I live in Minnesota. Most of the time, it suits me except perhaps in December/January and July/August. If you have ever visited or lived here during those months, you know what I mean. A line from a song in The Music Man sums it up....We can be cold as a falling thermometer in December if you ask about our weather in July......
So, I like it here. Yes, we do have lots of lakes which are pretty and entertaining. We have recreation, shopping, art, theaters, great restaurants and high taxes. But, I'm not going to comment on the latter. The purpose of this rant is to vent my distaste for the efforts of a group of people who wish to constitutionally limit marriage to between an opposite sex couple only. This proposed amendment will appear on ballots this November for the citizens of Minnesota to decide.
I admit, my initial reaction to this insane endeavor was.....drum roll....."Huh? I don't get it." I really didn't undertand the need. We already had a discriminatory law on the books forbidding it. So now we need to make a constitutional amendment forbidding it? Seems like overkill and money which could be better spent. I know, like paying off the Republican Party's debts! Brilliant. I bet their creditors would support that plan.
Nope, people were determined to put a stop to the potential that someday we would realize the errors of our ways and rectify the situation and allow any couple to marry, or unite in a civil ceremony, or whatever name one wants to call it. Personally, I am OK with calling ceremonies performed in a church, marriages and ceremonies outside the church civil unions, because that's what they are. Heck, my husband and I actually, have a civil union. We were married in a house with a judge. I'm OK with that. It's just a name. A rose by any other name.....
So why do people think it is OK to forbid two people from making a commitment and living their lives just as heterosexual couples do? I really don't get it. I have tried to figure it out and see the other side, but I am stumped. I think about a lot of things, but worrying about members of the gay community marrying isn't one of them. Here are the issues I do ponder:
Nutcases that go online and buy 6000 rounds of ammunition to kill innocent people.
Pornography, it drives me crazy and don't even get me started on what I think of it from a moral standpoint.....
State governments that withhold money from schools to balance their budgets. Grr.
Planes flying into buildings (I think that will stay with me forever).
Drunks that drive and continue to drive, even after they kill people.
Government agencies that think it is in a child's best interest to keep him or her in a dysfunctional family after suffering abuse.
Dog food made in China and imported to the US.
I am more concerned about dog food from China than I worry about gays being married. I actually do think about that a lot (I even make my own chicken jerky)!
To be fair, I did a little research because I just couldn't grasp why some people are so against gay marriages. I checked out a few sites but really, they made me laugh because they were so ridiculous. Saturday Night Live writers could have a field day with the things written on these sites.
Let me add something to my list of things to ponder:
Crazy people that think allowing gay marriages will lead to unions between men and dogs. I am seriously worried about these people. Yikes.
Ok, on to some more mainstream objections:
It would be incompatible with Christian, Islam and Judaism values.
Well, sure, but so what? If the people involved have no problem with that, why should I? Frankly, there are many things that are against Christian values but still exist. Pre-marital sex, adultry, stealing, cheating... Plenty of folks that do those things are among those vehemently codemning gay marriages. Hmmmm.
It would infringe on religious freedom.
(Cue: crickets chirping for a few seconds) I'm still trying to figure that out, give me a few more minutes...OK, I've got the solution! Ta Da! It will be called Separation of Church and State! What? Already on the books? Oh, you mean we can't force priests to marry gays in the Catholic church? OK, I guess that's something for individual religions to consider, not us. Great, I'll move on (phew, 'cause that one baffled me).
It could lead to multiple marriages.
OK, I think I am reasonably intelligent, not a genius, but I can figure out a few things. This argument has me just as baffled as the church thing. Frankly, I just don't see the logical connection. This is also the line of thinking that suggests it would lead to marriages between brothers and sisters and yes, even men with dogs.
(The reason that these people scare me, is that they cannot see how insulting this reasoning is. Comparing two committed gay men or women to a relationship between a human and a dog is outrageous and appalling. My only response is that I sincerely hope that some day they will show up in an ER to have their lives in the hands of a gay doctor or nurse.)
It will erode the institution of marriage.
My marriage is great and I am not threatened whatsoever by what happens in other marriages (actually, I am more concerned that married, straight people having mutiple affairs will spoil the institution).
So, what really has me baffled is what a dichotomy Minnesota is; if it was a person, I would strongly urge therapy. Minnesota is the state that has the distinction of the longest run for voting for a democrat for president. It hasn't voted for a republican since 1972. It holds itself up as a progressive state - it has light rail, recyling, top notch education, fabulous child care, healthcare, a ton of bike trails, heck, it has rent-a-bikes! So how can this community which embraces so many great things condemn gay marriages? Some people are playing both sides.......
Minnesota you are having an identity crisis. Get over yourself by November please.
Recipe for Chicken Jerky for Dogs:
Take some chicken breast and thinly slice. Place on a cookie sheet lined with no-stick tinfoil. Pop into 210 degree oven for approximately three hours. Ta Da! I keep it in a baggy in the fridge (don't worry about how long it lasts, your dog will finish it up faster than you can say,"Bob's your uncle").
Monday, July 23, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
You Didn't Build That
I am really angry with something the president recently said. At a political rally, he went off the teleprompter (bad idea for any politician) and announced to small business owners, "You didn't build that." I am also profoundly insulted that Obama dares to let government take partial credit.
OK, he was talking about the whole "It takes a village" thing that became so popular during Hillary Clinton's presidential run. Yeah, yeah, we all need people...(cue Streisand's "People Who Need People"). Um, duh. Yes, the government did build the road that takes people to your business because THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO. It is called providing infrastructure, defense, justice, and education (which I think is included in infrastructure, yet I mention it so people don't think I am forgetting it). I am sure I am neglecting some very important roles and services, but I think these listed are the key ones. That is the role of government - it doesn't get to take credit for what lies at the end of that road.
I'm not sure what Obama was thinking but pissing off the people who provide the bulk of US jobs and taxes, is not a good idea for a guy that wants to keep his job for another 4 years. Is he mad at small businesses? I used to think that Romney supporters who said that Obama and the left wants every citizen to be dependent on government were over reacting and over simplifying. Hmmmm, I think I need to rethink that because Obama's comment sure does support that thought.
Does Obama remember what America was built on? Do Ellis Island and immigration and mom and pop shops ring a bell? The Land of Opportunity, does that ring a bell? Henry Ford and the age of industrialization? Breweries in the midwest, restaurants and theaters on the east coast, the film industry on the west coast, the mining, fishing and forestry throughout the country. I apologize for generalizing but seriously, what has made this country great and culturally rich has been the small businesses born of hard work, creativity, and risk that have thrived and grown and even diversified. Businesses that came from people who came from diverse countries formed the melting pot, otherwise called the United States of America, and are the boss of the man who has just told them that they did not build their businesses. Really?
But I get where he is going with his comment. He is reinforcing his underlying campaign theme of creating class warfare and it is so misguided. Both parties want to be "the friend of the middle class." The right side says it will do it by creating a climate which encourages business,(tax cuts and less regulation). The left will do it by helping businesses with loans and stimulus money and will go after those greedy, money loving CEOs and Wall Street hedge fund manipulators. They are going to MAKE THEM PAY. This attitude will get everyone so fired up that they will march in November and re-elect Obama. Brilliant plan.
OK, I am going to admit here that I don't really care much about anyone else's taxes, except mine. Sorry. As a family, like many people, we work hard and I want the Crawfords to keep as much of our money as we can. We are not rich, and we don't fall in the category that would incur more taxes if Obama has his way and makes the rich pay their fair share. Strange, but I already think that the rich in this country pay a boatload of money, And here's a fact, if Obama has his way, and makes the rich pay more, it isn't going to amount to even a tiny drop of the national debt and will do NOTHING to help us out of our economic woes. So why are we getting our undies in such a bundle over this issue? Because class warfare works.
I would prefer that both sides work toward strategies which will help put people back to work.
Both Obama and billionaire Buffet paid a smaller percentage (not a smaller amount) of taxes than their secreteries. That is outrageous...right? In this country capital gains (which is how the super rich get rich and STAY rich) are taxed at a lower rate than income which is earned. Capital gain is income which results from successful investments. You put $1000 into a business or fund and at the end of the year it might be worth $1030 (if you're lucky with today's rates, but that's another story). That $30 is called a capital gain and it is taxed differently than the income you report from your employer. Why? It is not to reward the rich. The US taxes capital gains at a smaller rate to encourage people to invest. We need investors to grow businesses and many investors take a loss when businesses fail. There is risk, a lot of it because statistically, most new businesses fail. So why would anyone in their right mind pluck down money to invest if there is good chance they will lose it? Because if it succeeds, then they get to keep a little more of their money by paying less in taxes.
So, if we decide to close that loophole, and hike the rate that the super rich pay, what do you think will happen? I can't predict the future but I can say what HAS happened in the past when you take more money from businesses. They tighten their belts, because yes, like me, they also want to keep more of their money. And, the number one way to "tighten their belts" is to layoff workers. Businesses are concerned about making money and that's not a dirty, immoral thing. It's called capitalism. There is no better incentive than money - it's what drives people to risk everything, work 80 hour work weeks to make a business successful. And, if they are successful, they make other people successful as well.
My father stared a distribution business when I was a young child. I remember how stressful,scary and risky it was. My mom had been a stay-at-home mom that suddenly had to become the only wage earner. Dad borrowed money from the bank, depleted their savings, cashed in stocks and took a very big risk. He worked morning until late at night getting it started. We rarely saw him those first few years and when we did, he was tired and stressed out. I would NEVER do what my father did, I simply don't have that risk gene in me. Thank God he did though. The business succeeded and soared. It grew and he employed many people. His business supported many familes, and paid the government a "boatload" of taxes over the next few decades. He was a great employer that rewarded hard work and was generous to his employees; when the business did well, so did they. It was a risk that paid off big time. My grandfather and even grandmother started businesses (independently of each other, although they were married). I am proud to add that my grandmother did it as a woman in the 30's and she did it all herself. If you have ever eaten at The Lexington restaurant in St. Paul, than you have seen firsthand her success! The government was not part of any of their business plans, trust me.
Ok, about now some of you are probably comparing me to PollyAnna and thinking how horribly naive I am. Haven't I read about the banking industry? Don't I know how greedy and awful CEO's are? Every day there is a new story about how some business screwed up and screwed their workers. Not all business owners operate as benignly as my father did. I get that folks, I am not going to campaign for big businesses and I will concede that a lot of them are mismanaged, terrible places to work. I get it, I really do, I am not covering my eyes to any of that and there is plenty of blame to fling around both to the left and right.
If anyone here thinks I am a member of the Romney camp, think again, I have serious issues with him and the right. I remain an Independent and can't stress strongly enough that they must get out of people's private lives and stay out.
My intent is simply to point out that small and even large businesses are not bad because they make money. People who become rich off of hard work, and smart investing are not bad people either. Taxing the rich sounds so dang good, much like scratching an evasive itch. However, it isn't going to make even a negligible dent in solving our economic problems (and most likely will do just the opposite), yet it seems to be the focal point of the upcoming election, and I am sick of it. I feel like a mother yelling at her children.
I can hear my own mother from the past... "Stop it, both of you. I don't care whose fault it is! You are BOTH wrong. You need to stop fighting and get along, she's your sister!"
OK, he was talking about the whole "It takes a village" thing that became so popular during Hillary Clinton's presidential run. Yeah, yeah, we all need people...(cue Streisand's "People Who Need People"). Um, duh. Yes, the government did build the road that takes people to your business because THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO. It is called providing infrastructure, defense, justice, and education (which I think is included in infrastructure, yet I mention it so people don't think I am forgetting it). I am sure I am neglecting some very important roles and services, but I think these listed are the key ones. That is the role of government - it doesn't get to take credit for what lies at the end of that road.
I'm not sure what Obama was thinking but pissing off the people who provide the bulk of US jobs and taxes, is not a good idea for a guy that wants to keep his job for another 4 years. Is he mad at small businesses? I used to think that Romney supporters who said that Obama and the left wants every citizen to be dependent on government were over reacting and over simplifying. Hmmmm, I think I need to rethink that because Obama's comment sure does support that thought.
Does Obama remember what America was built on? Do Ellis Island and immigration and mom and pop shops ring a bell? The Land of Opportunity, does that ring a bell? Henry Ford and the age of industrialization? Breweries in the midwest, restaurants and theaters on the east coast, the film industry on the west coast, the mining, fishing and forestry throughout the country. I apologize for generalizing but seriously, what has made this country great and culturally rich has been the small businesses born of hard work, creativity, and risk that have thrived and grown and even diversified. Businesses that came from people who came from diverse countries formed the melting pot, otherwise called the United States of America, and are the boss of the man who has just told them that they did not build their businesses. Really?
But I get where he is going with his comment. He is reinforcing his underlying campaign theme of creating class warfare and it is so misguided. Both parties want to be "the friend of the middle class." The right side says it will do it by creating a climate which encourages business,(tax cuts and less regulation). The left will do it by helping businesses with loans and stimulus money and will go after those greedy, money loving CEOs and Wall Street hedge fund manipulators. They are going to MAKE THEM PAY. This attitude will get everyone so fired up that they will march in November and re-elect Obama. Brilliant plan.
OK, I am going to admit here that I don't really care much about anyone else's taxes, except mine. Sorry. As a family, like many people, we work hard and I want the Crawfords to keep as much of our money as we can. We are not rich, and we don't fall in the category that would incur more taxes if Obama has his way and makes the rich pay their fair share. Strange, but I already think that the rich in this country pay a boatload of money, And here's a fact, if Obama has his way, and makes the rich pay more, it isn't going to amount to even a tiny drop of the national debt and will do NOTHING to help us out of our economic woes. So why are we getting our undies in such a bundle over this issue? Because class warfare works.
I would prefer that both sides work toward strategies which will help put people back to work.
Both Obama and billionaire Buffet paid a smaller percentage (not a smaller amount) of taxes than their secreteries. That is outrageous...right? In this country capital gains (which is how the super rich get rich and STAY rich) are taxed at a lower rate than income which is earned. Capital gain is income which results from successful investments. You put $1000 into a business or fund and at the end of the year it might be worth $1030 (if you're lucky with today's rates, but that's another story). That $30 is called a capital gain and it is taxed differently than the income you report from your employer. Why? It is not to reward the rich. The US taxes capital gains at a smaller rate to encourage people to invest. We need investors to grow businesses and many investors take a loss when businesses fail. There is risk, a lot of it because statistically, most new businesses fail. So why would anyone in their right mind pluck down money to invest if there is good chance they will lose it? Because if it succeeds, then they get to keep a little more of their money by paying less in taxes.
So, if we decide to close that loophole, and hike the rate that the super rich pay, what do you think will happen? I can't predict the future but I can say what HAS happened in the past when you take more money from businesses. They tighten their belts, because yes, like me, they also want to keep more of their money. And, the number one way to "tighten their belts" is to layoff workers. Businesses are concerned about making money and that's not a dirty, immoral thing. It's called capitalism. There is no better incentive than money - it's what drives people to risk everything, work 80 hour work weeks to make a business successful. And, if they are successful, they make other people successful as well.
My father stared a distribution business when I was a young child. I remember how stressful,scary and risky it was. My mom had been a stay-at-home mom that suddenly had to become the only wage earner. Dad borrowed money from the bank, depleted their savings, cashed in stocks and took a very big risk. He worked morning until late at night getting it started. We rarely saw him those first few years and when we did, he was tired and stressed out. I would NEVER do what my father did, I simply don't have that risk gene in me. Thank God he did though. The business succeeded and soared. It grew and he employed many people. His business supported many familes, and paid the government a "boatload" of taxes over the next few decades. He was a great employer that rewarded hard work and was generous to his employees; when the business did well, so did they. It was a risk that paid off big time. My grandfather and even grandmother started businesses (independently of each other, although they were married). I am proud to add that my grandmother did it as a woman in the 30's and she did it all herself. If you have ever eaten at The Lexington restaurant in St. Paul, than you have seen firsthand her success! The government was not part of any of their business plans, trust me.
Ok, about now some of you are probably comparing me to PollyAnna and thinking how horribly naive I am. Haven't I read about the banking industry? Don't I know how greedy and awful CEO's are? Every day there is a new story about how some business screwed up and screwed their workers. Not all business owners operate as benignly as my father did. I get that folks, I am not going to campaign for big businesses and I will concede that a lot of them are mismanaged, terrible places to work. I get it, I really do, I am not covering my eyes to any of that and there is plenty of blame to fling around both to the left and right.
If anyone here thinks I am a member of the Romney camp, think again, I have serious issues with him and the right. I remain an Independent and can't stress strongly enough that they must get out of people's private lives and stay out.
My intent is simply to point out that small and even large businesses are not bad because they make money. People who become rich off of hard work, and smart investing are not bad people either. Taxing the rich sounds so dang good, much like scratching an evasive itch. However, it isn't going to make even a negligible dent in solving our economic problems (and most likely will do just the opposite), yet it seems to be the focal point of the upcoming election, and I am sick of it. I feel like a mother yelling at her children.
I can hear my own mother from the past... "Stop it, both of you. I don't care whose fault it is! You are BOTH wrong. You need to stop fighting and get along, she's your sister!"
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)