On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.



Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:

The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year

This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.

When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.

For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it

Until next time.

winnie the pooh

There's some magic in listening to a child tell a story. Children are untouched by the world in that their naiveté is a gift.

Children aren't afraid of sounding ridiculous or uncool, because they don't know what it means to be lame. They aren't afraid of how they are perceived the way the rest of us do, and that is beautiful.

First of all, this girl is adorable. I'm guessing she is French, and little kids with accents always sound adorable (even German!). She has wide eyes, and a cute little cropped haircut reminiscent of Krissy's.

Second, I'm not very familiar with Winnie-the-Pooh, I never attached myself to the story the way some people do, so some of my observations may be incorrect; if they are, pardon me.

I don't think the story has bats in it, but maybe it should. Bats are a natural part of the "circle of life" and they would cut down on the rodent population. That would mean more carrots for rabbit, no?

The way she says crocodiles, hippos, and giraffes is just too much, I'm sorry.

Oddly enough, she mentions poor, homeless animals, and putting them in jail. This is actually something we did, and something that The New Deal did away with. Unfortunately, the way poverty is rising among the elderly lately, that past may not be such a distant reality.

Part of the fun of listening to children tell stories is how linear they are. I don't mean they lack depth, because that's not true. What I mean is, they will just talk, and improvise. Like how Tigger found the monkeys, then he wanted strawberries, then there was a fight, and apparently Aslan was there with a helmet and a sword. People should really have children wrote movie scripts, I'd definitely go see a movie written by a child.

Midway through the video, something is telling me this is about Schnappi das kleiner crokodil.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

Where The Wild Things Are

Everyone dabbles...

I like children's books. I may not have the affinity for them that a certain other person does, but, to be honest, I've always loved them. I may not read them every day, or think about them all that much, but I like them. I cannot imagine writing (or illustrating) one myself. They are incredibly simple at face value but beyond the simplicity of the words and rhymes directed at children are messages far more profound. I don't know if this is for the parents or if these deeper messages are meant to sink in for the children who are merely given these books for their educational purpose (what kid learns with War And Peace, right?). I suspect that children know what they're reading; perhaps children aren't given enough credit.

Max (Click to see larger)

I drew this first picture the other day. For some reason I decided to draw Max from Where The Wild Things Are. I don't know why. Maybe because Max is troublesome, or a rebel, or because of a certain cat, but it is likely because my brain meanders constantly and at that precise moment it thought Where The Wild Things Are.

I don't have a deep connection with this book. I like it (also, the movie is good). I don't recall reading it all the time or anything. I do remember it though. I like that it's not your typical children's book; it's darker than many are. But the story is relateable, is it not?

Monster #1 (Click to view larger)

Next, I decided to draw the rest of the characters. I figured, while I am at it, I may as well do the rest of the characters. Truth be told, I haven't started one of the characters yet (the girl with the long, straight hair). But I started with who I can only assume is the leader of the monsters Max finds. I like the way he looks. My drawing actually turned out fairly well. I have since drawn a new one with colored pencils, which looks pretty decent but I don't have a photo of it yet.

Goat Monster? (Click to view larger)

As I made my way through the cast, I next arrived at this goat like fellow. He seems angry, but I don't know why. Maybe he wants to be in charge sometimes, maybe he is tired of having to take orders from the other monsters. Maybe he reflects Max's struggles with his mother, which subsequently get resolved in the end. I don't know, but he is angry and he really shouldn't be. Sure, he's kind of alone. He only has three other monsters on the island to keep him company; perhaps he needs more. Some people do, after all, need more companionship than that. Maybe he needs to be surrounded by creatures to be comfortable. Then again, maybe three is the perfect number and once Max showed up, his entire foundation crumbled; not to mention Max immediately becomes their king, so maybe the monster has a lack of trust there.

Bird Monster (Click to view larger)

Next in line is the bird. I was looking forward to the bird, to be honest, but it proved to be somewhat of a pain. I found it difficult to find a good source image so I could see what the bird actually looks like. All in all, I am fairly happy. He is not perfect, but then again who or what is? The fur and stuff isn't bad. Oh well, I'm pleased.

King of the Wild Things (Click to enlarge)

For some reason I ended up painting Max. It's loosely based on the drawing from the first card. This is an 8x10 canvas board. Krissy likes it a lot, but she likes everything. I like it. As a whole, I'm happy with the painting but there are definitely parts I feel could be improved if I knew how to paint, but I'm kind of a perfectionist, so if I knew how to paint I can only imagine how I'd tear it apart. I didn't add the bush's shadows until the end, and I feel like it brought the painting up a level. It's kind of neat how small things can have such an impact sometimes.