Skip to main content

User login

Calendar of Events

«  
  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Upcoming Events and Actions

Thu, Aug 21st

Fri, Aug 22nd

Sun, Aug 24th

Fri, Aug 29th

Thu, Sep 4th

Fri, Sep 5th

Fri, Sep 12th

Tue, Sep 16th

Global IMC Network

Picking the Best Smile to Give Away Our Money (That Simply Isn't True)

October 19, 2012 by sudhama

Where do they come from? Have you ever seen those fervent groups of people angry and charged up about their view it's not fair that the rich get charged the same tax rate as the rest of us? Ever notice large groups of people riled up about unions and how they are a bad thing for Americans? Ever see giant groups of people pushing for greater defense spending than we already have? Ever seen large groups of people applauding and cheering about how spending on political campaigns should not be capped?

Smiley face

Every time we see such groups portrayed on the screen, it's always said to be just average ordinary folks, but since when do huge groups of the majority of Americans, the 99 percent of most of us, get mad about all of us, including the rich, paying an equivalent rate? Most of the people I know are average folks in terms of income, and I have never once heard a single one of them saying, “You know, I feel so sorry for rich people, being threatened with paying the same tax rate as the rest of us. It must be so scary for them. Their children must be crying themselves to sleep at night with mommy and daddy saying, 'there, there, you'll still get that 24k gold teddy bear.' I don't know how they handle it.” At least not with any seriousness.

How many ordinary folk, that really have their facts straight on unions, believe they're a bad thing? Unions were responsible for building the American middle class. The record speaks for itself, and if you're in doubt just look at it. The same people that shipped jobs overseas because they didn't want to pay union members decent living wages, did not, previous to that, one day just up and decide to pay workers in America decent living wages.

No. These were people that allowed child labor and forced children working for them, to work long hard days, just like adults. Unions stopped that. They forced people to work in dangerous conditions with hazardous materials and no safe escape route in case of emergency. Unions stopped that. People had limbs cut off and fall into food products, that were then served either with the crushed up human remains, or without the batch of food tainted by the human remains being thrown out, for sanitary considerations. Unions stopped that.

People weren't paid decent wages they could live on, send their kids to college on and retire on, despite making the owners and executives hugely rich. Unions changed that. Pensions were raided in the 1990's and beyond and government passed a few laws, but kept others in place, leaving loopholes big enough for corporations to drive eighteen wheelers full of looted worker's savings through. When they broke laws already on the books in many cases judges just let it slide, and congress failed to act. The only people that were protected? You guessed it – union members. They stopped that from happening to their members. Minorities and women finally began having access to decent wages due in no small part to unions.

What groups of ordinary folks are saying we need to spend more on defense that understand the true amount being spent? Right now, if you divide the total amount of defense spending up by individual nation, comparatively, America makes up 41% of all military/ defense spending worldwide. That's when taking into account the total military spending of every other nation in the world, and the comparison is shocking, especially considering how much we hear about the need for more spending. The rest of the world's percentages show China with the next biggest slice of the pie at a measly 8.2%, Russia at 4.2%, the U.K. And France each hold a 3.6% slice respectively, the next ten countries combined only hold a 21.3% slice of the pie, and the rest of the world makes up the remaining 18.2% of the pie. (http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/12/country-distribution-2011.png)

Yet Mitt Romney wants to spend more and more. Really? Do we really need more? I mean, thus far almost every single thwarted terrorists attack since 9-11 has involved plans drawn up by the FBI, people recruited by the FBI, weapons and equipment provided by the FBI and funding provided by the FBI. That isn't the stuff of left wing conspiracy theories, those are facts even FOX News reports (albeit in the middle of the day and faster than pharmaceutical disclaimers). And then, when the plan is about to go off; guess who's there to take credit for foiling the plot? Holy moly!! Who woulda guessed? It's the FBI!!! How'd they know? Man those guys are sharp. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A)

President Obama has also been hyping up more spending, saying we need more protection from China. Right, so we have enough military might to blow their arsenal out of the water from the water (while holding an all Navy battleship to battleship golf tournament), they hold all our debt, and risk being left holding the check if they went to war with us and we are their biggest trading partner, meaning more of their economy relies on business with us than anyone else, including the people of their own nation, and they are going to attack us. Has anyone even seen the pictures of some of the old worn out ships from the Soviet era the Chinese have been purchasing? They are actually using old cruise ships to haul troops and implements. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/chinacruise/) Oh nooooo!!! Has this been Princess Cruise Lines secret plan all along? How could we have been so blind??!!

We aren't stupid. We know the bases are located in strategically positioned places to guard oil fields, resources to be mined, nations (like those in Eastern and South Eastern Asia) that provide cheap labor, etc. There are those that say great!!! They are protecting American interests? American interests? Since when is it our job or in our interest to pay for security guards for private businesses, especially those that can afford their own protection? Americans don't work the oil fields in the Middle East, cheap labor from Bangladesh, Nepal, India and other places are shipped in to do that.

Americans don't work the mines in nations rich in natural resources like copper, silver, gold and lithium just to name a few. The cheapest labor is selected or imported to do that. The shipping of jobs overseas is how Bill Clinton acquired the nickname “NAFTA” Bill – in addition to the other nickna ... well … you … right. Anyway, those jobs are over there having been given to workers in foreign nations, so those wealthy corporations didn't have to pay decent wages over here to Americans. Now we are being asked, no forced to pay for protection for those foreign workers that took our jobs? That is not morally right or fair. We pay taxes in good faith that they go towards our national security, not the national security of those countries wealthy corporations have business interests in.

Which party is supposed to protect us from being taken advantage of by wealthy corporations? Which party was supposed to walk the picket lines with us? Which party was supposed to keep us from having to pay to provide security to wealthy corporations doing business overseas, when that has nothing to do with a free market?

Copper production has risen steadily since 1900 with few exceptions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Copper_-_world_production...) Yet looking at prices since 1986 alone copper prices have skyrocketed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copper_Price_History_USD.png) How has our tax dollars to protect their mines benefitted us in any way? We pay more!

Oil prices – what a joke. There was a time Americans were employed to work oil fields owned by, leased by and operated by wealthy American corporations. Now hardly any Americans work those fields, and how about those oil prices? Do we need charts to tell us about how that's going? Has any administration been able to permanently reduce these prices for the everyday Americans paying to provide security for wealthy oil corporations doing business overseas? Why should we pay for their security? We don't benefit in any way whatsoever from it.

Our standard of living and our middle class have been in decline since the very time our jobs started being exported, and the numbers are finally starting to show it. As one Washington post writer put it, in July of 2012, “for the most recent decade,[...] Commerce Department data showed [...] U.S.-based multinationals adding 2.4 million jobs overseas even as they cut 2.9 million back home.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/outsourcings-net-effect-o...) Look at the numbers and see what happened to our way of life as lived by the majority of us since unions have been cracked down on. (http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Union-memb...)

Which party has helped? Which party just talked a lot and when it came time for action hid behind trees like scared kids when a bully they should be standing up to came by, eyes squeezed tight, hoping someone big would save them? That's not to blame Democrats alone. Let's be honest, Bain Capitol was one of the best companies at taking over companies and maximizing profits by sending jobs overseas, especially during the 1990's, and even their competitors admitted it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/outsourcings-net-effect-o...)

Obama never walked the picket lines to stand with unions as he said he would, Romney never pretended he cared about unions. Either way, you get nada from both candidates, just your money forced to pay for security for their cheap labor factories sucking away American jobs.

Obama tried to keep troops in Iraq and didn't say jack when people started protesting for freedoms in oil rich countries where we have huge military bases, like Bahrain, during the Arab Spring. But he had no issues sending in planes and defense contractors at triple the price that contribute to his campaign instead of US military to unfriendly Libya and has threatened to do so in Syria. Romney also desires to spend even more money and open more bases. Either way, it's more of your bank account going towards protecting or further enriching wealthy oil corporations that haven't employed Americans over there, but have steadily increased oil prices here. Maybe as an October surprise, he'll have oil prices dropped until after the election – if it's deemed necessary.

Obama says jobs won't come back from overseas and Romney does also. Neither candidate plans to do a thing about that. How many Americans are employed as workers making those products over there? Notice the quality of computers and gadgets raising so you need to replace them less often? Yet, once again both want to spend more from your bank account to pay for more bases over in the Pacific to protect cheap labor factories that benefit only wealthy Americans.

They both supported TARP and neither would support, outside of talk, anything like a WPA jobs program that has no bottom line benefit to anyone but you and me. All we hear when they are confronted with the reality are excuses or flat out lies like, “That is simply not true” or “That's just not the reality of what happened.” But the fact is, it's without a doubt true, and it's neither Republicans nor Democrats that have failed us, it's both of them. To old Charlie thinking he's doing the right thing by trying to fool others like him into buying this nonsense, well you aren't doing your American fellow middle class citizens any favors, but I'm sure there are wealthy interests somewhere in the world smiling wryly and thinking to themselves, “thanks Chuck,” if they aren't saying it out loud. But, IDK how many people that put America first would agree, if they knew about the truth behind what you've been in favor of spending money on that is.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.

Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes