Posts
Not being much for daytime television, when Sue invited me to watch Toni Braxton perform a ‘new’ song from a ‘soon to be released’ CD, through clenched teeth behind pursed lips, out of kindness I acquiesced. Well, the songstress who had the megahit ‘Un-break My Heart’ a few years ago gave a la-de-da, whoop-de-do performance on a recorded episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show that originally aired April 27.
Although I had fulfilled my obligation, and ready to go about my way, the announcer advised the television audience that ‘coming up next’ an eight-year old would be singing Journey’s ‘Don’t Stop Believing’. The video clip kept me a viewer.
Second grader John Teas carried on a very casual conversation with Ellen, chatting about his rise to instant fame on YouTube showing his first ever live performance in a talent contest in a school auditorium in front of a group of K-8 students.
Of course, at his age he was a bit fidgety but not the least bit nervous. When asked “What do you want to do when you grow up? You want to be a singer?” John replied, “I wanna be a singer, an artist and also a Lego designer.” My first thought – a future American Idol top 12 contestant. My second thought – an architectural engineer.
As we smiled and chuckled, Sue referred to John as a ‘child prodigy’. My immediate response, said very pointedly, was, “No… Michael Jackson was a child prodigy.” Sue agreed.
When the show was over, Sue extended the invitation to watch yet another episode. Sure, why not! Ellen’s entertaining enough. She’s fun, positively funny and kinda funky with her trademark smooth 'n groovy moves dancing up and down and across aisles of people in the studio audience.
The guest on the March 12 show was Chris O’Donnell, who I learned is the lead star on the TV show ‘NCIS: LA’. Whatever… Chris played Robin in one of the ‘Batman’ movies – that was all I remembered of him.
But prior to Ellen’s interview with the actor-turned-primetime TV character, there was a segment that she refers to as ‘Bad paid-for photos’. Three adults exposed childhood photos that were indeed hilariously atrocious! One woman’s photo reminded me of ‘Ugly Betty’. The other woman’s hair-do may have been freaky looking when the picture was taken some twenty years ago but I could easily imagine Lady Ga Ga making it a present-day fashion sensation.
The third person introduced himself as Mike, a pharmaceutical rep. The crowd went wild, filling the audio portion of the transmission with laughing and cheering and the clapping of hands as if they were in sheer ecstasy. My brow furrowed. My mouth frowned. Ellen immediately picked up on the audience enthusiastic laughter. She accommodated the accolade. “Pharmaceuticals!” “YA!” “Woo!” “Pills!” The crowd whooped a bit more. The moment passed and Ellen was back in control with her branded humor, out of bounds of the audience’s drug-induced frenzy.
Now, I’m all for the wonders of medications as prescribed by qualified physicians. I admit, I pop a few pills on a daily basis. Simvastatin does a great job of keeping my bad cholesterol at an acceptable level. Amlodipine keeps my blood pressure in check. And a weekly dose of alendronate sodium helps strengthen the discs in my back from the degenerative affects of spinal osteoporosis.
Although I appreciate the intended results of taking these medications, I sure don’t jump up and down and shout in exaltation, Hallelujah! Nor do I expect the same reaction of patients who take medicines for heart diseases, viral infections, stomach ailments, fungal diseases or myriads of other human ailments and frailties, including mental illnesses. Where’s the funny in that?
I doubt not that the middleclass women and men in Ellen’s audience, all of whom appeared to be whooping to one degree or another, were thoughtlessly thinking of drugs being used for ‘recreational purposes only’. There was no other conclusion.
Are the illicit uses of drugs so tightly woven into the fabric of America that humor precedes prudence? Is it truly laughable that, when taken for reasons other than what health concerns necessitate, drugs/pharmaceuticals maim and kill people, many who are innocent bystanders until peer pressure drives them to ‘fit in with the crowd’? Does that include the audience crowd that gave a hoot-n-holler when the pharmaceutical rep was introduced? Or perhaps it will be the children or grandchildren of those who sat comfortably in those cushy studio audience seats.
Back to funny Ellen. The ‘bad paid-for photo’ of Mike, the pharmaceutical rep, showed him when he was in the sixth grade. His head was shaved but for a tuft of hair curled downward from his forehead. During the interview with Chris O’Donnell, he asked, “What would you call that?” Ellen replied, “The caterpillar?” The crowd appropriately roared with laughter. So did I.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Adjusting for inflation, the average American has seen their wages increase by less than 1% in the past ten years. Although there have been gains in employee benefits, including health care, the truth of the matter still points to widening divide between corporate executive compensation and the wages of non-unionized labor – 298% vs 4.3%.
Per the Bureau of Labor statistics, the median household income is little more than $46,000 per year. Of the 117 million households in the United States, 65% make less than the median income level, or 76 million households. Since the average household is comprised of 2.57 people, 195 million Americans fit into this economic class.
The Department of Health and Human Services describes the poverty level for an individual is $10,830/year and $3,740 for each additional person. The poverty rate in the U.S. is 13.2%, or 39.8 million people, which is consistent with the estimated number of Americans said to be without health insurance. Therefore, a family of four with a total household income of $22,050 is considered to be living in poverty, which may include one or more wage earners.
Crunching a few more numbers, only 35% of the U.S. population earns more than $65,000/year, 10% make in excess of $118,200/year and only 2.67% make over $200,000/year. At the pinnacle of economic fortune, a scant 0.1% of wage earners, or approximately 300,000 Americans, make over $1.6 million.
According to an April 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 72% of those surveyed agreed “the poor have become too dependent on government assistance programs” which is up from 69% in 2007.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
This attitude was further highlighted in June 2009 when Rush Limbaugh said that food stamps amount to “food care” for the obese to buy “Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six packs of Bud” as they “head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs … and that’s the poverty in the U.S.”
More blatant comments were made in January during a town hall meeting when South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer was quoted as saying, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Public outcry to this and other statements led Bauer to respond, "We have a problem of dependency which is getting worse instead of better. People collecting welfare with no intention of ever getting off the government gravy train. We don't mind a hand up, but we can't continue to have generational handouts. Especially when the state's considering furloughing teachers, and releasing prisoners early. Taxpayers have had enough. Somebody has to have the courage to speak out, to break the cycle of dependency. Speaking out about these programs may not be politically correct, but it's the right thing to do."
In a February blog, Bauer posted, “DSS (Dept of Social Services) says the maximum annual cash assistance for a mother of two is just over $3,250. But food stamps, WIC and housing assistance alone contribute an additional $10,000 in benefits – not too far off what might be earned in a minimum wage job. I am hearing from people who see no problem with drug testing as a condition for their jobs. They see no problem with having people on public assistance doing the same. Like the private sector, the first offense should mean mandatory counseling and the second one termination.”
In other words, no more free lunch for the lazy poor, although he noted his statements in no way were meant to be directed at the students. Very unconvincing.
This view by government officials is not unprecedented. Look at the lack of concern for the victims of hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, the lack of response to the crisis by President Bush and the statements made by Andre Bauer are racist.
New Orleans had 325,947 black residents prior to Katrina – 67.25% of the population. The white population was approximately 28%. Per the Brookings Institute, Post-Katrina figures in 2008 showed a 57% decline in blacks and 36% in the white population – 58% black, 34% white. Thus, the poverty level fell from 28% in 2000 to 23% in 2008. The correlation suggests a fewer blacks, more whites, and a lower poverty rate.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
Per the Bureau of Labor statistics, the median household income is little more than $46,000 per year. Of the 117 million households in the United States, 65% make less than the median income level, or 76 million households. Since the average household is comprised of 2.57 people, 195 million Americans fit into this economic class.
The Department of Health and Human Services describes the poverty level for an individual is $10,830/year and $3,740 for each additional person. The poverty rate in the U.S. is 13.2%, or 39.8 million people, which is consistent with the estimated number of Americans said to be without health insurance. Therefore, a family of four with a total household income of $22,050 is considered to be living in poverty, which may include one or more wage earners.
Crunching a few more numbers, only 35% of the U.S. population earns more than $65,000/year, 10% make in excess of $118,200/year and only 2.67% make over $200,000/year. At the pinnacle of economic fortune, a scant 0.1% of wage earners, or approximately 300,000 Americans, make over $1.6 million.
According to an April 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 72% of those surveyed agreed “the poor have become too dependent on government assistance programs” which is up from 69% in 2007.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
This attitude was further highlighted in June 2009 when Rush Limbaugh said that food stamps amount to “food care” for the obese to buy “Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six packs of Bud” as they “head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs … and that’s the poverty in the U.S.”
More blatant comments were made in January during a town hall meeting when South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer was quoted as saying, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Public outcry to this and other statements led Bauer to respond, "We have a problem of dependency which is getting worse instead of better. People collecting welfare with no intention of ever getting off the government gravy train. We don't mind a hand up, but we can't continue to have generational handouts. Especially when the state's considering furloughing teachers, and releasing prisoners early. Taxpayers have had enough. Somebody has to have the courage to speak out, to break the cycle of dependency. Speaking out about these programs may not be politically correct, but it's the right thing to do."
In a February blog, Bauer posted, “DSS (Dept of Social Services) says the maximum annual cash assistance for a mother of two is just over $3,250. But food stamps, WIC and housing assistance alone contribute an additional $10,000 in benefits – not too far off what might be earned in a minimum wage job. I am hearing from people who see no problem with drug testing as a condition for their jobs. They see no problem with having people on public assistance doing the same. Like the private sector, the first offense should mean mandatory counseling and the second one termination.”
In other words, no more free lunch for the lazy poor, although he noted his statements in no way were meant to be directed at the students. Very unconvincing.
This view by government officials is not unprecedented. Look at the lack of concern for the victims of hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, the lack of response to the crisis by President Bush and the statements made by Andre Bauer are racist.
New Orleans had 325,947 black residents prior to Katrina – 67.25% of the population. The white population was approximately 28%. Per the Brookings Institute, Post-Katrina figures in 2008 showed a 57% decline in blacks and 36% in the white population – 58% black, 34% white. Thus, the poverty level fell from 28% in 2000 to 23% in 2008. The correlation suggests a fewer blacks, more whites, and a lower poverty rate.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
Supreme Court Campaign for Corporations
It’s not that I’ve grown cynical as I’ve aged as much as it is a growing mistrust of people in power, politicians in particularly. Apparently I’m not alone. The approval rating given Congress by Americans is 18%, a bit lower than the 19% a year ago but a big decline from 24% in January. The clearest picture of how Americans feel about their public servants is the 78% disapproval rating of Congress, which ties the all-time high figure in March 1992.
According to the Gallup poll taken February 1-3, the largest change is among Democrats, whose approval dived from 45% in January to 30% this month. The change in attitude of the American public came after the President’s State of the Union address a week prior when he chastised Democrats, namely Senators, for not fulfilling their task of passing health care reform legislation, and blaming Republicans for blocking new initiatives without offering credible alternatives.
Yet, the approval rating among Republicans inched upward from 10% to 11%.
The results of a Rasmussen Reports poll from September 7 through September 13, 2009, revealed 70% of voters trust the American people more than they do political leaders. It follows suite that 68% view the federal government as a special interest group in itself and that the government and big business work in ways that hurt consumers.
Only 4% of Americans expressed support of the Political Class, the definition of which Rasmussen gives to “that small group of elites and its ardent supporters, the ones who try to brand themselves as populists but are in fact concerned primarily with the goodness of their own power and authority”.
A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 65% of the people surveyed disagreed with the Supreme Court's slim, but oh so decisive and predictably divisive, 5-4 vote in favor of Citizens United vs FEC – Democrats 67%, Republicans 63% and 72% among Independents – while 44% strongly disagreed. Only 17% agreed with the ruling.
In the online survey of 1,003 American adults, 32% of Americans said they have followed this story moderately or very closely. The 68% who haven’t followed it ‘closely or not at all’ are the ignorant majority, the perfect candidates to be overly influenced by whatever tactics wrought by indirect campaign financing toward the election/re-election of candidates who will be indebted for their political victories.
On the one hand, 45% of respondents agree that corporations should have the right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. On the other hand, 42% disagree. The 13% who had no opinion could make it a flip of the coin.
Respondents are also in favor of legislation that would regulate how corporations can spend in political advertising, such as requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run political ads (74%), requiring the chief executive of the corporation to appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it (75%), and limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or awarded federal contracts (75%).
It’s much too easy for opposite sides of the controversy to make claims that Our Founding Fathers would be [proud of/aghast at] the Supreme Court decision. At that time in American history, electricity was just a kite-flying phenomenon of Brother Franklin, the telephone Bell wouldn’t ring for another hundred years and computers wouldn’t become a household necessity for another hundred years. They could not have foreseen how high-speed Internet service would virtually pop out of nowhere to bring the world together in ways unimaginable.
No speculative commentary can justly conjure up how the crafters of the Constitution would view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision anymore than political pundits of today can predict what the future holds for America with the droves of money that will serve as carrot sticks dangling before the eyes of political hopefuls.
The best that we voters can hope for is that corporations will take responsible steps to reign in government spending, offer fair and constructive solutions to pay down the national debt and dissuade members of Congress from earmarking funds that serve their constituents well but do little good for the nation as a whole.
I fear that corporations will manipulate the legislative process to enhance their profiteering at the expense of American taxpayers, thus worsening with economic indulgences that will forever keep Americans indentured servants to interests other than their own.
Will the voting power of the people overcome the influx of corporate campaign financing in the coming elections? Or will we stare blindly at politicians as they read from teleprompters with words construed with interests that may not be of their preference but out of sheer necessity? Time alone won’t tell. Money will play a large part.
According to the Gallup poll taken February 1-3, the largest change is among Democrats, whose approval dived from 45% in January to 30% this month. The change in attitude of the American public came after the President’s State of the Union address a week prior when he chastised Democrats, namely Senators, for not fulfilling their task of passing health care reform legislation, and blaming Republicans for blocking new initiatives without offering credible alternatives.
Yet, the approval rating among Republicans inched upward from 10% to 11%.
The results of a Rasmussen Reports poll from September 7 through September 13, 2009, revealed 70% of voters trust the American people more than they do political leaders. It follows suite that 68% view the federal government as a special interest group in itself and that the government and big business work in ways that hurt consumers.
Only 4% of Americans expressed support of the Political Class, the definition of which Rasmussen gives to “that small group of elites and its ardent supporters, the ones who try to brand themselves as populists but are in fact concerned primarily with the goodness of their own power and authority”.
A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 65% of the people surveyed disagreed with the Supreme Court's slim, but oh so decisive and predictably divisive, 5-4 vote in favor of Citizens United vs FEC – Democrats 67%, Republicans 63% and 72% among Independents – while 44% strongly disagreed. Only 17% agreed with the ruling.
In the online survey of 1,003 American adults, 32% of Americans said they have followed this story moderately or very closely. The 68% who haven’t followed it ‘closely or not at all’ are the ignorant majority, the perfect candidates to be overly influenced by whatever tactics wrought by indirect campaign financing toward the election/re-election of candidates who will be indebted for their political victories.
On the one hand, 45% of respondents agree that corporations should have the right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. On the other hand, 42% disagree. The 13% who had no opinion could make it a flip of the coin.
Respondents are also in favor of legislation that would regulate how corporations can spend in political advertising, such as requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run political ads (74%), requiring the chief executive of the corporation to appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it (75%), and limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or awarded federal contracts (75%).
It’s much too easy for opposite sides of the controversy to make claims that Our Founding Fathers would be [proud of/aghast at] the Supreme Court decision. At that time in American history, electricity was just a kite-flying phenomenon of Brother Franklin, the telephone Bell wouldn’t ring for another hundred years and computers wouldn’t become a household necessity for another hundred years. They could not have foreseen how high-speed Internet service would virtually pop out of nowhere to bring the world together in ways unimaginable.
No speculative commentary can justly conjure up how the crafters of the Constitution would view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision anymore than political pundits of today can predict what the future holds for America with the droves of money that will serve as carrot sticks dangling before the eyes of political hopefuls.
The best that we voters can hope for is that corporations will take responsible steps to reign in government spending, offer fair and constructive solutions to pay down the national debt and dissuade members of Congress from earmarking funds that serve their constituents well but do little good for the nation as a whole.
I fear that corporations will manipulate the legislative process to enhance their profiteering at the expense of American taxpayers, thus worsening with economic indulgences that will forever keep Americans indentured servants to interests other than their own.
Will the voting power of the people overcome the influx of corporate campaign financing in the coming elections? Or will we stare blindly at politicians as they read from teleprompters with words construed with interests that may not be of their preference but out of sheer necessity? Time alone won’t tell. Money will play a large part.
Buckles
Buckle up for safety. Buckle down for financial security. Put them together and you just might survive the next crash, whether it be from an auto accident or the next big dip in the market value of your dwindling investments.
In neither instance are you likely to come out unscathed… unless you’re a corporate executive who’s assured of a big fat pay check and a hefty bonus or two, fitted with designer crash helmets and an armored military Humvee; a commercialized Hummer might not suffice with a revolting public, what with the continued excesses of Big business, Big government, Big Banks and all the Big-dealing lobbyists whose only goal is to keep the status quo of the average American living under the thumb prints of serfdom.
Corporate executives are aghast at the very thought they should give up a penny’s worth of compensation through a redistribution of their wealth, and that of their cronies, to those who do the grunt work to fill their pockets with riches beyond our wildest prayers.
We’re much too reliant on government. We have become submissive to governing bodies who cower unabatedly to the real power brokers, certainly not the voters who put them in office, but the Big Game players aforementioned.
The pittance of minimum wage salaries does nothing to keep families from living in poverty. To make a point, out of approximately 32 million people who may [be forced to] participate in the government mandated health care system [if enacted], 19 million are expected to be eligible to receive subsidies of anywhere from 90% for a family of four whose income is about $88,000 ($44,000 for individuals) to a 97% subsidy for a four family household with an annual income of approximately $29,000 ($14,000 threshold for singles). That’s a lot of people and a whole lot of subsidizing with taxpayer dollars.
Since 1980, the average working man and woman has seen their income increase about thirty percent. Also since then, corporate executives have given themselves (through their hand-picked board of directors) anywhere from three hundred to four hundred percent pay raises.
(It’s rather interesting, and disappointing, that during my extensive searches through the mazes of Google, which in (4.4 seconds) might display upwards of ‘About 1,234,578 results’, could I find a single source that narrowed the gap of the 300% to 400% figures. This led me to believe that no one really knows, or willing to admit, to what degree the top 1% of these high and mighty money mongers actually ‘earn’. In some cases, might it possibly be 1,000% above and beyond that of what the core majority of Americans make?)
Going a step further, and pointing out that nobody wants to give up what they’ve been generously given, the expiration of the G. W. Bush tax cuts that only benefited those with the highest bundles of cash reserves, is under fire from the ones who benefited from those tax cuts.
Nor can I fail to comment on the claims, and complaints, that the top 1% wage earners pay a ‘disproportionate’ percent of income taxes. Their accountants know what loopholes to leap through to lessen the impact of paying the government their fortunes as allowed by current tax codes. They have accountants; we have tax preparers who may receive training but, otherwise, don’t have the same level of education, thus no CPA after their names – many are seasonal employees who are paid hourly wages instead of commissions, such as many who work for, as an example, H&R Block.
From 2007 figures, the top 1% of income earners had a 19% share of all income in the U.S. but paid 37% of the total U.S. tax bills. The bottom 50% made 13% of all earnings but contributed only 3% in federal income taxes. But the bottom 50% are the American consumers whose spending make up 70% of GDP but only with what financial resources they by spending whatever their financial resources allow. Most have lost their jobs, savings, investments and home values. By no stretch of the imagination do these people have the disposable income to help dig the U.S. out of the continued deterioration of the nation’s still faltering economy. With their credit cards maxed out, or cancelled for non-payments and declared bankruptcies, the situation makes it a foregone conclusion that a solid recovery is nowhere in sight.
In my estimation, the best course of action for the average American, whether working, living from one extension of unemployment benefits to another, or barely surviving on Social Security incomes, is to buckle down before they buckle under. It may be the worst course of action to avoid deflation and Dow Street investors would send industrial averages tumbling to lows not seen since when? The depression maybe?
If you should take personal responsibility of your financial future and place your dollars and cents in a guaranteed but low interest money market accounts or certificate of deposit, it may prolong the recovery but you will have done what all wise people should do: look out for your own self interest and emulate what the Big Bad Boys are doing.
In neither instance are you likely to come out unscathed… unless you’re a corporate executive who’s assured of a big fat pay check and a hefty bonus or two, fitted with designer crash helmets and an armored military Humvee; a commercialized Hummer might not suffice with a revolting public, what with the continued excesses of Big business, Big government, Big Banks and all the Big-dealing lobbyists whose only goal is to keep the status quo of the average American living under the thumb prints of serfdom.
Corporate executives are aghast at the very thought they should give up a penny’s worth of compensation through a redistribution of their wealth, and that of their cronies, to those who do the grunt work to fill their pockets with riches beyond our wildest prayers.
We’re much too reliant on government. We have become submissive to governing bodies who cower unabatedly to the real power brokers, certainly not the voters who put them in office, but the Big Game players aforementioned.
The pittance of minimum wage salaries does nothing to keep families from living in poverty. To make a point, out of approximately 32 million people who may [be forced to] participate in the government mandated health care system [if enacted], 19 million are expected to be eligible to receive subsidies of anywhere from 90% for a family of four whose income is about $88,000 ($44,000 for individuals) to a 97% subsidy for a four family household with an annual income of approximately $29,000 ($14,000 threshold for singles). That’s a lot of people and a whole lot of subsidizing with taxpayer dollars.
Since 1980, the average working man and woman has seen their income increase about thirty percent. Also since then, corporate executives have given themselves (through their hand-picked board of directors) anywhere from three hundred to four hundred percent pay raises.
(It’s rather interesting, and disappointing, that during my extensive searches through the mazes of Google, which in (4.4 seconds) might display upwards of ‘About 1,234,578 results’, could I find a single source that narrowed the gap of the 300% to 400% figures. This led me to believe that no one really knows, or willing to admit, to what degree the top 1% of these high and mighty money mongers actually ‘earn’. In some cases, might it possibly be 1,000% above and beyond that of what the core majority of Americans make?)
Going a step further, and pointing out that nobody wants to give up what they’ve been generously given, the expiration of the G. W. Bush tax cuts that only benefited those with the highest bundles of cash reserves, is under fire from the ones who benefited from those tax cuts.
Nor can I fail to comment on the claims, and complaints, that the top 1% wage earners pay a ‘disproportionate’ percent of income taxes. Their accountants know what loopholes to leap through to lessen the impact of paying the government their fortunes as allowed by current tax codes. They have accountants; we have tax preparers who may receive training but, otherwise, don’t have the same level of education, thus no CPA after their names – many are seasonal employees who are paid hourly wages instead of commissions, such as many who work for, as an example, H&R Block.
From 2007 figures, the top 1% of income earners had a 19% share of all income in the U.S. but paid 37% of the total U.S. tax bills. The bottom 50% made 13% of all earnings but contributed only 3% in federal income taxes. But the bottom 50% are the American consumers whose spending make up 70% of GDP but only with what financial resources they by spending whatever their financial resources allow. Most have lost their jobs, savings, investments and home values. By no stretch of the imagination do these people have the disposable income to help dig the U.S. out of the continued deterioration of the nation’s still faltering economy. With their credit cards maxed out, or cancelled for non-payments and declared bankruptcies, the situation makes it a foregone conclusion that a solid recovery is nowhere in sight.
In my estimation, the best course of action for the average American, whether working, living from one extension of unemployment benefits to another, or barely surviving on Social Security incomes, is to buckle down before they buckle under. It may be the worst course of action to avoid deflation and Dow Street investors would send industrial averages tumbling to lows not seen since when? The depression maybe?
If you should take personal responsibility of your financial future and place your dollars and cents in a guaranteed but low interest money market accounts or certificate of deposit, it may prolong the recovery but you will have done what all wise people should do: look out for your own self interest and emulate what the Big Bad Boys are doing.
Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland
On a recent cover of The Economist magazine was a caricatured drawing of the contrite state of American politics as evoked by the fighting might of the far right from what was once an attentive grand old party. The magazine cover portrayed a tea party event.
In bold black lettering, the words at the top of the page read, ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’. Lacking the expected punctuation mark, it was a statement… not a question.
At one end of the table sat a bright-smiling Sarah Palin (have you ever seen her otherwise?) brandishing a rapid-fire assault weapon in her right hand while in the left she proudly held up her prized bounty – a startled, bug-eyed donkey fearful of annihilation from its short span of influence.
To the far left of Palin was a teary-eyed old gent, obviously government-bred, wearing a top hat decorated with stripes of red and white, and a blue hat band imprinted with white stars. Attached to the hat was a sign: ‘Nonsense 24/7’. Although he bared no resemblance to Uncle Sam, his right hand was placed over his heart; from his left hand he daintily held a ‘Made In USA’ cup. Definitely not an enthusiast, his pinky finger drooped.
Immediately below and to the left of ‘sad Sam’ was a doll-like image of Barack Obama, the smallest character of them all, with pins sticking out from various parts of the body. Sitting in a cup with the letters ‘BP’ printed on its side, it required no bit of imagination to conclude that the Obama doll was dunked in a cupful of oil. Perhaps oddly, he too shone a bright white grin just like Palin’s.
Situated between Palin and Sam was a white varmint with disproportionately sized head and ears, noticeably larger than the body whole. At the least, he was very cheekish. Aristocratically postured, a smoldering stogie displayed a cigar band with a monogrammed ‘R’. These observations told me he might be a character of some importance. The squinting eyes from making a big wide yawn suggested he had spent a long and harrowing day of scampering about, repeatedly announcing, "I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello! Goodbye! I'm late, I’m late, I’m late!”
And so it was, after such an exhaustive adventure, White Rabbit had finally delivered to the world Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland. There were many obstreperous observations to bemoan on the tea party table.
Off to the side was a cup with a placard, ‘Immigrants OUT!!’ At the very bottom of the page was a seemingly disinterested elephant. He seemed a lone on-looker, a mascot you might say. Hostess Sarah demanded there be no tea party spoilers.
In mid table, facing the elephant, was a tea pot stamped ‘FOX’, no doubt the right-then-righter cable news network. The creature, its bushy tail billowing out of the spout, glared menacingly at all. The hostess had bestowed upon this vessel of servitude the honor of placement as the centerpiece.
The article that accompanied the cover story was titled, ‘The risk of “Hell, no”!’ The photographs caught my eyes; the pictures were surreal.
In one picture stood Sarah waving to what I imagine was a crowd of a good number of people… good people, patriotism exalted in their every breath. A banner in the background read, ‘TEA PARTY EXPRESS III’ and, in smaller letters, ‘Just Vote Them Out’. An attention-getter for sure but what stood out most of all was Ms. Palin’s attire: a black skirt just above her knees and a bright red dress shirt. (Soccer moms don’t parade around in blouses!)
I revisit photo shots of various other campaign pin buttons. One was of Smilin’ Sarah with ‘RELOAD’ in the forefront… from the get-go, that girl’s got her finger on the trigger and a magazine ready to go. Black and red colors, again, were prominent.
Another button, ‘Take Our Country Back’ had a background of black, the continental United States a solid red. The theme of the pin exudes patriotism – reality includes racism.
It was the repeated prominence of the black and red in the photos and on the pin buttons that concerned me. The only red, white and blue was of what appeared to be an empty pitcher displaying the colors of our flag on a ‘Don’t drink the Kool Aid’ button.
There once was a county whose military combatants wore hats… black hats… with a bright red star front and center. It was from an era of Communist Red China under the regime of Mao Zedong, of whom I quote, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.”
The content of The Economist article was summed up by the magazine’s own synopsis. “Too much anger and too few ideas.”
In bold black lettering, the words at the top of the page read, ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’. Lacking the expected punctuation mark, it was a statement… not a question.
At one end of the table sat a bright-smiling Sarah Palin (have you ever seen her otherwise?) brandishing a rapid-fire assault weapon in her right hand while in the left she proudly held up her prized bounty – a startled, bug-eyed donkey fearful of annihilation from its short span of influence.
To the far left of Palin was a teary-eyed old gent, obviously government-bred, wearing a top hat decorated with stripes of red and white, and a blue hat band imprinted with white stars. Attached to the hat was a sign: ‘Nonsense 24/7’. Although he bared no resemblance to Uncle Sam, his right hand was placed over his heart; from his left hand he daintily held a ‘Made In USA’ cup. Definitely not an enthusiast, his pinky finger drooped.
Immediately below and to the left of ‘sad Sam’ was a doll-like image of Barack Obama, the smallest character of them all, with pins sticking out from various parts of the body. Sitting in a cup with the letters ‘BP’ printed on its side, it required no bit of imagination to conclude that the Obama doll was dunked in a cupful of oil. Perhaps oddly, he too shone a bright white grin just like Palin’s.
Situated between Palin and Sam was a white varmint with disproportionately sized head and ears, noticeably larger than the body whole. At the least, he was very cheekish. Aristocratically postured, a smoldering stogie displayed a cigar band with a monogrammed ‘R’. These observations told me he might be a character of some importance. The squinting eyes from making a big wide yawn suggested he had spent a long and harrowing day of scampering about, repeatedly announcing, "I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello! Goodbye! I'm late, I’m late, I’m late!”
And so it was, after such an exhaustive adventure, White Rabbit had finally delivered to the world Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland. There were many obstreperous observations to bemoan on the tea party table.
Off to the side was a cup with a placard, ‘Immigrants OUT!!’ At the very bottom of the page was a seemingly disinterested elephant. He seemed a lone on-looker, a mascot you might say. Hostess Sarah demanded there be no tea party spoilers.
In mid table, facing the elephant, was a tea pot stamped ‘FOX’, no doubt the right-then-righter cable news network. The creature, its bushy tail billowing out of the spout, glared menacingly at all. The hostess had bestowed upon this vessel of servitude the honor of placement as the centerpiece.
The article that accompanied the cover story was titled, ‘The risk of “Hell, no”!’ The photographs caught my eyes; the pictures were surreal.
In one picture stood Sarah waving to what I imagine was a crowd of a good number of people… good people, patriotism exalted in their every breath. A banner in the background read, ‘TEA PARTY EXPRESS III’ and, in smaller letters, ‘Just Vote Them Out’. An attention-getter for sure but what stood out most of all was Ms. Palin’s attire: a black skirt just above her knees and a bright red dress shirt. (Soccer moms don’t parade around in blouses!)
I revisit photo shots of various other campaign pin buttons. One was of Smilin’ Sarah with ‘RELOAD’ in the forefront… from the get-go, that girl’s got her finger on the trigger and a magazine ready to go. Black and red colors, again, were prominent.
Another button, ‘Take Our Country Back’ had a background of black, the continental United States a solid red. The theme of the pin exudes patriotism – reality includes racism.
It was the repeated prominence of the black and red in the photos and on the pin buttons that concerned me. The only red, white and blue was of what appeared to be an empty pitcher displaying the colors of our flag on a ‘Don’t drink the Kool Aid’ button.
There once was a county whose military combatants wore hats… black hats… with a bright red star front and center. It was from an era of Communist Red China under the regime of Mao Zedong, of whom I quote, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.”
The content of The Economist article was summed up by the magazine’s own synopsis. “Too much anger and too few ideas.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)