Downward spiral of civil rights in the USA!

Do you remember Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez, her 71 year old mother? No?  Let me refresh your memory.  LA police are on a man hunt for Christopher Dorner driving a grey Nissan Titan.  Christopher Dorner is a 6 foot tall, 270 pound man with a shaved head.  They then fire over 100 rounds at a blue Toyota Tacoma with out even knowing who was in the vehicle.  Well good thing the LA police seem to be shit marksmen because of those 100+ bullets only 2 hit anyone in the truck.  Thankfully Emma survived being shot in the back twice by police that couldn't even attempt to clear a vehicle of 2 older women delivering newspapers.  I know Dorner killed one police officer and attempted to kill a few others but how does this give the police free rein to not only shoot up a vehicle that doesn't even match the make and model  or even brand of the suspect but also ram another vehicle off the road, also nothing like the suspects vehicle.

Just recently Boston gets put into lock down because of the hunt for Tsarnaev.  Houses searched with no warrants.  Now I imagine many people might have consented to the searches but what about those that believe in their 4th amendment rights? 

It seems a whole slew of people over at Fox support throwing out just about every constitutional amendment, minus the 2nd amendment.  God forbid the government should require back ground checks for people wishing to buy a fire arm but torturing people before they even get a trial...that's ok.  They even backed New York state senator Greg Ball's tweet that Tsarnaev should be tortured BEFORE any trial.  Not that torture after a trial would be any better.  Which for you following along means no 8th amendment.

Anne Coulter thinks that Katherine Tsarnaev should go to prison for wearing a Hijab. Really?  How does wearing a certain type of clothing constitute a felony?  Just because you don't like the religious display doesn't mean sweet fuck all.  I'm an atheist could I expect that any Jewish person wearing a kippah be incarcerated?  What if some Indian woman has a bindi?  Christians, should they get 60 days of hard labour for wearing a cross?

For Dzhokhar Tsarnaev many, but not all, at Fox News seem to want to completely throw out the 4th through 8th amendment.  This is because they are either complete morons or complete fuck tards.  My guess is a bit of both.  I don't care if Dzhokhar is guilty.  He still has all those rights.  Throwing them away doesn't really change what should happen to him, in a civil society, it changes us.

Now they, a few at Fox, are trying to back peddle a bit with their bigoted and idiotic statements.  But just as the Michigan democrat that called one of her colleagues an "arrogant nigger" then trying to claim her comment is ok because she has "eaten Thanksgiving dinner with black friends at their house.” The slight back peddle doesn't change their overall view.

They claim to be for smaller government unless it means that people they don't agree with might get rights they have, like the right for gay couples to get married.  They are for controlling the reproductive health of women. They are for restricting religious freedoms, as long as it isn't their religion being restricted.  They are for torture despite the fact it has been shown to be not effective in obtaining any useful information.  We can't just blame them though because they prey on the fears of many Americans and unfortunately many American's, like many people in other parts of the world, are narrow minded bigots that believe in the American way but only if you believe exactly like they do.

No matter how many people want Tsarnaev to face the death penalty doesn't change the fact that he deserves a fair trial.  The fair trial isn't just for him.  It is for us.  Not only so we can claim the moral high ground but so we don't need to be fearful of a government coming after us when we find ourselves in a time where our political views don't match someone elses.

It is a very slippery slope we find ourselves on.  Our civil rights being slowly taken away.  In the end, every time we give a bit more of our liberties up we give up a bit more of what it really means to be Americans.

The Federal Student Loan Program - The reality not the misconceptions

Ok so let me break this down for people.  The first line

'Children of a congress member do not have to pay back their college student loans. How nice!'

Is false.  There is no program for congress members to wave student loans of any of their family.  There is a program to aid congressional staff members, that are elible, to pay back student loans but this is the same program that is offered to all federal employees.

The Federal Student Loan Program

Note the Employee Coverage that states.

"Any employee (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105) is eligible, except those occupying a position excepted from the competitive civil service because of their confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating nature (e.g., Schedule C appointees)."

That means elected representatives are NOT eligible.

The actual program was enacted in 2001.  It can pay up to $10,000 a year for the federal employee and is capped out at $60,000 and must be PLUS Loans (these are federal loans). Part of the program is that the employee has to sign a contract and remain in their position for, at least, 3 more years else they must pay back the benefits they have received.

In 2011 34 government agencies participated in the program with just over 10,000 federal employees claiming. The average claim being $7,091

Since 2003 the number of federal employees taking part in the program had increased about 23.43% per year.  Instead of me rambling on with numbers here is a chart showing the adoption figures.

Before you freak out about the 72 million dollars spent on this program last year remember this is part of their benefit package even if they don't claim.  This is budgeted for just as much as employees wages are.  The federal employees don't make much.  My manager while I was a Marine stationed at Albany GA was a GS11.  Her salary in 2011 would have been about $65,371 and she was in charge of well over 100 civilians and Marines.

The Federal student loan repayment program is a great incentive that helps those that need it the most.  IE the lower your pay scale the more the program helps you.  For those that aren't following.  If you are a federal employee and a GS5 you start out at $27,431 a year.  So IF you could claim the entire $10,000 amount per year that is a much bigger percentage of your total package then if you were a GS11 with 20 years of service making $65,371 a year.  That in itself is telling too.  The difference between a first year GS1 and a GS11 with 20 years of federal service is less then 4x. Think about your job.  Think about how long you have been there. Now think about the pay difference between you and some 18 year old kid just starting at that company with no experience and tell me the difference in pay between you two.  Odds are it is much larger then if you were employed by the federal government.

Now this program was specifically initiated to help retain federal employees.  As any person with a bit of management experience knows it is costly to have high employee turn over rates.  Someone who has been at the job for 5 years is going to be more beneficial then a new employee coming on board.  This is especially true in the Civil services where pay differences are often fairly minor.

Now to boot the Senate actually have lower caps then the program allows.  I.E. the Senate staff members can claim a maximum of $500 a month and is capped at $40,000.

So with the facts out of the way let me now focus on what Fox News reported, without even fact checking.

From The Sean Hannity Show on 23rd of August 2010 Dick Morris and Sean Hannity had this exchange

Dick Morris Do you know — my wife Eileen just told me yesterday that staff in the House of Representatives and in the Senate do not pay student loans back? The government pays it for them?
Sean Hannity I didn’t know that.
Dick Morris The House of Representatives last year spent $25 million paying the salary, student loans of their staffers.

Now I love that source.  Dick Morris's wife told him.  Well fuck me ... it must be true.  No need to fact check that.

The exchange makes you think that elective officials are part of that.  The face book post distorts it even further.

Notice the bit of "staff in the House...".  Representatives and Senators can not claim from the program.  They are NOT eligible   The second line about the House of Representatives is less then half true.  First off the amount the House spent was about 12 million and again it was over 3,000 employees with the average claim at just $2,000 and no claim more then $6,000.

That is the reality.  Fox News complaining about valid programs that even in the short term make the government more efficient by retaining employees.  This is what Fox News is complaining about.  Efficient government.  But, of course, they lie and distort the actual fact to enrage their viewers.

Now there are a lot of things you can be upset with Congress members about.  But this is not one of them and 5 minutes on Google would show you that.

W

Pat Robertson "jokes" about beating a non subservient wife.

This is ridiculous.  In today's age there are still people that think wives should be subservient to the husband in a house hold. Here Pat Robertson keep saying things like "He can't let her get away with this stuff", "I don't think we condone wife beating these days, but somethings got to be done to make her."

This is what the husband has wrote in

"My wife has become a real problem.  She has no respect for me as the head of the house.  She insults me and she even went as far as stretching her hand to beat me.  I've lost my self confidence. Her words hurt so much and she refuses to talk through our problems.  Please tell me what I can do. - Michael"


Now I don't condone abuse from either side.  The woman in question apparently is psychologically abusive to her husband.  But isn't her husband psychologically abusive to her if he demands respect as "the head of the house."?  Respect is earned not claimed and just because a bunch of stories, written and modified over a few hundred years and which are at least 2,000 years old, says shit like.
Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
Corinthians 7:4 "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
Note that here it isn't strict submission but a partnership but both ways this is bad to think your partner can demand sex when ever they want regardless of your feelings.
One Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Does not mean we should keep this 2,000+ year old "morality"

In an age where the GOP don't want women to have equal pay where all but 1 republican senators blocked the the bill from going forward and the one outlier didn't vote.  In an age where the GOP thinks that an employer should be able to deny a woman reproductive health care.  You can see how the GOP not only wants wives to be submissive to their husbands but they want women to be subservient to men.

The woman talking to Pat Robertson suggested counselling for the couple but he did little more then nod in agreement before going back to ranting how the woman must be mentally ill and suggesting that the husband move to Saudi Arabia.

There are plenty of good religious people but it is idiots like Pat Robertson and those that follow him blindly that make religious people look like cave men.  If you are religious get out from under a big tent if you are under it and voice your opinion.  Show that most religious people are not bigots and backwards.  Show that a husband and wife are an equal partnership not this crazy ass relationship that many vocal religious nut jobs want.

Paul Ryan blames Obama for factory that closed before Obama even won.

So Paul Ryan has said this multiple time on the podium and just the other day at the Republican National Convention.

"Especially in Janesville where we were about to lose a major factory.  A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant.  Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, 'I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.'. That’s what he said in 2008.  Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year.  It is locked up and empty to this day"

Powerful stuff aye.  Obama tells a factory if the government is there for them that they should be there for another 100 year but that factory closes that same year.   WOW, did Obama let them down?  Well  Ryan would like you to believe that Obama didn't help that factory when they bailed out so many others.  This is true, Obama's administration didn't help that factory.  BUT it is hard to help a factory that shut down 6 months before you even took office.  Before you even get elected.  Before you are even nominated as your parties candidate.

Short and sweat here.  Ryan knows that Obama's administration doesn't have anything to do with the closing.  That Obama's administration could not do anything about it.  But Ryan does not care about the lies he shits out his mouth because he knows most people won't look into the facts.

Are you sitting here now justifying Ryan's lies or are you sick of being lied to?

What the GOP think about tax cuts for people that aren't rich.

Bill S 3412 Middle-class Tax Relief.

Not surprisingly the GOP stands firmly against tax cuts for people making less then $250,000/yr.  46 of 47 republican Senators voted against S3412 Middle-class tax relief.  The 1 republican that didn't vote no, Senator Mark Kirik, didn't actually vote.  It passed 51/48 with one abstaining.

Reason for this?  The republican's will not pass this bill, which benefits all American's by providing tax relief for the first $250,000.00 of income, because they want further tax cuts for people earning over $250,000.00/yr.

Do you find this right?  Should rich people get even more tax breaks then poor people?  Already our tax code allows the rich to pay significantly lower tax rates then low and middle income earners by providing many tax shields and incentives that are only accessible by the wealthy.  Tax breaks that Mitt Romney exploits to the fullest often moving income over seas to evade taxes here.

If you had an income of $100,000/yr do you think it would be nice if you could shield it from taxes by moving the income over seas?  Who would pay for our schools?  Who would pay for our roads?  Who would pay for our emergency services? Who would pay for our wars?

The GOP blame President Obama for the current rate of unemployment.  Saying "his [Obama] economic plan has failed".  Yet every time President Obama tries to implement any plan he is confronted with this partisan blockade.  Obama has made some hard compromises and brought spending increases to a low not seen since 1953.  Obama policies, many implemented by executive order because republican congressmen refuse to vote for any bill that might make make the President look good., stopped an unemployment rate that was rising into the double digits.

President Obama has said all along that the recovery is coming to slow.  That it isn't good enough.  That we still have a lot to do.  He's made hard compromises in hopes the republicans would also make similar compromises but at every opportunity republicans refuse.  Even to compromises they agreed to in the past.

They want to privatise education giving more support to rich families sending their children to private schools at the cost of low and middle income families, that can not afford high priced schools, to attend schools that get even less funding per student.  Choice is easy for those that can afford it.  I sent my son to a private school up until year 8.  That was my choice and that choice didn't rip funding away from public schools in the process.  How does the GOP expect a low income family that is struggling to put food on the table to be able to come up with more money to send their kids to a school that is properly funded?  A school which is probably further away then their local public school.  A school which may have many other hidden costs like uniforms and "building fees".  How do they expect struggling families to come up with thousands of dollars more a year for each one of their children when the GOP plan to take away safety nets like food stamps.  When the GOP plan to roll back the Affordable Health Care Act leaving the low income families with no affordable medical insurance and no guarantee that if they do keep their health insurance that the insurance company won't drop them as soon as someone in the family gets ill?

If you vote for the GOP this coming election be assured that the unemployment rate we saw at the end of the Bush administration will only be the start.  The GOP are great at saying democrats hate America but the GOP only like the rich and they'll lie to all the low and middle income Americans to get into power.

The phrase "I'm proud to be an American" will be a joke unless you are in the top 2%.

Who do you blame for the government spending to much? Democrats or Republicans?

Spending Increase Per Term

Obama's administration has the lowest increase of spending since President Eisenhower. That is over 50 years you have to go back.
How does Obama stack up to other presidents?

Regan's 1st term    - 8.7%
Regan's 2nd term    - 4.9%
Bush Snr            - 5.4%
Clinton's 1st term  - 3.2%
Clinton's 2nd term  - 3.9%
Bush Jr's 1st term  - 7.3%
Bush Jr's 2nd term  - 8.1%
Obama 1st term      - 1.4%

Do you really trust that The GOP will make the cuts needed?  Oh they'll make cuts.
They'll make cuts that will cost seniors $6,500 more a year in out of pocket expendatures do to allowing insurers to refuse coverage which increases the strain on Medicare forcing out many seniors from even recieving benefits.
They'll shift medicare onto the states that isn't designed to keep up with actual health care costs.
They'll repeal the Affordable Care Act and let the insurance companies go back to business as usual where they can deny you coverage when ever they want which would effect tens of millions of Americans not to meantion the more than 30,000,000 Americans who would loose their coverage right away.
They'll slash education.  Ryan and Romney won't tell you where exactly they'll make the cuts within education but the reduction is there...they just don't want to be pin down to so they can claim make claims like "Pell grants don't have to change". But the truth of the matter is that cuts would have to be made some where.
They'll slash programs for the very poor and disadvantage.  Programs like food stamps.  Programs that help poor children get the nutrician they need.

They'll also make the rich get richer.  3 Trillion dollars in tax cuts that will benifit only the top 2%.  Mitt Romney would end up paying less then 1% in taxes under the Romney-Ryan plan.  Ironically 1% might be more then Romney has paid in some years in the last decade.  But until he releases his tax returns we'll not know.

Romney continues to lie!

Romney claims that President Obama plans to take $716 billion dollars in benefits from Medicare and that he, Mitt Romney, would leave Medicare as is.
So what is the truth?  The $716 billion dollars isn't taken from benifits unless you consider things like duplicate payments to insurance companies "benifits".  So let get this clear the $716 billion dollars is from cost savings like slowing the inflation of medical costs, eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and stopping over payments to private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program.

Romney wants that $716 billion dollars to stay when in the end the only people they benifit is people, including corporations, defrauding the system.

Romney claims that President Obama is cutting the work requirement for welfare.  This is out right false and even after being shown it Romney and his campaign answer is to continue the lie with as much advertisement as possible.

Romney wants to put in over 5 trillion dollars to tax cuts for the rich.  Those tax cuts have to be paid for and they will be.  They will be paid by low and middle income earners paying higher payroll taxes. By teachers, fire fighters, policemen loosing their jobs.  By students paying higher costs for university.  By Seniors paying an average of $6,500 a year more, out of their own pocket, for medical care because Romney wants to go to a voucher system.

Note that the lies are not only being spread by ads endorced by Mitt Romney but by Mitt Romney when he stands on the podium when he gives speeches.  This isn't an add produced by someone else, not endorced by President Obama and run only once.

Back in 1949 Adlai Stevenson said this
“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
and it is more true today then ever.  The GOP thinks it is hateful for the democrats to point out their lies.  What do you think?  Mitt Romney's ads and speeches show they they either don't understand how Medicare works or are wilfully making shit up or even worse...both!

Why people like Bill O'Reilly piss me off.

I hate dishonest people, willfully ignorant people piss me off too.  Bill O'Reilly is at least one of these.

In response to an atheist organisation that puts up bill boards that say things like "Religion is a scam" Bill brings on a spokesperson and tries to rail road them in his usual manner.

The atheist points out the bill boards are to counter the "you are going to hell" bill boards put up by some religious organisations.  Freedom of expression on both sides.

Here is where my issue comes in.  Bill's bad philosophy/theology and the fact that he probably has a lot of followers that subscribe to that philosophy.  I'm not saying being religious is bad philosophy.  What I'm saying is the ignorant bull shit that Bill spills forth from his lips is bad philosophy and either based on him being dishonest or willfully ignorant probably both.

I'll point out what I mean and you decide.

Bill O'Reilly still tries to say we can not explain the tides and that them being regular is a sign of "God".

About 1m50s into this "interview"

O'REILLY: You know, I'll tell you why it's not a scam, in my opinion, all right? Tide goes in tide goes out, never a miscommunication. You cannot explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in…
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out.
O'REILLY: The water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in…
SILVERMAN: Maybe it's Thor on top of Mount Olympus who's making the tides go in and out.
O'REILLY: No, no, but you can't explain that.

Watch about the whole thing if you want but the bit I'm talking about is 1m 50s into the "interview" use the link to jump right to the section I'm referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI#t=1m50s

Bill's reasoning that there is a "God" because he doesn't seem to understand that the moon causes the tides and it because we know this that we can predict, down to the minute when high tide will be for any location on the earth.

Ok so we do know the reason for the tide.  "We" being the collective scientific knowledge of human kind.  Silverman may not know, or more likely he does know but that "interview" would have been very stressfull and he had a hard enough time getting any word in on that "interview"

If you don't understand how the tides work check out this NASA animation

or listen to this kid.

a older more "educational" video

So you can say that Bill might just be ignorant of how tides work but think about this.  This isn't the first time he's used this exact line of reasoning.  If fact it is word for word what he's said many times in the past and when pointed out he moves the goal post like in this video done a year ago.

So he knows why the tides happen.  He therefore is dishonest in saying we don't know what causes the tides.  Now I don't care what your religious beliefs are but do you think that dishonesty and scientific ignorance is a good basis for your philosophy in any "God" or "Gods"?

Watch his whole video just above.  When told about the tide he moves his ignorance out to something else science explains very well.  He is pigeon holing is "God" as a "God of the gaps".  This is where someone tries to use gaps in our scientific knowledge as evidence of their "God" IE "You can't explain [insert topic here] there for God did it".  The problem with this is as our knowledge gets better and these "Gaps" are filled the "proof" becomes less and less.  Worse still it often isn't a gap in our, human kind's knowledge, but a gap in the person's knowledge who is making the claims.  Like Bill who was probably ignorant of what causes the tides, then tries to move it to the origin of the moon, or the sun.

Don't let ignorance drive your faith.  Let faith drive your faith and let the magnificence of the universe inspire you.  Because every time you try to use a hole in your knowledge as proof of your God(s) you cheapen and limit your God(s).  Every time you stand idlely by and don't stop others from doing the same you are complacent with bad theology and philosophy.  Something I bet your God(s) wouldn't be very proud of.

What Bill is doing is probably "Lying for Jesus"  which is a when some Christians believe that falsifying information is acceptable if the falsification brings more people to Jesus or keeps people from leaving.

I served in the USMC for 6 years defending peoples religious rights and it sickens me to think people like this are among the majority of honest religious people.  Sadly those "lying for Jesus" often are just like Bill and try to drown out everyone else when they try to express themselves.

Have a little introspection and decide carefully if you are happy or even proud to be counted as someone like Bill.

No Minimum Wage? More tax cuts for the top 2%?

Honestly no minimum wage?  Even if you could get a full time job at the current minimum wage that is 17,748 a year. $340 a week.  For food, for housing, for utilities, for clothing and for medical care, for you, for those that depend on you!

Some republicans like Michele Bachmann support a removal of the minimum wage from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Click the link to jump to the point I'm refering to but feel free to watch the whole thing and the ignorance in play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q3a0udOqhc#t=1m43s

According to her logic the solution to world hunger would be to take the minimal amount of support given now and just spread it even thinner.   The real scary bit is where she says "we need to tamp that down so that the American people can keep more of what they make"

Lets look at this statement.  Some might say she's advocating for a smaller government, which she is, and that we shouldn't take from the poor.  But look here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaGJP0G-hu0#t=3m07s
 (feel free to view the whole video.  The question was about how to address the issues where some corporations don't pay taxes yet she spins it)  She also tried to make it seem like 1 persons entire job was to write just 14 words in the tax regulations.  I'm sure the person she talked to had more responsibility then to just answer her question about a 14 word passage, but I digress.

She thinks that $17,748, and even less, is enough for not only 1 person to live on but often an entire family and that the government should be able to take even more money from these people.

What she really means by "American people can keep more of what they make" is "Business owners should be able to keep as much as they can and the workers should be happy with what they get and the government shouldn't be able to do anything about it."

While I don't think the tax system is perfect I don't think the problem is at the low end of the wage earners.  Raising the tax rates for high income earners to what they paid during the Reagan administration would raise from 35-70 billion dollars a year.  Taxing the almost half of American's that already live below the poverty line by 50% would raise about the same amount of money.

So the Republican/Tea party's solution is that instead of taxing the top 2% of earners, to what they would have been paying during the "golden era" that the republicans and tea party are always saying they want to get back to, We should take half of the income from the people that can least afford it.

Right now in the USA the top 1% of the income earners control almost 25% of the wealth, the top 10% almost 50%.  In the last 30 years 80% of the raises in income have gone to that top 1%.  The trickle down method hasn't worked.  The rich get richer and the poor and middle class get poorer.  What is really bad is that the top 10% of the country has much of the "middle class" convinced that taxing the rich is bad.

The bottom 50% house holds only control 2.5% of the income of our nation.  15.1% of the USA live below the poverty line and among African Americans and Hispanic Americans the rate is over 26%. The "middle class" which in theory should be the largest group control less then 50% of the income and that figure is getting smaller.  Sure some of them are climbing into the bracket of those that control the 50%or more of the wealth.  But what is happening is that the top 10% are controlling a higher percentage of the wealth.  So you'll soon get 10% of the population controlling 60% of the wealth and 50% of the population controlling 1.25%!  How is that fair?

We aren't even talking about raising the income tax of the top 10%.  Just the top 2% and not to any rediculous rate but just restoring it to the rate that was in place during the Reagan administration.

So tell me, are you "middle class"?  Do you think that it is more fair to tax a family of 4 that makes less then $22,350 a year by 50% and that it is unfair to remove the tax cuts that the top 2% income earners get restoring them to what they paid in the early 80s?  Remember the higher taxes the poor people get hit with will effect you.  They'll effect where you want to be.  Yet the republican party has so many of middle class convinced that "class warefare" is being waged against the rich.  Is it unreasonable to have someone that earns $5,000,000 a year pay even the same rate of tax as a household that earns just $50,000 a year.

I can tell you from personal experience that in the late 80's when I was in high school with 3 part time jobs, one of which was working for an accountant, that I saw people that made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year that paid less taxes then I did as a 17 year old high school student working those 3 part time jobs.  Tell me...what class is the "Class warfare" actually being waged against?

I see what many Republicans and Tea Party leader think the problem is.  The poor make to much!  They should be paid less and taxed more!