An Idea For Welfare

Hello Hello,

So in my last post I mentioned the issue of welfare, and conservatives' distrust for it. According to them, welfare is a waste of taxpayer money that keeps the poor dependent, giving them fish rather than teaching them to fish, as the saying goes. I've never been convinced of this. The right seems to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence when painting its picture of people coasting on welfare for years, "leeching off the system." However, let's say that they're right.

Well, I have an idea to combat this problem, that would also help the poor get back on their feet. If you're on any means-tested program, and then you make enough money that you're no longer eligible for it, you get to keep your benefits for a while. Maybe for the first three months you get the full amount, and then you get weaned off for the rest of the year. Maybe less. I can't give an exact number, leave that to the real policy wonks! All I can say is that allowing the poor to keep their benefits while they move up the economic ladder is a great way to help them up. Cutting off their benefits cold turkey is harder for them to adjust to. And it also gives them an incentive to improve their situation: new income to supplement their already existing benefits. Conservatives say that the welfare state disincentivizes work? Well, no more. Of course, conservatives still may complain that allowing recipients to keep their benefits for longer is expensive. However, could this proposal drop the amount of poor and needy people by so much as to make it more cost effective for the taxpayer? I won't say for sure, but I somehow have a hunch.

Hell, I'm not even the first person to come up with this idea. I don't remember where, but I've heard it around. It may have even been proposed in Congress. If not, then it damn well should be. You agree? Then write to your representatives and make it so!

-Jack

All The Worst U.S. Cities Are Run By Democrats

Yeah, and? What does that prove? I could easily turn this around and say that all of the poorest states have Republican governors. Furthermore, all of the best, most booming, prosperous cities seem to have Democratic mayors as well. Look around the country and you'll see that nearly every city, good and bad, has a Democratic mayor. States, on the other hand, increasingly have GOP governors, with Red-leaning state legislatures as well. Just the way it is.

So instead, let's talk about policy. Tell me exactly what Democratic policies are keeping some cities, (keyword here is some, as almost all cities have Democratic mayors), in ruins. And don't just rush to your favorite inner city talking point that welfare traps people in dependency. Regardless of if that's true, (subject for another blog post, maybe), I'd like to remind you that welfare and entitlement programs are run at the federal and state level. Cities play little to no role in such policy. So that really isn't relevant here.

So please, come at me with policies that the Democrats do to certain, (again, only certain) cities that harm those cities. Because I rarely hear people who make this charge offer specifics.

You Gotta Vote

That's right. Get your butt to the polls and vote. Or if you can't, then get your absentee ballot. Even if you don't feel like it. And not just in general elections, VOTE IN PRIMARIES! That's where you get the widest array of candidates to choose from, and you get to pick who you want your party to nominate. 

Put it this way, my fellow libs. Do you want liberal polices enacted? Do you get frustrated when they aren't enacted? Well, look at voting trends in this country. Who's most likely to vote? It's a well-known fact that the rich vote far more than the poor, the old more than the young, and white people more than people of color. So the voting electorate is largely old, rich, white folks. Are you not old, rich, and white? Do you want your voice heard? Then you need to vote.

Simple as that.

No More Amazon Ads On My Blog

So as some of my readers may have noticed, I had ads on my blog with links to Amazon products. Well, no more. In light of current events, I cannot keep the ads up in good conscience.

For those unaware, many Amazon workers are currently on strike in protest of their working conditions. Many employees suffer long hours and low pay, and those who work in Amazon warehouses have it particularly bad. You can hear stories of people fainting from dehydration due to lack of air conditioning, and people urinating in bottles because there are so few bathroom breaks. Some links below:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks

http://time.com/money/5303482/amazon-minnesota-workplace/

And of course, Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. For his workers to be treated this badly is inexcusable. As the workers fight for collective bargaining and a better workplace, I will not use Amazon, and I certainly will not run their ads on my blog. I encourage all of you to boycott Amazon as well.

-Jack

Do Conservatives Really Believe In Smaller Government?

Okay, I'm back after a few day hiatus. Life, you know.

Now I want to get off my chest something that has been bothering me for a while. Whenever one hears conservatives define their positions, they usually say that they're all about limited government. That seems to be their mantra. But do they really believe it?

Conservatives have historically called for banning many things they don't personally approve of, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, burning the American flag, and countless other things. Conservatives today are the primary obstacle towards legalizing marijuana. They are also the ones who tend to advocate for America being the world's policeman, and policing the whole world sure sounds like big government to me.

Now, at the grassroots, particularly among younger conservatives, there is a more libertarian tendency, so the socially conservative issues are not quite as common. However, this libertarianism has yet to take over the Republican party in any substantial way; who in the party besides Rand Paul can be called a libertarian? Furthermore, what seems to be the number one issue among Trump supporters? Immigration. While many on the left have called for abolishing ICE, the grassroots conservatives don't mind big government in order to deport and keep out undocumented immigrants. Abolish ICE vs. build a wall and mass deport. Which sounds like smaller government to you? Another example: policing. The left is far more critical of police than the right; the latter seems to always insist on "backing the blue." Blind loyalty to the police. Does that sound like small government?

To be clear, I'm not telling anyone what to think on any of these issues. There will be plenty of time for that in future posts. I'm merely saying that the big/small government divide between the left and the right is fallacious. It's about time we admitted that. I, personally, do not like to think of government in terms of big and small, but effective and ineffective. Scandinavian social democracies are doing quite well, whereas many destitute African countries have barely any government, instead being run by local tribal leaders and warlords. When it comes to the proper size of government, I tend to lean towards what they say in the adult film industry: it's not the size, it's how you use it.

-Jack

Impeach Trump?

Hey all, first post in a couple days. More to follow. But before I do anything lengthy, here's just a little interlude.

Impeaching Trump is not a viable strategy for victory. It just isn't. Here's why:

1) No one seems to agree on what the criteria are for impeaching a president. It now seems like "I don't like him" is grounds for impeachment. It just makes you look bad when you call for the president to be removed just because you don't like them.

2) If you impeach Donald Trump, you get Mike Pence. Impeach Pence, you get Paul Ryan. According to the current Presidential Succession Act, other people on the list of succession include Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Betsy Devos, and others. Read below for more:

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_succession.htm

I'm telling you guys, this is not a winning strategy. Instead, defeat Trump in the war of ideas. Rally up the masses. And win.

-Jack

My Thoughts On Trump And Russia

Hey guys, and happy 4th of July! In honor of today, I thought I'd give you my thoughts on a specific case of potential treason: Donald Trump's supposed collusion with the Russian government in winning the 2016 election.

Here's how I always put it. Did Trump collude with Putin? I won't say he did, but I won't say he didn't.

I sure as hell wouldn't put it past Trump to collude with the Kremlin. He's a lifelong corrupt businessman with seemingly no real loyalty. (Remember that Trump identified as a progressive for a while). If you told me that Trump was in cahoots with Putin, I would totally believe it. And the intelligence community is virtually unanimous that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump.

That said, we have been investigating Trump and Russia connections for more than a year, and not much has come of it. We've found plenty of wrongdoers along the way, such as Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. Firing James Comey looked rather suspicious, too. And the way that Trump and his team are always attacking the investigation and calling it fake news makes them look pretty guilty. Still, we have yet to find any concrete evidence of Trump's actual wrongdoing. And let's not forget that while the CIA may have a strong opinion, it's not like they've never gotten anything wrong before. Remember Saddam Hussein and WMDs?

So, let's let Robert Mueller and his team finish the job. (Do make sure that Trump haters who are sleeping together are off the investigation team, though. That's just embarrassing). Then, the results will be what they will be. In the meantime, let's not be too focused on it. Just like I said that the Democrats will ultimately lose if they're hyper-focused on DACA and ICE, (see my last post), the Democrats are fools to talk this much about Russia. Same goes for the media. Because if there turns out to be no evidence of collusion, Trump now has so much ammunition to say, "I told you it was fake news!" I do not want to give Trump and his supporters that much power.

Therefore, my position on Trump and Russia can be summed up in three words: wait and see.

Happy 4th of July!

-Jack

The Democrats Should Not Be Too Focused On Immigration

Hey everyone, so in my last post, I laid out my thoughts on the current immigration situation, and in the post before that, I discussed how the Democrats can win again. Here, I would like to combine the two subjects and give the Democrats some advice on this situation. This advice is unfortunate, but still worth giving.

The immigration issue seems to be the Democrats' number one issue right now. This is unwise. Why? Because if the Democrats focus too much on DACA, ICE, and similar issues, it gives the Republicans a lot of ammunition, (and we know how the right loves their ammo, pun intended), to look at average Americans and say, "See, the Democrats care more about illegals than they care about you!" Talk to people around the country and you'll see that with the exception of immigrants and their extended families, immigration is not the top issue on their minds. Therefore, prioritizing immigration is not a winning strategy.

Now, this is not to say that the Democrats should not focus on immigration issues. They absolutely should, but it should not be their primary focus. Maybe in the top 5 issues. If I were them, I would put health care, wages, and other issues that can improve the lives of all Americans as my main issues. See my, "How the Democrats can win again," post for more thoughts on winning strategies.

Trust me, it pains me to say that the Democrats should downplay an important topic in order to win. But you can't have any success without winning, which means that you need to adapt to the political climate of the day. 

-Jack

My Thoughts On The Immigration Situation

Hello, and welcome to my first post in the "My Thoughts On" series. These posts will just be little, (well maybe not so little), blurbs outlining my opinions on specific political issues, like a candidate would on their website. I'll start out with what seems to be the most contentious one today: immigration.

I'll start out by saying that I'm all for immigration, and I want anyone who wants to come to this country for a better life to have that opportunity. However, that's far too simplistic and not quite the issue here. The first, most pressing question, seems to be what to do with the people here illegally. In short, I say that we should have secure borders, and give immigrants today a pathway to citizenship.

Look, unlike some folks on the left, I'm not for completely open borders. Granted, conservatives often use "open borders" as a pejorative for anyone with liberal immigration views, but to me, open borders sounds like letting anyone in the country with no enforcement whatsoever. I don't support that. It's a nice idea, but just seems irresponsible, dangerous, and unrealistic. You need to know who's coming in, and I don't expect any country to be able to handle unlimited immigration.

That said, we need to treat people who are already here humanely. This especially goes for the children of the migrants, often known as Dreamers. These people came to this country by no fault of their own, and for many of them, the US is the only country they have ever known. As far of the question of whether to say "illegal" or "undocumented," I can tolerate the word illegal for those who willingly cross the border without authorization. They did break the law. However, not so for the children. They had no say in the matter. Those who insist on deporting the children would have to make the case that illegal immigration is such an existential crisis that it warrants punishing people for crimes that their parents committed. Nobody has made that case, to me.

So DACA seems like basic decency, to me. Let's let all these kids stay, and give them a pathway to citizenship. And do the same with any law-abiding undocumented folk who want to make it here. I'm fine with deporting criminals, but beyond that, you would, once again, have to convince me that we have an existential crisis on our hands in order to justify mass deportations.

Now, onto securing the border. Look, a wall across the entire border is a mess of an idea. Besides the ugly, incendiary rhetoric behind it, the wall is wildly impractical. It's very expensive, and even Trump seems to have now given up on his ridiculous promise that Mexico would pay for it. The wall would be very disruptive towards trade and tourism, which could hurt a lot of local economies by the border, in both the US and Mexico. If you really want to stop immigrants from crossing the border, harming Mexico's economy is hardly the way to it. The wall would also have quite an environmental impact, disrupting plants and wildlife. Finally, much of the land at the border is privately owned. Some of those owners in border states like Texas, are no doubt, Republicans. Some of them probably support Trump. Imagine how they'll feel when he comes to take their land.

So let's have border patrol officers and satellite cameras at the border, securing it. And fine, you can have a wall or a fence in spots that don't cause the aforementioned problems. In fact, we already do. But most countries secure their borders without a giant wall. The US should be able to do the same.

Finally, all of these changes must happen in an official law. Until we have legislation directly telling the government what to do, we will permanently be stuck in limbo. Protest ICE all you want, but we really need new laws so that we don't keep running into these same problems again and again.

-Jack

References:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-wall-could-cause-serious-environmental-damage/

http://time.com/4509501/donald-trumps-border-wall/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-border-wall-take-private-land-20170321-story.html

How The Democrats Can Win Again

Sit back and listen as I, Jack Cantrell, tell all you hopeful and hopeless fellow liberal jackoffs what the Democratic Party ought to do in order to win back the White House in 2020.

This has to be my gutsiest piece that I've written for the blog. (Granted, it's only my third). I have no background as a political strategist. But I do pay close attention, so why not, I'll dive right in.

The Democrats must be populist.

Donald Trump is certainly a populist; he knows how to play to a crowd and say whatever will excite them. When Trump is talking about immigration, jobs, trade, or any issue, he knows what his base wants to hear, and he says it. Whether he follows through on what he says is another story, but the point is that Trump knows how to appeal to large crowds. This was particularly effective in the Rust Belt, which was aching for populism after decades of decline. As a businessman, Trump knows how to make a good pitch, and that pitch to the right crowd got him to the White House. Now, Trump has all the skills that got him to the Presidency, plus the advantage of incumbency. Presidents rarely lose re-election, and usually only when the economy is bad, (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, for example).

All of this means that if the Democrats want to defeat Trump, they have an uphill battle. In order to win that battle, they must bring out masses of people to vote for them. Since they are facing an incumbent who knows how to excite people, the Dems too must excite.

Well, I think back to the last time the Democrats were able to get people as riled up as Trump was. I look back to three years ago, to the rise of Bernie Sanders. He filled up entire stadiums and started a mass movement. He captured the hearts of millennials, the age demographic that typically votes the least. How did he do it? All he had to do was, as he put it, talk about the bloody issues. And talk he did. From Medicare for All to a massive green jobs program, from expanding social security to a living wage, Sanders captured the heart of the Democratic base. Yes, Hillary Clinton did win the nomination with her name recognition and the entire party establishment backing her, but the excitement was clearly with Sanders.

To win again, the Democrats must take the Bernie movement as their cue. I'm not saying that they must nominate him; there are numerous possible candidates that I can discuss in future posts. But they must take the populism of Bernie Sanders and run with it. Talk about the bloody issues. Get people excited to come out and vote. And spend more time promoting your own issues than you spend bashing Trump, especially over trivial or unproven issues, (Russia, Stormy Daniels, Trump's tweets, etc). You can't run on a platform of "better than Trump." We need to know what you are for, not just against.

Now, running on a bold, left-wing platform certainly has its risks. One might say that most of the nation does not identify as liberal, so that's not where the votes are. However, while most Americans may not call themselves such, and they often cower at any word like "socialist," I really do believe that most Americans, when you analyze them, fall left of center. Just talk to every day people, and you will find that most of them want better wages, stronger benefits, and people wealthier than them to pay more taxes. Opinion polls tend to indicate this, too. As for social issues, they are currently swinging in only one direction: the left. Changing times and more younger folks voting ensure a more socially liberal electorate. That brings me to my final point: who is currently least likely to vote? Young people and poor people? Who did Bernie Sanders most appeal to? You guessed it. Only progressive populism can bring in more Democratic voters. Centrism failed to stop Trump in 2016, and it won't stop him this time, either. Populism is the only way.

Beating Trump in 2020 will be a challenge, and we must admit that. Assuming that Trump will lose is, to me, a sure way for him to win. The Democrats must stay focused, and appeal to their base with a positive message. Drive up the Millennial vote. Drive up the working class vote, including the Rust Belt, which Sanders did rather well with in the primaries. Put the cards on the table, go all in, and in the name of progress, let's win in 2020!

-Jack

How To Lower the National Debt

Hello All,

So I just started this blog and I was thinking, how best to kick it off? Well, I know! How about I tell you all how the USA can pay down its 21 trillion dollar debt? I hate to say it, but it's so damn easy. And no, it does not require cuts to any social programs. Not a penny. So how do we do it?

Well, let's see. The U.S. annual deficit tends to be somewhere in the hundreds of billions. I've seen numbers as low as 400 billion and as high as over 900 billion. This means that if Uncle Sam brought in an extra trillion dollars, we would go from deficit to surplus and could then pay down the debt.

Well, let's look at tax loopholes. No, I don't mean tax deductions that are meant to benefit everyday Americans. I mean rules in the tax code that can only benefit the rich. They cost the US, wait for it.......trillions of dollars! I'll provide some sources below, but here are just three of the biggest examples:

- Hiding Money Overseas: When you hear Bernie Sanders talk about companies who "stash their money in the Cayman Islands and don't pay a nickel in income tax," he's not lying. Big corporations save a lot of dough by hiding their profits in offshore bank accounts. Sometimes, they'll set up a subsidiary in a place with little or no corporate taxes and insist to the IRS that they really are from that place. I remember being in Ireland and seeing a Twitter office there, and my tour guide hinted to me what that was all about. This is nothing more than legalized money laundering, and this loophole alone costs the federal government trillions of dollars.

- The Carried Interest Loophole: Money earned from investments, known as capital gains, is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income. Some say that this policy is good for the economy as it encourages investment, others do not agree. However, the carried interest loophole simply goes too far. Currently, when you invest in a hedge fund or other private equity fund, you normally put in a sum of money to be invested, and you take a share of the investment profits while the investment fund manager takes a cut. The manager's cut is known as carried interest, and it is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. In other words, the manager takes a fixed cut of the profits, even if it vastly exceeds the amount of money that he or she invested in the fund, and all of it is considered capital gains. Doesn't matter how much you personally invested, if you're the manager, you get to claim a cut of everybody's contributions and call all of it capital gains. This means that hedge fund managers often get to declare virtually all of their income as capital gains, and pay a lower rate on it. Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, and others have all brought attention to this loophole by how they have benefited from it. It has become one of the most popular loopholes for bashing, and even Donald Trump has spoken out against it and promised to close it in his big tax bill. Alas, however, the loophole remains popular among all the fat cat investors in Washington, and so it remains.

- Tax Deductions On All Homes: As most people know, you can get a tax deduction when you buy a home. This seems fair. We want to help people afford to buy homes, especially as they only get more and more expensive. However, did you know that you can get a tax deduction on a second home? A vacation home? Sometimes, you can even get a tax break on a yacht. This, to me, is one of the most embarrassing of all the tax loopholes.

And there's plenty more!

So let's say that we close all of these loopholes. That should get us from deficit to surplus, no problem. Add on by cutting our massive, bloated military budget, and Uncle Sam should be loaded.

Everyone, please write to your elected officials and ask them to make these changes. Hell, show them this blog post! Not just to help this blog get famous, (though that would be nice), but to show them the truth. Let them show the country the truth. I dare any member of congress to stand on the floor and tell us why these tax loopholes make sense. And spare me the argument of, "we just need to lower taxes, and then people would no longer use these loopholes." Yeah, right. If we lowered the corporate tax rate, and there are still offshore tax havens where there is none, do you really think companies won't still store there money where they won't have to pay a penny? Of course they will. And the fact is, we shouldn't have to give the rich more in order to crack down on legalized cheating. We can debate tax rates all day long. But loopholes are indefensible.

So write to your officials, and share this post around on social media as well! If there's one piece of mine that I'd love to viral, it's this one.

Who says liberals don't care about the national debt?

-Jack

Sources:

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-loopholes-mainly-benefit-rich-1.aspx

https://www.accounting-degree.org/accounting-tricks/