This is one of the craziest political battles we've yet to witness. 3 small town politicians battle it out on the national stage; one brings in political big wigs, one is jumping in front of any camera or microphone that will have her, and one is on the phone with Pelosi. It's really something.
The funny thing is, all 3 are in danger of self destructing before the actual showdown. Republican VS republican, Republican VS Conservative, Democrat VS Republican, etc. The 3 political showman who are making a mad dash for the Canadian border are a complete joke, and most definitely a Saturday night live skit if I've ever seen one. Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin and the gang are well known for the almighty political flops that cost them votes, yet conservative candidate Hoffman thinks they will do him some favors.
Whatever happens, us Liberals will strike victory as we get the popcorn, and watch the far right fringe bloodbath. Happy Halloween!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Health Care 2.0
As we watch our health care system start to reform slowly, this week, Nancy Pelosi suggested that the public option will actually be an extension of medicare benefits.
That would be fine, the only problem is this. It wouldn't really be much of a "public option", mostly because Medicare already exists, and pushing the bar up to include more people who would qualify for the extension of medicare isn't really reform. It's modifying an already existing plan to include a little more of the general public. So what? How is that a public option?
If this is the Democrats version of the alleged "public option", then we've been had. Then all along, according to congress, we've had the "public option", right?
This would not be "a public option", because it would not cover everybody or anybody who wanted in. It would just open the doors to more of the working class who couldn't afford medical care, which is a good thing, however all of the middle class who's paying out the nose for coverage still looses out.
Also, president Obama's alleged campaign promise that "all would have an option if they desired" would be dissolved.
This is not solving the problem. It's an absolute joke, and it's giving the Republicans exactly what they're looking for.
That would be fine, the only problem is this. It wouldn't really be much of a "public option", mostly because Medicare already exists, and pushing the bar up to include more people who would qualify for the extension of medicare isn't really reform. It's modifying an already existing plan to include a little more of the general public. So what? How is that a public option?
If this is the Democrats version of the alleged "public option", then we've been had. Then all along, according to congress, we've had the "public option", right?
This would not be "a public option", because it would not cover everybody or anybody who wanted in. It would just open the doors to more of the working class who couldn't afford medical care, which is a good thing, however all of the middle class who's paying out the nose for coverage still looses out.
Also, president Obama's alleged campaign promise that "all would have an option if they desired" would be dissolved.
This is not solving the problem. It's an absolute joke, and it's giving the Republicans exactly what they're looking for.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Great Czar Debate
Over the past 8 months or so, the Democratic leadership as well as the Obama administration has come under fire for using and appointing Czar's to manage various areas of policy. We have the health care czar, the climate and energy czar, the car czar and so on.
Republicans are constantly attacking the use of czars to aid the entire policy process, almost making the argument that the obama administration should be able to handle all these things without delegating these duties to people whom the responsibility would be entirely their own.
What's wrong with that?
The Bush administration used Czars. In fact, almost every single administration since Lincoln, both Republican and Democrat, have used and delegated Czars to handle various functions. I see no problem with this whatsoever.
What I do see is a Republican spin machine, desperate to bring President Obama down. Whatever it takes. Weather other Presidents called them Czar's or not is irrelevant.
You can't attack the obama administration for "doing their job" and then turn around and claim, "their not doing their job". What do you think?
Republicans are constantly attacking the use of czars to aid the entire policy process, almost making the argument that the obama administration should be able to handle all these things without delegating these duties to people whom the responsibility would be entirely their own.
What's wrong with that?
The Bush administration used Czars. In fact, almost every single administration since Lincoln, both Republican and Democrat, have used and delegated Czars to handle various functions. I see no problem with this whatsoever.
What I do see is a Republican spin machine, desperate to bring President Obama down. Whatever it takes. Weather other Presidents called them Czar's or not is irrelevant.
You can't attack the obama administration for "doing their job" and then turn around and claim, "their not doing their job". What do you think?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A Bailout, A Slap in the Face
As we watched Wall Street pocket the big bail out money the Obama administration dished out this past spring, it seems Wall Street is reluctant to show any sign of gratititude for the life raft.
Today, President Obama plans to attend a Democratic Fundraiser at Manhattan's Mandarin Oriental Hotel, where most of the donors will be dishing out the Maximum legal amount allowed; $30,400 a plate. Amazingly, less than half of the Wall Street leaches who benefited, profited, and downright flourished under Obama's bailout will be missing from the guest list.
Apparently the reasons for the missing bankers is due to fear of public perception from those who disagree with the bailout all together, and you know, just bad overall PR.
Right.
However as Wall Street continues to live in post bailout bliss, banks like JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup can jack up interest rates on credit cards so high, the average American has to choose between paying the mortgage or paying credit card bills. How about that?
Today, President Obama plans to attend a Democratic Fundraiser at Manhattan's Mandarin Oriental Hotel, where most of the donors will be dishing out the Maximum legal amount allowed; $30,400 a plate. Amazingly, less than half of the Wall Street leaches who benefited, profited, and downright flourished under Obama's bailout will be missing from the guest list.
Apparently the reasons for the missing bankers is due to fear of public perception from those who disagree with the bailout all together, and you know, just bad overall PR.
Right.
However as Wall Street continues to live in post bailout bliss, banks like JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup can jack up interest rates on credit cards so high, the average American has to choose between paying the mortgage or paying credit card bills. How about that?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
What's the Problem?
I have to say I really don't disagree with Barney Frank's point of view regarding the Washington March last week. He makes some great points in this interview with Joy Behar, as well as the interview he had 2 weeks ago with Sirius radio host, Michaelangelo Signorelie.
The march in itself was a great thing, however marching on a Sunday when congress isn't in session doesn't and didn't really do much. I realize the main idea was to attract media attention, but seriously, how did we do kids? We didn't.
A few mentions here and there, and that was it. More than half of America had no idea we had something going on.
Now, had we have had this march during the week, I really feel we could have turned way more heads and ruffled more feathers then what you saw last Sunday. The giant media outlets would have had no choice but to pay attention to our cause.
What I did see at the march were a lot of young kids who were all fired up and ready to go at their first ever rally. Sure, this a good thing. But in Barney Frank's point of view, the activism has to continue when you get back on the bus to go home. I'm not so sure it will.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Gay Money; An Argument for Marriage
Last week the New York Times ran a story titled: "The High Price of being a Gay Couple". In the article, the NYT proposed fake scenarios in which they looked at 2 gay couples, 2 men and 2 women, both with incomes of $70,000 or more each, and how that money was spent. According to the article, the couples lived in states with the highest gay populations; New York, Florida and California. All couples were college educated, were home owners and spent about half to over half of their income on taxes, health care, child care (assuming there was children in the picture) and other necessities that are a natural part of coupled life.
The article brought in some great points, and made a great argument for gay marriage, all of which I completely agree with. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?emc=eta1
What I didn't agree with are the unrealistic incomes of all parties involved. This article assumes that most gay men and women are upper middle class to wealthy, and in some areas of the country this is true, however it's not in most cases.
I happen to be college educated, have a fairly decent job, and so does my partner. We live in New York state, we don't have children, and we rent our home not own. I do not make anywhere near the assumed $70,000 a year, nor does my partner. Our incomes combined are a little over the single, $70,000 each article starting line. So what gives?
The majority of gay men and women earn between $25,000 - $50,000 each per year. The top 10% earn between $70,000 and $100,000. This includes educated individuals living in all 3 states the article highlights. Although as I mentioned before, if you just take NYC alone, the cost of living is more, so incomes may average out a bit higher there. If you just take Manhattan alone, then $70,000 is about right, seeing as how Manhattan is next to impossible to afford, even on a duel income of $70,000 each. You factor in kids, taxes etc., forget about it!
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Once again, big media misses the bus on the gay community. I was really excited to read the article when I saw the headline, but as I read, I became disillusioned. I felt disconnected with the article, then realizing the times was missing the big picture. I know many gay men who like to claim they earn way over what they actually do, and if you meet a gay individual who tells you he earns over $70,000 a year, he's probably full of shit.
There are exceptions, and some who do, but if you take the majority of gay men and women in all 3 states, you'll see that most of us are middle class men and women who lead normal 9 to 5 lives. We are far from the glossy, fabulous lifestyle that was and is still portrayed in American society.
The article brought in some great points, and made a great argument for gay marriage, all of which I completely agree with. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html?emc=eta1
What I didn't agree with are the unrealistic incomes of all parties involved. This article assumes that most gay men and women are upper middle class to wealthy, and in some areas of the country this is true, however it's not in most cases.
I happen to be college educated, have a fairly decent job, and so does my partner. We live in New York state, we don't have children, and we rent our home not own. I do not make anywhere near the assumed $70,000 a year, nor does my partner. Our incomes combined are a little over the single, $70,000 each article starting line. So what gives?
The majority of gay men and women earn between $25,000 - $50,000 each per year. The top 10% earn between $70,000 and $100,000. This includes educated individuals living in all 3 states the article highlights. Although as I mentioned before, if you just take NYC alone, the cost of living is more, so incomes may average out a bit higher there. If you just take Manhattan alone, then $70,000 is about right, seeing as how Manhattan is next to impossible to afford, even on a duel income of $70,000 each. You factor in kids, taxes etc., forget about it!
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Once again, big media misses the bus on the gay community. I was really excited to read the article when I saw the headline, but as I read, I became disillusioned. I felt disconnected with the article, then realizing the times was missing the big picture. I know many gay men who like to claim they earn way over what they actually do, and if you meet a gay individual who tells you he earns over $70,000 a year, he's probably full of shit.
There are exceptions, and some who do, but if you take the majority of gay men and women in all 3 states, you'll see that most of us are middle class men and women who lead normal 9 to 5 lives. We are far from the glossy, fabulous lifestyle that was and is still portrayed in American society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
