ClipCast

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Beware the military industrial complex...

Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger - WSJ.com
When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.

Having working in and around big defense contractors for more than 20 years I can say I fully agree with the former SECNAV's evaluation: the cosy relationship between the military, supplies and the civilans working in the pentagon has turned what should be a competitive market into a good ole boys network where BIG defense companies routinely milk money out of a contact for 2-3 or MORE years beyond it's orginal cost/schedule. 50-100% cost overruns are not uncommon.

In fact, I worked on one defense project back in the late '90's that was supposed to be about 3 years long and demonstrate, on orbit, new sensing and tracking technologies. Ten years later I know the program was still nursing at the government teet and the satellites STILL hadn't been launched.

How's that for return on you $100+ million investment?

Something has to be done. I'm not opposed to spending on the military, but we spend so much on so many ridiculous projects that its bankrupting the country.

People scream about potential increases in gov health care spending, but don't seem to bat an eye when we spend $350 MILLION on a single fighter jet - or worse, several hundred million on a program that goes no-where for more than a decade.

This is corporate welfare on a HUGE scale.

Will we ever get control? ... i doubt it. Something about the American pyche is at work here: spending money to kill people is "oo-raah" good; but try to spend some to help sick people and you get protests.

What the hell happened to people?

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

What is wrong with this country?

It was just a few years ago when the right was telling us that if you didn't support the president (in a time of war) you were NOT a patriot ... they told us it was our duty not to question warrantless wiretaps, torture, rendition and a host of other (at least) questionable activities taken on unilaterally by the executive branch...

Now, those same folks are telling us -- while we are still at war btw -- that they don't want their kids to watch a speech by the president ... a speech who's theme is "stay in school" and "help out in your local communities" ...

Has this country really gone this bat-shit crazy? I mean, we aren't supposed to question the violation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights ... but we should teach our children that this president's words aren't to be trusted -- even when he speaks about something ALL of us (supposedly) agree on?

There truly is no hope for a people who are this screwed up... The politicization of EVERYTHING is at hand when a message like "stay in school" is seen as serving some evil, ulterior motive.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Opinion vs action...

Torture and Academic Freedom - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
The strongest legal criticism made of Professor Yoo and other Bush administration lawyers is not based on disagreement over policy or even morality. They were not implementing unjust laws; they were actively circumventing just laws.
The memos purporting to justify the harsh treatment of detainees could do so only by twisting the law beyond all recognition, and doing so in secret so that the flawed legal advice would not be challenged. When the memos were disclosed publicly, virtually no one could be found to defend them on the merits. The Justice Department itself was even forced to take the highly unusual step of withdrawing virtually all of the legal analysis it had issued only months beforehand.

That's the way I see it too: These opinions were kept secret in part because the administration knew they were using twisted logic to circumvent fairly straightforward law regarding the treatment of prisoners. While I support "academic freedom", and the rights of people to express their opinions, this situation is completely different. Here you have government officials using specious, at best, logic to justify practices we have publicly denounced abroad and are demonstrable harmful to America's principles.

Not only should he be fired, but he should be disbarred for using such tortured logic to justify criminal behavior by our government.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Science & Faith...

The Strange Case of Francis Collins | The Reason Project
There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are deeply counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist (even, we have begun to see, if one is a scientist). But it would seem that few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.


Monday, August 03, 2009

Criminals

Op-Ed Columnist - Rewarding Bad Actors - NYTimes.com
But crashing the economy and fleecing the taxpayer aren’t Wall Street’s only sins. Even before the crisis and the bailouts, many financial-industry high-fliers made fortunes through activities that were worthless if not destructive from a social point of view.

And they’re still at it. Consider two recent news stories.

One involves the rise of high-speed trading: some institutions, including Goldman Sachs, have been using superfast computers to get the jump on other investors, buying or selling stocks a tiny fraction of a second before anyone else can react. Profits from high-frequency trading are one reason Goldman is earning record profits and likely to pay record bonuses

This kind of activity simply must be stopped via regulation... Allowing a group of people to reap huge financial gain at the expense of others: while adding NOTHING to society -- used to be considered criminal behavior... Now we call it investment banking.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

The confused...

Conservatives confuse capitalism with the mechanisms of regulating a society for the common good of all citizens... The latter process usually referred to as politics.

Capitalism addresses markets: good and services... Somehow our elected officials believe there is a diminished role for leadership and stewardship of our SOCIETY ... things like education, etc. are left to the whims of the market and its demand for "lower prices" ... This is shear madness.

A perfect example is my state's budget (process): The majority Republican legislature is so adverse to a (temporary sales) tax increase that it is willing to further cut-funding to our already dismal education system... (ranked 48th or so our of the 50 states). What's even more discusting is that they seriously considered abdicating there responsibility as representatives and making the tax hike proposal a ballot measure...

Does anyone even know what "representative democracy" means anymore?


Friday, June 19, 2009

Oh, that good ol'e fashioned manufactured outrage...

If you're like me, right-wing fantasy occasionally shows up in your inbox masquerading as history... Well, that happened this morning when a very good friend forwarded me a msg.

As usual, the email does a good job at generating outrage at those liberals in government who have backed away from promises and are, in general, ruining our American way of life... If only the 'facts' they list were actually, well, facts.

This one is about Social Security; how democrats from Eisenhower to Carter & Clinton have systematically screwed the American people out of promises and benefits.

Of course, all it takes is a quick visit to the handy snopes site to debunk this stuff. But again, what good conservative worth his salt would want to confuse truth with a caricature of history?

Well, I've taken the time to respond, point-for-point, to the emails assertions. As you'll see, 99% of those points are outright wrong. Even the ones that have a modicum of truth to them cast the villains as the evil liberals. I take a bit of joy noting that it was Reagan who signed into law the legislation that started taxing SS annuities... the one item listed that is partially true.

Anyway, read for yourself. If you want more details, check out snopes and here the Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, May 20, 1997. My research (if you can call looking at a couple of websites research) are in red.

Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY ROBBERY
If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this, this is an excellent visual presentation....Now it is too late to be angry, just remember who did this when you vote....

Thank you for sharing Social Security, How It Got Stolen with Our Social Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
GOOD TO HERE ! Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary,

FALSE: There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid."

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program,

MOSTLY FALSE/misleading: Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

FALSE: The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and ...

PARTIALLY FALSE: The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund." However, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security. The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds - with interest. Every retirement fund works like this. You money does not sit in a bank, it is used by others and repayed (hopefully) with interest.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

PARTIALLY FALSE: It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.

----------THEN-----------------------------------

Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

FALSE - a complete fabrication as far as I can tell. SS funds are INVESTED (oftentimes loaned to the gov). However, those investments (loans) pay interest and the trust fund as earned more than an average of 8% annually since 1960. The fact that the gov borrows against the trust fund (paying it interest) is no different than a company investing it's pension funds in stocks/bonds. This is another example of FALSE statements being used to stir-up the masses...

-------------WORSE STILL-----------------------------

Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question
: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and thedemocratically Controlled House and Senate.

SS funds are NOT part of the general fund... The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

FALSE - Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Not completely FALSE, but manipulated to make it look like dems did something 'bad'.

Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296‐166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.

-------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!----------
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
= Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981

Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:

Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

COMPLETELY FALSE:
No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve... Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers..
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Apparently, this is being sent around a lot. Another example of right-wingers trying to re-write history to generate outrage. Kudos to my buddy who sent it to me so I could debunk this stuff... at least on this site.

Maybe pass the link to this blog entry around … of course, the truth never stood in the way of a good-ol'e conservative world-view. Still, pass it around. Who knows, maybe someone will actually read it.