It has taken me awhile and I know many of you have been impatient with me, but finally I see the light. No matter what the problem is, President Obama is to blame. Initially I was fooled, but no more. I can clearly see that what we need is another George W. Bush.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Does Anyone Want The Last Donut?
Wednesday mornings and payday Friday afternoons were always the best, along with any day the receptionist woke up to discover she didn't have any clean work appropriate attire (the year was 1989, her appropriate attire was suitable for Hooters. In her inappropriate attire she could have sold condoms to the Pope). At the time, I was working as a Tech Writer for a company that specialized in Department of Defense contracting. Our office consisted of a Vice President, a Department Manager, five Tech Writers, three Word Processors, a Computer Support Tech and the aforementioned Receptionist.
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Slavery: Now New and Improved!
For those of you who have been out of the loop, slavery has been illegal in the United States for the past century and a half. Many people are still wondering why? After all it seemed to be working out so well. The common assumption is the decision involved the dignity of human life, the inherent wrongness of slavery and the realization that all people deserve equal and fair treatment, regardless of their skin color. If you think for just a moment you'll realize how ridiculous that assumption is, since fair and equal treatment is still a long way off.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)