Posts Tagged ‘government’

Know Yo Civics!

civicsThe RNCC (Republicon National Congressional Committee) and the Republicons in general, due to their relationship, have a need for some serious high school civics classes. The rationale for this assertion is their general lack of understanding of how our government allocates and spends money. This is a big deal because the Constitution of the United States has defined the course in which moneys are collected and spent by the government.

Every elected politician should have a firm understanding of which the branches may start the process of taxing, allocating payments, and paying debt. It has become increasing obvious that a great number of politicians either don’t know how government works or are completely comfortable with lying to and dumbing down the American people with their words. This is not ROCKET SCIENCE; this is simple elementary/high school, depending on the school that you went to, civics.

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states the following in terms of who has the right to raise and spend money; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. Only one branch of government that has been given the right to obtain money and pay bills and that is the Legislative Branch and the House of Representatives is where all bills have to originate; see Article 1 Section 7 Clause. These facts seem to escape the RNCC as can be demonstrated by their recent ad on spending, SEE!


@NRCC You know the coin doesn’t need to be made of $1 trillion worth of platinum, right?

Read more…

Reply to Conservative on Unions, WHAT? Part 1

December 11, 2012 3 comments
No Unions, REALLY?!?

No Unions, REALLY?!?

The initial question posted by Gregory


Question for conservatives:  Why don’t you support worker unions?

A worker union is a free association of individuals with the purpose of increasing their bargaining power against that of their employer.  In capitalism, the owner of a good is free to decide how much to price their own goods.  I am the owner of my labor and therefore I am free to decide how much my labor is worth.  As an American, I have the right to free association.  It is therefore within my rights to meet with fellow employees and decide together how much we should “charge” for our labor.If it is acceptable for industry to join together in order to lobby congress to pass laws that favor them over their employees, then why is it not acceptable for employees to fight back by forming collectives of their own?The point for conservatives is to maximize freedom, is it not?  Isn’t the ability to unionize a type of freedom?You can respond however you want, of course, but using specific instances of a pathological union to make your case is going to be rather unconvincing.   Also, simply applying a label to unionism like “Socialism” is also not going to make your point to anyone except those who already think as you do.I’m looking for a general response as to why unionism is harmful to society.  More specifically, why it would result in more harm to society than if unions were banned.

My reply to Gregory Geller

I commend your post. It was eloquent, concise, and accurate. I assert that conservatives (loosely used term) have been convinced that the interests of the company should be their interests and nothing can be further from the truth. Unions are the only form of democracy in the workplace in almost every instance. The reference to GREED when talking about unions is a ridiculously misplaced descriptor, but one that I will not make the point of this post. Read more…

American Debt and Who got Us Here!

Prior to 1980 America had never reached a debt of one Trillion dollars, but with the election of  Ronald Reagan we passed that mark and then some.  When Ronald Reagan took office our national debt was a mere 900 billion dollars; give or take a few hundred million dollars. Reagan ushered in the theory called “Reaganomics” which would be later referred to as “Trickle Down Economics” (see; but by either name it set in motion an approach to monetary policies that would devastate America, but I digress.

Reagan’s presidency ushered in Reaganomics which was an approach that relied on 3 key policy/fiscal foundations; tax cuts which reduced the operational capital of government, deregulation which opened up corporate welfare and corruption, and the role of government to that of noninterference (which is how Republicons referred to government protections from corporations and money’ed interests). America believed that Reaganomics would increase investments by the wealthy in the job market and in turn would stimulate prosperity for all. I refer to this as “trickle on economics” but again I digress. Reagan would  go on to deregulate savings and loans markets; he reduced taxes, increased military spending which directly led the stock market crash in 1987. The start of deregulation of banking and investment markets by Reagan,  and the administrations that would continue this approach, would come to roost later in American history but I will cove that later. This approach would take  the debt from 930 billion to 2.6 trillion in a mere 8 years or $10,058.90 per capita for a population of 258,709,873. I would again note that this had not happened since the start of America until Reagan’s presidency. The Reagan administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 8 year period which is an increase of 189% of the debt he inherent-ed; just WOW!

Reagan set the table for economic policies that would be adopted in large parts and small from this point forward. Bush Sr. (Reagan’s vice-president) would be elected in 1989 and continue the “trickle down economic policies of Reagan and would fare no better than his predecessor  Bush Sr. would lead the country to an economic collapse and end his one term presidency with the nation in debt for a staggering 4 trillion dollars or $4,064,620,655,521.66 to be exact. This result was in spite of him raising taxes in 1992 in order to curtail the disastrous fiscal policies he continued from Reagan. You would think that Bush would have learned from Reagan’s fiscal FAIL, but Republicons (I refuse to call them “conservatives”; there is nothing conservative about them) did not learn and America was fooled by slogans and propaganda that still exists today; and again I digress. I think that you are starting to see that I digress a lot, but what can I say I have a lot of un-expressed political history in my head. So now we are at the 4 Trillion debt mark. The Bush Sr. administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 4 year period. Supply Side Economics and Republicon governance quadrupled the national debt to over $4 trillion in twelve years (1980-1992) and they call themselves “conservatives”! Bush Sr’s administration governed over an increase of the U.S. debt of what would equal an 55% increase in just one term; I dare to speculate that with another term he would have nearly equaled Reagan’s debt disaster! That’s right I said it.

Read more…

Blog Sharing 10/01/2012 – Post Office Defense

I am sharing my response with a person on G+ who has (hopefully had) a misunderstanding of the reasons for the Post Office fiscal challenges.

The post office is a service and not a profit motivated entity much like police departments, military, and other government services. The complaint about the government requiring the Post Office to come up with the pensions for their current and future employees for the next 75 years is a burden that is fiscally laughable. I would dare you to name a company or government entity that has this kind of onerous requirement. We are talking about funding the pensions for employees that are not even born yet much less working for the Post Office. It is unheard of and a political/fiscal poison pill that was foisted on them by the Republicons, see

You need to understand that not one dime of federal money goes to Post Office, see  and under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1, “Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”. They are dependent on the revenue that they generate in the sale of its services. If you look at the fact that they do not receive government or tax payer money you should ask then why are they at the management mercy of Congress? To answer that question you will have to read about the history of the Post Office, In order to restructure their fiscal structure in any way, the Post Office must get the approval from Congress. I am talking about raising the price of services, what services they are allowed to offer, what routes they or times that they are allowed to run, and any and all fiscal adjustments that they could make in order to meet the ridiculous 75 funding of pensions.
Read more…

%d bloggers like this: