It has long been a tradition among many groups to serve Black Eyed Peas on New Year's Day for good luck in the coming year. My first thought was, "Why didn't they make Porter House Steak a good luck tradition for The New Year?"
The lowly blackeyed pea has too little taste . . . for MY taste. But, here I set, looking at a pot of black eyed peas wondering, "What to do, what to do?"
Well, here's what I did!
SNOWYOWL'S HOPPIN' JOHN
1½ cup-Chopped Red Onion
1½ cup-Chopped Ham
1½ cup-Chopped Poblano Pepper (Sweet not Hot)
2 Tbsp-Peanut Oil
2 15oz. cans of black eyed peas (Keep ¾ cup of liquid)
4 Tbsp or more to taste, of Salsa Snowyowl (Can be found at: http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2009/09/recipe-for-salsa.html) on my Sept. 18th, 2009 post! Or, you might want to use Pace's Medium or Hot Salsa as a substitute.
7 oz. Hominy, drained
2 oz. Pimientos, undrained
2½ oz. sliced, ripe Olives, drained
¾ cup sliced Mushrooms
In a large skillet, saute onion, pepper and ham in oil for 3 minutes. Drain Blackeyed Peas and retain ¾ cup of liquid. Add blackeyed peas and retained liquid, Salsa, hominy, mushrooms, pimientos and and olives to ham mixture. Stir to combine then heat over medium heat to a boil. Then simmer for an hour on low.
In my 'fridge, I have two special "Condiments" that I use other than the standard stuff. One is blueberries and the other is chopped onions. I have found that whatever I can't improve the flavor of with onions, I can with blueberries. In this instance, use those chopped onions on top of the finished product when served. Might want to sprinkle a little pepper jack cheese too. It's up to you.
As in most of this type of recipe, this is gonna taste much better tomorrow than it does today. If you can do it a day or so ahead of time and keep your hands off of it, then let it set for a day. As Grandma always said, "Let it Fester," it will taste even better.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
A Poem Worth Reading!
A POEM WORTH READING
And sharing!
(Author unknown)
He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.
And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew whereof he spoke.
But we'll hear his tales no longer,
For old Bob has passed away,
And the world's a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.
He won t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won't note his passing,
'Tho a Soldier died today.
When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Someone who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?
The politician's stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.
While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.
It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a Soldier--
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end?
He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier's part
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor
While he's here to hear the praise,
Then at least let's give him homage
At the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."
And sharing!
(Author unknown)
He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.
And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew whereof he spoke.
But we'll hear his tales no longer,
For old Bob has passed away,
And the world's a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.
He won t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won't note his passing,
'Tho a Soldier died today.
When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Someone who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?
The politician's stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.
While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.
It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a Soldier--
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end?
He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier's part
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor
While he's here to hear the praise,
Then at least let's give him homage
At the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."
Friday, December 10, 2010
A Simple Song of Freedom
I am reminded constantly how much life is nothing but a circle! If you keep a tie long enough, it'll come back into style. Here's an old song by Bobby Darin that is so true now that it seems to defy logic.
Simple Song Of Freedom (True After All These Years)
By Bobby Darin
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Hey there, Mister Black Man can you hear me?
I don't want your diamonds or your game
I just want to be, someone known to you as me
and I will bet my life you want the same
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Seven hundred million are you listening?
Most of what you read is made of lies
But speaking one to one, ain't it everybody's sun
To wake to in the morning when we rise?
So come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Brother Yareshenko are you busy?
If not would you drop a friend a line?
Tell me if the man, who is plowing up your land
has got the war machine upon his mind
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we, the people here, don't want a war
Now no doubt some folks enjoy doin' battle
Like Presidents, Prime Ministers and Kings
So let's build them shelves where they can fight among themselves
and leave the people be who like to sing
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Simple Song Of Freedom (True After All These Years)
By Bobby Darin
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Hey there, Mister Black Man can you hear me?
I don't want your diamonds or your game
I just want to be, someone known to you as me
and I will bet my life you want the same
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Seven hundred million are you listening?
Most of what you read is made of lies
But speaking one to one, ain't it everybody's sun
To wake to in the morning when we rise?
So come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
We, the people here, don't want a war
Brother Yareshenko are you busy?
If not would you drop a friend a line?
Tell me if the man, who is plowing up your land
has got the war machine upon his mind
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we, the people here, don't want a war
Now no doubt some folks enjoy doin' battle
Like Presidents, Prime Ministers and Kings
So let's build them shelves where they can fight among themselves
and leave the people be who like to sing
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Fact Free Politics
Ever since Obama chose to run for President, the U. S. has experienced fact free politics. A culture where UNTRUTH has triumphed over facts, references and sources. And, all this has been promoted by an enthusiastic, deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy Barack Obama's presidency before it even got started. The economic collapse was answered with emergency measures, a bank bailout, an auto bailout and the stimulus package.
While almost identical to Mitt Romney's health reform in Massachusetts, and far to the Right of the Clinton's in the '90s, Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit. That while placing millions more within the program and providing insurance and drug companies with more customers. That was all turned into a Socialist Governmental take-over.
All of these moves could be held as detrimental in lots of ways but what you cannot do is say they portray Obama as an ultra Socialist anti-American who is taking the U. S. down a path to oblivion. Fox News, Rush, Sean, Michael, Glen and various others have put that in our heads day and night for so long, it almost seems true . . . ALMOST!
If a Republican President had stepped up and helped turn around our financial institutions, our auto industries and done that profitably while insuring millions within the private sector, cut Medicare fraud and misuse, overseen a decline in illegal immigration, started a pull out from Iraq, set up a debt commission to reduce future debt, and seen job growth within a deliberate recovery . . . I don't think that Republican President would be referred to as a Socialist. Yet, because the President is a Democrat, that is exactly what has happened.
The BIG LIE is nothing but a bunch of little lies--"Death panels, out of control spending, climate change is a myth, Obama will take your guns away, a tax on financial transactions, average Federal employees make $120,000 per year, $200,000,000 per day to travel to India, rationed health care, Obama was born in Kenya, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a radical Christian, Obama is an atheist," and oh so many more. It is the onslaught of all the little stuff that makes the BIG LIE, the accumulated lie. This all got into the minds of the people and became, at first, plausible, then possible, then probable and later true because they never let up and never varied in their talking points. And, none of this was officially refuted. A lie told long enough becomes the truth, someone said.
Don't let them get away with it. Look things up, check it out for yourself and call them on it. Ask for references, as for sources, ask where they read it, heard it and who wrote it or said it.
You might ask me, "They are all lying, isn't there a law against that?" For the answer to that you really need to go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
While almost identical to Mitt Romney's health reform in Massachusetts, and far to the Right of the Clinton's in the '90s, Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit. That while placing millions more within the program and providing insurance and drug companies with more customers. That was all turned into a Socialist Governmental take-over.
All of these moves could be held as detrimental in lots of ways but what you cannot do is say they portray Obama as an ultra Socialist anti-American who is taking the U. S. down a path to oblivion. Fox News, Rush, Sean, Michael, Glen and various others have put that in our heads day and night for so long, it almost seems true . . . ALMOST!
If a Republican President had stepped up and helped turn around our financial institutions, our auto industries and done that profitably while insuring millions within the private sector, cut Medicare fraud and misuse, overseen a decline in illegal immigration, started a pull out from Iraq, set up a debt commission to reduce future debt, and seen job growth within a deliberate recovery . . . I don't think that Republican President would be referred to as a Socialist. Yet, because the President is a Democrat, that is exactly what has happened.
The BIG LIE is nothing but a bunch of little lies--"Death panels, out of control spending, climate change is a myth, Obama will take your guns away, a tax on financial transactions, average Federal employees make $120,000 per year, $200,000,000 per day to travel to India, rationed health care, Obama was born in Kenya, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a radical Christian, Obama is an atheist," and oh so many more. It is the onslaught of all the little stuff that makes the BIG LIE, the accumulated lie. This all got into the minds of the people and became, at first, plausible, then possible, then probable and later true because they never let up and never varied in their talking points. And, none of this was officially refuted. A lie told long enough becomes the truth, someone said.
Don't let them get away with it. Look things up, check it out for yourself and call them on it. Ask for references, as for sources, ask where they read it, heard it and who wrote it or said it.
You might ask me, "They are all lying, isn't there a law against that?" For the answer to that you really need to go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Breaking News From Canada!
CANADIANS SET TO BUILD HUGE FENCE TO KEEP LIBERALS OUT!
From The Manitoba Herald, Canada--by Clive Runnels
Manitoba -- The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the TEA Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.
"I went out to milk the cows the other day and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. "The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn't give any milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of those people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, watch NASCAR races and learn to shoot guns.
In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious way of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed seniors about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove they were alive in the '50s. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian Citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
From The Manitoba Herald, Canada--by Clive Runnels
Manitoba -- The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the TEA Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.
"I went out to milk the cows the other day and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. "The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn't give any milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of those people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, watch NASCAR races and learn to shoot guns.
In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious way of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed seniors about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove they were alive in the '50s. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian Citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Senate Election Analysis
Remember back on October 26, I gave an analysis of the upcoming Senate election and what I thought it might mean.
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/10/senate-races-to-watch-on-november-2nd.html
Well, the election commission in Washington State can finally put their shoes and socks back on now that they have used all their fingers and toes to add up the result of their Senate race between Dino Rossi (R) and Patty Murray (D) the incumbent.
In that post I listed six races and I felt the Democrats needed to win at least half to take the Senate. Well, what happened is the Democrats won four of the six and did indeed hold the Senate . . . not by much but a good hold.
The winners were;
In Nevada, Harry Reid (D) over Sharron Angle (Mars). There were actually nine people in that race which diluted the votes down to where it might have been hard for one person to win a majority. But Harry finally pulled it out.
In Washington, Patty Murray (D) over Dino Rossi (R). It took several days to hand count the ballots which were, by all appearances, written in Sanskrit and being read by a visually impaired election commission.
In Colorado, Michael Bennet (D) over Ken Buck (R). Buck was ahead for several hours at the beginning but Bennet held the lead once he got it.
In West Virginia, Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R). This again was a nail biter in that Raese had a lead for a long time at the beginning.
The two Democrats that lost were Joe Sestak to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Alan Giannoulias lost Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk.
Now, if the President wants anything done in the Senate, he'll have to do it with reconciliation from the get go. That is what "W" did most of his terms in office and that is how Obama will have to do it, too.
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/10/senate-races-to-watch-on-november-2nd.html
Well, the election commission in Washington State can finally put their shoes and socks back on now that they have used all their fingers and toes to add up the result of their Senate race between Dino Rossi (R) and Patty Murray (D) the incumbent.
In that post I listed six races and I felt the Democrats needed to win at least half to take the Senate. Well, what happened is the Democrats won four of the six and did indeed hold the Senate . . . not by much but a good hold.
The winners were;
In Nevada, Harry Reid (D) over Sharron Angle (Mars). There were actually nine people in that race which diluted the votes down to where it might have been hard for one person to win a majority. But Harry finally pulled it out.
In Washington, Patty Murray (D) over Dino Rossi (R). It took several days to hand count the ballots which were, by all appearances, written in Sanskrit and being read by a visually impaired election commission.
In Colorado, Michael Bennet (D) over Ken Buck (R). Buck was ahead for several hours at the beginning but Bennet held the lead once he got it.
In West Virginia, Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R). This again was a nail biter in that Raese had a lead for a long time at the beginning.
The two Democrats that lost were Joe Sestak to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Alan Giannoulias lost Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk.
Now, if the President wants anything done in the Senate, he'll have to do it with reconciliation from the get go. That is what "W" did most of his terms in office and that is how Obama will have to do it, too.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Strange News From Dallas
(From the Dallas Morning News)
Dallas, TX (AP) - A seven year old boy was at the center of a Dallas County courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy, Joseph Luna, has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge, Arthur Wingate, initially awarded custody to his aunt, Martha Luna, in keeping with child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree reasonably possible.
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him.
After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Dallas Cowboys professional football team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
Dallas, TX (AP) - A seven year old boy was at the center of a Dallas County courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy, Joseph Luna, has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge, Arthur Wingate, initially awarded custody to his aunt, Martha Luna, in keeping with child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree reasonably possible.
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him.
After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Dallas Cowboys professional football team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Is a Gerrymander An Amphibian?
Way back in 1812, Elbridge Gerry, then the Governor of Massachusetts, was in charge of redividing the districts of his state after the census of 1810. Governor Gerry decided to reshape districts to gain political advantage. When he did, one came out with a strange shape that looked like a salamander. That was renamed by the local newspaper into a "Gerry" mander and has stuck for the past hundred and eighty eight years. So to "Gerrymander" is to redistrict for political advantage making strange shapes out of districts.
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Time Is Here
OK folks, the time has arrived and I've found that elections are really a conversation. They, the candidates, have been talking to us for a long time now and it is time for us to tell them where to go.
We need to tell some to get lost and some to take office. But first we need to find out about the candidates and their views on what is important to us. We need to find out as much about the various amendments and issues that are on the ballot as we can . . . then vote. We must know what we are going to say in that conversation and to be able to say it in an intelligent fashion. Remember, this is a conversation. Don't talk foolishly and don't say stupid things. All of our lives and all of our futures are depending on what we collectively say.
If you have decided to not vote this time, you will be conceding power to others. Those "Others" may not have your best interest at heart. The power you concede may very well hurt you, your family and your future.
I frequently support one side over the other on this blog. I won't be doing that today. If you read me much at all, you know what side I'm on. Today I want to encourage you to get educated and get involved. This is about you! This is about your family! This is about all of our futures and moving forward. Please do it but do it intelligently. Do it well informed.
The future depends on you and your well informed vote. Don't let others tell you where to go. Don't let others dictate you and your family's future.
We need to tell some to get lost and some to take office. But first we need to find out about the candidates and their views on what is important to us. We need to find out as much about the various amendments and issues that are on the ballot as we can . . . then vote. We must know what we are going to say in that conversation and to be able to say it in an intelligent fashion. Remember, this is a conversation. Don't talk foolishly and don't say stupid things. All of our lives and all of our futures are depending on what we collectively say.
If you have decided to not vote this time, you will be conceding power to others. Those "Others" may not have your best interest at heart. The power you concede may very well hurt you, your family and your future.
I frequently support one side over the other on this blog. I won't be doing that today. If you read me much at all, you know what side I'm on. Today I want to encourage you to get educated and get involved. This is about you! This is about your family! This is about all of our futures and moving forward. Please do it but do it intelligently. Do it well informed.
The future depends on you and your well informed vote. Don't let others tell you where to go. Don't let others dictate you and your family's future.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Senate Races To Watch on November 2nd
The big Mid-Term Elections are on November 2nd and here are the Senate Races you need to watch Tuesday night.
In Washington State:
Dino Rossi (R)
Patty Murray (D)
Patty Murray is the incumbent and hold a very slight lead over Dino Rossi. That lead is about 48% to 46% at this time but we have a week to go and this one could go either way.
In Nevada:
Sharron Angle (R)
Harry Reid (D)
Jerry Carter (I)
Jeffery Durbin (I)
Wil Stand (NONE)
Scott Ashjian (T) [Tea Party of Nevada]
Recently the polls have gone back and forth with Ms. Angle recently taking a small lead but still about 47% to 45%.
In Colorado:
Ken Buck (R)
Michael Bennet (D)
Bennet and Buck have been in a dead heat tied at 47% for the last 2 weeks. The decision will be made when it is decided who screwed up most/least.
In Illinois:
Mark Kirk (R)
Alan Giannoulias (D)
LeAlan Jones (G) [Green]
Michael Labno (L) [Libertarian]
Alyson Kennedy (S) [Socialist Workers] {Write-in}
Mark Kirk has been consistently ahead for the past month but still within each polls margin of error. So for all practical purposes it is still a tossup. The problem here is the Green/Libertarian/Socialist dilution of voters. That makes it very difficult for one person to get above 50%.
In West Virginia:
John Raese (R)
Joe Manchin (D)
Jesse Johnson (M) [Mountain Party]
Three weeks ago Raese had a 5 point lead. Two weeks ago Manchin had a 4 point lead. Two days ago Raese had a 2 point lead . . . who knows by November 2nd.
In Pennsylvania:
Pat Toomey (R)
Joe Sestak (D)
Osborn Hart (S) [Socialist] {Write-In}
This is a back and forth race. On the same day one pose shows an even tie at 46% while other polls show Toomey ahead by up to 8 points. No poll shows Sestak ahead. But it shall be interesting.
I feel that the Democrats need to take at least half of these races to keep a majority in the Senate. Keep this list and watch the fight come Tuesday night.
In Washington State:
Dino Rossi (R)
Patty Murray (D)
Patty Murray is the incumbent and hold a very slight lead over Dino Rossi. That lead is about 48% to 46% at this time but we have a week to go and this one could go either way.
In Nevada:
Sharron Angle (R)
Harry Reid (D)
Jerry Carter (I)
Jeffery Durbin (I)
Wil Stand (NONE)
Scott Ashjian (T) [Tea Party of Nevada]
Recently the polls have gone back and forth with Ms. Angle recently taking a small lead but still about 47% to 45%.
In Colorado:
Ken Buck (R)
Michael Bennet (D)
Bennet and Buck have been in a dead heat tied at 47% for the last 2 weeks. The decision will be made when it is decided who screwed up most/least.
In Illinois:
Mark Kirk (R)
Alan Giannoulias (D)
LeAlan Jones (G) [Green]
Michael Labno (L) [Libertarian]
Alyson Kennedy (S) [Socialist Workers] {Write-in}
Mark Kirk has been consistently ahead for the past month but still within each polls margin of error. So for all practical purposes it is still a tossup. The problem here is the Green/Libertarian/Socialist dilution of voters. That makes it very difficult for one person to get above 50%.
In West Virginia:
John Raese (R)
Joe Manchin (D)
Jesse Johnson (M) [Mountain Party]
Three weeks ago Raese had a 5 point lead. Two weeks ago Manchin had a 4 point lead. Two days ago Raese had a 2 point lead . . . who knows by November 2nd.
In Pennsylvania:
Pat Toomey (R)
Joe Sestak (D)
Osborn Hart (S) [Socialist] {Write-In}
This is a back and forth race. On the same day one pose shows an even tie at 46% while other polls show Toomey ahead by up to 8 points. No poll shows Sestak ahead. But it shall be interesting.
I feel that the Democrats need to take at least half of these races to keep a majority in the Senate. Keep this list and watch the fight come Tuesday night.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Getting The Word Out
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that everybody is allowed to give as much money as they desire, to anybody they choose and absolutely nobody needs to know about it, we are finding ourselves up to our butts in crap passed down to us as truth.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
What The Republicans Are Against!
Recently, the Congressional Republicans stated that they are for the Small businesses in America, yet they have been consistently opposed to the Obama's administrations efforts to cut the taxes small business owners have to pay.
The President has already signed into law eight pieces of powerful legislation designed to help small business. They are:
1. A small business health care tax credit.
2. A tax credit for hiring the unemployed.
3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment.
4. 75% exclusion of small business capital gains.
5. Expansion of limits of small business expenses.
6. A five year carryback of net operating losses.
7. To allow small businesses better flexibility in their investments, a reduction from 10 down to 7 years on built in gains holding period.
8. A temporary small business estimated tax payment relief so small business can keep more of their cash on hand.
Guess what, the Republicans voted against all of that. They are not pro-small businesses . . . they are ANTI-OBAMA! The high income taxpayers they are fighting to get tax relief for are hardly what most Americans think of as "Small Businesses." While Congressional Republicans' rhetoric would imply they are fighting for "Start-ups", mom-and-pop store owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, they count as "Small Businesses" making "Small Business income" any and all high income taxpayers with any type of partnership income, sole proprietor income, or "S" corporation income. Thus, under their definition, the following are all counted as small businesses:
>Each partner of a major corporate law firm
>Billionaire hedge fund Managers
>Over 50% of the top 400 taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income (according to the IRS--a group that averaged $344 million each in income in 2007)
And here is more;
While Republicans claim that their push for high income tax relief is motivated by concern for small business, almost 85% of the tax relief they want goes to those making over $1,000,000. Those are not small businesses.
Obama wants to lend support to creditworthy small businesses still struggling to access the credit they need to expand and hire.
Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts, your tax cuts, hostage so they can borrow $700,000,000,000 to pay for the tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to the richest 2% of earners, those are the people that contribute to the Republicans campaign.
The President has already signed into law eight pieces of powerful legislation designed to help small business. They are:
1. A small business health care tax credit.
2. A tax credit for hiring the unemployed.
3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment.
4. 75% exclusion of small business capital gains.
5. Expansion of limits of small business expenses.
6. A five year carryback of net operating losses.
7. To allow small businesses better flexibility in their investments, a reduction from 10 down to 7 years on built in gains holding period.
8. A temporary small business estimated tax payment relief so small business can keep more of their cash on hand.
Guess what, the Republicans voted against all of that. They are not pro-small businesses . . . they are ANTI-OBAMA! The high income taxpayers they are fighting to get tax relief for are hardly what most Americans think of as "Small Businesses." While Congressional Republicans' rhetoric would imply they are fighting for "Start-ups", mom-and-pop store owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, they count as "Small Businesses" making "Small Business income" any and all high income taxpayers with any type of partnership income, sole proprietor income, or "S" corporation income. Thus, under their definition, the following are all counted as small businesses:
>Each partner of a major corporate law firm
>Billionaire hedge fund Managers
>Over 50% of the top 400 taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income (according to the IRS--a group that averaged $344 million each in income in 2007)
And here is more;
While Republicans claim that their push for high income tax relief is motivated by concern for small business, almost 85% of the tax relief they want goes to those making over $1,000,000. Those are not small businesses.
Obama wants to lend support to creditworthy small businesses still struggling to access the credit they need to expand and hire.
Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts, your tax cuts, hostage so they can borrow $700,000,000,000 to pay for the tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to the richest 2% of earners, those are the people that contribute to the Republicans campaign.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Next Year's COLA
This is a preliminary warning to Liberals everywhere. There are those around that are at this very moment preparing emails that will soon be coming your way about the subject of this blog post.
Approximately 35% of retired Americans rely on Social Security for up to 90% of their retirement income and over 60% of those retired depend on Social Security as their primary income. Most of them also rely on an annual COLA (cost of living allowance) increase in that income. Once again, next year, that will not happen. That's two years in a row without a COLA increase, and it still isn't Obama's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Democrats controlling Congress. In fact, the COLAs are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the mid seventies. That COLA is based on inflation within the present year and according to that measure, there will be no COLA next year.
Once again; For those of you reading this, be aware . . . there will be emails coming your way accusing Obama or the Democrats in Congress for this lack of a COLA. They will say that Obama has refused to give the elderly a raise in their Social Security. Make sure you don't let them get away with it. Remember, the formula was set back in the 70s, not by anyone in power today and it is the law.
Also remember that the VA benefits are tied directly to the Social Security COLA as well as many other entitlements.
Approximately 35% of retired Americans rely on Social Security for up to 90% of their retirement income and over 60% of those retired depend on Social Security as their primary income. Most of them also rely on an annual COLA (cost of living allowance) increase in that income. Once again, next year, that will not happen. That's two years in a row without a COLA increase, and it still isn't Obama's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Democrats controlling Congress. In fact, the COLAs are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the mid seventies. That COLA is based on inflation within the present year and according to that measure, there will be no COLA next year.
Once again; For those of you reading this, be aware . . . there will be emails coming your way accusing Obama or the Democrats in Congress for this lack of a COLA. They will say that Obama has refused to give the elderly a raise in their Social Security. Make sure you don't let them get away with it. Remember, the formula was set back in the 70s, not by anyone in power today and it is the law.
Also remember that the VA benefits are tied directly to the Social Security COLA as well as many other entitlements.
Friday, October 8, 2010
On Early Voting
We are about to enter the period of time, just prior to the mid-term elections, that most of the civilized world has "Early Voting." It used to be that this period was termed as "Absentee Voting." You had to know when you were going to be gone and then you had to document that you were going out of state, then you were mailed a ballot that may or may not have been counted because it had to be mailed back to the election commission hopefully with enough stamps.
Now, you don't have to have an excuse to vote early. In the past, I've had to stand in line for up to an hour to vote. Early voting has eliminated all that, if you play your cards correctly. If you vote early on your lunch hour remember, so will everyone else. If you put it off until the last couple of days remember, so will everyone else.
Vote on your day off, in the morning, about 9 till 11 or in the afternoon between 2 and 4, otherwise you are still going to be in a line. Don't wait till the last few days of early voting . . . again . . . you'll end up waiting in an even longer line.
About the only reason to not vote early is that you will miss out if your candidate is a sex offender or gets arrested for theft within the last few days before election day. Remember, if he/she gets caught lying, there is no law against that. (see my blog dated 6/20/2010 entitled "Isn't there a law against that?) Then you might have switched your vote, otherwise . . . you're vote is good.
I'll try to cover my readers by area in which they live.
In Arkansas, early voting begins October 18th and ends November 1st.
(If you live in Baxter County you can vote in either the new Library or at the court house. If you live in Marion County your early voting spot is at the County Court House. (Say hello to Amy for me . . . nice lady)
In California, early voting began on October 4th. You'll have to check on the spots for voting early.
In New Mexico, early voting will begin on October 16th and you too will have to check on where.
In Texas, early voting is as it is in Arkansas. You will start on October 18th.
In Maryland, you start early voting on October 22nd.
In Tennessee, you will start your early voting on October 13th.
In Oklahoma, you will have only a short period of early voting. There early voting starts on October 29th and ends on November 1st. And, I am not sure if the early voting polls there will be open on that Saturday, the 30th.
A few of my friends live in states where there is no early voting. In Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia and Minnesota you'll just have to wait until November 2nd.
If you can and if you want, please vote early and take the pressure off the polls on November 2nd. But, before you go vote, make sure you are informed about the issues and about the candidates.
Now, you don't have to have an excuse to vote early. In the past, I've had to stand in line for up to an hour to vote. Early voting has eliminated all that, if you play your cards correctly. If you vote early on your lunch hour remember, so will everyone else. If you put it off until the last couple of days remember, so will everyone else.
Vote on your day off, in the morning, about 9 till 11 or in the afternoon between 2 and 4, otherwise you are still going to be in a line. Don't wait till the last few days of early voting . . . again . . . you'll end up waiting in an even longer line.
About the only reason to not vote early is that you will miss out if your candidate is a sex offender or gets arrested for theft within the last few days before election day. Remember, if he/she gets caught lying, there is no law against that. (see my blog dated 6/20/2010 entitled "Isn't there a law against that?) Then you might have switched your vote, otherwise . . . you're vote is good.
I'll try to cover my readers by area in which they live.
In Arkansas, early voting begins October 18th and ends November 1st.
(If you live in Baxter County you can vote in either the new Library or at the court house. If you live in Marion County your early voting spot is at the County Court House. (Say hello to Amy for me . . . nice lady)
In California, early voting began on October 4th. You'll have to check on the spots for voting early.
In New Mexico, early voting will begin on October 16th and you too will have to check on where.
In Texas, early voting is as it is in Arkansas. You will start on October 18th.
In Maryland, you start early voting on October 22nd.
In Tennessee, you will start your early voting on October 13th.
In Oklahoma, you will have only a short period of early voting. There early voting starts on October 29th and ends on November 1st. And, I am not sure if the early voting polls there will be open on that Saturday, the 30th.
A few of my friends live in states where there is no early voting. In Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia and Minnesota you'll just have to wait until November 2nd.
If you can and if you want, please vote early and take the pressure off the polls on November 2nd. But, before you go vote, make sure you are informed about the issues and about the candidates.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A Burnt Out Lamp
A light bulb burnt out this week in my bedroom. Actually, "Bulb" is an improper name for it. It was really a lamp. The word "Bulb" is meant to be the name of the glassware that surrounds the lighting filament/s. Lamp is the proper name for what most of us call a "Light Bulb." But enough for the trivia . . . there didn't seem much to write about on a lamp burning out. Not much except I bought this lamp in 1997 and it was the first Compact Florescent Lamp I ever bought, in fact I bought eight of them in a package. It is different from those curly ones we get now. It has three fingers sticking straight out. I bought it at Wal-Mart because it said I would use only 14 watts while getting 60 watts of light and I got eight lamps fro $12.96. That was the first time I ever saw them for under $2 each. I think they were trying to get rid of them because the next batch they received was the twisty/curly type.
There were no real instructions with those lamps, they just wanted you to replace your old incandescent lamps with the new CFLs. But, some uses don't fit the CFL. For instance;
--If you have a dimmer switch in the dinning room, those CFLs won't
work when dimmed, or in some cases they don't work at all.
Some new CFLs are usable with a dimmer and are so marked as
"Dimmable."
--If you turn a light on and off frequently, a CFL will not last as long
as when you put it where a light stays on for long periods and only
gets turned on and off once or twice a day.
--If you use a CFL outside during cold or even cool weather it will
not work as efficiently and it will take several minutes for it to
warm up to the point of sufficient lighting. It will also not last as
long.
All in all, the CFLs I've had have outlasted any incandescent bulb I've owned. Now don't get me wrong, some CFLs have lasted a shorter period of time than this 13 year lamp because they were put in one of my two bathrooms where lights were turned on and off several time a day or they were used outdoors in the cold weather. But this being of the original purchase and used in my bedroom where the light is on for several hours each day, make it very special.
The other two in that fixture are of the same original purchase and I assume that they will soon be gone, too. But they are still working and have more than paid for their purchase price in putting out light and saving me money on electricity.
If you want to know more about CFLs and have not yet decided to invest in them, go to http://www.cflfacts.com/ to get straight information on use and disposal of CFLs.
There were no real instructions with those lamps, they just wanted you to replace your old incandescent lamps with the new CFLs. But, some uses don't fit the CFL. For instance;
--If you have a dimmer switch in the dinning room, those CFLs won't
work when dimmed, or in some cases they don't work at all.
Some new CFLs are usable with a dimmer and are so marked as
"Dimmable."
--If you turn a light on and off frequently, a CFL will not last as long
as when you put it where a light stays on for long periods and only
gets turned on and off once or twice a day.
--If you use a CFL outside during cold or even cool weather it will
not work as efficiently and it will take several minutes for it to
warm up to the point of sufficient lighting. It will also not last as
long.
All in all, the CFLs I've had have outlasted any incandescent bulb I've owned. Now don't get me wrong, some CFLs have lasted a shorter period of time than this 13 year lamp because they were put in one of my two bathrooms where lights were turned on and off several time a day or they were used outdoors in the cold weather. But this being of the original purchase and used in my bedroom where the light is on for several hours each day, make it very special.
The other two in that fixture are of the same original purchase and I assume that they will soon be gone, too. But they are still working and have more than paid for their purchase price in putting out light and saving me money on electricity.
If you want to know more about CFLs and have not yet decided to invest in them, go to http://www.cflfacts.com/ to get straight information on use and disposal of CFLs.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Don't Take The Pledge! (Conclusion)
We have seen where the "Pledge to America" is a façade that has nothing, or next to nothing, as foundation. Of the 46 pages of "Pledge," only 17 have a message and even that is
Large Type
and w i d e l y s p a c e d.
Even though this year government employment has declined and private sector jobs increased by over 750,000, the "Pledge" states that the "Only parts of the economy expanding are government and the National Debt." That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though jobless claims are down 8%, the "Pledge" says, "Jobless claims continue to soar." That is obviously FALSE!
Even though it has been proven FALSE, it echoes the claims that the IRS may need to expand by over 16,000 employees.
Even though the CBO, a non-partisan group of experts, states that the stimulus bill will cost $814 billion over 10 years, about $81 billion a year, the "Pledge" claims it will cost $1 Trillion.
Even though tax cuts would not hurt any REAL "Small Business," the "Pledge" claims that half of the small businesses in America would have higher taxes. What they don't tell you is that the GOP has included as "Small Business" are businesses that make over $450 million a year. That's not a small business!
The "Pledge" is full of "Apple Pie" and "Motherhood" terms and Phrases like ". . . to those who yearn to be free" and "America is an idea."
Even though the will of the people is what put Obama in office and gave the Legislature to the Democrats, the "Pledge" states, ". . . an unchecked executive, a compliant legislature and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of 'the people.'" That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though the CBO estimates that "Defensive Medicine" or ordering extra tests as a defensive measure, would only raise the cost of medicine about ½ of 1%, the "Pledge" states "Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as 'defensive medicine.'" So, that part of teh "pledge" is FALSE!
The "Pledge" is like Cotton Candy and Marshmallow Fluff. . . it kinda tastes good for a while but in the end you are gonna get lots of cavities and may even get diabetes. It sounds good but in the end it will only hurt you and cost you more.
Most of the really bad things that the GOP "Pledge" predicts will happen only if the Republicans get control of the legislature in the midterms and/or the Republicans continue to say NO to everything that would be good for the middle class.
The solution to all this is for you to get educated and to educate those around you. Then get out and vote in an intelligent manner. Offer your services on Election Day, to help other Liberals get to the polls.
Get informed and stay informed.
References:
www.data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
www.data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool-latest_numbers&series_id-LNS14000000
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA/pdf
www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending
www.jct.gov/publications.html?func-startdown&id-3691
www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
Large Type
and w i d e l y s p a c e d.
Even though this year government employment has declined and private sector jobs increased by over 750,000, the "Pledge" states that the "Only parts of the economy expanding are government and the National Debt." That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though jobless claims are down 8%, the "Pledge" says, "Jobless claims continue to soar." That is obviously FALSE!
Even though it has been proven FALSE, it echoes the claims that the IRS may need to expand by over 16,000 employees.
Even though the CBO, a non-partisan group of experts, states that the stimulus bill will cost $814 billion over 10 years, about $81 billion a year, the "Pledge" claims it will cost $1 Trillion.
Even though tax cuts would not hurt any REAL "Small Business," the "Pledge" claims that half of the small businesses in America would have higher taxes. What they don't tell you is that the GOP has included as "Small Business" are businesses that make over $450 million a year. That's not a small business!
The "Pledge" is full of "Apple Pie" and "Motherhood" terms and Phrases like ". . . to those who yearn to be free" and "America is an idea."
Even though the will of the people is what put Obama in office and gave the Legislature to the Democrats, the "Pledge" states, ". . . an unchecked executive, a compliant legislature and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of 'the people.'" That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though the CBO estimates that "Defensive Medicine" or ordering extra tests as a defensive measure, would only raise the cost of medicine about ½ of 1%, the "Pledge" states "Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as 'defensive medicine.'" So, that part of teh "pledge" is FALSE!
The "Pledge" is like Cotton Candy and Marshmallow Fluff. . . it kinda tastes good for a while but in the end you are gonna get lots of cavities and may even get diabetes. It sounds good but in the end it will only hurt you and cost you more.
Most of the really bad things that the GOP "Pledge" predicts will happen only if the Republicans get control of the legislature in the midterms and/or the Republicans continue to say NO to everything that would be good for the middle class.
The solution to all this is for you to get educated and to educate those around you. Then get out and vote in an intelligent manner. Offer your services on Election Day, to help other Liberals get to the polls.
Get informed and stay informed.
References:
www.data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
www.data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool-latest_numbers&series_id-LNS14000000
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA/pdf
www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending
www.jct.gov/publications.html?func-startdown&id-3691
www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Don't Take The Pledge!
One thing must be understood from the start, jobs are created by DEMAND not by rich guys with lots of money to invest. Rich guys with lots of money to invest put that money where there is a DEMAND for a product or service and where that demand has not already been met and surpassed. Rich guys with lots of money to invest have never created a job and never will. Bill Gates wasn't rich when he started Microsoft, he just found something where there was demand and satisfied that demand, and that created more demand . . . and so it goes.
The way to create demand is to put money in the hands of the masses, the great middle class. If they have money they will find a way to spend it and a product on which to spend it. That in turn creates more jobs to make those products and perform those services.
The way to put more money in the hands of the masses is with a middle class tax cut, or in this case a tax cut continuation.
The way to create demand is to put money in the hands of the masses, the great middle class. If they have money they will find a way to spend it and a product on which to spend it. That in turn creates more jobs to make those products and perform those services.
The way to put more money in the hands of the masses is with a middle class tax cut, or in this case a tax cut continuation.
Now to that "Pledge to America"
The Republican "Pledge" tells you exactly what the Republicans will do when they take over Congress . . . SORTA!
This is a 46 page document with large glossy photos that really comes out to be about 17 pages of real text(large type, widely spaced) and I use the word "Real" very loosely. About the only things I found that were definite were that they would repeal "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," (Obama Care). I just wonder what about "Patient Protection" and "Affordable Care" do the Republicans not like? Oh, that's right, they think that Health Care is a Commodity that should be only for the rich. They also want to put a halt to all unspent TARP funds. You know, the stuff that stopped the decline of the Auto Industry and has created enough new jobs and preserved old ones to stop the skid we were in. By the way, the original TARP was a Bush era and Republican backed plan that they do not now like. But they liked it when it was Bush's plan.
I've gone through this document, as you can at the link above, and here is what I've found. There are 13 full pages of glossy pictures, that's a full 28% of the document. There are 8 title pages with only the title on them, that 17% of the document. There are 2½ pages of graphs, that over 5% of the document. One page is the back cover, one page is the table of contents, 5 pages are either single column or only half covered with words. So, the entire 46 page document has, in very large type and widely spaced, 17 pages of substance(I use that word loosely), or around 37% . . . a little over a third of the "pamphlet" . . . but it is attractive. If I were a judge, I'd give the document an 8 for style and a 2 for substance.
Go take a look at it for yourself. I guarantee, it won't take long for you to read and it has such broadly worded ideas and ideals that you can almost speed read it. Actually, many of the thoughts are very close to those of the White House, just using different words.
My next post will be on the inside of the "Pamphlet." Go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-take-pledge-conclusion.html
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-take-pledge-conclusion.html
Friday, September 24, 2010
The "I" of Newt!
Newton Leroy McPhearson, born June 17, 1943 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania into a family with a nineteen year old father and a sixteen year old mother. The McPhearson Family didn't last very long and his mother married again to Robert Gingrich who adopted Newt. The Gingrich family was military and moved frequently. Newt graduated from High School in Georgia and went to college at Emory University in Atlanta where he graduated with a BA, then later he received an MA, then went to Tulane for a PhD in modern European history.
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The History of the Federal Income Tax, Conclusion
As we have seen, since the beginning in 1913, the Federal Income Tax has been and rightfully so, a progressive tax. By 1918 they realized that the "Progression" should run higher . . . a lot higher. So, it went all the way from a top rate of 7% to a top rate of 77%, and the brackets went from 7 to 56.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)