Ha! So I don't know if anyone has seen that chain email going around about how practical and passive Republicans and how Democrats are somehow the ones trying to cock block every one but I did my own version of that chain letter.
Which side of the fence?
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Democrat doesn't like abortion, or gay weddings he doesn’t have one.
If a Republican doesn't like abortions or gay weddings, he wants them all outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he is called a homo by his peers.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants his food labels to detail what has been processed with animal products
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life...In the Senate or in a Mega Church where he tells other homosexuals that they are going to burn in hell and are the reason Hurricanes happen
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands the law to protect him from bullies and murderers because he is gay.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he blames it on the liberal media and Mexicans
A Democrat wonders how anyone can still believe in trickle down economics and what happened to all the well paying union jobs.
If a Democrat doesn't like a TV show about a Glee club that has gay characters, he switches channels.
Republicans demand that those shows be shut down.
If a Republican is a believer, he want's to add the word "God" to the currency, Pledge of Allegiance, License Plates and Federal Courthouses and have you believe that the separation of Church and State is a myth.
If A Democrat is a believer, he prays in the privacy of his home or at a church like Jesus intended and doesn't hold up school classes or football games so everyone else has to hear him pray.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, it's because he drives his truck to the McDonalds where he stuffs his fat face every day giving him diabetes which raises the cost of health care for the rest of us all the while bitching about "personal responsibility"
A Democrat tries to eliminate the middle men insurance companies that will make health care affordable
If a Democrat reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Republican will delete it because he's "offended".
Ok, so here was the original:
Which side of the fence?
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
Well, I forwarded it.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Friday, October 07, 2011
Why They Are Protesting
I hear a lot of people asking exactly what it is that the occupy Wall Street people are protesting...You have everything from union members, hippies, anarchists and accountants. While there may not be one, unified message coming out of the mouths of everyone this is basically what it comes down to.
I know I have talked about many of these issues before but this is what they are protesting:
In the 1970s, the average CEO made 30 times what an hourly worker made. Today, a CEO makes 300 times what an hourly worker makes.
From 1960 to 1969 the bottom 90% of income earners saw 65% of all wage increases while the top 10% got 12% of the income increases but from 2002-2007 the bottom 90% got 12% of the increase in income while the top 10% got 65% of those increases.
In the 1950's, 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union, it is now at 11% and 6.9% in the private sector.
In 1977 the income share of the top 1% was at about 10% of all wage earners, today it's 24%, back to where it was just before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53% of the economy, by 1988 it only accounted for 39%, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9%.
A study by the universities of Cornell and Massachusetts-Amherst found that India alone may be responsible for up to 700,000 outsourced jobs from America as of 2005
In 2004, average employee compensation in the U.S. fell for the first time in 14 years
Between 1979 and 1999(at the beginning of the outsourcing trend) the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 31 percent of workers displaced by trade, mostly in the manufacturing industries, were not fully re-employed. Only 36 percent of workers soon found jobs that matched or increased their wages
Where as the average salary in manufacturing was $51,000, the average wage in the service industry(medical, hospitality, construction) is now $29,000
Forrester Research conducted a study that found 12,000 to 15,000 service jobs are outsourced from the US per month.
From 1983-1998 the change in net worth for the bottom 40% was -76% but the change for the top 1% was +42% and those numbers are probably far more drastic today.
In the same time period, the change in income from the bottom 20% was -5% while the top 5% saw a 64% increase
Nearly 80% of all economic gains made in the past thirty years have gone to the richest 1%
The capital gains taxes now are 1/3 of what they were under Reagan and the top income tax rate is 50% lower than what it was in 1970
80% of American families own less that $250,000 of wealth, the bottom 20% have nearly 0 wealth
The richest 10% of families own 85% of all outstanding stock and 90% of all business assets.
6 out of the 10 richest people in America never worked a day for their wealth! It was all inheritance which is apparently now a sin to tax that income.
In 2007 Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, announced the closing of 4 plants producing SUVs and trucks, posted a 39 billion dollar loss and increased his pay by 64% to 15.7 million
The top 1% receive 21.8 % of all income and own about 39% of all wealth in the U.S
The top 10% receive 48.5 % of all reported income ('05), own 71 % of all wealth
The top 300,000 income earners in America received more income than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans.
All the other stuff from education costs and health care would be irrelevant if not for these facts.
THIS IS CLASS WARFARE! The class war is real and it was declared on the poor and middle class in the 1980's by Ronald Reagan. Restoring top tax rates (up only 3%) back to where they were 12 years ago is NOT class warfare...If anyone tries to tell you it is, stick their face in a pile of white dog shit!
I know I have talked about many of these issues before but this is what they are protesting:
In the 1970s, the average CEO made 30 times what an hourly worker made. Today, a CEO makes 300 times what an hourly worker makes.
From 1960 to 1969 the bottom 90% of income earners saw 65% of all wage increases while the top 10% got 12% of the income increases but from 2002-2007 the bottom 90% got 12% of the increase in income while the top 10% got 65% of those increases.
In the 1950's, 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union, it is now at 11% and 6.9% in the private sector.
In 1977 the income share of the top 1% was at about 10% of all wage earners, today it's 24%, back to where it was just before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53% of the economy, by 1988 it only accounted for 39%, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9%.
A study by the universities of Cornell and Massachusetts-Amherst found that India alone may be responsible for up to 700,000 outsourced jobs from America as of 2005
In 2004, average employee compensation in the U.S. fell for the first time in 14 years
Between 1979 and 1999(at the beginning of the outsourcing trend) the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 31 percent of workers displaced by trade, mostly in the manufacturing industries, were not fully re-employed. Only 36 percent of workers soon found jobs that matched or increased their wages
Where as the average salary in manufacturing was $51,000, the average wage in the service industry(medical, hospitality, construction) is now $29,000
Forrester Research conducted a study that found 12,000 to 15,000 service jobs are outsourced from the US per month.
From 1983-1998 the change in net worth for the bottom 40% was -76% but the change for the top 1% was +42% and those numbers are probably far more drastic today.
In the same time period, the change in income from the bottom 20% was -5% while the top 5% saw a 64% increase
Nearly 80% of all economic gains made in the past thirty years have gone to the richest 1%
The capital gains taxes now are 1/3 of what they were under Reagan and the top income tax rate is 50% lower than what it was in 1970
80% of American families own less that $250,000 of wealth, the bottom 20% have nearly 0 wealth
The richest 10% of families own 85% of all outstanding stock and 90% of all business assets.
6 out of the 10 richest people in America never worked a day for their wealth! It was all inheritance which is apparently now a sin to tax that income.
In 2007 Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, announced the closing of 4 plants producing SUVs and trucks, posted a 39 billion dollar loss and increased his pay by 64% to 15.7 million
The top 1% receive 21.8 % of all income and own about 39% of all wealth in the U.S
The top 10% receive 48.5 % of all reported income ('05), own 71 % of all wealth
The top 300,000 income earners in America received more income than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans.
All the other stuff from education costs and health care would be irrelevant if not for these facts.
THIS IS CLASS WARFARE! The class war is real and it was declared on the poor and middle class in the 1980's by Ronald Reagan. Restoring top tax rates (up only 3%) back to where they were 12 years ago is NOT class warfare...If anyone tries to tell you it is, stick their face in a pile of white dog shit!
Rick Perry Is Gay
Why not? If Obama is a socialist Muslim...
I don't see how this is any different than what he usually says but...
I don't see how this is any different than what he usually says but...
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Number of American's Who Don't Pay Taxes, Blah, Blah
Find any guy with a misspelled protest sign, a gun around his waist, a teabagger hat and either a staring eagle or Don't Tread on Me shirt and he will probably tell you that the number of people who don't pay income taxes has "doubled" since 1970 or whenever. Well, for one, it hasn't actually doubled but at it's lowest point to it's highest point it is close. And of course, what they won't tell you is that of the 235,413 taxpayers earning $1 million or more in 2009, 1,470 of them were part of that number that paid 0 taxes! But that's ok because they are rich and the government should only take money from people who can't afford it.
What they think is that taxes on the rich (and even on themselves) have gone up and up since the 1970's (but they haven't) and the people on welfare/not working has just gone off the charts and there is some sort of wealth and income redistribution network of Black Shirts who beat rich people for their hard earned money that they all worked so hard for and hand it over to people who watch Jerry Springer all day and feed their kids Flamin' Hot Cheetos they bought with their food stamps. Some more informed people will blame it on child tax credits and even mortgage deductions and just say that a family with a house and kids who earn $50,000 per year should still pay federal income taxes but most will blame it on the scenario I described above and scream about how unfair the system was to the "job creators(wink, wink)"and those with personal responsibility(to not be born poor and black). Yes, you have to love the irony of the "pull yourself up from your bootstrap" Republicans crying about how something isn't fair...But that is beside the point. They also complain that it isn't fair that 1% of the population pays 39% of all taxes and that over 40% of the population has little to NO tax liability(though they apparently think it's completely fair for corporations to not pay taxes).
Well, here is the reality of all that: Yes, someone making $50,000 per year with a kid and mortgage gets a tax write off on both the kids and the mortgage. But what they don't tell you is that a billionaire with a Summer home, Ski Chalet and year round home gets 3 mortgage deductions...Up to $1 million per home. And a couple earning up to $110,000 per year still gets a child tax credit as well. But with the mortgage deductions, the higher your tax bracket, the more of a credit you get and of course you get a bigger deduction in taxes on your $1 million dollar home, than a guy does on his $200,000 home...The the richer you are and the more homes you have, the more you benefit from this tax credit. But that isn't really why fewer numbers of people are paying a higher percentage of our taxes. That was just to show you that rich people get some of the same deductions as everyone else, it's just that they make so much more, that more of their income is taxable...And I don't know about you but I think that would be a good problem to have. I would gladly keep 85% of $4 million dollars per year (cause the rich really only pay an effective tax rate between 10.5-16%) than 100% of $50,000. So anyway, this is one of the reasons the tax liability for many people have decreased...These tax credits and write offs...But the rich get them too so fair is fair...And the richer you are and more houses you have the more you benefit from these credits and then these properties can generate even more income for you making you that much richer....And what happens when you make more money? You pay more in taxes. Duh!
And that's my next point. One of the main reason the richest 1% of this country has been paying a larger share of the tax bill is just that, they are making more income! The amount of people paying or not paying taxes is completely irrelevant. When they say over 40% of the people pay no taxes that sounds staggering but wouldn't it be more staggering if I said 99% of the population paid only 1% of all taxes and the richest 1% paid 99% of all taxes!! That sounds like a socialist utopia right?? Well, actually, it would be a capitalist utopia because what that would tell me is that 1% of the population earned 99% of all income...And you thought it wasn't fair when they had to pay 99% all those taxes!!! You can't get water from a stone! 80% of American families own less than $250,000 of wealth, the bottom 20% have nearly 0 wealth. However, the top 10% receive 48.5 % of all reported income ('05) and own 71 % of all wealth.
Well that is what is happening in our country. Beginning in the late 70s and early 80s era of Reaganomic union busting, the income for the wealthiest American's in the country started to increase dramatically...The income for the middle class stayed relatively stagnant even though they got more educated, became more productive and worked longer hours and went further in debt...To rich bankers. So again, do you want to talk about fair?? But that is why the rich continue to pay a larger percentage of taxes; because they pay themselves more and the rest of us less.
Here are the numbers to support the fact that the reason the rich are picking up a larger share of the taxes paid simply because they are paying themselves so much more and poor people whose jobs got outsourced by the rich guy, so he could get richer, are no longer earning enough to owe income taxes.
In the 1970s, the average CEO made 30 times what an hourly worker made. Today, a CEO makes 300 times what an hourly worker makes.
From 1960 to 1969 the bottom 90% of income earners saw 65% of all wage increases while the top 10% got 12% of the income increases but from 2002-2007 the bottom 90% got 12% of the increase in income while the top 10% got 65% of those increases.
In the 1950's, 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union, it is now at 11% and 6.9% in the private sector.
4.2 million fewer taxpayers reported wages in 2009 than in 2007; the jobs just aren't there anymore and the ones that are, are at retail stores selling the products made in China the employee used to make himself and thus this job pays far less and typically comes with fewer benefits.
In 1977 the income share of the top 1% was at about 10% of all wage earners, today it's 24%, back to where it was just before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53% of the economy, by 1988 it only accounted for 39%, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9%.
A study by the universities of Cornell and Massachusetts-Amherst found that India alone may be responsible for up to 700,000 outsourced jobs from America as of 2005
Between 1979 and 1999(at the beginning of the outsourcing trend) the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 31 percent of workers displaced by trade, mostly in the manufacturing industries, were not fully re-employed. Only 36 percent of workers soon found jobs that matched or increased their wages
In 2004, average employee compensation in the U.S. fell for the first time in 14 years
Where as the average salary in manufacturing was $51,000, the average wage in the service industry(medical, hospitality, construction) is now $29,000
Forrester Research conducted a study that found 12,000 to 15,000 service jobs are outsourced from the US per month.
From 1983-1998 the change in net worth for the bottom 40% was -76% but the change for the top 1% was +42% and those numbers are probably far more drastic today.
In the same time period, the change in income from the bottom 20% was -5% while the top 5% saw a 64% increase
Nearly 80% of all economic gains made in the past thirty years have gone to the richest 1%
The capital gains taxes now are 1/3 of what they were under Reagan and the top income tax rate is 50% lower than what it was in 1970. So the tax rate on the rich has certainly not increased.
What this data shows is:
A. The rich are paying themselves more and paying their employees less and therefore the taxable income base has shifted towards the ones making the most money.
B. The rich are exporting once well paying jobs and the savings is going into their pockets and not necessarily being passed on to the consumer (are your Levi jeans and tennis shoes any cheaper now than when they were made in the US?)
C. The tax rates on the rich have not gone up and the American worker didn't just decide to not work and stay at home and watch The View, they simply have no job to go to.
The bottom line is that the number of people paying or not paying taxes is completely irrelevant. If the rich want to pay a smaller percentage of America's tax liability, they need can merely stop earning so much income that was once paid to their employees who used to be part of the tax base but since they now no longer can afford to live off their incomes,or their jobs outsourced all together, they have thus been removed from the tax base.
Or you could use the restaurant analogy: Three guys go to a restaurant, one got valet parking, orders a surf and turf, a $100 bottle of wine a desert and brandy...The other two took the bus, ordered a burrito and PBR, the check comes, it's $200....How should this check be split?
The people complaining about such a small percentage of people picking up 40% of the tax burden would tell you that it isn't fair that a guy who only only represented 1/3 of the group should have to pay for 75% of the meal....A Democrat would tell you the guy who got the most should have to pay the most and a Republican would say that everyone should pay 1/3 of the bill.
It's pretty simple when you think about it.
So the next time some Koch sucker or Teabagger tells you the tax code "isn't fair", give him a good cock punching and tell him that it's only because the incomes in this country aren't "fair".
What they think is that taxes on the rich (and even on themselves) have gone up and up since the 1970's (but they haven't) and the people on welfare/not working has just gone off the charts and there is some sort of wealth and income redistribution network of Black Shirts who beat rich people for their hard earned money that they all worked so hard for and hand it over to people who watch Jerry Springer all day and feed their kids Flamin' Hot Cheetos they bought with their food stamps. Some more informed people will blame it on child tax credits and even mortgage deductions and just say that a family with a house and kids who earn $50,000 per year should still pay federal income taxes but most will blame it on the scenario I described above and scream about how unfair the system was to the "job creators(wink, wink)"and those with personal responsibility(to not be born poor and black). Yes, you have to love the irony of the "pull yourself up from your bootstrap" Republicans crying about how something isn't fair...But that is beside the point. They also complain that it isn't fair that 1% of the population pays 39% of all taxes and that over 40% of the population has little to NO tax liability(though they apparently think it's completely fair for corporations to not pay taxes).
Well, here is the reality of all that: Yes, someone making $50,000 per year with a kid and mortgage gets a tax write off on both the kids and the mortgage. But what they don't tell you is that a billionaire with a Summer home, Ski Chalet and year round home gets 3 mortgage deductions...Up to $1 million per home. And a couple earning up to $110,000 per year still gets a child tax credit as well. But with the mortgage deductions, the higher your tax bracket, the more of a credit you get and of course you get a bigger deduction in taxes on your $1 million dollar home, than a guy does on his $200,000 home...The the richer you are and the more homes you have, the more you benefit from this tax credit. But that isn't really why fewer numbers of people are paying a higher percentage of our taxes. That was just to show you that rich people get some of the same deductions as everyone else, it's just that they make so much more, that more of their income is taxable...And I don't know about you but I think that would be a good problem to have. I would gladly keep 85% of $4 million dollars per year (cause the rich really only pay an effective tax rate between 10.5-16%) than 100% of $50,000. So anyway, this is one of the reasons the tax liability for many people have decreased...These tax credits and write offs...But the rich get them too so fair is fair...And the richer you are and more houses you have the more you benefit from these credits and then these properties can generate even more income for you making you that much richer....And what happens when you make more money? You pay more in taxes. Duh!
And that's my next point. One of the main reason the richest 1% of this country has been paying a larger share of the tax bill is just that, they are making more income! The amount of people paying or not paying taxes is completely irrelevant. When they say over 40% of the people pay no taxes that sounds staggering but wouldn't it be more staggering if I said 99% of the population paid only 1% of all taxes and the richest 1% paid 99% of all taxes!! That sounds like a socialist utopia right?? Well, actually, it would be a capitalist utopia because what that would tell me is that 1% of the population earned 99% of all income...And you thought it wasn't fair when they had to pay 99% all those taxes!!! You can't get water from a stone! 80% of American families own less than $250,000 of wealth, the bottom 20% have nearly 0 wealth. However, the top 10% receive 48.5 % of all reported income ('05) and own 71 % of all wealth.
Well that is what is happening in our country. Beginning in the late 70s and early 80s era of Reaganomic union busting, the income for the wealthiest American's in the country started to increase dramatically...The income for the middle class stayed relatively stagnant even though they got more educated, became more productive and worked longer hours and went further in debt...To rich bankers. So again, do you want to talk about fair?? But that is why the rich continue to pay a larger percentage of taxes; because they pay themselves more and the rest of us less.
Here are the numbers to support the fact that the reason the rich are picking up a larger share of the taxes paid simply because they are paying themselves so much more and poor people whose jobs got outsourced by the rich guy, so he could get richer, are no longer earning enough to owe income taxes.
In the 1970s, the average CEO made 30 times what an hourly worker made. Today, a CEO makes 300 times what an hourly worker makes.
From 1960 to 1969 the bottom 90% of income earners saw 65% of all wage increases while the top 10% got 12% of the income increases but from 2002-2007 the bottom 90% got 12% of the increase in income while the top 10% got 65% of those increases.
In the 1950's, 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union, it is now at 11% and 6.9% in the private sector.
4.2 million fewer taxpayers reported wages in 2009 than in 2007; the jobs just aren't there anymore and the ones that are, are at retail stores selling the products made in China the employee used to make himself and thus this job pays far less and typically comes with fewer benefits.
In 1977 the income share of the top 1% was at about 10% of all wage earners, today it's 24%, back to where it was just before the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53% of the economy, by 1988 it only accounted for 39%, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9%.
A study by the universities of Cornell and Massachusetts-Amherst found that India alone may be responsible for up to 700,000 outsourced jobs from America as of 2005
Between 1979 and 1999(at the beginning of the outsourcing trend) the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 31 percent of workers displaced by trade, mostly in the manufacturing industries, were not fully re-employed. Only 36 percent of workers soon found jobs that matched or increased their wages
In 2004, average employee compensation in the U.S. fell for the first time in 14 years
Where as the average salary in manufacturing was $51,000, the average wage in the service industry(medical, hospitality, construction) is now $29,000
Forrester Research conducted a study that found 12,000 to 15,000 service jobs are outsourced from the US per month.
From 1983-1998 the change in net worth for the bottom 40% was -76% but the change for the top 1% was +42% and those numbers are probably far more drastic today.
In the same time period, the change in income from the bottom 20% was -5% while the top 5% saw a 64% increase
Nearly 80% of all economic gains made in the past thirty years have gone to the richest 1%
The capital gains taxes now are 1/3 of what they were under Reagan and the top income tax rate is 50% lower than what it was in 1970. So the tax rate on the rich has certainly not increased.
What this data shows is:
A. The rich are paying themselves more and paying their employees less and therefore the taxable income base has shifted towards the ones making the most money.
B. The rich are exporting once well paying jobs and the savings is going into their pockets and not necessarily being passed on to the consumer (are your Levi jeans and tennis shoes any cheaper now than when they were made in the US?)
C. The tax rates on the rich have not gone up and the American worker didn't just decide to not work and stay at home and watch The View, they simply have no job to go to.
The bottom line is that the number of people paying or not paying taxes is completely irrelevant. If the rich want to pay a smaller percentage of America's tax liability, they need can merely stop earning so much income that was once paid to their employees who used to be part of the tax base but since they now no longer can afford to live off their incomes,or their jobs outsourced all together, they have thus been removed from the tax base.
Or you could use the restaurant analogy: Three guys go to a restaurant, one got valet parking, orders a surf and turf, a $100 bottle of wine a desert and brandy...The other two took the bus, ordered a burrito and PBR, the check comes, it's $200....How should this check be split?
The people complaining about such a small percentage of people picking up 40% of the tax burden would tell you that it isn't fair that a guy who only only represented 1/3 of the group should have to pay for 75% of the meal....A Democrat would tell you the guy who got the most should have to pay the most and a Republican would say that everyone should pay 1/3 of the bill.
It's pretty simple when you think about it.
So the next time some Koch sucker or Teabagger tells you the tax code "isn't fair", give him a good cock punching and tell him that it's only because the incomes in this country aren't "fair".
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Rick Perry and His Lies About Climate Change
Rick Perry:
"...For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned. . . .
And it’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it."
Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University:
"There are dozens of credible atmospheric scientists in Texas at institutions like Rice, UT, and Texas A&M, and I can confidently say that none agree with Gov. Perry’s views on the science of climate change. This is a particularly unfortunate situation given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse."
The others who disagree with Perry and let's consider their expertise and education vs. his:
Jay Banner, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences and director, Environmental Science Institute, The University of Texas at Austin
Donald Blankenship, senior research scientist, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
Kenneth Bowman, atmospheric sciences department head, Texas A&M University
Sarah D. Brooks, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Ginny Catania, assistant professor, Earth Surface and Hydrologic Processes, The University of Texas at Austin
Ping Chang, professor of atmospheric sciences and oceanography, Texas A&M University, and director, Texas Center for Climate Studies
Don Collins, professor and director of environmental programs in geosciences, Texas A&M University
Don Conlee, instructional associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Kerry Cook, professor, Climate Systems Science, The University of Texas at Austin
Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Robert Dickinson, professor of geological sciences, The University of Texas at Austin
André Droxler, professor of earth science and director of the Center for the Study of Environment and Society, Rice University
Robert Duce, distinguished professor emeritus, Departments of Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University
Craig Epifanio, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Rong Fu, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
Charles Jackson, research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Rob Korty, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Katharine Hayhoe, associate professor and director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
Mark Lemmon, professor of planetary sciences, Texas A&M University
Shaima L. Nasiri, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
John Nielsen-Gammon, professor, Texas A&M University and Texas State Climatologist
Gerald North, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography, Texas A&M University
Richard Orville, professor and director, Cooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological Studies, Texas A&M University
R. Lee Panetta, professor of atmospheric sciences and mathematics, Texas A&M University
Jud Partin, postdoctoral fellow, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Terry Quinn, research professor and Director, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
R. Saravanan, professor, Texas A&M University
Gunnar W. Schade, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Courtney Schumacher, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Russ Schumacher, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Istvan Szunyogh, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Fred Taylor, senior research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Michael Tobis, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Ned Vizy, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Thomas Wilheit, research professor, Texas A&M University
Ping Yang, professor and holder of the David Bullock Harris Chair in Geosciences, Texas A&M University
Renyi Zhang, Professor, director of the Center for Atmospheric Chemistry and the Environment, and Holder of the Harold J. Haynes Chair in Geosciences, Texas A&M University
But what do they know? They are making $40 Billion per quarter...Wait, no, that's Exxon...My bad...Now we know where the real money is and who has the biggest incentive to lie.
"...For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned. . . .
And it’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it."
Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University:
"There are dozens of credible atmospheric scientists in Texas at institutions like Rice, UT, and Texas A&M, and I can confidently say that none agree with Gov. Perry’s views on the science of climate change. This is a particularly unfortunate situation given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse."
The others who disagree with Perry and let's consider their expertise and education vs. his:
Jay Banner, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences and director, Environmental Science Institute, The University of Texas at Austin
Donald Blankenship, senior research scientist, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
Kenneth Bowman, atmospheric sciences department head, Texas A&M University
Sarah D. Brooks, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Ginny Catania, assistant professor, Earth Surface and Hydrologic Processes, The University of Texas at Austin
Ping Chang, professor of atmospheric sciences and oceanography, Texas A&M University, and director, Texas Center for Climate Studies
Don Collins, professor and director of environmental programs in geosciences, Texas A&M University
Don Conlee, instructional associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Kerry Cook, professor, Climate Systems Science, The University of Texas at Austin
Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Robert Dickinson, professor of geological sciences, The University of Texas at Austin
André Droxler, professor of earth science and director of the Center for the Study of Environment and Society, Rice University
Robert Duce, distinguished professor emeritus, Departments of Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University
Craig Epifanio, associate professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Rong Fu, professor, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
Charles Jackson, research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Rob Korty, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
Katharine Hayhoe, associate professor and director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
Mark Lemmon, professor of planetary sciences, Texas A&M University
Shaima L. Nasiri, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
John Nielsen-Gammon, professor, Texas A&M University and Texas State Climatologist
Gerald North, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography, Texas A&M University
Richard Orville, professor and director, Cooperative Institute for Applied Meteorological Studies, Texas A&M University
R. Lee Panetta, professor of atmospheric sciences and mathematics, Texas A&M University
Jud Partin, postdoctoral fellow, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Terry Quinn, research professor and Director, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
R. Saravanan, professor, Texas A&M University
Gunnar W. Schade, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Courtney Schumacher, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Russ Schumacher, assistant professor, Texas A&M University
Istvan Szunyogh, associate professor, Texas A&M University
Fred Taylor, senior research scientist, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Michael Tobis, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Ned Vizy, research science associate, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin
Thomas Wilheit, research professor, Texas A&M University
Ping Yang, professor and holder of the David Bullock Harris Chair in Geosciences, Texas A&M University
Renyi Zhang, Professor, director of the Center for Atmospheric Chemistry and the Environment, and Holder of the Harold J. Haynes Chair in Geosciences, Texas A&M University
But what do they know? They are making $40 Billion per quarter...Wait, no, that's Exxon...My bad...Now we know where the real money is and who has the biggest incentive to lie.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Atheists: Hated more than gay Mexican, Jews.
It is no coincidence that the Myth Busters guys are atheists...After all, they bust myths for a living...Why not start with the biggest myth of them all?
And how can the most mistrusted group be the only one that actually wants to see proof of something before they believe and follow it?? Shouldn't atheists be the ones mistrusting religious people?? I mean, they are the ones who will believe anything written in a religious book and willing to fly planes into buildings and shoot up Summer camps because they think that's what an invisible man in the sky wants them to do.
It's just a shame that psychology doesn't predate religion...The first religious people who though magic men in the sky were talking to them would have been able to receive the help they needed and we could have nipped this shit in the bud.
PS: Ha! I just realized I actually know a gay, Mexican, Jew and he's probably an atheist...Though I suppose I should ask.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debt Ceiling Grandstanding
The truth is, the Republican campaign donors are rich...As are most Republican Congressmen. The US defaulting will not stop the flood of contributions from oil companies or the Koch brothers. Their lives will not be affected by this; Yours will. The Republicans maxed out Daddy's credit card and now refuse to even pay the interest on their debt and instead, make it out to be Obama's fault. They are the ones who are not compromising. This debt limit increase is not so "Obama can spend more" or "give handouts to fat black women in the projects who had too many kids they couldn't afford". The debt limit needs to be increased to pay the interest on Bush's debt created by his $2.2 trillion dollar tax cuts and his 2 wars and shitty economy.
The Republican's just had a steak and lobster dinner and walked out without paying the bill. Period, end of story.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Flooding, Failed Infrastructure + Joblessness
Proof that we don't need the big, evil, Socialist government raising taxes on millionaires to invest in infrastructure jobs. Sounds like a no brainer to me...Spend millions on evacuation and clean up whilst shutting down all economic activity in these areas, lose the power generated from these nuclear plants or hire a bunch of people that will stimulate the economy and save property, lives, to build levees and rebuild dams, rivers,etc. Which would you rather do? They both cost money but one helps the economy and people, the other doesn't. One could be paid for by taxing rich people.
And it's also proof that the climate isn't changing at all...This is completely normal...For Noah.
And it's also proof that the climate isn't changing at all...This is completely normal...For Noah.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
What He Said
my-take-bible-condemns-a-lot-so-why-focus-on-homosexuality
What he says is what I have been saying since forever ago. Jesus never addresses homosexuality and when it is condemned in the Old Testament, it's on the same page where it also condemns eating shellfish and having sex with your wife on her period. And then of course the only place it is addressed in the New Testament, by Paul, not Jesus, it only condemns male homosexuality and then in the same breath condemns short hair on Women and long hair on Men. And as he states, in many places in the Bible divorce is condemned by several people including Jesus yet the Bible belt, which is the most homophobic part of the country, leads the nation in divorce rates. So, there is a lot of hypocrisy out there.
What he says is what I have been saying since forever ago. Jesus never addresses homosexuality and when it is condemned in the Old Testament, it's on the same page where it also condemns eating shellfish and having sex with your wife on her period. And then of course the only place it is addressed in the New Testament, by Paul, not Jesus, it only condemns male homosexuality and then in the same breath condemns short hair on Women and long hair on Men. And as he states, in many places in the Bible divorce is condemned by several people including Jesus yet the Bible belt, which is the most homophobic part of the country, leads the nation in divorce rates. So, there is a lot of hypocrisy out there.
Friday, June 17, 2011
“Barack Obama has failed America"
“Barack Obama has failed America”
That's what Mitt Romney said in a recent debate. He said so referring mainly to the economy because you know, the two wars Bush started which drive up oil prices and the uprising in the Middle East also, driving up oil prices, is all Barack Obama's fault. Unemployment was up again slightly for the month and so after 2 1/2 years in office, apparently everything that is wrong with America is the result of Obama's actions.
Here is why I can't wait for one of those Youtube debates again or one where citizens get to make of the questions because what I would ask Romney and each of the other candidates would be what specific policy or piece of legislation has Obama signed resulted in a failure that has ruined America...The only sound you will hear will be crickets.
Again, the debt, deficit, wars, were all inherited by Obama as was a much worse economy than what we have today. I certainly don't want to go back to Oct 08-Jan 09 which was a result of 8 years of a Republican President and years of Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses (yes I realize Clinton signed a lot of those bills) deregulating the financial and housing markets and encouraging jobs to be sent over seas while irresponsibly lowering taxes and lowering them on the rich more than anyone else which has had the exact opposite affect they said it would have. As it turns out tax cuts don't pay for themselves and when you cut taxes on rich people, they don't go out on a hiring spree, they get greedier and send your jobs to China and then have more money to hire fancy accountants to find more tax loopholes.
So Republicans, what specific policies has Obama instituted and what has been their dire and drastic effects that have failed America?
Here is the way I see it, at the end of 2000 before Bush took office the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 10,787. At the end of his term at the end of 2008, it was down to 8776. Today it is around 12000.
Housing starts in December of 2008 were at 549,000, in May they were at 612,000. Not great, but better than where Bush and the Republicans got us.
These numbers don't tell the entire story but I feel if McCain and Ms. Dumb Dumb and the Republicans were still in charge, continuing their policies of letting the banks and auto companies fall whilst lowering taxes on rich people and expanding the debt and starting more wars, we would be in the midst of a depression.
That's what Mitt Romney said in a recent debate. He said so referring mainly to the economy because you know, the two wars Bush started which drive up oil prices and the uprising in the Middle East also, driving up oil prices, is all Barack Obama's fault. Unemployment was up again slightly for the month and so after 2 1/2 years in office, apparently everything that is wrong with America is the result of Obama's actions.
Here is why I can't wait for one of those Youtube debates again or one where citizens get to make of the questions because what I would ask Romney and each of the other candidates would be what specific policy or piece of legislation has Obama signed resulted in a failure that has ruined America...The only sound you will hear will be crickets.
Again, the debt, deficit, wars, were all inherited by Obama as was a much worse economy than what we have today. I certainly don't want to go back to Oct 08-Jan 09 which was a result of 8 years of a Republican President and years of Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses (yes I realize Clinton signed a lot of those bills) deregulating the financial and housing markets and encouraging jobs to be sent over seas while irresponsibly lowering taxes and lowering them on the rich more than anyone else which has had the exact opposite affect they said it would have. As it turns out tax cuts don't pay for themselves and when you cut taxes on rich people, they don't go out on a hiring spree, they get greedier and send your jobs to China and then have more money to hire fancy accountants to find more tax loopholes.
So Republicans, what specific policies has Obama instituted and what has been their dire and drastic effects that have failed America?
Here is the way I see it, at the end of 2000 before Bush took office the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 10,787. At the end of his term at the end of 2008, it was down to 8776. Today it is around 12000.
Housing starts in December of 2008 were at 549,000, in May they were at 612,000. Not great, but better than where Bush and the Republicans got us.
These numbers don't tell the entire story but I feel if McCain and Ms. Dumb Dumb and the Republicans were still in charge, continuing their policies of letting the banks and auto companies fall whilst lowering taxes on rich people and expanding the debt and starting more wars, we would be in the midst of a depression.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Historical ignorance isn't a problem if you just rewrite history
This is not the first time you have heard about this I am sure but Palin fans are taking a page from the Texas School board to literally rewrite history to fit their conservative and or ignorant (often synonymous) view of history.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/sarah-palin-followers-trying-to-change-the-paul-revere-wikipedia-page
"What are you taking away from your visit?" GOTCHA!!
She has to be the dumbest person ever to run for President.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/sarah-palin-followers-trying-to-change-the-paul-revere-wikipedia-page
"What are you taking away from your visit?" GOTCHA!!
She has to be the dumbest person ever to run for President.
Monday, June 06, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Romney Lies
Well, Joseph Smith wouldn't be too proud of Mitt Romney right now for lying...I though lies made the baby Jesus cry??
Yes Romney, in his first campaign speech, said the economy was worse now that when Obama took office...Which everyone, even Sarah Palin knows, isn't even remotely true. The fact is, that after 8 years of a Republican President, mostly under a Republican controlled Congress, our economy hadn't been worse in over 75 years. Obama is the one who took us out of that and we are now on the road to recovery. The economy is ADDING jobs (slowly) not losing them like in 08.
The other lie he said was this, "A few months into office, he (Obama) traveled around the globe to apologize for America." Though we probably should apologize to many peoples of the Earth, especially Iraq, this did not happen. Obama did talk about how he wasn't going to be like his predecessor who invaded countries for no cause, gave up on Bin Laden, crashed the economy and tortured people. Bush is the one who should be apologizing, not Obama.
He also said foreclosures are at a record level which is false. As is Romney's lie that Obama has raised taxes on entrepreneurs and businesses which can't even be denied even in a Republican fantasy land...He didn't even get to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted to...I wish I could say that he did but that has not happened.
These are the first words out of his mouth from his new campaign and it's pretty much all bullshit. Is this someone you can trust?
Just tell the truth! What are you afraid of Romney?
Yes Romney, in his first campaign speech, said the economy was worse now that when Obama took office...Which everyone, even Sarah Palin knows, isn't even remotely true. The fact is, that after 8 years of a Republican President, mostly under a Republican controlled Congress, our economy hadn't been worse in over 75 years. Obama is the one who took us out of that and we are now on the road to recovery. The economy is ADDING jobs (slowly) not losing them like in 08.
The other lie he said was this, "A few months into office, he (Obama) traveled around the globe to apologize for America." Though we probably should apologize to many peoples of the Earth, especially Iraq, this did not happen. Obama did talk about how he wasn't going to be like his predecessor who invaded countries for no cause, gave up on Bin Laden, crashed the economy and tortured people. Bush is the one who should be apologizing, not Obama.
He also said foreclosures are at a record level which is false. As is Romney's lie that Obama has raised taxes on entrepreneurs and businesses which can't even be denied even in a Republican fantasy land...He didn't even get to raise taxes on the rich like he wanted to...I wish I could say that he did but that has not happened.
These are the first words out of his mouth from his new campaign and it's pretty much all bullshit. Is this someone you can trust?
Just tell the truth! What are you afraid of Romney?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)