Broken on a Flower
I have no idear how this beautiful Butterfly became broken on a flower, but that is apparent in this photo. Somehow it seems an appropriate photo for August 2nd, as we wait to hear whether Congress keep us flying or will break us apart on our own petals.
Howard is first...always.
ReplyDeleteHoward is indeed first.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about the reactions to the debt limit outcome I saw on the previous page, and I don't understand depression. We won! Everything we really wanted to preserve has been preserved. The Republicans' attempts to use the debt ceiling to force social re-engineering were totally frustrated. Most of the spending cuts and tax increases have been put off to 2013, when they will likely do more good than harm. What more could you realistically want?
This is a real question I hope people will answer.
Excuse me, Bill. We won? No we damn well did not. The social safety net is being chipped away and the rich still won't have their taxes raised, the corporate welfare will continue, the unfunded wars will continue. Please explain to me how it is a "win" to manage the debt limit on the backs of the weak and defenseless? Obama is the LEAST Democratic president I have ever seen. He's weak and actually seems AFRAID to be President. He could have invoked the 14th and avoided all this, but he wants people to think he's a "Statesman" so he sacrifices us rather than standing up for us.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the debt limit is safe. Somehow I don't think the people who have to pay more for health care, or can't afford it at all will rejoice. The people who can no longer get help with heating or cooling bills should be thrilled. My son and daughter, who will probably never get to collect Social Security, will not be holding any parties over this. My disabled son will have to pay more for his necessary medical care from his disability check.
The Republicans are crowing, saying "we got 98% of what we wanted". So excuse me, but I don't see this as a win in any way, shape, form or definition. And frankly, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't understand how any Democrat could ever see this as a "win" (excepting those hoping to be re-elected).
Why do you say the social safety net is being chipped away? Will programs for low-income people be cut? No. Absolutely not. That includes Medicaid, of course. Will Social Security be affected? Absolutely not. Will Medicare benefits be cut? Absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteYes, it will be a year and a half before the rich (and presumably the rest of us) see their/our taxes go up. Looking at the state of the economy, is this necessarily a bad thing?
Without further explanation, I don't understand how this bill, with Medicaid and Medicare benefits unchanged, could possibly increase your son's medical payments. Or why you think your son and daughter will no collect Social Security.
We'll have to disagree on the 14th amendment route. I think the chances of it working -- of the Supreme Court agreeing that the amendment means what advocates of this route say it means -- are pretty small. And if it didn't work, the results would be absolutely disasterous.
Well, there it is. They did the deed.
ReplyDeleteI just heard a man named William call in to C-SPAN2 and express his outrage that taxes are not being raised on the wealthy to help out the people in this country who are struggling. William said he makes $250,000 per year and he's outraged that his taxes are not going up to help. The moderator asked if this is what he'd like the Committee to deal with before November, and he said: Well, yes, in part. I'd also like to see them move us from Free Trade to Fair Trade! Sitting down? William was calling from ... Florida. Somehow that gave me a little flicker of hope.
Then the Vermont Democratic Party people called to ask me to make a contribution! Actually, they called during the vote. I gave that poor woman a contribution all right. She got the benefit of my outrage. I was remarkably articulate if not succinct, and let her know not only that I haven't been part of the Dem Party since they dissed Howard Dean in Iowa, I see the party having no spine, and what a good person Barack Obama is but he keeps expecting to work things out with the Republicans but the Republicans don't care a bit about working things out with him and meanwhile my family is going under! This is maybe a 10th of what I said. I also said I wasn't ranting at her, but at the Democratic Party and that had she called me years ago I'd have donated but we're now making about a quarter of what we used to make and can't afford to donate anymore, not that we'd give it to the party. We'd give to individual people like our good Vermont delegation but since I can't even donate to them anymore I do mailings for them as needed. Etc. etc. Then I told her I've sat in offices and taken calls too, and I know she has boxes to check and I have no idear which boxes she can check for my call but I wished her good luck. Ha!
And now I need to go buy an undergarment so I can try the dress on one more time and see if it's Go or No on the dress. If No I have to find another dress.
This is not my favourite day and I am really moved that I happened to post that Butterfly photo for today...not knowing what this day would have in it.
Plus, I gotta do all this and still get to work on time. Ha! Why did I dream about lions in the basement last night? They'd been there awhile and no one had given them food or water and I was worried about them. Where's Joseph when you need him?
L8tr G8trs!
Bill, I think there are a LOT of places where money can get diverted by this bill. Republicans plan to whittle away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the next round of planning. Meanwhile I believe there are ways that payments to insurance companies may not always happen as they did before, which will probably alter their practices.
ReplyDeleteUnless we drop the tax cuts and tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations my family and I are going under and there won't be enough money left for my children and maybe even me to have SS benefits...and believe me, having our own business has meant we DON'T have a pension to fall back on.
As I write this President Obama is speaking and he is again saying all the right things. But he wasn't able to stand up to the Republicans in time to make it a reality NOW. We are again waiting for sanity...and meanwhile the Tea Party is planning ways to make life worse.
I gotta run. But I think there's more in what Susan is saying than you're realising. There is a LOT tucked into the bill that leads to worse than we have now.
The bill specifically calls out cuts to Medicare. The Social Security program was *never* part of the deficit, and it would never run out of money if the g.d. government would *stop borrowing from it or pay back what they borrow*.
ReplyDeleteBill, you're letting party loyalty overcome your critical thinking ability. The Democratic party stopped standing for the working man, the poor, the elderly and the disabled a long time ago. It's only gotten worse under Obama's spinelessness. The Republicans know very well they can bulldoze him any time they want, and they will. We have far too many "conservative" Dems in Congress who will continue to vote with the Republicans on everything. Compromise means each side gets something ... not that one side ALWAYS gives up everything.
I don't know, Susan. Seems to me party loyalty counts for something, or should. Members of the Tea Party caucus didn't like the bill, but neither did members of the Progressive caucus. So, you ended up with Progressives voting against it alongside Tea Partiers. That concept makes my skin crawl.
ReplyDeleteStanding up for principles, for what you believe in is one thing, but playing into the adversaries' hands is another. No matter how distasteful this bill may be, every single Democrat in the House should have voted for it, shown loyalty and support for the president. How is he supposed to get anything done, how is he supposed to be strong in the face of Republican attacks and general crap when he can't even depend on the members of his own party to support him when push comes to shove? It's all very well to say he has to be strong, but he needs the tools to be strong. Members of his own party voting against him because the bill isn't exactly what they want it to be is not helpful. More than that, it makes those defecting members look mighty like the Tea Party and RW who won't vote for a bill unless it's exactly what they want, in other words petty, unprofessional, uncaring about anything except their own personal wishlist, their own agenda.
That's been my complaint for years, that Dems make so bloody much of independent mindedness that they lose sight of the fact that, to coin a phrase, if we don't hang together we shall assuredly all hang separately. They don't cohere. They don't present a united front. They don't, most damming of all, control and direct the discourse, but rather let the Republicans direct it, merely trailing along and whining that they never get their own way.
You speak of being a statesman. Sometimes, being a statesman means voting not your personal preferences but what is best for the people as a whole. Sometimes that means accepting less than ideal bills, taking a small step back in order to prepare to take a larger step forward.
You're not wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that sometimes we can be just as blindly obdurate as they are, and that doesn't help anybody.
Minor frustration in the grand scale, but frustration nonetheless. I wanted to work on a song, but can't because Cakewalk has no sound. The computer has sound right enough, Window-eyes is talking, more or less, but Cakewalk has no sound. Every time this happens I flounder around, unable to remember how to fix it. That's true today to, except I don't have any patience with it. Blast the bloody thing! I'll find something else to do. Not that there's any shortage of things to do, quite the opposite. But it irritates me. When I'm in the mood for a certain type of work, it's frustrating as all get out not to be able to do it because the computer has decided to be recalcitrant.
ReplyDeleteBut Cat, my point is that Obama did exactly that - played into the adversaries' hands, and so did the Democrats who voted "aye". If you don't stand up for a principal, you don't *have* a principal. If I believe that eating chicken is a sin, but then say "Well, okay, you can eat *that* chicken." , I have abandoned my principal.
ReplyDeleteI don't have an answer for you, Susan, but a question. What if every Dem had voted against the bill? What would have happened? Where would we be? I'm not being snide, this is a genuine, good faith question.
ReplyDeletelistener ~~ several points.
ReplyDeleteI have had my own business for 22 or the past 33 years, including the last 14 years straight. And I have a pension. Some of that is rollover from 401(k)s, but I put the maximum amount possible into my IRA every year I was self-employed until I reached 70. Even when I had to borrow to do so.
And, of course, tax loopholes and income tax generally have nothing to do with Social Security. Although Republicans routinely try to confuse people on this, Social Security is financed in an entirely different manner. There are good reasons why tax loopholes need to be closed and income tax rates raised, but Social Security isn't one of them.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Republicans plan to whittle away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the next round of planning." These are explicitly off-limits for the cuts the Congressional Commission is required to propose. Of course, there is not and never has been anything to prevent the Republicans from continuing to attack them independent of the Commission.
Actually, Susan, I believe I am thinking critically. Which does not mean believing every demagogue that comes along. Demogogues will talk about "cuts to Medicare" and then try to get you to believe that means cuts to Medicare benefits -- which are specifically forbidden. What it mostly means is cutting out some of the wasteeful and unnecessary medical procedures out method of healthcare payment encourages. (I have some minor expertise here, and would be happy to discuss this at greater length if you wish.)
ReplyDeleteYou're right, of course, that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficiet. But this notion that it is somehow threatened by "borrowing" is pure Republican propaganda. The fact is that the Social Security Trust Fund currently has a large balance on hand. Prudently, it invests that money in interest-earning securties. And the securities of choice, appropriately, are those issued by the US Treasury. But when you or anyone else purchases a Treasury security, what you are doing is lending money to the US government. Just another way of saying, "investing your money." Bush, of course, referred to the certificates the Social Security Trust Fund as "IOUs." Technically, that';s correct. But your bank statement is likewise an IOU. No difference at all.
As for Republican bulldozing: That's exactly what they tried this time. And they failed!!
Computers are naughty that way. But as I think about it, are they really any worse than automobiles?
ReplyDeleteFrom her Facebook page
ReplyDeleteBy Denise F on Aug 2, 2011 6:04 PM EDT
Randi Rhodes
Debt bill: Breathe... Next to nothing happens until 2013 - including the triggers. Anything evil that comes out of the 'super committee' still needs to pass congress (including a Dem senate) and be signed by Obama. Beyond that, the winners of the next election will ultimately be the budget-setters, as they always are. SO VOTE!
If Microsoft made cars
ReplyDeleteAt a recent COMDEX, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
Yep. Absolutely. Including those last two words!
ReplyDeleteI've seen a slightly different version of that list. But #12 is as true of automobiles as computers. In the first car I drove you shifted gears by punching buttons on the cashboard. I don't recall for sure, but I think the dimmer switch was still a floor button by my left foot. My next car has a gear shift lever attached to the steering column and, confusingly, you dimmed the lights by pulling that level forward. Today, my son shifts gears using a lever mounted on the floor. And I have no idea how he dims the lights.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention all these confusing new ways to "roll" down the windows.
I remember driving my "new" Mercedes home from the dealer. On the beltway. Had to pull over 'cause I couldn't find the windshield wiper controls, lol! And I wasn't going to try at 70mph. . . .
ReplyDeleteWell, well. Seems I missed all the fun while I was at work. And I'll say this: the conversation here is so much more interesting, intelligent and respectful than about anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteBill wrote:
I put the maximum amount possible into my IRA every year I was self-employed until I reached 70. Even when I had to borrow to do so.
It's good you had that option. We didn't. We simply have not had as much spendable income as you have had these many years, and we've been helping our five children along as well. I'm not sorry for the choices we made. But I am definitely not okay with people even talking about diminishing benefits. As it is they keep upping the age I have to get to before I get any benefits. We have worked hard and we've been good citizens. In all this time we have not had one day when were were completely unemployed. Since we've been paying in so that the people older than us can get their benefits now, I'd appreciate it if Congress wouldn't muck things up before I get chance to benefit too.
In my view, the Tea Party is a cult. We really do need to use our minds and hearts together to make good decisions and while loyalty is a good thing it also has to be continually earned, otherwise what we are being loyal too is also just a cult.
I'm off to quilt!
Oh! And BTW, thanks to my earlier excursion it looks like if I wear my dressy jacket all day at the wedding, I can just about survive wearing the dress. But it really is a shame it doesn't fit well.
Yes, voting wisely is essential. I am concerned that the Tea Partiers will dig deep and work hard to get more of their people elected. I am concerned that so many good hearted activists are feeling downtrodden and like nobody in DC is listening to them that they just might give up and not help good people get elected. After all, they helped good people get elected last time and where are we now?
ReplyDeleteWhat would bring the downtrodden out to work for this election?
I can't help wondering ... if every Dem and Independent had voted no (except Lieberman, of course) and the bill had failed ... then Congress would have had egg all over its face, and the Republicans would show up as the bullies they are and the people would have felt heard and cheered (polls said 72% of the people didn't want this bill package!) ... so the President would have had the rationale and power to use the 14th amendment and what could Congress say about it, because they had failed?
ReplyDeleteReality check: We can't afford to purchase Treasury securities. Bill, I sometimes think you don't really hear how hard it has become for many people to make ends meet. I can't even make a $25 donation for Ally right now. I'm borrowing from my second mortgage to pay my first mortgage.
ReplyDeleteThank you! ♥
ReplyDeleteAnalysts and polsters are saying that the Tea Party's blantant intransigence has hurt them, and perhaps Republicans in general. And they have more reason to be discouraged by the results than progressives do. "Abandoning your principals" is axactly what they see many of their representatives doing. I don't really know how this will play out in the run-up to 2012, but things look reasonably promising from that angle.
ReplyDeleteThe economy remains crucial, however. If we have a real recovery by this time next year, Obama's re-election is assured and I expect Democrats in general to do well. But in either case, I think we need to make sure the public understands just how hard the Republicans have been working to hold back the economy. After all, very few people vote FOR a candidate. They vote AGAINST his/her opponent.
Glad you'll be able to wear the dress. That's a plus.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how much spendable income you've had, but it's not clear to me how you know how much I've had. Although it's true that we only had one child.
I'm not OK with people talking about diminishing Social Security benefits either. I don't think it's actually going to happen -- considering that older people are thet most politically active demographic in the nation, the political backlash would be just too great. We need to keep our eyes open, however. As for increases in teh so-called (mis-called) "full retirement age," remember that this is a 1983 law. It's nothing new.
I think the mistake people keep making is believing you can take your eyes off of the rePublicans for ONE second. They may not be nice people, but they *do* hate SS and always have, and have VERY long memories.
ReplyDeleteThe "you" of course was generic. I myself haven't had a Treasury security since I was a kid. They wre called "War Bonds" in those days.
ReplyDeleteSusan may be old enough to remember War Bonds. Or maybe not.
Are you that confident of what the Supreme Court would have decided? I'm not, for sure.
ReplyDeleteHeh! Beau's a fan of sardine/zucchini bread. (Ya. Made it for him, only.)
ReplyDeleteOf course, I don't know, Bill. I'm simply assuming this based on what you have reported of your doings and comprehension. I will add that you certainly seem to be a person who is well versed and that you have worked hard and earned your keep. There was never any doubt of that. My point was merely that I don't always feel you understand what it's like to have far less, and not be able to bear what Congress is doing.
ReplyDeleteJust to add: My age group is on the latter edge of the baby boomers. So with every phase of living it has been that our older siblings do super great...excellent pay, lots of stocks, big houses, etc., but by the time my age group comes along there isn't as much to go around. The same will be true with social security. There will be fewer people around to pay into it, and we'll get short shrift.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. Hope they help♥
ReplyDeleteSis is having her ultrasound to search for gallstones Friday. I don't know who or what will be paying for that procedure, but it strikes me as necessary. Similarly, I don't know as my bone scan a couple years back was strictly necessary, nor who or what paid for it. But, on balance I'm glad to have the info that my bones are turning to chalk. Disquieting though the knowledge is, it helps me remember to be cautious.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there are unnecessary procedures - everybody talks a good deal about them - but I find myself wondering from whose perspective they are unnecessary. Should Sis not know whether she has gallstones? Should I not know I have osteoporosis and osteopoenia? Should Alan not have known he had cancer? Seems to me necessary and unnecessary are very much in the eye of the beholder.
*grin* Bill. I wouldn't know. Since, though I own an automobile, I don't drive or look after it. Mine has pretty much always gotten me and the person driving it where we were going.
ReplyDeletePuddle, that's funny!
ReplyDelete"Not to mention all these confusing new ways to "roll" down the windows.
ReplyDelete"
My car's engine has to be running for you to be able to "roll" down the window. Oh, for the days of a good, old fashioned hand crank to do that.
listener ~~ I am pretty well off now that I am over 70, drawing both retirement income and what is supposed to be (when my client remembers to actually send the check) a steady half-time consulting income. But over the course of my life my income has been very mcuh up and down, and for the most part more down than up. As well as totally unpredicatble -- which is exactly what you are seeing, of course.
ReplyDeleteJust went back and looked at my 2004 and 2005 income tax returns. Adjusted gross income was $40,000 and $57,000, respectively. That's after pension plan contributions, of course.
I sincerely hope you're right about the Tea Party, Bill. My mother says they're a flash in the pan, and I *really* hope she's right. I find them very frightening, not least their appeal to ordinary, hurting people.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption that there will be fewer people around to pay into Social Security is not a given. People forget about immigration. And most immigrants are either working-age people or their children.
ReplyDeleteThis is also one of the big uncertainties in calculations of how much money Social Security will have 30 or so years from now. Current immigration law expires in a few years, and the Social Security Board has to assume it will not be renewed. Thus, it assumes that legal immigration will drop significantly. This is far from certain and, in my view, unlikely.
No, not confident with much of anything with this Supreme Court. But had Congress attempted to impeach President Obama for such a step, I think the people would have come out in full force. The worst outcome would then be a slap on the wrist for Obama and a fired up populace in time for November elections.
ReplyDeleteI see. Thanks for the clarification, Bill.
ReplyDeleteAll the same, I think the story is the same. What is being foisted onto the backs of those already stretched too far by greedy legislators is not bearable. The plan is not practicable.
There are unnecessary tests and procedures. For example, Mah*Sweetie was required to have a shot of halperin (blood thinner) on a regular basis merely because he was kept overnight on a cardiac unit. The shot was painful and there was NO evidence that when he passed out at the gym it had anything to do with his heart, so it might also be a little dangerous. I pushed back on it and got it reduced to an aspirin, which at least wasn't painful. Turned out his heart was super healthy and he'd just pressed on his vegus nerve while working out.
ReplyDeleteThen there was the long stint of it being required by EVERY PERSON who went to the ER to have a chest x-ray! This was required even if they were there for an infection in their toe, or a cut finger that needed stitching, etc.. I twisted my ankle and got it tended to. Yet I was required to have a chest x-ray before I could leave the ER. The reason for the requirement was so somebody could do some sort of study. Yet x-rays can be harmful, and should not be used when not needed!
Decisions about what is necessary should be made between the person and their doctor, and it's okay to some extent for insurance companies to add parameters for them to work within. But no one should be made to have a unnecessary test or procedure. At the same time, we don't want the insurance companies to use this idea to disallow what is wise even if not completely necessary. I'd rather have doctors practice medicine than insurance agents!