What is wrong with some of us in this country?

[skeptic]

It has been less than a week since the election, and already we have stuff all over the net and even in local papers' letters about how awful the results are and how the country is going to implode because of it.

 

Then we have idiot business owners and so on spouting off how they are now going to lay people off because the ACA is so unfair and will kill their profits; or they are going to make all employees part time. Of course, many of these same people would never reduce their own incomes, even though most are drawing far more than most regular employed people make. Somehow they feel their own inflated needs (???) take precedence over being fair to their employees. While a few may actually have legitimate concerns, most of the ones making this noise are simply using it as an excuse to reduce costs at the expense of others and blame the government, especially the president. This in turn leads back to the sheep baaing even more loudly how the world is coming to an end or something to that effect.

 

The most disturbing comments though are the ones that are openly, and blatantly either threatening in some manner, or simply purposely demean the President and anyone who may have voted for him. I am one of those; and I can assure you that I have worked hard most of my life, and I have never expected anyone but myself to be responsible for my well being. I did draw unemployment when I was downsized from my job; but it was never extended, and it was partially reduced when I found part time work. Went without any health insurance due to the same RIF after the cost quickly became far too much. I am fortunate that if I was able to get on VA at the minimum level due to my active duty during the Vietnam Era; but the local hospital emergency would still have been my only recourse in an emergency, which I did not have happen at least. At least the VA "was" there for me, as was the short term unemployment. So, I guess I am another one of the parasites, since I used those buffers when I needed to after serving in the military and working almost forty years consistently.

 

I have friends with whom I choose not to discuss these things because they are so completely paranoid about it all. Some have had some tough times the past few years and have struggled to work multiple jobs. Yet they still found money for a lot of electronic stuff, multiple vehicles, and occasional trips to amusement parks or other high priced entertainment; and many overextended themselves with little forethought about what they actually could afford and still have a cushion should they need it. A few also are regular drinkers and/or smokers. But it is the government's fault they are over their heads. I like them as casual friends or acquaintances; but I have trouble feeling overly sorry for their self inflicted issues. Many of them, of course, have taken advantage of various government aids when they could; yet they still complain about those awful freeloaders.

 

Lots of room for improvement and correction of the ACA; and I would think that would be a major challenge undertaken the next few years. Mr. Obama has already acknowledged the Act needs these things, and he is willing to work to iron it out. Much of the hand ringing is built on long term expenses that may or may not happen, depending on a lot of factors. Tweaking the Act, or even removing certain parts is what needs to be done; not wail about how it will ruin the country and bankrupt everybody. There is opportunity to fix the tax code; find ways to reduce debt without pulling the carpet out from under those that truly need support, even as we rework the benefits to reduce their abuse; and encourage logical immigration reform while actually upholding current law fairly and without prejudice; and fix our election system to eliminate the outlandish costs and negativity, as well as the actual voting registration and process. All of these things necessitate a government that actually governs and does its job, and is not centered on its own needs, but those of the people who elect them.

 

Well, I now withdraw from the soap box. I understand that I am "jousting at windmills". But, sometimes you simply have to vent.

[SeattlePioneer]

Sorry, but complaining about what the government is or isn't doing sounds to me like one of our most fundamental liberties.

[moosetracker]

For the employers laying off, some of those employers were planning these layoffs before the election, and were not doing it because of who got elected.. They just got pulled into the arguement of Republicans to say.. "See.. See..".. Those who are laying off and publically blaming the president, are showing thier spoiled, self-centered, 5 year old tantrum side.. Sour grapes.. Now I have to ask them, "If you lay off these people, what are you going to do 4 years from now, when you need your employee force to scare into voting for your Republican canidate.. I mean now you will have less people to be able to coerce into giving you more then the one vote you are allowed to have."

 

As for the ACA (I like ObamaCare).. Although it could be improved on, I doubt it will, although the house sounds like it is determined to spend most of the next two years argueing over this rather then the best way to put Americans back to work.. John Boehner gave me hope in his first comments, that he accepted the fact the election put this to bed.. But, in the typical Republican move, after this interview he was told be the mysterous puppetmaster of this party to walk back those comments and say that the Republicans would waste the next couple of years trying to repeal it.. (Even though with less house seats, and more Democrats in the Senate, this will get them no further then it did for the last 2 years.)..

 

I though was heartened by how the President took up the fight for the fiscal cliff problem.. Hopefully I would like to see the president make more Presidential State of the union addresses.. Some Presidents did it often, some didn't.. I expected that Obama would give us a lot as he is such a great orator, yet he did not in his first term..

 

I was heartened to hear early in the campaign when asked what his biggest mistake was, he said it was putting policy over storytelling.. (Of course Romney ran with demeaning that statement for a day or two until he found another soundbite to twist and distort.)

 

Anyway, here is the part of the interview, without the Romney distortion:

 

"the mistake of my first term - couple of years - was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times."

 

 

Mr. Obama acknowledged the dissonance between others' perception of his strength as an expert orator, and his own.

 

 

"It's funny - when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job?" he said. "And in my first two years, I think the notion was, 'Well, he's been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where's the story that tells us where he's going?' And I think that was a legitimate criticism."

 

 

 

All I can say is "Exactly".. Keep us informed.. That is exactly what I expected from him due to his oratory skills, and what I felt he didn't deliver on.. Although he says it will help Americans keep their hopes up, I also think it will shine a light on who is slowing down and obstructing the process.

 

[Brewmeister]

Let's see...people who disagree with the current administration are "idiots" who are just "spouting off," "spoiled," and "self centered."

 

Well that makes sense. I mean, it's not like anybody ever "purposely demeaned" the previous president.

 

Yeesh.

[moosetracker]

No, people who take their frustrations over the outcome of the election out on their employees are spoiled and self-centered.

 

You want to spend some days in your jammies in total depression about it, then go ahead.. You want to go through the Denial, anger, depression, acceptance stages then go ahead..

 

After all the Democrats would have done that had they lost, but I doubt they would have taken it out on their employees, spouses or dogs.

[Brewmeister]

Hmmmm...I guess making business plans based on political realities and basic math is now taking out my frustrations on people. Well, please excuse me while I go fire some people, beat my wife, and kick my dog before I change out of my jammies to go harvest the magical money tree from the orchard of gold.

[moosetracker]

I don't know, are you one of the billionairs who have seen great profits from your companies (due to already having streamlined your staff over the last 4 years, or outsourcing to china) and are enjoying wonderful returns in the stock market. (It is a proven fact that during this recession the rich got richer as the poor got poorer..) But still have to take out on your employees because the guy who would have made you MORE richer lost the election?

 

If so, yes.. You probably do have a few money trees from which to pull money out of, so stop beating up on your employees, wife and dog..

[Beavah]

Yah, skeptic, it's just da grieving process, eh?

 

Folks these days have been seein' themselves more as Republicans or Dems than as Americans. So when an election goes da other way, it's no longer a case of, "Ah well, I would have preferred the other guy, but let's roll up our sleeves and get on with it!". It's more like someone in da family/tribe has died.

 

So they have to go through da grieving process. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, eh? We saw Denial in spades with Karl Rove on election night. We'll see Anger for a stretch, then Bargaining as da Tea Party crowd tries to obstruct everything through a bare majority in da House. That'll be the real test, eh? Because they can get stuck there.

 

Then of course there's Depression. Not everybody goes through da stages at the same rate, dependin' on how attached they were. So we're startin' to see da Depression bit in a few.

 

Hopefully we'll get to Acceptance. We never really got there after da last election, eh? Da notion of electing a Democrat and black man was too much, and some got stuck in Denial - da "birther" crowd in particular. He's not really President, yadda yadda.

 

Maybe this time. At least I have hope.

 

I pray that until we get to "Acceptance" da Secret Service stays sharper than it has been, because as we go through da grieving stages this sort of thing can bring da worst of da nutters out. After all, if yeh really believe the President is a Muslim non-American in league with da lazy Mexican freeloader illegals and liberal elites hell-bent on bankruptin' da nation, spreadin' marijuana use and abortion and denyin' Christ, and takin' away your Constitutional liberties and da guns to defend yourself, then it's not hard to imagine that rhetoric leadin' a more extreme youngster to do somethin' tragic. Grievin' people are self-absorbed, eh? They aren't aware of da potential harm their rhetoric can cause by influencin' the young, naive, and zealous.

 

And that would be the end of conservativism in America for decades, for sure. So I personally wish they'd start behavin' like real Christians and snap out of this soon.

 

B

 

[packsaddle]

Good words that all of us could reflect on, on this Armistice Day. Thanks, Beavah.

[moosetracker]

Beavah - I pray for the continuing health of our president, as I think he may become one of the great Presidents in history.. But, gives you pause to think of Uncle Joe taking over the Presidency.. I think he would be good to, but he was kindof the jolly old Uncle sort in that last debate.. Great knowledge of the subject matter, but not quite the right tone while making the arguements.. He may be fun to watch as President.. I think he would make people stay on their toes..

 

I know he plans to run in 2016, but if Hillary runs, I think Uncle Joe may just go no further then being our delightfully interesting VP..

 

They are talking Clinton .vs. Bush for 2016.. With Jeb Bush already stating he will run.

 

Poor Joe says he is going to run, but he really hasn't gotten much support yet, while Hillary who hasn't said she is interested has all the traction.

[Brewmeister]

I thought about doing an Econ 101 primer here but I suspect it would be a big waste of time...

 

How about this instead...

 

"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

[Beavah]

They are talking Clinton .vs. Bush for 2016.. With Jeb Bush already stating he will run.

 

Blech!

 

Surely we can do better than feudal dynasties in da United States.

 

Used to be it was only the Kennedy clan in Massachusetts that was into this political nepotism nonsense.

 

America is a vast, great country with wonderful people. I'd like to see anyone else but a pair of political dynasty baby-boomers reliving the arguments of their youth.

 

In such an election, I would write in "NO!".

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 

I'm tryin', Brewmeister, I'm tryin'.

 

In my life, my votes have been at least 75% Republican. In fact, probably more than that, though I'm not a party-line voter. I'm an economic and social conservative of da old school, before we had neocons and tea partiers. Voted Nixon and Ford and Reagan and Bush and Dole. Would happily have voted McCain in 2000, held my nose and voted Bush.

 

I'm speakin' my piece to my fellow conservatives. We have quite a beam in our own eye at da moment.

 

It's up to someone on da other side to remove da mote from da Democrats' eyes. Though I'll grant that they went through quite their own grieving process after 2000.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

I believe we've become a nation of shallow water waders rather than deep water divers. When we do listen to the news, we hear a 15 second item and think we understand what it means. As a result, it lets pundits get away with bloviating on things without being called on their BS.

 

We have a coal company erxecutive laying off 120 people in Utah and 55 people in Illinois blaming the re-election of President Obama and the tougher coal plant standards in place. What he doesn't tell us is that the tougher coal plant standards apply only to new coal burning electricity burning plants, not to existing plants. What he doesn't tell us is that because of the cheaper cost of natural gas, electricity generating companies are either converting existing coal burning plants to natural gas or are building new natural gas plants. What he doesn't tell us is that, with few exceptions, no one is really wanting to build new coal-fired plants because they're concentrating on building natural gas plants - and the exceptions are in places where bringing in a natural gas line will cost even more than the cost of the added regulations to new plants. What he doesn't tell us is that generating companies are closing a lot of existing coal generating plants because they no longer make economic sense in a country where natural gas is cheaper than coal and where wind and solar power are starting to make a difference. In Chicago, Exelon closed the last 2 remaining coal-fired generating plants a couple of years ago because they just don't need the power from those plants anymore. Between more energy efficient appliances, especially commercially, and better generating capabilities at gas-fired plants, the coal-fired plants became a drain on the bottom line, rather than contributing to it. What this guy doesn't tell us, and what the media doesn't tell us, is that changes in the industry is what is driving the coal industry's retraction, not some regulations designed to make our air cleaner.

 

That's part of the Econ 101 that Brew wants to post a primer on - it's supply and demand that's at the heart of the coal industry retraction - the demand has simply gone down. But no, it's much easier to blame the politicians, and it's much easier for us to just repeat the BS, than it is to explain what's actually happening. The media is great at fulfilling self-fulfilling prophecies. They feed us pablum, then say they feed us pablum because that's what the American people want, and it's obvious the American people want pablum, because we're watching the pablum the media is feeding us, even though the only thing the media is feeding us is pablum. The media has been claiming for 20 years now that the young folk have much shorter attention spans that people used to have which is why they need to feed us news in sound bites - and now we seem to have little patience for news that takes more than 30 seconds to report.

 

That's our real problem - we've let the media dictate to us what is important and we've blindly accepted everything they say.

[Brewmeister]

My issue is with the presumption of this discussion starting with the first post. "Self-centered spoiled idiots" and all that. With the disclaimer that I live on the right side of the aisle so I have an admittedly partisan viewpoint, it sure does seem to me that the left's first response to any criticism is "STFU, we won!"

 

Which is not real helpful. And to Beavah's point about fearing for the safety of the POTUS, there sure was a lot of visceral hatred toward the last president...seems to me there was even a play that explored his assassination.

 

Each side has its wingnuts, but perhaps you have to excuse my perspective, coming from Wisconsin, where the response of the left to policy decisions they didn't like was for mobs to take over the capitol and for the Democrat legislature to leave the state...hence the speck and mote.

 

On to Econ 101...

 

It's not real popular to say these days, but here goes:

 

Business is not in business to take care of its employees. It is in business to take care of itself.

 

Got that?

 

Workers are truly human resources...an input into the production process.

 

Have I lost all the liberals out there already? Are you furiously typing on your keyboards to point out how cold and heartless I am?

 

Well, stick with me if you will.

 

When faced with a situation that will affect their ability to continue to exist (that dirty word "profit" again), businesses must either cut the cost of input, or raise the price of output.

 

Now, you could argue that Papa John's should raise the price of their pizza by 25 cents rather than cut back on the cost of their input...but that is their choice. And that choice will have an impact on their operations.

 

As to those millionaire business owners who wouldn't dream of cutting their own salary--how much do you think that salary (that input) relates to the overall payroll and benefit base of the average business?

 

Now, smart businesses also understand that taking care of your employees makes sense. It's a reason that companies rated as "Best Places to Work" by the great place to work institute do BETTER in terms of profit and performance overall.

 

But, businesses are free to make the decisions they wish--at least they still are. Some will be good decisions and some will be bad.

 

I'm probably whistling into the wind on this one but the suggestion that people who make business decisions based on their evaluation of the business climate (i.e., doing their job as a forward-looking business manager) are somehow spoiled, self-centered people taking out their frustrations on their employees is ridiculous.