Are We Better Off Now.....

Yesterday I read of the closing of a landmark drive-in in the Twin Cities. My first reaction was disbelief and sadness. As long as the drive-ins remained, I still had a connection to the “good ole days.” I learned that the owner was selling so that a Walmart could be built. Walmart, really? We are giving up a piece of history for a Walmart?

I live in Minnetonka, very near where an old drive-in once thrived. It had been torn down to make way for a strip mall, which later, was bulldozed for a Target. I admit, I shed no tears because I was super excited to have a Target so close by. Heck, they even gave all the neighbors a measuring cup with a coupon for a bag of sugar…classy!

But anytime a Walmart is built makes me sad because I really hate Walmarts. I think they are depressing, disorganized and the combination of items they sell makes no sense – a swinging chaise for your porch next to an imitation leather recliner next to tampons……yikes.

But it got me wondering, are we better off today than in the “good ole days?”

Let me start with the drive-in. You know what? They really were not a great place to watch a movie. Sure, they were fun because you could sneak in and bring your own beer and all, but for watching a movie, they kind of stunk. It was always hot and humid and unless you ran the AC in the car the whole time, it was like hanging in a tropical rain forest. The mosquitoes were torture and there was no avoiding them for they had free access with the compulsory, open windows. You could close the windows, of course, if you were a very good lip reader.....Then there was the issue of the increasingly intoxicated people walking back and forth in front of your car. The snacks and bathrooms were a million miles away and no one ever stopped talking in the car while you were trying to figure out what was being said. The sound coming from the window speakers was like ordering at a Taco Bell where you understood only a few words out of each sentence. It was fun, yep, but it was not a great place to actually watch a movie. In my day, I think I went to a drive-in maybe once a summer. My son and daughter don’t even know what they are and I haven’t returned to one since high school. I imagine the current owner of the soon to be Walmart was having a hard time making it work. Don’t blame him really, I just wish he had sold to Target….

So what else do we miss about the “good ole days?”

My mom and I were talking about the roast chickens you can buy at just about anywhere (even gas stations). I buy them mostly to cut off the meat for my dog. I do sample as I cut and it is tasty! Dang, how do they do that? My mother claims she never roasts a chicken anymore because she can buy one at the store, which is cheaper, less hassle and it tastes better than what she can do. I often used those roasted chickens as my go-to dinner when the kids were little and time was short. How did my mother ever get by without roasted chickens? Or mashed potatoes already mashed? Or frozen garlic? Or prepared pesto? Wow, she must have spent her entire day in the kitchen because I take full advantage of all the cheats I can find at the grocery store. I love Costco for that reason. It is filled with delicious meals I just need to heat up, praise the lord and Costco!

My children still played the night games that I did when I was a child running amuck in St. Paul. Nothing too different there. They gathered at one house, planned the game and the teams, and then ended the night with a bonfire. Hey, we never had bonfires…..

They did miss out though, on pedaling to the store with a quarter and returning home with a bag full of penny candy. My kids grew up with no penny candy store and pedaling there would have been out of the question where we lived…the suburbs….(a place I had only heard about, but never ventured to as a child). Thinking about it now, I would say that’s a good thing because as an evolved parent, I now know how harmful sugar is. Unless it was a holiday or birthday, I would never have allowed the kids to pig out on a bag of sugar, goodness! Although the memory is sweet (pun intended), it probably is better that they made S’mores at the bonfire….. (remember, chocolate can extend your life).

So many things are different today than in the “good ole days.” We remember those days as golden but upon careful inspection, they come up a little short … how would we ever manage our lives without cell phones (pay phones were not fun and you risked your health talking on them), computers, the Internet, iTunes, IPods, iPhones, iPads, DVR’s, Netflix, reality TV (no judging), Sushi, microbrew beer, debit cards, broad band spectrum sunscreen, seatbelt with shoulder harnesses, online bill pay, spell check, email, video chatting…FACEBOOK!

I think the reason we liked those days really had more to do with the fact of how old we were then, rather than how good those days actually were.

I admit, I think I am better off today. However, I do think fondly on the days where I ran wild in the summer, got brown as a Hershey bar, never wore shoes and my parents had absolutely no idea where I was until I came home to the dinner bell each night. I survived.

Catholics and Politics, is a “Progressive Catholic” a Contradiction?

I recently read an article provided by a Father James Curran (via my cousin). It was written by Andrew Sullivan titled “The Republican Party Cardinal.”


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-republican-cardinal.html


The import of the passage was to criticize the decision of Cardinal Archbishop Dolan, from New York, to give the benediction at the Republican National Convention. Traditionally, this job has been given to the local Bishop (whoever that is). Sullivan argues that for Archbishop Dolan to honor the request appears as “de facto endorsement” by the Catholic Church of the Republican Party. He warns that the Catholic hierarchy injecting itself into politics is a mandate to other Catholics to support the Romney ticket.

I had so many reactions to this article, where to begin….

I generally don’t concern myself with issues pertaining to the Catholic Church, because although my parents attempted to raise me Catholic, it didn’t stick. When I was 13, they threw up their hands and gave up trying to force me, or any of my siblings to go to church. There were six of us and today, only one considers herself a practicing Catholic. Oh well.

I have many problems with the church (too many to go into in a blog) but I can narrow it down to: 1) That nasty business with priests and altar boys and how it was handled, 2) Its stance on abortion, 3) Its stance on gay marriage, 4) Its stance on stem cell research and quite frankly, 5) The Biblical miracles just don’t work for me…..

Although I don’t support the Catholic Church, I support its right to exist and to believe what it believes. I have deep respect to the fine work it does on behalf of the poor and indigent. I acknowledge the comfort and community it provides and the church and I can agree to disagree. I have been fortunate to have known several members of the church and have respected their intellect and compassion.

Although they all share a common faith, they are not cookie cutter stamp-outs, all come with their own, unique personalities and perspectives. I respect that individuality and I respect the right of members to do and say what they feel appropriate. So if Archbishop Dolan wants to go pray for the Republicans, I say, “Go for it!” If Father Andrew Sullivan wants to post an article condemning Archbishop Dolan, I say, “Go for it!”

My point is, if one has the right to criticize, then the other has a right to pray for the republicans. Free speech works both ways and last I checked, priests, bishops, archbishops, nuns etc. are still citizens and do have the right to free speech, right? They vote, right? Their votes are still private, right? If CEO’s can come out in support of either party, why can’t an Archbishop (although he hasn’t, he just agreed to say a prayer for them because that’s what Archbishops do)?

OK, really. Is ANYONE surprised that the Catholic Church sides with the Republican Party? Anyone? Speak up. Please, this is not an unexpected news flash, or frankly, an earth-shattering event. I admit that there are a number of practicing Catholics, priests included, that don’t share 100% of what the Pope dishes out. They call themselves “Progressive Catholics.” That’s fine, although this article made me wonder if that isn’t a contradiction?

E J Dionne, author of “Why Americans Hate Politics” and on staff at The Dept. of Government at Georgetown University, says,

[The] “Catholic Church’s teachings do not map well, or at all, with the particular way in which American partisan positions have developed…”

Dionne accused bishops of being too cozy and criticizes them for engaging directly in politics. However, he signed a letter on behalf of ninety Georgetown faculty members approving the Bishop’s response to criticism of aspects of Paul Ryan’s budget. Hmmmm.

Hey, wait a minute, by signing that letter, isn’t he engaging directly in politics? Huh (as I scratch my head)….

OK clearly, this letter is partisan. No biggy as I see it, he has every right to do it, except then, bishops have every right to call things as they see it as well. What’s good for the goose…..tit for tat, turn about is fair play…you see where I’m going, free speech and all…

“Progressive Catholics” is a term used by many practicing Catholics to describe their brand of Catholicism. It is a way to express their differences they have with the church. The very issues above I also expressed (which, is why I am not a Catholic). I get where they are coming from, and except for their shared belief in the Catholic Church, I am right there with them, they are my brothers and sisters, hallelujah! Only problem is (and it’s a biggy) is that it doesn’t pass the “Catholic test” or, to translate, the Pope begs to differ.

GK Chesterton describes Catholicism this way:
“Catholicism is an accumulation of tradition including a magisterium that does not waver from the fundamental truth as divulged in the teachings and life of Jesus.”

OK, I admit, I had to look up “magisterium.” It looked like a cool word that I could use another time to impress people. Sadly, I doubt I will ever use it again. It means the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and yikes, that sounds very serious and Pope-like. But it does kind of lay out what I have always felt about the church - I don’t think you can pick and choose; it’s an all or nothing package. It is what it is, and you can like it or leave it, just don’t expect it to change.

Chesterton also suggests “to import the political term [Progressive Catholic] for the description of Catholics is to collapse the Church into a political program that cannot be reconciled to the Catholic worldview.”

Wow. I’ll sum it up (because that’s what you do at the end).

If an Archbishop wants to appear at the Republican Convention, I think he should. Yes, it looks like an endorsement, but so what? Who is really surprised by that? Does that mean the religious hierarchy has to follow his lead? Nope, they get to make their own decisions and if they want to test the political waters, be my guest. But I also think that if you call yourself a Catholic, you are a Catholic. You don’t get to choose your own brand of Catholicism. Agree to disagree, sure, but the term “Progressive Catholic” seems to be a contradiction.

Please, No More Politicals Meme's.....

I like teams. I like the feel of being on a team. Of course, the only team I have recently experienced was a charades team and alcohol was definitely involved.

I remember the elation and relief I felt when my team finally shouted, “Steven Corey,” only to learn that the correct word was Covey (I still say the word looked like Corey). I guess I need to read more self help books, because I had no clue who Steven Covey was. It was all in good fun, and I now own a copy of Steven Covey’s book, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (number one habit should be to clarify spelling when playing charades). I have not read a word.

The point is, being part of a team feels good. I could not have been more proud of our country during the Olympics this summer. I am ashamed to admit that daily I checked the medal count and sneered and snickered when the US overtook China (I still am gloating). Teams are great.

However, lately, I feel like politics is more about the “team” than the issues. This election is making me feel like the kid who was never picked for a team in grade school. I don’t fit it, and I am not ready to join a team.

I watch as Facebook is flooded with a new phenomena called memes. I recently learned that it is not so new although as it is defined by the internet, it is relatively new. According to Wikipedia, (no judging) a meme is: The term "Internet meme" refers to a concept that spreads rapidly from person to person via the Internet, largely through Internet-based email, blogs, forums, Imageboards, social networking sites, instant messaging and video streaming sites such as YouTube.

If you haven’t noticed the ubiquitous little photos of Romney and Obama, with text splayed across it to convey a conveniently inaccurate and misleading message, then 1) You have not been paying attention, 2) You are technologically impaired (congratulations), 3) You have forgotten your Facebook password, or 4) You have Facebook friends that are keeping it classy (congratulations).

There are even places that you can go and create your own meme. Doesn’t surprise me. I don’t like these. They REALLY bug me. Lately, it has bothered me a lot and I have devoted some serious thought as to why I hate them so much and why this election has been bothering me more than politics usually bothers me. I have some answers.

The Memes bug me because they are so dismissive of the issues. They divert your attention away from the issues and everyone coalesces around comments intended to sidetrack your thoughts. Take the Meme of Obama above. Seriously? People are STILL throwing the idea that Obama is not a citizen around? Puh-leeeez, he has been president for almost four years people, I think that train has left the station. And the one of Romney, I guess being wealthy is a sin and no one should be president if they are successful because they are out of touch, right, got it. Although, I do admit, I would rather have a president who has been successful.

I think I have figured out why these things are so widely used. It’s kind of like being on a team. It makes it easier to dislike or like someone without knowing anything about them. You pick a side and then hurl Memes around on your Facebook page and wait for people to Like it or comment.

I think they are destructive. It spreads fallacies and distorts truths (ok, the truth is, I kind of like the ones with housewives making comments about wine).

It makes it easy for critics of Obama to believe he has no right to be president (he does) and critics of Romney to believe he is out of touch (believe me, the guy knows about money). I absolutely hate political memes.

It makes it so hard to decide which team to join, because when I vote in November, I will be picking a “team.”

Here’s my problem. I think Obama is the guy for me if I am going to vote with my heart on gay rights. He’s the guy most likely to sign national legislation to allow gay couples to enjoy the same civil rights heterosexual couples have. You can talk to me until the end of time about why you may disagree, but I will never understand why gay couples are treated differently than my husband and me. Never, don’t bother, ain’t going to happen. My mind is made up, the ship has sailed, blah, blah, blah. I also like a few parts of Obama Care. I disgaree with how it got passed, rushed through Congress while many representatives and Senators were at their cabin, but that’s another story. I like that my son and daughter can remain on our insurance. I like that insurance companies cannot cap benefits and I like that they cannot deny people with pre-existing conditions. The rest of it needs some serious reworking because the tab on it has already doubled and it has not even taken effect yet…

I don’t like his jobs record, his stimulus spending, his proposed tax increase on couples making $250,000 a year and I absolutely hate his strategy of pitting one class against another. Millionaires and billionaires (wish I was one), represent about 1% of our population. They make about 17% of the total income of the US and pay about 37% of the taxes (I did look into this and wrote down the numbers but sadly, not the source. I didn’t make this up and I actually went looking for something else and found this statistic). If we taxed the millionaires as Obama would suggest, it would not make a dent in reducing the budget deficit. And if people don’t think it would make a difference in how they invest in the economy then they are not understanding how the economy is driven. Don’t take my word for it, there’s a lot of empirical evidence out there. My question is why would Obama spend so much of his time on this issue if it will do nothing to solve the budget issues? As a matter of principal? Frankly, I would rather he focus on something a little more tangible. He could start by submitting a budget; it is four years late.

Now Romney. He seems nice, articulate, whatever. He brought RomneyCare to Massachusetts. He has been a successful business man and saved the Olympics. Yes, he outsourced jobs and closed down plants. He can be ruthless in business decisions. I have to admit, I am not opposed to a leader that can make hard choices and take the heat. He has a plan and I am ready to look. He is a Mormon, but religion is a personal matter and not a reason to pry into a candidate’s life. I frankly don’t get the Mormon church, but I also don’t get the Catholic church, so his religion is not an issue for me (unless he decides to take another wife). He wants to put the government on a diet and invest in the economy by letting you and I keep as much of our money as possible and decide how we want to spend it, sign me up.

His views on gay couples, research on stem cells, and women’s reproductive rights trouble me. I support a woman’s right to make reproductive choices about her body. I will support those choices as strongly as I support civil rights for gay couples. However, I don’t think we should make people who don’t support that choice pay for the consequences of those choices. I think insurance should cover birth control, but I don’t think the government should be in any way involved in those costs. I think sexual education should be definitely taught in schools and all young women and men that are of reproductive age should be given access to any means to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I support stem cell research and although I recognise that it can be a “slippery slope,” I turst in mankind and believe that it will maintain the dignity of life. I think the Romney team would differ with my beliefs.

Now, which “team” should I join? I apologise to my cousin, Robert, for ignoring the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. He seems like an ideal choice for me, I agree with a great deal of what he believes. From the Johnson web page:

“(Johnson) has been an outspoken advocate for efficient government, lower taxes, winning the war on drug abuse, protection of civil liberties, revitalization of the economy and promoting entrepreneurship and privatization.
As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common-sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico's budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons.”

I have just a couple of problems with him, but they are big ones…1) Foreign Policy – he has kind of an isolationist approach which I disagree with and 2) I don’t think he has a chance of winning. I want to be on a winning team!

Seriously, I am definitely a fiscal conservative. I don’t carry debt more than 30 days, I price shop everything. If I have a designer anything, my mother bought it for me. I drink Black Box wine, and I install my own light fixtures. If something needs painting, I do it, and we maintain our own lawn and driveway. I hate spending money unless I have to and I really wish our government felt the same way.

I do not believe that all Republicans are rich and mean. I don’t think they are snobs or condescending and believe that men are superior to women. I don’t think that all successful people are out of touch and I don’t think that all Republicans believe that corporations are the “American Way” of life. I think many are compassionate, caring and generous.

I do not think that all Democrats are liberal wackos. I don’t believe they all live in communes and advocate for government intervention from birth to death. I believe that like Republicans, they want to work, have children if they choose, support their neighbor in need, and pay their fare share. I don’t think they want a free ride and I don’t believe that all people who accept welfare, unemployment assistance and food stamps are lazy. I think many are compassionate, caring and generous.

I have a feeling I know which team I will end up on (kids, never end a sentence with a prepositon). I will kick my toe in the sand as as I join it, knowing that it isn’t everything I wish it could be. I will not post political memes on Facebook, I will not add inane comments which do not represent truths or facts. I will not make sweeping generalizations about the other team. I respect a person’s right to choose as long as I am given the same respect. I appreciate that priorities differ from person to person and one person’s perception is different from another’s.

If we can make it to November with civility and NO MORE POLITICAL MEMES, I will be one happy camper. Just play nice ( and don’t post without checking your facts). Think before posting, and thank-you.

Minnesota, Identity Crisis?

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").

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!"

Mountain Dew Glow Stick

Wow, great idea!

Cool Fence