Thursday, February 16, 2012

And You Thought Catholics and Muslims Were Crazy...

From CNN:
Mormons apologize for posthumous baptisms of Weisenthal's Parents.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has apologized for "a serious breach of protocol" in which the parents of the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal were posthumously baptized as Mormons.

The church also acknowledged that three relatives of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel were entered into the genealogy database, though not referred for baptism.

Asher Wiesenthal and Rosa Rapp were baptised in proxy ceremonies in temples in Utah and Arizona, according to the database records discovered by researcher Helen Radkey in Salt Lake City.

The Wiesenthal baptisms violated a 1995 pact in which the church agreed to stop baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims.

"We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names," said church spokesman Michael Purdy.

"These submissions were clearly against the policy of the church. We consider this a serious breach of our protocol and we have suspended indefinitely this person's ability to access our genealogy records."

Mormons believe that they may be baptized by proxy for deceased ancestors who never had that opportunity.

Church members, however, are supposed to request such baptisms only for their own relatives, Purdy said.

The agreement over Holocaust victims came about after it was discovered that hundreds and thousands of names had been entered into Mormon records.

Jewish leaders said it was sacrilegious for Mormons to suggest Jews on their own were not worthy enough to receive God's eternal blessing. Radkey, who has been tracking Mormon genealogy records for a while for people who ought not to be there, said she inadvertently stumbled upon the Wiesenthal name a few weeks ago. Among others people she discovered had been baptized by proxy is President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the baptisms.

Wiesenthal's father died in combat in World War I. His mother perished at the Belzec concentration camp in 1942. Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal died in 2005 after spending years hunting down Nazis.

"We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon Temples," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who participated in many of the high-level meetings between Jews and Mormon officials.

"Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon Church dating back to 1995 that focused on the unwanted and unwarranted posthumous baptisms of Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust," he said in a written statement.

He expressed gratitude to Radkey for "exposing the latest outrage."

Radkey also found the names of relatives of Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, author and Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

"In this case, the Wiesel family names were not submitted for baptisms but simply entered into a genealogical database," Purdy said. "Our system would have rejected those names had they been submitted."

Purdy said it was "distressing" that church members had violated policy and regretted that "an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention."

Radkey said the church makes such breaches possible because any member can submit a name not connected to their own family.

"There are way too many entries slipping through the cracks, including Jewish Holocaust victims," she said. "It's (the Mormons') belief to save the dead that is causing the problem."

Wiesel, meanwhile, told the Huffington Post that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, should speak to his own church and tell them to stop the practice of proxy baptisms on Jews.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor


The Romney family even posthumously baptized Ann Romney's atheist Father.

I mean, wow! How fucking crazy can you get?

Aside from the mere craziness of this and the belief that you can "baptize" someone after they die and they can choose accept it when they get to heaven (and that there is a heaven), let's examine the word baptize...I understand Catholics have a different interpretation of what baptize means and apparently Mormons are just making it up as they go but I was always under the impression that it meant you had to take an actual person (living presumably) and dunk them under water to spiritually cleanse them. And if spirits leave the body upon dying...How were the Mormons able to retrieve those spirits/souls??

And my question to any Mormon would be, HOW DO YOU KNOW?? Who was it that came up with this insane idea and why would you believe such nonsense?? And if you can baptize the dead, can I unbaptize dead Mormons? Or even unbaptize the dead people you baptized...And if you say "no"...Well, how do you know God didn't tell me I could in some gold tablets he gave me at the beach the other day??

And the other side of this is, WHO GIVES A SHIT!! Why would anyone care that Mormons and their phony religion are somehow changing the destiny of dead Jews or whomever...Jews don't believe this nonsense so why would they care any more than if a Wiccan somewhere was cursing the dead? And let's pretend it's all real; like any life long Jew is going to get to heaven and decide at the pearly gates that he is going to convert to Mormonism?? Apparently Mormons haven't met many Jews. But then again on the flip side, what if as it turns out, Mormonism IS the only way to get to heaven...Wouldn't these dead Jews (who invented this god in the first place) want to at least have that option on the table when it came down to their judgment day? I mean, why not...It's like an atheist doubling down on his death bed and accepting Christ or whatever...What harm could it do just in case?

Wow, look at me trying to make sense out of religion....I feel like a dog chasing it's tail.

Friday, February 03, 2012

Numbers Don't Lie...Republicans Do!

Photobucket

And as I laid out in a previous post:

-The stock market is up over 40% from it's lows the year Obama took office (from 8776 at the end of 08 to 12834 today) and up over 15% from the day Bush took office.

-Housing starts in December of 2008 were at 549,000, in November 2011 they were at 685,000. Not great, but a 24% increase and better than where Bush and the Republicans got us.

-So far, Obama has increased the debt 26% from his first budget. Bush increased the debt 110% and Reagan increased it 180%

-After saving the auto industry, something Romney wanted to see fail, GM is once again the #1 auto maker in the world.

And let's not forget about his strong leadership skills with regards to foreign policy and getting Bin Laden, getting American hostages rescued in Somalia without the loss of American life and his defiance to Iran by sending the Navy through the Straights of Hormuz when Iran specifically told him not to and finally ending the Iraq war. And of course the fact that there have been many thwarted but no successful terrorist attacks on American soil under his administration.

Can we really afford to go back to the cut tax and spend, shoot first ask questions later policies of the Republicans who want to take their cues from Communist Dictators and Communistic policies of forcing women to become baby dispensers?

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Faux News Would Prefer if Hollywood Would Go Back to Using Poor Black Men as their Go To Villains Since Rich White Guys Never do Anything Evil



The Muppet's response:


So apparently, the only appropriate and realistic villain in this world can be Muslim's of any sort and poor, black, urban men. Not only would I say that the Muppets movie was actually depicting someone who is a bigger threat to them than Saddam Hussein or Adam and Steve wanting to get married in San Francisco but IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE!!! Guess what? Pigs and frogs don't really talk, wear clothes and drive cars!!!So maybe this movie is just a fictional kids story/fantasy. And not only that, is it not a stretch to use the name Tex Richman when the CEO of the Texas based Exxon Corporation is named Rex Tillerson and who as it turns out, is indeed rich??

And what were they supposed to do, make a movie about Muppet town being torn down by some thuggy rapper who wants to raze their land so he can build his bling mansion?? Or Obama taking over their land to turn it into a nature preserve for Alaskan wildlife?? Oooh, that would have been threatening and put asses in the seats! Or is a greedy corporate type who wants to raze property so he can drill for natural resources and make a billion dollars a bit more realistic?

And like I eluded to earlier, why is "indoctrinating/brainwashing" kids talking about the problems of oil a bad thing but sending them to church and brainwashing them that Jesus hates women who use birth control and gays? Or even telling them that their President is a Muslim, Kenyan, Socialist...ON A NEWS PROGRAM! That is supposed to report facts? I don't get how the Muppets fantasy is worse...Oh, and speaking of what Jesus taught...Maybe the Muppets were just taking their cue from Jesus and the Bible in vilifying the rich.

This Faux News panel would have had no problem if someone made an "indoctrinating" kids movie that spoke of the evils of being gay, nor do they have a problem with the conservative media using Tim Tebow the Superbowl to try to indoctrinate kids about the evils of a woman being able to chose not to be a baby dispenser or some movie about how climate change isn't real. Nor would they have had a problem with a teacher trying to indoctrinate school children into believing the Earth is 10k years old, we, and every animal living today came from Noah's Ark 5000 years ago or that evolution is only a theory. Why not criticize the Creation Museum for indoctrinating children?? Why is indoctrinating them with nonsense better than just showing them a kids movie with kids themes. Was Scooby Doo trying to indoctrinate children against evil amusement park owners?? I don't think so.

More phony outrage. To the outrage dispenser! Grasp any straw necessary:
Photobucket

And to respond to that Bimbos comment about indoctrinating kids about the evils of being rich and class warfare...Yes, I wonder where these kids are getting this kind of brainwashing??

'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'
Matthew 19:24

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."1 Timothy 6:17-19

'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
Matthew 25:41-45

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:9-10

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle." Proverbs 23:4-5

"Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'" Luke 12:15

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

If you don't want your kids to be indoctrinated and brainwashed against wealth and greed, stop sending them to church and letting them read the teachings of Jesus. It's not Hollywood who is spreading this message, it's that hippie, socialist named Jesus Christ...The original Occupy Wall St. protester.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

More Romney Lies

Romney just did this whole spiel last night about how Obama is a failed President, a divisive President and that he ruined the economy...None of these can even remotely be backed up by any facts whatsoever.


If this is what he is running on, he's got nothing.

A. The Republicans in Congress are the divisive ones trying to start a class war and making up lies about Obama about how he is a black radical Christian, Muslim, atheist, Socialist who wants to take over car companies. Obama has actually done nothing BUT kiss the Republicans asses and try to appease them...So much so that they became against the way he got Bin Laden and him ending the war that Bush couldn't. So they have nothing there.

B. Economy: Half of the jobs lost were under Bush. It is projected that Obama will probably end up breaking even on jobs (which will be far more jobs than Bush added in his first term) and that the unemployment rate will remain under 8%.
-Job growth nearly doubled in 2011.
-The stock market is up over 40% from it's lows the year Obama took office (from 8776 at the end of 08 to 12413 today) and up 15% from the day Bush took office.
-Housing starts in December of 2008 were at 549,000, in November they were at 685,000. Not great, but a 24% increase and better than where Bush and the Republicans got us.
-Obama's 2010 Budget saw a deficit of $1.45 trillion...Just A 2% increase from Bush's 09 budget. That's right, a 2% increase over Bush...With a population increase of 10% over 2000.
-Obama increased our national debt by 13.8% in 2010
-Bush's increased the national debt 18.8% in 2009 and had increased the debt 11.2% in 2008.
-The national debt at the end of 2000 before Bush's first budget was submitted was $5.6 Trillion, for the last Bush budget in 2009 the debt had increased to $11.9 Trillion, a 110% increase. And they are complaining about Obama who to this point has only expanded the debt by 26%??

Bush= 110%, Obama 26%!

-Not only that, Over 60% of our budget is dedicated to the following:
Defense Spending (20%) - (Everything included, it's actually much higher than this)
Social Security (20%)
Medicare (13%)
Medicade (7%

-Obama did not start these wars, invent Social Security, Medicare or Medicade so it's hard to blame those on him.

-Bush's tax cuts resulted in over $2 trillion in lost revenues that could have gone to pay down the debt yet Romney wants to decrease taxes on the wealthy even more which goes to show you that he doesn't really care about the deficit or debt.

If you think you can blame the debt and deficits on Obama, then you probably believe in magic disappearing tablets that appear to con-men and magic underwear.

C. Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abu Hafs al-Shahri and supporting the toppling of Gaddafi and no new terrorist attacks on US soil and the end of the Iraq war shows Obama has clearly when it comes to National Security and leadership.

So really, Romney has nothing except his magic underwear and hopefully a bunch of people he can fire.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Atheist Guide to 2012



I think Obama probably believes in God and loosely calls himself a Christian but isn't at all serious about it...Unlike the Bachmanns and Perrys who think God speaks to them or wears magic underwear...So as an Atheist, Obama is the clear choice. As any free thinking, educated, liberal person who isn't a billionaire or a military contractor or oil company...Obama would still be the obvious choice between the jokers on the other side.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Gingrich, I mean Cain, Should Step Aside

"This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace—this is not an accusation of an assault—which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate. Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults—a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life." - Lin Wood, Herman Cain's Attorney...You know, the guy who told women they should "think twice" before going public with their allegations of sexual misconduct from Cain.

I like how when it's Clinton or Spitzer who is cheating it's everyone's business but when Republicans do it...

The question is, if Cain has to step aside, does that mean Gingrich does as well since he has cheated on his wives with multiple women?

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Personhood

If you think this is a person, you are an idiot.
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

See! I told you there was no difference






Can anyone tell me how one is any different than the other? One is a spoof and is about as coherent as the one that is not.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Which Side of the Fence

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.

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!

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...

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.
Photobucket


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.