On the path to OAC, withdrawing my support, 1/2 the story
Yesterday after work I decided to try a move that I have worked off and on for a few months, a one arm static hold with a chin up grip. You basically pull yourself up with a chin up grip over the bar and release one hand and try to keep yourself up there. In my prior attempts at this the move the best I could muster was a brief split second pause before I would drop down. I just could not hold it.
Well I threw the Iron Gym up last night and grabbed on. I released my left hand and was amazed I was still up on the bar 3 or 4 seconds later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS46lycNzjE
I tried the move with my left arm and was not able to duplicate it yet. Still, the progress is encouraging.
Jeremy and I talk a lot of politics in our endless IM conversations, probably more than we should since we have some core differences that we don’t seem able to bridge. Jeremy has become a staunch Ron Paul supporter. I have liked Ron as well, even longer than Jeremy, dating back to the 2008 presidential campaign. Hell I had planned to even throw Ron a vote in Florida’s primary, which would be my first for a republican presidential candidate in 20 years.
Ron Paul has some stances on certain issues which I really like. I agree that we have wasted epic amounts of money in Iraq and Afghanistan which has served little more purpose than to stuff the pockets of war profiteers while costing us the unnecessary death of thousands of brave American soldiers. Ron would get us out of there, pronto.
I am a little less enthusiastic about Ron’s plans to pretty much pull out of everywhere else in the world and exclusively worry about what is going on inside our borders. That guy named Hitler (and many others up to and including present day) kind of demonstrated why you can’t just turn the other cheek.
I like how Ron has called out the Fed as being basically a bunch of crooks all in on the secret handshake deals with the corrupt financial system in place in our country.
I like that Ron is into cutting costs in a serious manner. I do not like his “cut off your nose to spite your face” approach. His proposals to abolish several federal agencies whose tasks are to regulate various aspects of our existence, some of which are pretty damn important seems downright reckless. Sure there are tons of unnecessary regulatory bullshit out there that does not not serve the greater good. However there are also crucial things that have to be regulated. Ron’s all or nothing approach to this does not seem well thought out.
His deregulation stance is probably what I find the most disturbing. If you watched Inside Job like I did you got a front and center view of exactly what happens when big business is allowed to write their own rules. Ron’s apparent trust for everything to just work itself out just is not logical and certainly is not based on history.
Then there are the other little quotes I read from Ron like he doesn’t believe in recycling, thinks the over population of the planet has no effect on global warming, that public education is socialism, anti Roe vs Wade stance, and his answer to health care is wishing more hospitals were run by churches. (not his real answer which is here but still not a good one)
Anyway these warts and a few others have made me decide to not even bother throwing a vote to Ron in the Florida primary. In the big picture, Ron has no shot because he doesn’t have the support of big money corporations/lobbyists (which is a positive to me). Unfortunately he is basically the 2012 version of Ralph Nader.
Another spin off of the political discussions I have with Jeremy is the talk about the tremendous federal deficit. I find these discussions both with him and the debate in the media extremely frustrating because some very simple facts are being tossed in the trash, despite being one of the core reasons we are in this ever growing hole.
Before I present my case let me be clear that of course I believe the government needs to practice much more fiscally sound policies, there is abuse everywhere. However to me it is hypocritical that an American public that for the most part does a piss poor job of minding their own fiscal house (record credit card debt, immediate gratification mentality, rampant consumerism) to be ultra focused on the deficit. It’s like saying “YEA WE SHOULD EAT HEALTHY” as you sit in Burger King inhaling a Double Whopper with cheese.
I also deplore lazy people that give public assistance programs a bad rap by unfairly tapping their resources, using them as their primary support mechanism. I want people to take responsibility for their own well being. At the same time I temper this with the knowledge that there are many more people that have a legitimate need for help.
Iit would be quite easy for me to simply adopt the attitude that “Hey, I can pay my bills, I have health insurance, I have a job. What the f do I care if you don’t? You must be lazy” That is an ignorant, me first attitude in my opinion that I find nearly as disturbing as the free loading mindset.
Ok so anyway back to my point. People have become so mindless that when they hear “raise taxes” they use absolutely no perspective in forming that opinion based on history. I read this article yesterday that outlined the history of federal taxation rates from Eisenhower to present day. Let me give some Cliff Notes numbers in case you don’t want to read the entire thing.
Back when Eisenhower was president the tax rate on the rich (over $400,000 income) was an incredible 91-92%. Yes that is not a typo. The rate on capital gains (investment income) was 25%
Let’s fast forward to the Godfather of Republican presidents, Ron Reagan. During his administration the tax rate for individuals earning more than $215,000 was 69%. Even though the percentage rate was less the dollar figure it kicked in at was lowered dramatically. Capital gains taxes actually ROSE under Reagan, starting at 20% and increasing to 28% by the end of his term.
The rich started their push when Bush Sr. took the reins (surprise, surprise), who dropped the very high rate on the big earners and instead increasing the rate on middle earners, this was the beginning of the very deliberate redistribution of wealth. Under Old Bush the rate was dropped all the way down to 31% but the income level it affected was dropped to include those making $86.500 and more. Bush did keep capital gain taxes more or less steady at least, ending at just under 29%.
So then we got to Clinton whom we can all agree was the last president to serve during what was a time period of economic prosperity. Things were good on most accounts. Remember, we actually had a federal budget SURPLUS during Bill’s term. It’s amazing we managed to do that despite a raise in the base tax rate for the rich. He upped the tax rate on the rich to almost 40% but moved the income level to trigger that rate higher starting at around 300k at first and then 350k later. He did throw the rich a bone by lowering the capital gains tax from 29% to 21%. Remember, this was a very good time for our economy.
Next up comes the infamous George W. Bush, the guy that somehow bamboozled America into actually reelecting him to a second term. ( a testament to the state of over all American awareness or lack there of) One of his first moves was to take that surplus in the social security fund and redistribute it as tax breaks, (benefited the rich the most) what a brilliant stroke of genius!
W also thought that the answer to a post 911 economy (besides using it to enlist in a war of false pretense) was to lower the taxes for everyone but especially for the rich. After all, if the rich are doing well that means everyone is doing well right? Trickle down economics are the bomb!
W dropped the top tier tax rate by 4 percent down to 35% while increasing the income level for the rate up to $357,000. However his biggest gift to the rich was dropping the tax rate on capital gains, the way most of the ultra-rich get richer, to a bargain basement 15%. Rich people LOVED George W Bush. Oh do you know that good old W, the republican “conservative” borrowed more money than all presidents prior to him COMBINED? Yep.
So in addition to being handed an economy in free fall which included a failing financial industry, automobile industry, high unemployment and two wars that bleed cash like an open wound, Obama was also handed the lowest taxation rates in history to pay for all of it. These rates have stayed intact during the Obama administration but through no desire of his own to do so. The republicans have basically been holding the the country hostage to keep these rates intact, refusing to act on important legislation if any talk of restoring Clinton levels of taxation to the system is included.
So to me, this does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. People that exclusively rail on government spending as THE sole source of this mess are turning a blind eye to history. These people act like the country has prospered under the Bush Tax cut decade, nothing could be farther from the truth. All those cuts did was succeed in enlarging the wealth disparity in our nation to historic levels while handcuffing our ability to pay the bills because of the decrease in revenue.
The money in this country has done a masterful job of making people forget what taxes were when the country was last truly successful and prosperous, before the assault on the middle class began. Before you form your political opinions I would only ask that you look at the big picture instead of the one titillating headline at a time that is fed to you by the media.
Jeremy
Before you form your political opinions I would only ask that you look at the big picture instead of the one titillating headline at a time that is fed to you by the media. .
Your words. Who do you think the media, either conservative or liberal, has ignored or marginalized the most? Who do you think they promote the most?
*** Ron Pau; / Regulation
You’re missing the chance to vote for the only honest man who has gotten anywhere close to having a national platform. The special interests have their hooks in deep, very deep, to the currently leading Republican candidates as well as the currently sitting president (see below)
Paul Regulation: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-10-22/ron-paul-on-cnn-how-wall-street-corrupted-the-government-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Voted against using YOUR money to bailout these thieves. Does not oppose ALL regulation. Does not think failed businesses should be given OUR money. Additionally he has pledged to SAVE social security and medicare, and if you think there will be any money left for any of these programs without drastic changes, than 1+1=3. I could dispute most of the other points, but it’d take all day. You are painting a very biased and uniformed picture.
Obama contributors http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Quite similar to Romney’s Wall Street Support.. and that’s because, more or less, they both stand for the same status quo http://www.infowars.com/romney-and-obama-share-same-bankster-campaign-contributors/
*** National debt
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of December 30, 2011: $15,222,940,045,451
In 3 years increased: $4,596,062,996,538
George Bush (8yrs): $4,899,100,310,609
Source http://www.renkandfile.com/
The above is not counting Obama’s recent request for over another trillion more, or the trillions that “Obamacare” will add to the deficit, set to be enacted after his first term. G W raising our debt that much was ridiculously absurd, and Obama is outspending him more than 2 to 1. By the end of his first term, Obama will have EASILY raised the deficit more than G W did in both terms.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Source: Barack Obama, 2008 http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/obama-says-that-adding-4-trillion-to-the-debt-is-unpatriotic-then-does-it/
*** “Bush Tax Cuts”
-Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
-Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.2 trillion in the next decade.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
A quick extrapolation of the above, shows that 3.3 trillion (total) – 2.2 trillion (cost for those making less than 200/250k) yields 1.1 trillion, the cost of the break for the “super rich”. That’s 1.1 trillion saved over TEN years, or 110,000 Billion per year (0.11 trillion), for the portion of the super rich. I do differ with you on how capital gains should be taxed, as it is your own money being risked in a business; more importantly, our saved money just sitting, or being saved in a money market rate, is already being hit with an inflationary tax as our government prints more money to payoff our ever increasing debt. Your dollars today will not buy the same amount of produce or gas in the future, just as they don’t today compared to 5 years ago. I don’t expect to come to consensus here; when you tax something, you get less of it, and less investment in the market during this recession would not have been good…but let’s put these “cuts” in perspective. Obama (and congress) have deficit spent over 4.5 trillion in 3 years, or 1.5 trillion per year. The 0.11 trillion saved over each of those years would have made that number approximately 1.4 trillion national debt added. So these cuts are ~7% of the problem, and spending money we don’t have is the rest (~93%) …I call that a spending problem.