Sunday Updates -Tax Cuts, #Wikileaks, #Payback/#Leakspin, & #DADT

Ok, now that I've had a bit of time to process some of what's been going on lately (among other things), I think it's about time I get back to the weekly updates (and once the holidays are over, I'll finally be able to work on real posts again! Yay!)

• Crazy weather all over the world, from massive blizzards in the Midwestern US, to torrential rain in the Middle East... This winter is going to be brutal. I hate winter. Stupid global warming/climate change... [grumbles]
• Haiti was tormented this weekend by the arrival of yet another disaster in their country, decked in cargo pants and giant designer sunglasses. Can't catch a break, can they? [sigh] Ms. Palin's "humanitarian" trip was marked by the quizzical stares of perplexed Haitians (None of the people interviewed had any idea who she was. They're so lucky... I wish America could say the same. Damn you, McCain staffers!!!)-- who promptly decided that any publicity was good publicity, amongst the cholera outbreak and continued post-earthquake rebuild.
• Anyway... In LGBT related news- 
• The Prop 8 trial is back in court for the appeal! And is certainly looking good for our side.
• Illinois passed a civil unions bill. Progress is progress.
• DADT repeal is currently somewhat stalled. While we're hoping for Obama to step up and sign an executive order (a move he has stated he does not want to take), the fight isn't quite over yet. The stand-alone bill has been introduced in the Senate, however odds are, we aren't going to see a successful vote on it (or the DREAM Act) until this tax-cut issue is resolved.
• Speaking of tax cuts... Obama's deal with the GOP. Wow. Um, no, no, that's not a good idea, Mr. President. Since this is a huge story overall, I'll break it up into parts:
• Backstory: GOP threatens to block everything (yea, what else is new) unless they get to continue or expand tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. Obama, in what I'm sure was supposed to initially be a friendly gesture to keep things moving, met with McConnell, and made a deal, and then announced it to everyone - Democrats would get their wish of 1 more year of unemployment benefits and tax cuts for the middle class, and Republicans would get... everything else. Tax cuts for the top 2%, including a reduced estate tax.
• Here's why it's a bad idea - it actually raises the tax burden on the lower and middle classes (primarily by replacing a current tax cut with a payroll tax cut. For anyone making less than $20,000, and $40,000 for families, the payroll tax cut is smaller, and will basically leave us with smaller paychecks... Trust me, $80-100 LESS a month adds up fast when you're poor. A day after I shared this info with Care2, I discovered that the White House admitted it was true. So yea, guys, apparently it is actually true.) while giving the upper classes (especially those making over $5million a year) a bunch of very huge breaks that last for 2 years-- while unemployment benefits will only get 13 months of extension. We know that the continued tax cuts have been estimated to add a staggering $700+ billion to the deficit, but the CBO recently announced that this plan will actually add $858 billion. It will cost almost $100 BILLION more than the stimulus plan, and we actually got something positive out of that. This, not so much. So, yea, dreadful idea. I mean, I have nothing against compromise, but dude, it's not a compromise when it's a sneaky, back-door deal in which the other side gets everything and you get the wimpy consolation prize. Totally lame. Create jobs? I fail to see how continuing the same tax cuts that failed to create this magical trickle-down job thing will somehow work now that the rich can continue get richer without doing a damn thing-- well, nothing but screwing over the rest of us. So you're going to have to explain this one to me. I've tried, and tried, but nothing. Supply-side simply doesn't work.
• So what's happened since? - Democrats in Congress have basically revolted. 54 Dems in the House signed a letter, rejecting the deal. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders staged an 8.5-hour-long filibuster explaining why he did not agree with the President's decision. (Mixed feelings. Awesome, epic speech, but I really hate filibusters. Total waste of time, which we are seriously running out of. In just 3 weeks, the so-called "Teabaggers" take over, remember? And that's not even taking into account the holiday recess. Then again, maybe wasting time is in our best interests here-- waste enough, and ALL of the tax cuts will expire. Which will suck for us, yes, but will probably do a lot more good for the budget than this deal ever could.) Speaking of the TP, this is one thing we SHOULD actually agree on, though apparently they're split on this. TP "Patriots" says no, FreedomWorks (you know, the corporate leaders of the TP) says yes.
•  As a result of all of this, there are rumors of a possible rival in the 2012 Democratic Primary... Good idea, or bad idea? I personally think it depends on who it is... but overall, probably a bad idea. I don't know if there are enough of us to get a strong progressive in the White House, nor do I want the GOP to have the satisfaction of having their dreams of a "one-term Obama presidency" come true. (Ok, that one might be a little petty, but c'mon!)
• I think now I should get around to the whole Wikileaks issue. I won't/can't talk about my own opinions of it all right now, or any involvement I may or may not have in anything other than blogging about it ;-), but if you know my past or what I stand for, you should know where I stand.
•  Well, we know now how the world feels. Less than 2 weeks later, we have this long, lovely list of the government leaders' reactions. Some are negative, some positive, some indifferent. Will it spark an international war? Other than what's already been started, it's unlikely, for the time being.
• The "sex by surprise" charges brought against Assange in Sweden might be dropped if the US decides to go ahead with the new plan-- charging him with espionage. I'm not even going to go into how silly that is, (or how ignorant a certain someone sounds when she calls him un-American-- lady, he's AUSTRALIAN, not American.) or how strange consensual "sex-by-surprise" sounds when in the US or the UK, it wouldn't even qualify as sexual harassment, let alone rape. I'm all for women's rights of course, and I do believe that rape allegations should always be taken very seriously; but based on what information I have right now, I think that in this case it's likely it's a specious argument. Well, very suspect, to say the least. (Btw, if you want someone to get tested for STDs, wouldn't it make far more sense to do that BEFORE you sleep with them? And then not try to sell the story to tabloids & get "caught" via text messages? Just sayin... It sounds a little weird. But maybe that's just how things go down in Sweden. I don't know.)
• Over the past few weeks, the gathering known as Anonymous has been launching cyberattacks on opponents of Wikileaks-- primarily against the companies that have been censoring information or trying to shut down or block aid to the whistle-blower organization: Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, etc. They will be switching tactics away from the DDoS attacks of Operation Payback to a flood of information known as Operation Leakspin. The media--well, one half of it, anyway-- is very wrong about the group, though-- they're not cyberterrorists. Most of them aren't even hackers and were not involved in the DDoSing attacks. Their objective, as they state, is not about damaging or destroying anything, but getting noticed, and getting a message out, which is why the tactics have been changed. So again, I'm still not "officially" announcing my position on any of this, but tonight, I'll recruit for them. If you're interested in getting involved, or just finding out more information, email me or find me on IRC, Care2, or AIM. I know they need hosts, writers, editors and graphic designers. (Official Info & sites are somewhat hidden and change frequently due to government/corporate intervention plus various attacks from "enemies," so unless you're already involved, it might be difficult to keep up with them. I've been trying to keep an eye on all sides of things, to say the very least, and it sometimes proves to be a challenge... There's a lot going on.)
• I love Love LOVE Dennis Kucinich. "Wikileaks ... gave us 92,000 reasons to end the wars. Pick one!"
• There are rumors of a new Patriot Act for the internet. I'm hoping it's just related to that horrific, supposed law that gives the President the power to effectively shut down the entire internet (good luck with that...), and it's not the new horrific supposed law that allows them to tap into our IMs and emails and webcams, and is a continuation/expansion of this crusade against the P2P community... Call us paranoid, but this is a netizen's worst nightmare.
• I finally found a much better organized database of all of the cables and their contents, at the Guardian. (Yea, trust the British media to do it right!) Or you could just find one of the mirrors at this point. Either way, seriously, go check it out. You'll find out some pretty wacky things.
• Like how Iran is hiring ninjas to take part in political assassinations. Yes, NINJAS. (Let the ninja-pirate wars begin!!) So if you're unemployed and have wicked nun-chuck skillz, I'd get on that. Probably your best bet at a job nowadays...
• Or how Sarkozy chased a dog chasing a rabbit chasing a... well, I don't remember what, but diplomats share some damn weird gossip...

And most importantly... this past week saw the passing of Elizabeth Edwards, a woman of great grace and courage who fought for our rights to proper, affordable healthcare. RIP.

And I thought 2010 was bad. 2011 is looking to be a whole new level of Hell...

Tune out the Bells-- Just Say No to the Salvation Army

So how have I not seen this before? Apparently it was banned. Either way, it's the hottest thing I've ever seen in advertising, and I would totally buy this product. Wait, what?

Believe it or not, but this is actually relevant to something for once! My novel for NaNo, that is. Well, not the priests. And characters do not get it on with ice cream in their hands. (They're very good about waiting til they get out of the kitchen or finish eating... [LED light bulb flashes over head] O_O ooo, wait!)

"Thanksgiving" is tomorrow. My sister's been home for about 40 minutes now, and already the screaming matches have begun. (Not with me. I'm staying by myself in the basement until it's over. This weekend, that is. My bedroom will be a war zone at some point, I'm sure of it.) But speaking of "holidays" based on the systematic government-sanctioned genocides of innocent people (oh, were you expecting something else?)-- for those of us not participating in the Commercialized Day of Gluttony, a bit of advice for raising our future children to understand the true story behind Thanksgiving.

Moving on to the next Commercialized Holiday - honestly, I have no idea what Christmas is even about anymore, other than shopping and decorating and cooking and screaming at your sibling because she's a total bitch. It's nothing like the magical time it used to be when I was growing up... Anyway, before I get all nostalgic-- one aspect of the holiday season that never seems to change is the emergence of red-capped employees of the Salvation Army outside every store. Pavlov's dogs have nothing on us. I can feel my wallet grow heavier in my purse as the jingle-jangle next to the little red cauldron (*ahem* I mean "kettle") screams "FEED ME!" and my hands automatically begin to rove my pockets for loose change, just as I did when I was little. It's hard to describe the feeling I get when I have to pass by without dropping in at least a few cents, but I can't say that it's a good one. My family has been donating clothes and other items to them for as long as I've been alive. They were my first stop when the tsunami hit Indonesia, and when the earthquake destroyed much of Haiti. I never even thought twice about it. It feels like purposefully ignoring the ringing bells is a one-way ticket to Rush Limbaugh's house (a.k.a. Hell), and he (I mean his "hired help") is making liver and onions and gizzards for dinner. (Excuse me while I go puke up my tofu and beans...) However, as much "good" as they do in the world (and they certainly do a lot of it), they do a lot of not-so-great things as well...

This is going to sound harsh, but hear me out-- I'm about to explain why you shouldn't donate to the Salvation Army.


The Salvation Army is very much Anti-Gay:

• In 2004, they threatened to close down all of their NYC soup kitchens if federal law required the companies they worked with to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of employees.
• They requested to be exempted from local laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as a religious organization receiving federal money.
• Too many things to list.

But if the subject of LGBT rights isn't enough to make you find a new charity, consider this:

• the Salvation Army is an evangelical international Christian organization, set up like a paramilitary, that denies assistance or jobs to anyone it feels does not perfectly fit into their "Christian values" and "scripture." [Last I checked, Charity and Love were Christian values. But hey, I was born into a Catholic family, and only went to Catholic school for 13 yeas and was forced to read the Bible every fucking day, all while acting as a leader of my high school's annual religious retreat (at which point I was the only agnostic/atheist there). I could be totally wrong here.]
• They believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives them the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
• They use taxpayer money to practice religious discrimination against employees-- "The Salvation Army recently began to require all employees in its Social Services for Children division to fill out a form on which they: a) identify their church affiliation and all other churches attended for the past decade, b) authorize their religious leaders to reveal private communications to The Salvation Army; and c) pledge to adhere to the religious mission of The Salvation Army which, according to The Salvation Army, is to 'preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.'"
• They are hardcore followers of "Scripture." So yes, ladies, we are officially still considered inferior to our "husbands," are not allowed to date or marry other women, and deserve to be stoned (and not the hypothetically good kind) if we're not obedient. Yay!
• They function as a billion dollar multinational corporation, but are exempt from taxes, because the government considers them to technically be a church.
• They raised $20.5 million dollars for disaster relief in Haiti. Which is seriously awesome. Except for the fact that only $6.8 million of that money actually went to Haiti. And many people are still displaced, hungry, living in tents, and sick. (Sign this petition @Change.org if you want something to be done about it!)
• The Salvation Army has a long history of sexual abuse cases-- internationally. The most recent involves a swim team. (Yea, who didn't see that one coming?)
• They are "at war" against "social evils." I'm not even touching that.
• Officers are forced to sign contracts stating they can only marry other officers of the "Army." Yes, the Salvation Army tells you who you can or cannot marry...
• But those officers also get a pretty sweet deal-- free housing, in million dollar neighborhoods! Yay! The Salvation Army spends quite a bit of money buying houses... But what's a couple million? The poor and homeless are used to not having any money-- they won't miss it! Surely they would understand how important it is for officers to have a nice hot tub to relax in after spending so much time with the dirty beggars at the soup kitchen...
• Very questionable finances. I mean, I really don't know many people who can buy a $435,000 house with cash, or who lose $400 million dollars a year between income and expenses (source is lost somewhere among the million tabs I currently have open in Firefox... Working on it! Oh, here's one from Forbes)

Do they do great work? Absolutely. But to me, that's not enough. I'm rather disgusted by all of this. So I'll be in search of a new charity, and I hope this has convinced you as well. If you know of a good one, now's a great time to share! (I know there's some reason why I also avoid the Red Cross if possible. Someone needs to remind me... Oh, I remember. Less than 10 cents out of every dollar donated ever actually goes towards something. Or was it out of every $5... I don't remember.)

Updates! Current State of the Union...?

Ok, so maybe it's been quite a while since I've finished a post. And there's just so much going on all over the place that I haven't been able to just stop for a moment to sort my thoughts and get them down. Between my vacation time this weekend, weird dreams, & attempting to read a book (when I really don't have the time to get past a chapter, speed reading and all, since I kept stopping to "argue" with the author...), & now I'm here trying to finish this post and a private one before I leave (for who knows where...). I'm sure you get my point. So I need to play catch-up with what's going on again. (Like when I took a week off to play video games & regain my composure after a total mental breakdown, & totally missed that whole Scott Brown thing... lol... Oh well, not like it turned out to be that bad overall.) Brief comments about the state of the country:

Single Payer Healthcare
-- Vermont is attempting to push through a single-payer program, but might be stopped by the federal law... The plan, championed by a grassroots organization and based on the idea of healthcare as an undeniable human right, advocates the abolition of all for-profit health plans in favor of a state-run non-profit system.However, the healthcare legislation passed this year has provisions for state programs that specifies that a state program cannot interfere with the insurance provided by large employers. (Kucinich attempted to get a waiver included in the legislation, but as usual, progressive ideas were quashed...) Story Available Here.

Arizona Immigration Law
--As far as I've seen, most of the Arizona law SB1070 is still blocked. Good news indeed... (Wondering if Hollywood/music scene is really against the law because it's become the "in" thing to do, or if they're seriously into it... Either way, works for me, I guess. We're humans first. Nationality second (though I can think of a ton of other things that matter more too). To add some weird news, Ms. Palin has decided she had to talk about our President's "family jewels" (to be polite here...) in relation to this law... Way to take the debate back to high school. (Not to mention it's kinda sexist -_-" C'mon, really? Yea, Democrats are wusses. But this phrase that basically means that only men have what it takes to get shit done? Bull. Though to quote the great Leopold "Butters" Stotch, girls just keep 'em on the inside :-D)

BP Oil Spill
-- The MSM continues to hide the fact that there's still oil all over the gulf and in Michigan too. (Article 1, Article 2). No, the microbes couldn't possibly have cleaned it all up already. Yes, normally oil would float, & perhaps it's not as visible in some areas, but you're forgetting that a) dispersants break it up into smaller & smaller pieces that spread out all over the place; b) those dispersants are HIGHLY TOXIC, not to mention the fact that crude oil is also HIGHLY TOXIC; c) oil can sink. Someone commented on a news article & told another person that they should "go back to science class. oil can't be on the ocean floor because it floats on water!" I think that had this commenter actually thought about science class, perhaps they would have remembered that the reason that oil floats is because it is less dense than water, however should the oil mix with something (say, a dispersant, or particles in the water like salt or debris...), it could easily become more dense than the water and sink to a lower level. Different oils have different densities. Crude oil on it's own is actually quite dense. When it's exposed to air, water, or bacteria, it gets denser-- the lighter parts evaporate away, leaving behind heavy sediment. (Look up Heavy Crude Oil.) So let's focus on cleanup & stop pretending the problem's gone just because we might not be able to see it.

Congressman Anthony Weiner's 9/11 Healthcare Rant
-- My favorite congressman Anthony Weiner went on another passionate rant recently over the 9/11 workers' healthcare. It was epic. (And I can't believe I missed it & had to find it on youtube on my phone at like 1 am Saturday morning... Luckily, his office sent me a link later, too.) It's one thing to be a passionate ranting lunatic when you're spouting lies and conspiracy theories and you do it all the time (*cough*glennbeck*cough), but Weiner is one of the few who actually sticks to facts and I love that he shows how he really feels... (If he's faking it, he should consider Hollywood; he really seems legit.) Democrats have to learn to get angry when they should be. Occasionally, sometimes it's good to lose your temper when people are being ridiculous. Sometimes, it's absolutely justified. When people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, have at it. I'll expect similar reactions once this BP mess is finally cleaned up...

Political Celebrity News
-- Ok, everyone's talking about it, so I'll just mention it really fast and get the "celebrity" gossip out of the way- Chelsea Clinton's dress was GORGEOUS. (And I don't usually like Vera Wang. Or excessively ruffly dresses. And omg Bill looks eerily thin... I think he looked a bit healthier before...) ^^"

Bush's Tax Cuts
-- Cute how Republicans want to extend tax cuts without paying for them, & add to the deficit, but anything Democrats propose has to be paid for and then some. Really, watching them bicker, from the outside, is just so amusing. Like hell should they keep the cuts. This is money the gov't should've had, so yea, time for the free pass to expire. We need revenue in order to fix a deficit, and Mitch McConnell's argument (that the tax cuts help the economy) doesn't really work here. If he were talking about people living below the poverty line, then yes, absolutely. If he were talking about the middle class, then yes, his argument would make sense. But the wealthy? Yea, no. This may be a bit obvious, but rich people tend to save money, & poor people spend. Every good economist knows that if you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to poor people, not to the wealthy. (Trickle-down theory doesn't work. It would be nice if certain people stopped "pretending" it does.) And tell me again how it's fair for the people who don't have money to pay taxes that ultimately benefit the wealthy, but the wealthy don't have to pay a dime? Seems a little backwards to me. So I'm with Greenspan on this one.

Petitions for Elizabeth Warren as Head of Consumer Protection Agency
--We're still trying to get Obama to pick Elizabeth Warren for the new consumer protection agency. The first time I heard about her, I thought she would be a shoe-in for the position (this was just before the bill was passed). But hopefully, with enough of an "outburst" so to speak, we'll be able to influence Obama to appoint her... Petitions:
CredoAction
Change.org (also for Credo)
Petition from Senator Bernie Sanders (D,VT)
Bold Progressives/Credo (Credo's really into this one, huh...)
Public Citizen

In the end, it seems pretty likely that she will be nominated. She's perfect for the job. Plus it was her idea in the first place, wasn't it? So, best of luck, Ms. Warren, we're fighting for you!

I'm off to find more ice for my knee. (I haven't a clue what happened the first time, but it was already bruised pretty badly before I smashed it into the corner of my nightstand... Ow...) Back to work tomorrow... And eventually I'll get back to a regular post.

Internet Sales Tax?! Again?? Ugh...

Before I even get to what I was going to say today, this was just brought to my attention:

Several Democrats just presented a bill to extend sales-tax to the internet. They call it the "Main Street Fairness Act." While the internet sales tax argument is incredibly old, I believe the odds of it actually passing are getting better. In 2001, Bush extended a "temporary" ban on internet taxation for 2 years (originally passed in 1998). At the time it was believed that taxing internet sales would hinder the growth of the WWW as well as it's economic potential, especially during the holiday seasons. In 2007, a moratorium was passed again to suspend all internet taxes for 7 years-- however, as this was before the "Great Recession," many states are looking to expanding taxation to the internet now. It is considered a "Fairness" Act because it is intended to level the playing field between online retailers and brick-and-mortar stores.

I'm still thinking this through, so consider this my official "knee-jerk" reaction. (Because even I have those moments... often. ^^") I don't think this is really quite that big of a deal, but for the sake of argument, let's act like it is. Personally, I feel like I should be opposed to the idea of this (seemingly regressive) taxation bill. I'm concerned that it may have a too much of negative effect on the population and sales than it would have a positive effect on the government, even if it is just a small (and relatively simple) sales tax. Many people already can't afford basic (already taxed) things (due to high levels of unemployment, increasing costs, etc.), especially in states that are already heavily taxed (like California, which is the highest in country at 8.25% minimum, & can get to over 10.75% with local taxes). I'm assuming it was meant to be "fair" to small business owners and brick-and-mortar retailers that already have state sales taxes, and in that aspect I suppose it succeeds. And I'm sure it could actually bring in millions of much needed revenue. But I still have to wonder, why is this the "next step" instead of something bigger and more effective? Why this instead of proper financial reform? Bringing more resources into a broken system doesn't really help anyone...

Why are we still wasting money on stupid crap? I would much rather prefer that we cut "defense" spending & stop spending billions to kill people (including death row inmates who cost us hundreds of millions, even though life in prison is much cheaper), take out the troops stationed all over the world, end the "war on drugs," and stop letting CEOs pour funds into tax-free offshore bank accounts before we add new taxes on the middle class, especially considering what's going on in Congress. Taxation is necessary, for things like schools and roads and things like that, but instating another regressive tax (after almost all of Congress-- all but 2 people-- voted to suspend it) for the middle class after refusing to extend unemployment just seems like another slap in the face. Many of us shop online to save money (and gas), and find a wider range of items that may not be available in our local communities. Buying goods online can help cut down on impulse buys, because you can see and control exactly how much you're spending before you get to the register. You find what you need at the price you can afford and you get out. Shipping costs a fortune already, and some sites/states do still require some sales tax, so I don't even want to imagine just how much more we're going to have to pay to rectify the mistakes of Wall Street & certain groups within the Federal Government... Besides, which state would get the funds anyway? Say I'm shopping for a new composter on Amazon (since my current method is coming along nicely but maybe I'll want to upgrade to a "real" one). Would my state, get the sales tax, would Amazon's headquarter's state, the manufacturer/warehouse, would it just go to the federal gov't, what? How much would that tax be? Same as the state tax? (Again, which state? They have yet to explain any of this... The bill isn't even online yet... Maybe it's the same way iTunes does taxes? Though there's a distinct difference between a tangible item and a computer data file.)

However, from the government's perspective, I think it does make some sense. E-commerce taxes are lost revenue (assuming one can lose what one never actually had)... I suppose "potential" revenue is a better way to phrase it. Basic way to readjust/refresh any system - take/borrow from where there is a surplus or where you're not currently collecting, put it where it's most needed. Hone your resources. Work from there. I am not against tax-and-spend when it's greatly needed. I am glad to give what I can and should for a good cause. Borrowing from other countries is out - trust me, loans suck, avoid them as much as possible. I'm against regressive taxation -taking resources from the bottom to give to the top, when you can just as easily take from the top. Bottom should be an absolute last resort-- otherwise, you're just contributing to poverty and homelessness instead of solving the problems. Statistically speaking, most of the people who shop online are middle and upper-middle class. This tax to me just seems like they've run out of ideas (and they're going back on a promise. Though why we'd be surprised about that, I don't know. After that jerk of a judge decided to overturn the drilling moratorium, why would any of us be surprised if someone tried to overturn the internet sales tax "ban"? Obama's done a decent job doing what he actually can-- albeit somewhat disappointing still, but there's still time--but the Congress and the Supreme Court are continuing to piss me off... )

I think it's in our best interests to keep taxes where they are (or at least, where they were prior to Obama's tax cuts for the middle class, & Bush's tax cuts for the upper class), or implement a small version of a progressive tax system, and try to limit spending to the essentials - health, food, job creation, schools. If every single person in Congress gave half their campaign money towards fixing one area of the budget deficit or to one of the areas on that list (instead of making idiotic videos featuring a twisted version of Lincoln, and demon sheep...), we could be much better off. Stop wasting what we don't have, focus on what we do have and put it where it's most needed. (-_-" Reason #1 why I'm canceling my vacation and saving that money for loan repayments, food, charities, etc. Have the money now, but it could be put to better use, as much as I want/need a vacation. I'll take a smaller, more local trip instead!)

And really, right now I really can't understand why many people are so angry with the government but not furious that the corporations and the wealthy are allowed to do whatever they want to make and keep as much money as possible, while people are struggling to survive-- especially now that it really hits home with unemployment so high. Yea, the government's (read: Reagan's spiral of) deregulation is a major cause in this, but money talks. It's why corporations chose to outsource and hire undocumented people to fill jobs, it's why many people were tricked into loans and mortgages they never should have even been told to consider, it's why we have all of these problems and lawsuits dealing with bonuses and off-shore accounts and embezzlement. Sure, they go to prison for a few years sometimes, but where is the outrage and moral indignation? I hear a bit from the Coffee Party, and occasionally from other groups... I can't be the only one over here pissed off that 10% of the world's population "owns" 86% of the world's resources, when 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Within the US, the top 10% of the richest people own 80%, while the bottom 40% has less than 1% of the resources. (And the "new" face of poverty in the US now also includes some of the "middle class." How sad is that???) Government vs. corporate, I'll take my chances with the group that's more likely to actually spend my money on something useful instead of a new yacht or summer home. Grr...

Anyway, I suspect I'm probably not thinking this through all the way just yet. It's probably a good idea in the end... And I guess it is quite fair for internet stores to be taxed just like brick-&-mortar stores... I think I'm just trying to be irrational & I'm complaining because I don't want to pay more ... Online shopping allows me to stay within very strict spending limits, and I'm really not looking forward to a 7% price increase (even with the way Amazon prices waver)... & I need to get to work on making computers out of sand, as corporatism is wearing me out again (she says, as she types away on her HP laptop with Windows Vista, sipping on a Smirnoff Triple Black with Lime... [sigh] One of these days...)

Here's a pretty decent article that outlines some of the pros and cons of taxing e-commerce. Will proceed to Google this topic until I get bored (3-4 more sites I bet...). Will just be going down the Google search results for a while until I see something that's boring and simple enough to share...

Like this. One down. And here... Two down & I'm already bored because I found cute emoticons... ^^" Still finding more cons than pros on this one... If you have constructive and/or kind criticisms, please be my guest. (You can find me at DarkAngelKiely on AIM, Care2, or half the anime forums on the internet :-P) My mind is all over the place lately...

Republicans Object To Bill For Homeless Veterans (VIDEO)

After you read the article (which I'm assuming you probably won't... but I embedded the video anyway), take a look at Sen. Coburn's (R-OK) letter. (These are the comments McConnell was referring to in the video.) As much as I dislike Coburn's usual comments, I have to say I actually agree with him on this - not on objecting to the bill (as I find it difficult to find reasons not to support it...), but to many of his suggestions for cutting wasteful spending so that this bill is paid for. I'm a bit surprised actually-- his ideas would be wonderful, earth-friendly changes that I think Congress should implement regardless of how how it effects the passage of this bill or any other.
Coburn suggests:
- eliminating nonessential government travel, which he believes will save $10 billion over the next 10 years (saves gas, reduces pollution, and saves wasted time AND money. Sounds like a plan to me, as long as we can establish that Palin leaving the confines her house and/or her usage of any form of media counts as nonessential government travel -- and just for this, we can pretend she's a part of the government.)
- reducing unnecessary printing which would save $4.4 billion (again, over the next 10 years... that's a lot of wasted paper!).

Other money-saving/raising suggestions he mentions that I think are probably worth exploring:
- collecting $3.4 billion in unpaid federal taxes from gov't employees (how he knows that, I'm not sure, but frankly, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it were true);
- disposing of unneeded, unused government property (I'm assuming he means land moreso than items, but either way, land could be opened up to organic farming or clean energy development a.k.a. solar & wind farms, and items = recyling! YAY, SENATE YARD SALE!!!);
- & finally, eliminating bonuses for government contractors who go over budget or are behind schedule. (Maybe I've only taken 1 formal HR class, but I could've sworn my professor said that most bonuses were supposed to be based on merit, which includes timeliness and staying within one's allotted budget... If they do a great job, by all means go ahead, but I'd like to see maybe just a little discretion here. So from a business standpoint, this one is kind of a given. Bonuses are supposed to be earned-- hear that, Wall St?!)

It's a rare day when I stand up for a Republican, especially one I don't particularly like. But I think in this case, it's really worth hearing what he has to say (which again, so surprising, after his comments on the health care legislation...). He also suggests cutting spending to government programs; perhaps some, however I adamantly believe that the Pentagon's budget should be the first to get cut. I do believe that we should get this bill passed, and it would be an auspicious gesture indeed if Democrats and Republicans would work together to do something great to help out our vets in need.

Why is this bill important? Well, let's see- vets are far more likely to develop PTSD and other stress & trauma related disorders. (Imagine reliving the worst thing that you've ever experienced, every day, causing a complete mental breakdown. And even if you think you're "cured," even decades later, any memory, any trigger, can send you right back to that point at any time.) Add to that the high rates of substance abuse among vets, plus coming back from war and attempting to jump back into the job market, and you have all the makings for a lifetime of misery, homelessness, poverty, and poor health. As many of us know, homeless shelters and programs can only do so much, and millions of people (vets and civilians) are often without any help at all. Vet programs in our country attempt to give our servicepeople mental health & substance abuse counseling, health care, employment assistance, housing, and food. It takes quite a lot of help for many to be "reintegrated" into civilian society.

This bill seeks to enhance and expand these programs, prevent veteran homelessness, expand a grant fund for veterans with special needs (including having dependents), assist veterans with obtaining housing, extend eligibility for health care for vets with disabilities, etc.

For more information about the bill, veterans services, or what you can do to help veterans (or get the bill passed...), check out these links:
S.1237 - Homeless Veterans and Other Veterans Health Care Authorities Act of 2010

United States Department of Veteran Affairs
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
Senator Coburn's Letter to Minority Leader McConnell (pdf)