payroll tax is capped at $106,800, which I would place as the upper threshold of middle-class earnings. No taxes are paid on anything above that. For an illustration of the effect this has, here's a link to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This is called regressive taxation. Any questions, class?
Although Social Security's general effect on U.S. society since its inception in 1935 has been a reduction in poverty, the tax that supports it is clearly regressive. But this was largely by design. One of the reasons it has always been this way is to give fatcats some sort of incentive to reluctantly participate in the system.
Now, the swine don't even want to do that. They have all manner of schemes to "privatize" Social Security, to phase it out, give it over to the tender mercies of Wall Street. The arrogance of these people is such that even asking them to do their "part" in a regressive tax structure is just too damned much.
(4) There are tax breaks that go only to the VERY, VERY wealthy that are astonishing. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example. The corporate jet tax loophole, it is estimated, will be worth at least $3.2 billion over the span of 10 years. Some estimates, such as the one on this link, put the break's 10-year worth at more like $4 billion.
(5) So, who's been getting rich since 1980, with the U.S. economy doubling in size? Here's a link on the subject. Here's a hint: It hasn't been me, and it's unlikely, if you've read this far, that it's been you, either.
It's mind-boggling to still be hearing allegations that American mainstream news media have a liberal bias, when it's so obvious to whom they are kowtowing. Mr. Ohlemacher certainly seems to know that it's the U.S. Ownership Class that ultimately pays his salary.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Several days ago, newspapers all over the U.S. had wire editors stupid enough to drink another round of strong Kool-Aid. A "story" by Stephen Ohlemacher of The Associated Press went viral in the MSM. The crux of it: The share of federal income taxes that the rich pay is close to a peak since 1979.
What this "story" amounted to was cherry-picking of the worst possible kind. It was misleading and generally beside the point. But, let's start by examining the thesis:
For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.
Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.
The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group will get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, including payroll taxes. That will give them a negative tax rate.
Please note that what this "story" by Ohlemacher (who obviously has figured out who ultimately pays his salary) focuses on is federal income taxes, exclusively. Conveniently omitted are:
(1) State and local taxes, which are notoriously regressive.
(2) Corporate income taxes. About two-thirds of U.S. corporations, among them the largest, pay ZERO federal income tax, and some even got credits.
(3) Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, which stop entirely after a certain income level, so they are by definition as regressive as a tax can be.
(4) The assorted breaks that go only to the very, very rich -- we're talking here 0.1%, not just the top 1%. Some of them are mind-blowers.
(5) The U.S. economy doubled in size in 30 years, and yet real wages for ordinary people remained about the same. Obviously somebody has been profiting handsomely from this increase in productivity, and it hasn't been the ordinary run of Americans. Given this trend, wouldn't one expect the top 20%, and even the top 1%, to pay a lot more?
What happened? When newspapers across the U.S. took a great big swig of this Kool-Aid it was, in essence, an acceptance of about one-sixth of relevant data when one honestly and thoroughly examines the effect of taxation on the growing gap between rich and poor. In other words, this "journalist" wrote a "story" based on one of six factors in the overall picture.
Mr. Ohlemacher did one-sixth of the job as well as one could expect. Here's a link to his original "story," courtesy of USA Today.
But now, let's examine the other five sets of data.
(1) A New York Times series on the growing American gap between rich and poor points out:
While the federal government has largely stuck by the principle of progressive taxation, the states have gone their own ways: tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.
I live in a state (Texas) where there is no income tax. In contast, sales taxes and user fees are very high. These obviously hit consumers at the lower income level, at which more money is spent on basic goods and services, much harder than they affect consumers who spend relatively less on such things. In essence, such taxes are an effective way of punishing the poor for being that way. Texas ranks 5th on the list of 10 most regressive tax states, according to one study. Here's a link to that one.
I'll give my home state credit for one big thing -- grocery items are mostly exempt from the sales tax (although not all convenience store operators have heard that news yet, and related enforcement is very lax). Oklahoma, where I once lived for something under a year and a half, has a state income tax. But they levy a sales tax on everything, including ALL groceries. That wipes out most of the progressive effect that the state income tax has.
(2) The corporate income tax rate in the U.S. is alleged to be relatively high. The problem is, not very many corporations pay it, and that's especially true of the largest and most powerful ones. Even economic conservatives, when pushed into a corner, will admit this. I found a New York Times piece in which Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official, came clean on this issue. (Sorry, the link no longer works.)
What has the effect been on the federal budget -- which is of so much concern to both major political parties now? Here's a hint: Barlett and Steele, the reporting team that wrote America: What Went Wrong?, reported that in 1959, corporate income taxes comprised 39% of IRS revenue. By 1989, that had declined to 17% And, by the way, those are IRS figures.
It's one thing for Worthington Farthington, CEO of Corporation X, to pay higher personal income taxes than Jack Shitt of Biloxi, Miss. But what if Corporation X, which employs Jack part time with no benefits, pays, effectively, no income tax? And that is increasingly the case.
(3) Yes, I know that corporations pay into the Social Security system, and that they support Medicare as well. But look at the bigger picture. The employee pays 6.2% for Social Security, and the employer matches that, for an effective federal rate of 12.4% But the payroll tax is capped at $106,800, which I would place as the upper threshold of middle-class earnings. No taxes are paid on anything above that. For an illustration of the effect this has, here's a link to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This is called regressive taxation. Any questions, class?
Although Social Security's general effect on U.S. society since its inception in 1935 has been a reduction in poverty, the tax that supports it is clearly regressive. But this was largely by design. One of the reasons it has always been this way is to give fatcats some sort of incentive to reluctantly participate in the system.
Now, the swine don't even want to do that. They have all manner of schemes to "privatize" Social Security, to phase it out, give it over to the tender mercies of Wall Street. The arrogance of these people is such that even asking them to do their "part" in a regressive tax structure is just too damned much.
(4) There are tax breaks that go only to the VERY, VERY wealthy that are astonishing. For the sake of brevity, I will cite only one example. The corporate jet tax loophole, it is estimated, will be worth at least $3.2 billion over the span of 10 years. Some estimates, such as the one on this link, put the break's 10-year worth at more like $4 billion.
(5) So, who's been getting rich since 1980, with the U.S. economy doubling in size? Here's a link on the subject. Here's a hint: It hasn't been me, and it's unlikely, if you've read this far, that it's been you, either.
It's mind-boggling to still be hearing allegations that American mainstream news media have a liberal bias, when it's so obvious to whom they are kowtowing. Mr. Ohlemacher certainly seems to know that it's the U.S. Ownership Class that ultimately pays his salary.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Good Riddance To Pope Ratzo
By Manifesto Joe
Today is reported to the be last day in office for Pope Benedict XVI (real name: Herr Joseph Ratzinger). Not that I have any stake in this at all -- to me, one of the most telling arguments AGAINST conservatism's invocation of venerable human institutions is the Roman Catholic Church. But as far as I'm concerned, it's time for a going-away party. But it should wait until AFTER Ratzo is gone.
Pope Ratzo embodies all that is corrupt and moth-eaten about Roman Catholicism. He may be just an asexual religious fanatic himself, but his just-under eight years as pontiff will be forever tainted by his determined embrace of the "traditions" of the church, which are nothing short of profound stupidity.
Pope Ratzo was a university theologian in his day, and was originally regarded as a liberal in the church. After 1968 -- a pivotal year for many globally -- he turned right-wing, and became the chief apologist for the church's increasingly absurd world view.
In the 1960s, it was common knowledge that many homosexuals were drawn to the Catholic priesthood as a sort of "cover" for their preference. (I well remember a line from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel The Exorcist: "Basic black is in.")
Hey, those were the good old days. By the 1980s, it was equally common knowledge that a lot of vermin were going into the priesthood, too -- the pedaphile priests who had taken those vows so that they could bugger their altar boys. It took the church at least 20 more years to catch up with what the general public already knew -- that the Catholic priesthood was rife with the most loathsome kinds of perverts.
All it would take to bring this pathetic old institution in touch with the modern world is to open the priesthood to married men, and also women, for that matter. Being a serious, believing, practicing Catholic is, to me, strong evidence of mental retardation anyway. But we have to accept that a lot of people are going to do this. If they must, then what's wrong with having the priesthood open to red-blooded people with hormones, people who actually like having sex (and with OTHER ADULTS, most importantly)?
I can't find much fault with his general handling of the pedaphilia problem in the church -- he was generally regarded as firm and judicious in his approach, before and after his papacy. Nor can I knock the old boy much about his early links to Nazism -- although, since this is a theologian who has written much about the evils of relativist peer pressure, his capitulation to peer pressure as a German youth of 14 is notable.
The biggest problem with this doddering fool is that, in an age in which the church cried out for change, he did his best to keep it mired in the 14th century.
It really isn't hard to see that the refusal of men to use condoms is a serious problem in priest-ridden developing countries. Nor is it the exclusive domain of mental giants to understand that in a church that "requires" its priesthood, and nunnery, to be celibate, you're going to attract a lot of sexual pond scum, folks who look for a good "cover" for their moral depravity.
Change in the church is inevitable. It's been common knowledge for many years, among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that the church is having trouble getting an adequate number of people to commit to a lifestyle of relative poverty and, at least officially, no sex. As fewer people, men or women, are willing to do this foolish shit, necessity will bring change to Catholicism.
Pope Ratzo will be remembered as just one more decrepit fool who held back inexorable change. And since the cardinals who will elect his successor were largely handpicked, change in this senile institution will not come soon. I think we can expect the "conclave" to just name another Ratzo type to the post.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Today is reported to the be last day in office for Pope Benedict XVI (real name: Herr Joseph Ratzinger). Not that I have any stake in this at all -- to me, one of the most telling arguments AGAINST conservatism's invocation of venerable human institutions is the Roman Catholic Church. But as far as I'm concerned, it's time for a going-away party. But it should wait until AFTER Ratzo is gone.
Pope Ratzo embodies all that is corrupt and moth-eaten about Roman Catholicism. He may be just an asexual religious fanatic himself, but his just-under eight years as pontiff will be forever tainted by his determined embrace of the "traditions" of the church, which are nothing short of profound stupidity.
Pope Ratzo was a university theologian in his day, and was originally regarded as a liberal in the church. After 1968 -- a pivotal year for many globally -- he turned right-wing, and became the chief apologist for the church's increasingly absurd world view.
In the 1960s, it was common knowledge that many homosexuals were drawn to the Catholic priesthood as a sort of "cover" for their preference. (I well remember a line from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel The Exorcist: "Basic black is in.")
Hey, those were the good old days. By the 1980s, it was equally common knowledge that a lot of vermin were going into the priesthood, too -- the pedaphile priests who had taken those vows so that they could bugger their altar boys. It took the church at least 20 more years to catch up with what the general public already knew -- that the Catholic priesthood was rife with the most loathsome kinds of perverts.
All it would take to bring this pathetic old institution in touch with the modern world is to open the priesthood to married men, and also women, for that matter. Being a serious, believing, practicing Catholic is, to me, strong evidence of mental retardation anyway. But we have to accept that a lot of people are going to do this. If they must, then what's wrong with having the priesthood open to red-blooded people with hormones, people who actually like having sex (and with OTHER ADULTS, most importantly)?
I can't find much fault with his general handling of the pedaphilia problem in the church -- he was generally regarded as firm and judicious in his approach, before and after his papacy. Nor can I knock the old boy much about his early links to Nazism -- although, since this is a theologian who has written much about the evils of relativist peer pressure, his capitulation to peer pressure as a German youth of 14 is notable.
The biggest problem with this doddering fool is that, in an age in which the church cried out for change, he did his best to keep it mired in the 14th century.
It really isn't hard to see that the refusal of men to use condoms is a serious problem in priest-ridden developing countries. Nor is it the exclusive domain of mental giants to understand that in a church that "requires" its priesthood, and nunnery, to be celibate, you're going to attract a lot of sexual pond scum, folks who look for a good "cover" for their moral depravity.
Change in the church is inevitable. It's been common knowledge for many years, among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that the church is having trouble getting an adequate number of people to commit to a lifestyle of relative poverty and, at least officially, no sex. As fewer people, men or women, are willing to do this foolish shit, necessity will bring change to Catholicism.
Pope Ratzo will be remembered as just one more decrepit fool who held back inexorable change. And since the cardinals who will elect his successor were largely handpicked, change in this senile institution will not come soon. I think we can expect the "conclave" to just name another Ratzo type to the post.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Back In Action
This was the most difficult move of my life, our lives -- 425 miles, and yet we're still in Texas. I had my first day at work Jan. 28. I had the computer hooked up by then, but held off on posting until I felt reasonably comfortable at work.
I will be posting again soon, probably starting this week. Thanks for hanging around. -- mj
I will be posting again soon, probably starting this week. Thanks for hanging around. -- mj
Monday, January 21, 2013
As Roe v. Wade Ruling Nears 40, What's The Bottom Line?
By Manifesto Joe
Abortion as a concept alone is ugly -- there's no denying that. If any female relative of mine were pregnant and asked me what I thought about the prospect of her getting one, I'd advise her not to do it. It's a decision that will haunt you for life, I'd say. You will always wonder what sort of human being this fetus would have been. It's as though you killed a part of yourself.
But amid the sound and fury of debate, the nucleus of this issue is conveniently ignored: It is impossible to establish the point at which "human life" truly begins, and it cannot be proved that a fetus is interchangeable with an infant.
Abortion foes usually offer prompt responses to this crucial point. If it isn't a baby, what is it? Look at a photograph of a fetus -- I know it's a baby. The Bible says life begins at conception (even if the language of Scripture is metaphorical, I know that's what it means).
These arguments carry dangerous implications -- that intuitive knowledge is sufficient basis for criminal law, and that religious tenets should be legislated and the violators prosecuted.
If we base our epistemology only on what our five senses can tell us, we know that a fetus carries all the genetic data needed to form a baby. We know that if it is brought to term, or at least to the point of certain viability, it becomes a human being.
Consequently, we know that a fetus is a developing human life form. But is it empirically, legally and medically definable as a human being? Does it have a soul? The answer is simple -- no one knows. Or at least, no human being knows.
Long ago, abortion opponents released a film, Silent Scream, which showed graphic footage of abortions. Some scenes were chilling, such as the implications that a fetus about to be aborted will instinctively pull away from the surgeon's threatening instrument. This and other points of the film forge an inductive argument against abortion. But it falls short of proof, as all inductive arguments do.
That a fetus might try to elude a strange object gives it no distinction from numerous life forms that humans can legally kill for no reason -- to wit, millions of dogs and cats in animal "shelters."
Therefore, when abortion foes attack those who favor choice as "baby killers," they attack hysterically, from an unsound assumption.
Even if the point of empirical proof is conceded, many abortion opponents fall back on Scripture. It seems fair, then, to conclude that some abortion foes believe that Scripture and religious dogma should dictate secular law. They prefer pre-1789 theocracy to modern constitutional democracy/republicanism.
Many of the "founding fathers" had religious convictions, and Judeo-Christian ethics have certainly influenced American law. But they have not been a determinant, as Islamic fundamentalism is in countries that embrace Sharia law. In fact, our Constitution explicitly forbids any such religious establishment.
Those who want to outlaw abortion may point to U.S. legal precedent in rebuttal. Abortion was illegal in the U.S. for more than a century.
But there's a catch to that. In The Brethren, Bob Woodward's book on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Harry Blackmun discovered during his legal research for the Roe v. Wade majority opinion that "abortion had been commonly accepted for thousands of years, and that only in the 19th century had it become a crime in the United States. At that time, abortion had been a very risky operation, often fatal. The criminal laws had been enacted largely to protect pregnant women."
Among modern ethical questions, abortion is one of the grayest of gray areas. To believe, based on religion and intuition, that it is a sin comparable to murder is understandable. But without empirical evidence that feticide is homicide, it is a travesty against reason -- and an authoritarian abuse of our legal system -- to threaten some who believe otherwise with fines and imprisonment.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Abortion as a concept alone is ugly -- there's no denying that. If any female relative of mine were pregnant and asked me what I thought about the prospect of her getting one, I'd advise her not to do it. It's a decision that will haunt you for life, I'd say. You will always wonder what sort of human being this fetus would have been. It's as though you killed a part of yourself.
But amid the sound and fury of debate, the nucleus of this issue is conveniently ignored: It is impossible to establish the point at which "human life" truly begins, and it cannot be proved that a fetus is interchangeable with an infant.
Abortion foes usually offer prompt responses to this crucial point. If it isn't a baby, what is it? Look at a photograph of a fetus -- I know it's a baby. The Bible says life begins at conception (even if the language of Scripture is metaphorical, I know that's what it means).
These arguments carry dangerous implications -- that intuitive knowledge is sufficient basis for criminal law, and that religious tenets should be legislated and the violators prosecuted.
If we base our epistemology only on what our five senses can tell us, we know that a fetus carries all the genetic data needed to form a baby. We know that if it is brought to term, or at least to the point of certain viability, it becomes a human being.
Consequently, we know that a fetus is a developing human life form. But is it empirically, legally and medically definable as a human being? Does it have a soul? The answer is simple -- no one knows. Or at least, no human being knows.
Long ago, abortion opponents released a film, Silent Scream, which showed graphic footage of abortions. Some scenes were chilling, such as the implications that a fetus about to be aborted will instinctively pull away from the surgeon's threatening instrument. This and other points of the film forge an inductive argument against abortion. But it falls short of proof, as all inductive arguments do.
That a fetus might try to elude a strange object gives it no distinction from numerous life forms that humans can legally kill for no reason -- to wit, millions of dogs and cats in animal "shelters."
Therefore, when abortion foes attack those who favor choice as "baby killers," they attack hysterically, from an unsound assumption.
Even if the point of empirical proof is conceded, many abortion opponents fall back on Scripture. It seems fair, then, to conclude that some abortion foes believe that Scripture and religious dogma should dictate secular law. They prefer pre-1789 theocracy to modern constitutional democracy/republicanism.
Many of the "founding fathers" had religious convictions, and Judeo-Christian ethics have certainly influenced American law. But they have not been a determinant, as Islamic fundamentalism is in countries that embrace Sharia law. In fact, our Constitution explicitly forbids any such religious establishment.
Those who want to outlaw abortion may point to U.S. legal precedent in rebuttal. Abortion was illegal in the U.S. for more than a century.
But there's a catch to that. In The Brethren, Bob Woodward's book on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Harry Blackmun discovered during his legal research for the Roe v. Wade majority opinion that "abortion had been commonly accepted for thousands of years, and that only in the 19th century had it become a crime in the United States. At that time, abortion had been a very risky operation, often fatal. The criminal laws had been enacted largely to protect pregnant women."
Among modern ethical questions, abortion is one of the grayest of gray areas. To believe, based on religion and intuition, that it is a sin comparable to murder is understandable. But without empirical evidence that feticide is homicide, it is a travesty against reason -- and an authoritarian abuse of our legal system -- to threaten some who believe otherwise with fines and imprisonment.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
In Limbo
I'm in the middle of a big move, over 400 miles away, to relocate for a new job. If you can believe it, it's still in Texas (distances are long here).
I won't be posting again until late this month or early next month, but please come back and stay tuned. -- mj
I won't be posting again until late this month or early next month, but please come back and stay tuned. -- mj
Friday, January 4, 2013
Family Values? Orange Julius To Harry Reid: 'Go F--k Yourself'
By Manifesto Joe
The past couple of months haven't been good ones for Weeper of the House John "Orange Julius" Boehner. His party lost the presidential election, and he couldn't even deliver his own caucus for "Plan B" to solve the so-called fiscal cliff predicament.
Then, last Friday afternoon, according to witnesses, Orange Julius told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "Go f--k yourself." Not once, but twice. (I don't know why I sanitized the word, as I have used it unsanitized a few times before. Perhaps it's the context.)
This man is, presumably, the highest-ranking official in a party that constantly claims to represent "family values." Oh, and I'm sure that this verbal rage from all 5 feet, 6 inches of Orange Julius just struck mortal fear in the heart of Sen. Reid.
Most of the Republican Party must not have too big a problem with this behavior. Orange Julius just got narrowly re-elected Weeper, surviving the defection of at least 12 of the most "conservative" members of his caucus.
On the plus side for a lot of ordinary Americans, federal emergency jobless benefits have apparently been rescued as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal that finally did pass. Orange Julius seemed to do his best to kill that, but he had to cave in the end.
But I'm still puzzled at how the Republicans manage to pass themselves off as such rugged moralists when their highest-ranking official is such a vulgar little potty mouth. Go figure.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The past couple of months haven't been good ones for Weeper of the House John "Orange Julius" Boehner. His party lost the presidential election, and he couldn't even deliver his own caucus for "Plan B" to solve the so-called fiscal cliff predicament.
Then, last Friday afternoon, according to witnesses, Orange Julius told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "Go f--k yourself." Not once, but twice. (I don't know why I sanitized the word, as I have used it unsanitized a few times before. Perhaps it's the context.)
This man is, presumably, the highest-ranking official in a party that constantly claims to represent "family values." Oh, and I'm sure that this verbal rage from all 5 feet, 6 inches of Orange Julius just struck mortal fear in the heart of Sen. Reid.
Most of the Republican Party must not have too big a problem with this behavior. Orange Julius just got narrowly re-elected Weeper, surviving the defection of at least 12 of the most "conservative" members of his caucus.
On the plus side for a lot of ordinary Americans, federal emergency jobless benefits have apparently been rescued as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal that finally did pass. Orange Julius seemed to do his best to kill that, but he had to cave in the end.
But I'm still puzzled at how the Republicans manage to pass themselves off as such rugged moralists when their highest-ranking official is such a vulgar little potty mouth. Go figure.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, December 31, 2012
As 'Fiscal Cliff' Nears, Let's Review Republican Irresponsibility
By Manifesto Joe
While cleaning out some of my stuff, preparing to relocate for a new job, I came upon a 2003 publication from Citizens for Tax Justice that casts some interesting background on the so-called predicament in which the federal government now finds itself.
Want to guess which political party, when in executive power, did more spending paid for by borrowing?
This table shows Shares of Non-Social Security Federal Spending Paid for by Borrowing (Fiscal 1947 to 2003 projected)
Truman: none
Eisenhower: 3%
Kennedy-Johnson: 6%
Nixon-Ford: 14%
Carter: 13%
Reagan: 25%
Bush 1: 28%
Clinton: 6%
Bush 2, 2002: 23%
Bush 2, 2003: 33%
For decades, Republicans have stigmatized Democrats as the party of "tax and spend." This table raises the question: What happens when you spend, but don't tax?
At least the Democrats, when in power, have been willing and able to pay for their programs. Il Doofus (Bush 2) didn't bankrupt the country with his unpaid-for elective wars, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
Obama clearly inherited a fiscal mess and has tried to compromise, more than I and many others have been comfortable with, to enact a fix.
Meanwhile, Orange Julius & Co. seem to be doing the bidding of high rollers who don't have to be named. It's their way or the highway, no matter how the presidential election came out. Having held their "majority" in the House by gerrymandering, they apparently plan to obstruct every step of the way until November 2014, and will try to blame Obama for the mounting debt.
I don't have much faith in the intelligence of American voters. But I desperately hope they are smart enough to see through this ruse.
Meanwhile, about 2.1 million jobless Americans lost their emergency unemployment benefits yesterday. While the millionaires in Congress enjoy single-payer health care and count their pension money, many Americans will be looking at bankruptcy and perhaps homelessness.
I have little faith in the resourcefulness of humanity. But I try to believe in God, and I'm certainly not a universalist. I hope there is a Hell, and a special place in it for liars.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
While cleaning out some of my stuff, preparing to relocate for a new job, I came upon a 2003 publication from Citizens for Tax Justice that casts some interesting background on the so-called predicament in which the federal government now finds itself.
Want to guess which political party, when in executive power, did more spending paid for by borrowing?
This table shows Shares of Non-Social Security Federal Spending Paid for by Borrowing (Fiscal 1947 to 2003 projected)
Truman: none
Eisenhower: 3%
Kennedy-Johnson: 6%
Nixon-Ford: 14%
Carter: 13%
Reagan: 25%
Bush 1: 28%
Clinton: 6%
Bush 2, 2002: 23%
Bush 2, 2003: 33%
For decades, Republicans have stigmatized Democrats as the party of "tax and spend." This table raises the question: What happens when you spend, but don't tax?
At least the Democrats, when in power, have been willing and able to pay for their programs. Il Doofus (Bush 2) didn't bankrupt the country with his unpaid-for elective wars, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
Obama clearly inherited a fiscal mess and has tried to compromise, more than I and many others have been comfortable with, to enact a fix.
Meanwhile, Orange Julius & Co. seem to be doing the bidding of high rollers who don't have to be named. It's their way or the highway, no matter how the presidential election came out. Having held their "majority" in the House by gerrymandering, they apparently plan to obstruct every step of the way until November 2014, and will try to blame Obama for the mounting debt.
I don't have much faith in the intelligence of American voters. But I desperately hope they are smart enough to see through this ruse.
Meanwhile, about 2.1 million jobless Americans lost their emergency unemployment benefits yesterday. While the millionaires in Congress enjoy single-payer health care and count their pension money, many Americans will be looking at bankruptcy and perhaps homelessness.
I have little faith in the resourcefulness of humanity. But I try to believe in God, and I'm certainly not a universalist. I hope there is a Hell, and a special place in it for liars.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Orange Julius' Merry Christmas To Jobless Americans: Your Emergency Benefits Will End
By Manifesto Joe
The best Christmas gift I could have gotten from whatever gods may be came to me on Christmas Eve. I got a job offer, after just over five months of unemployment. I happily accepted.
Not everyone out there is so fortunate, and there but for the grace of God go I. On Saturday, December 29, federal emergency unemployment benefits will end for some 2.1 million Americans, including those in my state who have been jobless for over six months.
I'm certain that Republicans, being the smug types that they are, will try to somehow blame President Obama for this, since he refused to just bend over and spread them for Orange Julius & Co. to continue all the lovely tax bonanzas for the super-rich. Obama gave away plenty trying to strike a budget deal before Christmas, and Orange Julius instead tried to float his own ludicrous "Plan B," and had to sheepishly admit that he did not have sufficient control of his own caucus to get it passed. Obama said he would have vetoed it anyway.
In any case, emergency aid for the long-term unemployed isn't part of the "fiscal cliff" deal, and after last week it looks as though there won't be a deal anyway. There are a few days left, but I'm not holding my breath.
Orange Julius isn't going to miss any meals because of this, nor will any members of his caucus. None of them will face bankruptcy, perhaps even homelessness, because of failure to reach an agreement.
But many Americans will. If I hadn't had the "cavalry" arrive in the nick of time, I could very well have been among them. I'm now in my sixth month of unemployment, and I don't have my first day at work at my new job for a few more weeks.
Polls indicate that more Americans blame the Republicans for the "fiscal cliff" crisis than blame Obama. But it's ridiculous that anyone at all blames the latter. I suppose it's a testament to how much Fox News, Rush Lardbaugh, etc., have persuaded millions of Americans that shit tastes like Beluga caviar.
Here are a couple of links to websites that explain what is happening to benefits for the long-term unemployed. I don't suppose this will provoke rioting in U.S. streets, but if it doesn't, I can't imagine what it would take.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
The best Christmas gift I could have gotten from whatever gods may be came to me on Christmas Eve. I got a job offer, after just over five months of unemployment. I happily accepted.
Not everyone out there is so fortunate, and there but for the grace of God go I. On Saturday, December 29, federal emergency unemployment benefits will end for some 2.1 million Americans, including those in my state who have been jobless for over six months.
I'm certain that Republicans, being the smug types that they are, will try to somehow blame President Obama for this, since he refused to just bend over and spread them for Orange Julius & Co. to continue all the lovely tax bonanzas for the super-rich. Obama gave away plenty trying to strike a budget deal before Christmas, and Orange Julius instead tried to float his own ludicrous "Plan B," and had to sheepishly admit that he did not have sufficient control of his own caucus to get it passed. Obama said he would have vetoed it anyway.
In any case, emergency aid for the long-term unemployed isn't part of the "fiscal cliff" deal, and after last week it looks as though there won't be a deal anyway. There are a few days left, but I'm not holding my breath.
Orange Julius isn't going to miss any meals because of this, nor will any members of his caucus. None of them will face bankruptcy, perhaps even homelessness, because of failure to reach an agreement.
But many Americans will. If I hadn't had the "cavalry" arrive in the nick of time, I could very well have been among them. I'm now in my sixth month of unemployment, and I don't have my first day at work at my new job for a few more weeks.
Polls indicate that more Americans blame the Republicans for the "fiscal cliff" crisis than blame Obama. But it's ridiculous that anyone at all blames the latter. I suppose it's a testament to how much Fox News, Rush Lardbaugh, etc., have persuaded millions of Americans that shit tastes like Beluga caviar.
Here are a couple of links to websites that explain what is happening to benefits for the long-term unemployed. I don't suppose this will provoke rioting in U.S. streets, but if it doesn't, I can't imagine what it would take.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
If I Honestly Think People Suck As Badly As I Do, Why Do I Do This?
By Manifesto Joe
I don't like people. I'm a misanthrope. I'm totally honest about that. I've told that to a room full of people. To support myself, I quoted one Samuel Clemens: "The more I know about people, the more I like my dog."
So why fight for the interests of these sorry, cock-sucking losers? Good question.
I recall something that former Oklahoma Sen. Fred Harris more or less said: That populism, as we know it in current times, is simply a more enlightened form of self-interest.
I subscribe to a 70% theory. To wit:
About 70% of humans are too fucking stupid to bother with, at all. You can write these people off. Entirely. Don't even bother to talk to them. If you're reading this, perhaps you even know who you are. Well, if you can read.
Then there's the remaining 30%. Of them, about 70% are of low moral character. They aren't stupid, but they are fools on another level, the moral one. They are governed entirely by their appetites, and know nothing more than that, ever. What is inexcusable about such people is that their brains are big enough and operative enough for them to know better. Yet, they still somehow don't. All they know is how to make their bank accounts bigger, how to get better sex, etc. So that's an additional 21% who make up the world's contemptible fuck-ups.
We're up to 91%, and that leaves 9%. And that's who has advanced the human race to the extent that it has been advanced, for millenia (ums?). Treasure them -- they are a single-digit minority, and they always have been.
One of my favorite humorists was the late Bill Hicks (1961-1994), and I'll link to a site that has many of his wonderful quotes.
I used to think of "Christians" as being incredibly judgmental people. Now I don't think that's their biggest problem. The biggest one they have is hypocrisy -- that they are ultimately no better, and perhaps even worse, than the pond scum they attempt to sit in judgment upon. Judgment is the prerogative of those who are actually qualified to judge. In the vast majority of cases, "Christians" are definitely NOT qualified. (I recall there being something that even Jesus his own self said about that -- or so they say.) Well, if there is a God who will be there to judge when the time comes, oh man -- there are an awful lot of "Christian" shoes I wouldn't want to be standing in.
In any case, it's true that I honestly don't care very much what kinds of horrors befall most people, and I think that most entirely deserve them.
But, I DON'T deserve them. I have worked hard for my Social Security, and I deserve it. I have worked hard for my Medicare, and I deserve that, and then some more. I don't want just what I'm likely to get -- I want a hell of a lot MORE.
If I had been a member of a labor union, I would have been treated a lot better where I worked. My seniority would have been respected more. I'm not thinking about the others. This is purely self-interest, just a higher and smarter form of it.
And that's where the quote from Fred Harris comes in. It has little to do with other people, most of whom I regard as moronic, nauseating trash. But I have the misfortune of being human, and having similar DNA to others. I have to slop at the same trough with the other smelly hogs. What I'm into is simply a more enlightened form of self-interest. And that's why I keep doing this.
Merry Christmas.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I don't like people. I'm a misanthrope. I'm totally honest about that. I've told that to a room full of people. To support myself, I quoted one Samuel Clemens: "The more I know about people, the more I like my dog."
So why fight for the interests of these sorry, cock-sucking losers? Good question.
I recall something that former Oklahoma Sen. Fred Harris more or less said: That populism, as we know it in current times, is simply a more enlightened form of self-interest.
I subscribe to a 70% theory. To wit:
About 70% of humans are too fucking stupid to bother with, at all. You can write these people off. Entirely. Don't even bother to talk to them. If you're reading this, perhaps you even know who you are. Well, if you can read.
Then there's the remaining 30%. Of them, about 70% are of low moral character. They aren't stupid, but they are fools on another level, the moral one. They are governed entirely by their appetites, and know nothing more than that, ever. What is inexcusable about such people is that their brains are big enough and operative enough for them to know better. Yet, they still somehow don't. All they know is how to make their bank accounts bigger, how to get better sex, etc. So that's an additional 21% who make up the world's contemptible fuck-ups.
We're up to 91%, and that leaves 9%. And that's who has advanced the human race to the extent that it has been advanced, for millenia (ums?). Treasure them -- they are a single-digit minority, and they always have been.
One of my favorite humorists was the late Bill Hicks (1961-1994), and I'll link to a site that has many of his wonderful quotes.
I used to think of "Christians" as being incredibly judgmental people. Now I don't think that's their biggest problem. The biggest one they have is hypocrisy -- that they are ultimately no better, and perhaps even worse, than the pond scum they attempt to sit in judgment upon. Judgment is the prerogative of those who are actually qualified to judge. In the vast majority of cases, "Christians" are definitely NOT qualified. (I recall there being something that even Jesus his own self said about that -- or so they say.) Well, if there is a God who will be there to judge when the time comes, oh man -- there are an awful lot of "Christian" shoes I wouldn't want to be standing in.
In any case, it's true that I honestly don't care very much what kinds of horrors befall most people, and I think that most entirely deserve them.
But, I DON'T deserve them. I have worked hard for my Social Security, and I deserve it. I have worked hard for my Medicare, and I deserve that, and then some more. I don't want just what I'm likely to get -- I want a hell of a lot MORE.
If I had been a member of a labor union, I would have been treated a lot better where I worked. My seniority would have been respected more. I'm not thinking about the others. This is purely self-interest, just a higher and smarter form of it.
And that's where the quote from Fred Harris comes in. It has little to do with other people, most of whom I regard as moronic, nauseating trash. But I have the misfortune of being human, and having similar DNA to others. I have to slop at the same trough with the other smelly hogs. What I'm into is simply a more enlightened form of self-interest. And that's why I keep doing this.
Merry Christmas.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
America Must Stop Subsidizing Evil And Greed Of Walmart And Others
By Manifesto Joe
I think we just had, in effect, a U.S. plebiscite on whether the American people want continued plutocracy, as we have known it for decades, or at long last some more populist alternative. Now comes time to look more closely at how the institutions that make up this country actually operate, and there's one huge corporate one in particular needs a good and proper ass-kicking.
Walmart is profiting, to the tune of billions annually, from government handouts. Their corporate welfare is mainly "indirect": In some locations, as many as 80% of their "associates" are food-stamp recipients. Since the pay at such corporate wage-slave institutions is so low, their hapless "associates" have no recourse to feed their families and themselves other than to turn to the federal government. This is a subsidy: The government puts up money to help Walmart's wage slaves eat, and therefore the taxpayers subsidize this evil corporate giant.
I recall one Walmart wage slave who heard something about me being a newspaper journalist, and stupidly said, "Oh, do you mean those nasty, biased people who suppress opinions?" or something to that effect. I stopped myself from commenting snidely about the general intelligence of Walmart associates, but did venture that I thought he probably wasn't being paid enough. "I can always go somewhere else," was his moronic reply.
Oh, did he mean, like, McDonald's, or Yum! brands, or Wendy's? An awful lot of their employees are on food stamps, too -- and Medicaid, and SCHIP programs. In other words, these companies are all getting "indirect" federal and state subsidies.
Here's a link about the Walmart situation. And here's yet another that accounts for "rival" companies.
It is especially painful for me to recall my encounter with the imbecile at Walmart, who characterized himself as "middle-of-the-road" politically (by Fox News standards?). It is very sad to see people getting reamed in their asses by porno-star-size peckers, and yet they don't even know, don't even seem to have a clue, about who's on the other side of the member. Not even while the violator is leering in their faces.
The recent protests at certain Walmarts show that some of their pathetic dupes at least know what's being done to them. Unfortunately, it isn't enough. A general strike that actually had the participation of more than 50% of the U.S. workforce would be the basic requirement. And, unfortunately, there are enough cretinous dildos like that checker I once encountered in a Walmart that nothing like that will ever happen. True, I have always had the option of never shopping there. But from what I've heard, the treatment of employees at their "rivals" is about the same, so there would be little point in voting with my feet in that way.
As a start, federal and state governments have got to start TELLING these vicious corporate rapists that they know what's happening. Then, they need to start outlining steps that can be taken to stop it. The idea that such people are "job creators" is ludicrous mendacity. People are unable to live on the meager wages that these greed-crazed plutocrats pay.
Would prices go up? Oh, certainly, at first. That's when you start hitting the pond scum with confiscatory taxes, so that they can't just go on pocketing the profits they would get from higher prices. Will they go elsewhere? Oh, of course they will threaten to do so. But what other viable country in the world would tolerate such evil and greed?
It's time to start kicking their evil, greedy corporate asses, hard and ceaselessly. This sort of trashy scum is destroying America just as surely as any terrorist network could ever hope to.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I think we just had, in effect, a U.S. plebiscite on whether the American people want continued plutocracy, as we have known it for decades, or at long last some more populist alternative. Now comes time to look more closely at how the institutions that make up this country actually operate, and there's one huge corporate one in particular needs a good and proper ass-kicking.
Walmart is profiting, to the tune of billions annually, from government handouts. Their corporate welfare is mainly "indirect": In some locations, as many as 80% of their "associates" are food-stamp recipients. Since the pay at such corporate wage-slave institutions is so low, their hapless "associates" have no recourse to feed their families and themselves other than to turn to the federal government. This is a subsidy: The government puts up money to help Walmart's wage slaves eat, and therefore the taxpayers subsidize this evil corporate giant.
I recall one Walmart wage slave who heard something about me being a newspaper journalist, and stupidly said, "Oh, do you mean those nasty, biased people who suppress opinions?" or something to that effect. I stopped myself from commenting snidely about the general intelligence of Walmart associates, but did venture that I thought he probably wasn't being paid enough. "I can always go somewhere else," was his moronic reply.
Oh, did he mean, like, McDonald's, or Yum! brands, or Wendy's? An awful lot of their employees are on food stamps, too -- and Medicaid, and SCHIP programs. In other words, these companies are all getting "indirect" federal and state subsidies.
Here's a link about the Walmart situation. And here's yet another that accounts for "rival" companies.
It is especially painful for me to recall my encounter with the imbecile at Walmart, who characterized himself as "middle-of-the-road" politically (by Fox News standards?). It is very sad to see people getting reamed in their asses by porno-star-size peckers, and yet they don't even know, don't even seem to have a clue, about who's on the other side of the member. Not even while the violator is leering in their faces.
The recent protests at certain Walmarts show that some of their pathetic dupes at least know what's being done to them. Unfortunately, it isn't enough. A general strike that actually had the participation of more than 50% of the U.S. workforce would be the basic requirement. And, unfortunately, there are enough cretinous dildos like that checker I once encountered in a Walmart that nothing like that will ever happen. True, I have always had the option of never shopping there. But from what I've heard, the treatment of employees at their "rivals" is about the same, so there would be little point in voting with my feet in that way.
As a start, federal and state governments have got to start TELLING these vicious corporate rapists that they know what's happening. Then, they need to start outlining steps that can be taken to stop it. The idea that such people are "job creators" is ludicrous mendacity. People are unable to live on the meager wages that these greed-crazed plutocrats pay.
Would prices go up? Oh, certainly, at first. That's when you start hitting the pond scum with confiscatory taxes, so that they can't just go on pocketing the profits they would get from higher prices. Will they go elsewhere? Oh, of course they will threaten to do so. But what other viable country in the world would tolerate such evil and greed?
It's time to start kicking their evil, greedy corporate asses, hard and ceaselessly. This sort of trashy scum is destroying America just as surely as any terrorist network could ever hope to.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Didn't Take Long For Republican Cry Babies To Befoul The Waters
By Manifesto Joe
Old Scout, the handle of a frequent commenter on my home blog, remarked about one of my recent post-election posts that I was being far, far too polite with right-wingers after Obama's re-election. Now I have to concede his point. There are just some people with whom you can't make nice.
I thought I would sincerely try to do that, to make nice at least up to a point, because I was taken aback after witnessing some of the obnoxious gloating that "conservatives" did after the highly questionable 2004 presidential election. But it was wasted effort, I must concede.
It didn't take the right wing any time at all to start talking about impeaching Obama, with robocalls to "save America." And, one "libertarian" Republican blogger told his readers that it's time for all like-minded people to tell every Democrat they know to "fuck off and die." When elections go their way, the U.S. is painted as an example for the world. When they don't, you start hearing about the U.S. electoral system being a corrupt joke, and suggestions of "revolution" (to wit, Donald Trump).
Restaurant chains weigh in
Boycotting restaurants because of their political/religious proselytizing is a bit difficult, because so many are right-wing. Most of the major hamburger chains are Republican-leaning and donate money to that party, so it's hard to get a burger and fries anywhere without being complicit. Even on the more healthful side, I used to get big salads for lunch at a mom-and-pop joint near my workplace in the early '90s -- until I saw a poster they put up near the men's room, depicting a movie poster of the Clinton administration, with Barney Frank cast as "the Rear Admiral." Haw, haw.
Now we have assorted chains announcing that they will cut hours, raise prices and even fire people to cut costs they associate with "Obamacare."
It's not hard to avoid Papa John's, because I never liked their pizza much, anyway. Pizza is one of those foods that's very hard to screw up, although it can be done and Papa John's almost succeeds. The most offensive part of this is that "Papa John" his own self, John Schnatter, is worth $350 million and held secret fundraisers for Romney on his mansion grounds. Can you say greed?
Domino's pizza is very little better than Papa John's, and I found out, years after I drove for that chain in a desperate period of my youth, that the head honcho is a reactionary psycho-Catholic.
It's not hard to avoid Chick-fil-A either, because their chicken sandwiches taste like cardboard enhanced with salt and grease. Their pronouncements about gay marriage came as no surprise to me, anyway. I won't miss Red Lobster, either, as I have allergies to some types of shellfish and their food usually sucks anyway.
It may be harder to completely boycott Applebee's. Although it's a franchise place with food quality varying widely, I know of one local place that makes a great top sirloin plate with steamed broccoli, and their spinach-and-artichoke dip is a winner, too. I'll miss them. Same goes for Olive Garden -- one local place makes wonderful eggplant parmigiana.
The main thing Denny's has going for it is affordability. When I was working my way through grad school and living largely on dry cereal and canned goods, the Grand Slam Breakfast was like a cheap staple, and about the only time I ever ate eggs (they were once thought to be bad for you). Now, some Denny's eateries plan to add a 5% "Obamacare" surcharge. I'll never eat at one of those places.
Pearls before swine
The point is that good manners and being gracious in victory are virtues that are absolutely wasted on some people.
Time has come for Obama to get his veto pen out, and stop making nice. His enemies clearly aren't going to change. Even Scumney is being a sore loser, blaming his defeat at the polls on Obama's "gifts" to women, minorities, and young people. It had to be government bribery, not differing ideology.
Time has come for all Democrats to start telling Orange Julius, Mitch for the Rich and all their supporters to "fuck off and die."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Old Scout, the handle of a frequent commenter on my home blog, remarked about one of my recent post-election posts that I was being far, far too polite with right-wingers after Obama's re-election. Now I have to concede his point. There are just some people with whom you can't make nice.
I thought I would sincerely try to do that, to make nice at least up to a point, because I was taken aback after witnessing some of the obnoxious gloating that "conservatives" did after the highly questionable 2004 presidential election. But it was wasted effort, I must concede.
It didn't take the right wing any time at all to start talking about impeaching Obama, with robocalls to "save America." And, one "libertarian" Republican blogger told his readers that it's time for all like-minded people to tell every Democrat they know to "fuck off and die." When elections go their way, the U.S. is painted as an example for the world. When they don't, you start hearing about the U.S. electoral system being a corrupt joke, and suggestions of "revolution" (to wit, Donald Trump).
Restaurant chains weigh in
Boycotting restaurants because of their political/religious proselytizing is a bit difficult, because so many are right-wing. Most of the major hamburger chains are Republican-leaning and donate money to that party, so it's hard to get a burger and fries anywhere without being complicit. Even on the more healthful side, I used to get big salads for lunch at a mom-and-pop joint near my workplace in the early '90s -- until I saw a poster they put up near the men's room, depicting a movie poster of the Clinton administration, with Barney Frank cast as "the Rear Admiral." Haw, haw.
Now we have assorted chains announcing that they will cut hours, raise prices and even fire people to cut costs they associate with "Obamacare."
It's not hard to avoid Papa John's, because I never liked their pizza much, anyway. Pizza is one of those foods that's very hard to screw up, although it can be done and Papa John's almost succeeds. The most offensive part of this is that "Papa John" his own self, John Schnatter, is worth $350 million and held secret fundraisers for Romney on his mansion grounds. Can you say greed?
Domino's pizza is very little better than Papa John's, and I found out, years after I drove for that chain in a desperate period of my youth, that the head honcho is a reactionary psycho-Catholic.
It's not hard to avoid Chick-fil-A either, because their chicken sandwiches taste like cardboard enhanced with salt and grease. Their pronouncements about gay marriage came as no surprise to me, anyway. I won't miss Red Lobster, either, as I have allergies to some types of shellfish and their food usually sucks anyway.
It may be harder to completely boycott Applebee's. Although it's a franchise place with food quality varying widely, I know of one local place that makes a great top sirloin plate with steamed broccoli, and their spinach-and-artichoke dip is a winner, too. I'll miss them. Same goes for Olive Garden -- one local place makes wonderful eggplant parmigiana.
The main thing Denny's has going for it is affordability. When I was working my way through grad school and living largely on dry cereal and canned goods, the Grand Slam Breakfast was like a cheap staple, and about the only time I ever ate eggs (they were once thought to be bad for you). Now, some Denny's eateries plan to add a 5% "Obamacare" surcharge. I'll never eat at one of those places.
Pearls before swine
The point is that good manners and being gracious in victory are virtues that are absolutely wasted on some people.
Time has come for Obama to get his veto pen out, and stop making nice. His enemies clearly aren't going to change. Even Scumney is being a sore loser, blaming his defeat at the polls on Obama's "gifts" to women, minorities, and young people. It had to be government bribery, not differing ideology.
Time has come for all Democrats to start telling Orange Julius, Mitch for the Rich and all their supporters to "fuck off and die."
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
