The Incomplete Cynic

Your awesome Tagline

0 notes &

I will be 94 in February, 2012; I can’t walk more than one block without running out of air, and I take lots of pain killers to ease arthritical pain. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see an old face, but one with a vibrant look of curiosity in the eyes. With the help of a caregiver, I take a hot shower every morning and gratefully accept my caregiver’s help in putting on my clothes, especially my stretch stockings. I do some exercises recommended by my physical therapist.

Whenever the pain lets up, we go to the local Y and I walk in the water, use an underwater bicycle and soak in the spa. That’s the physical routine. Since I’m a writer, and a retired teacher, I’ve signed up for two play writing groups and I go to plays and concerts. I discuss politics vigorously with other activist friends. Once in a while I cook for friends, for my son and his wife. My grandchildren are off doing their thing; I like my life!

Why does Elizabeth fear old age? Why does anyone? There is a strange conflation in our American society between growing old and becoming infirm.

Rhoda P. Curtis: Why Our Society Is Ageist

I think she meant to say, “There is an entirely obvious correlation in humanity between growing old and becoming infirm.” After recounting her daily routine, the other thing just doesn’t make sense.

Notes &

evilteabagger: Reblogging this for a few things. One, it was tagged under taxes. I can’t see the word taxes in this quote at all so I’m confused as to how a quote on voluntary, charitable giving got misconstrued into a quote to support theft and violence. Two, I do notice the word should. Should is different than must in that it urges someone to do something, apart from threatening wealth redistribution with threats of force or imprisonment. Philanthropy can’t be forced. Something tells me this is the only thing the economically illiterate left have actually read by Adam Smith. Two other things: first, the obvious fact that our system of progressive taxation guarantees that the rich will be paying something more than an equal proportion of their revenue. Not only that, our system has reached a point where only half of income earners paid income taxes last year. In case you’re curious, that is most certainly the bottom half. So, if anyone’s not paying their “fair share” it’s me, the father of two who’s been in the workforce since I was 16 and never not gotten a refund. Second, and slightly less obvious: to say something is “not very unreasonable” is not the same as saying it’s the right thing to do. There are most certainly other solutions. Of course, we’ve already chosen this one, unfortunately, a bunch of people who pay no taxes or something like 8% after credits and deductions, think it’s a travesty that someone who earns more only has to give up 30%. If that’s you’re idea of “in proportion to their revenue”, then we are, as a society, well and truly screwed.

evilteabagger:

Reblogging this for a few things.

One, it was tagged under taxes. I can’t see the word taxes in this quote at all so I’m confused as to how a quote on voluntary, charitable giving got misconstrued into a quote to support theft and violence.

Two, I do notice the word should. Should is different than must in that it urges someone to do something, apart from threatening wealth redistribution with threats of force or imprisonment. Philanthropy can’t be forced.

Something tells me this is the only thing the economically illiterate left have actually read by Adam Smith.

Two other things: first, the obvious fact that our system of progressive taxation guarantees that the rich will be paying something more than an equal proportion of their revenue. Not only that, our system has reached a point where only half of income earners paid income taxes last year. In case you’re curious, that is most certainly the bottom half. So, if anyone’s not paying their “fair share” it’s me, the father of two who’s been in the workforce since I was 16 and never not gotten a refund.

Second, and slightly less obvious: to say something is “not very unreasonable” is not the same as saying it’s the right thing to do. There are most certainly other solutions. Of course, we’ve already chosen this one, unfortunately, a bunch of people who pay no taxes or something like 8% after credits and deductions, think it’s a travesty that someone who earns more only has to give up 30%. If that’s you’re idea of “in proportion to their revenue”, then we are, as a society, well and truly screwed.

Filed under economics politics taxation taxes

Notes &

whataboutateakettle: If the trade is an exchange between my tax dollars and safe and efficient roads, and cleaner air and the certainty of being able to walk into any clinic or hospital and know that I will get treated regardless of how much money I have in my wallet at the time and the guarantee that my kids can go to any school and get an equal, unbiased, and motivated education, then I will make that trade every fucking time.  I’m trying to figure out what planet offers this trade…it certainly isn’t this one. There are plenty of countries with socialized medicine, and if you walk into a clinic with a gash on your arm or an ear infection, I’m sure you’ll get treated in record time. Unfortunately, if you show up with a torn rotator cuff or acute appendicitis, you might get put on an 18-month waiting list for surgery. And your kids can’t go to “any school”, they can go to the school the state assigns them to (unless they’re fortunate to have charter school options, but a lot of people think those shouldn’t be available). And they get the education offered there. No amount of money is going to make that education good, unbiased, or motivated.

whataboutateakettle:

If the trade is an exchange between my tax dollars and safe and efficient roads, and cleaner air and the certainty of being able to walk into any clinic or hospital and know that I will get treated regardless of how much money I have in my wallet at the time and the guarantee that my kids can go to any school and get an equal, unbiased, and motivated education, then I will make that trade every fucking time. 

I’m trying to figure out what planet offers this trade…it certainly isn’t this one. There are plenty of countries with socialized medicine, and if you walk into a clinic with a gash on your arm or an ear infection, I’m sure you’ll get treated in record time. Unfortunately, if you show up with a torn rotator cuff or acute appendicitis, you might get put on an 18-month waiting list for surgery. And your kids can’t go to “any school”, they can go to the school the state assigns them to (unless they’re fortunate to have charter school options, but a lot of people think those shouldn’t be available). And they get the education offered there. No amount of money is going to make that education good, unbiased, or motivated.

Filed under that time i get both angry and inspired by a quote so i write a lot

117 notes &

jeffmiller: So I’ve seen this chart on a million progressive blogs the last few days, and like just about every chart you see on a political blog, it’s not exactly right.  Which is a gentle way of saying it’s wrong. There are the obvious defects, of course, like the omission of any spending by Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’m pretty sure Libya isn’t free.  Bush started the first two, but Obama increased our Afghanistan involvement, so he should get some credit for its cost. But the biggest problem is the chart’s treatment of tax cuts.  Bush’s tax cuts had an expiration date.  During his campaign, Obama announced his own tax plan, which would keep the tax levels in place for 95% of American.  He believed that only the “rich” needed to pay more.  The cost of this extension of tax cuts over a decade is $3 trillion dollars.  Why isn’t that on Obama’s side of the chart?  I think it’s missing because it would make Obama look bad.  That’s a pretty bad reason to leave something off a chart. Something else seems off on the chart.  Oh, yeah … Obamacare.  The CBO put the cost at $1 trillion.  And that was based upon accounting gimmicks.  Democrats think they’ll pay for this with taxes.  Businessmen think otherwise, warning about potential revenue hits.  We’ll see.   Let’s not forget the ridiculous assumption that Obama wouldn’t come up with any new ways to spend money in the remaining five years of a theoretical second term.

jeffmiller:

So I’ve seen this chart on a million progressive blogs the last few days, and like just about every chart you see on a political blog, it’s not exactly right.  Which is a gentle way of saying it’s wrong.

There are the obvious defects, of course, like the omission of any spending by Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’m pretty sure Libya isn’t free.  Bush started the first two, but Obama increased our Afghanistan involvement, so he should get some credit for its cost.

But the biggest problem is the chart’s treatment of tax cuts.  Bush’s tax cuts had an expiration date.  During his campaign, Obama announced his own tax plan, which would keep the tax levels in place for 95% of American.  He believed that only the “rich” needed to pay more.  The cost of this extension of tax cuts over a decade is $3 trillion dollars.  Why isn’t that on Obama’s side of the chart?  I think it’s missing because it would make Obama look bad.  That’s a pretty bad reason to leave something off a chart.

Something else seems off on the chart.  Oh, yeah … Obamacare.  The CBO put the cost at $1 trillion.  And that was based upon accounting gimmicks.  Democrats think they’ll pay for this with taxes.  Businessmen think otherwise, warning about potential revenue hits.  We’ll see.  

Let’s not forget the ridiculous assumption that Obama wouldn’t come up with any new ways to spend money in the remaining five years of a theoretical second term.

Filed under Politics