RE: society ills

[Guest guest]

>From: zoe W <ilovegrafix@...>

> Thats the whole problem Skipper, everyone thinks its someone else's

>job. WE should have been protesting and stamping feet from the beginning,

> but no We ( and I include myself here) sat back and expected someone

>else to protect us, and look where that got us.

Part of the reason for that is the changes are so subtle. They sound good -

Who would be against equal rights for women? No one. But, if the effect

was to make it necessary (force) for mothers who used to stay home go

outside the home to work, because it would raise the cost of housing, would

everyone had thought it was such a good idea?

Maybe they would have, there was a period of time when women announced " I'm

a stay-at-home mom " that other women seemed to think they were committing an

immoral act. So, someone persuaded the women work was better than family.

But, it wasn't a coincidence that in the 1970s, when women (and minorities)

were given hiring preference and women emigrated to the work force en masse,

that is when we had massive inflation for years. Two incomes became

standard, and the prices rose to meet the increased household income.

It ultimately made it harder for everyone, except for the women who now had

the financial resources to leave their husbands. It was good for them.

I'm one of the many who likes the ban on smoking. I always had problems

breathing around it. Yet, the government had to get involved with it, after

it started to become very unpopular. They couldn't simply let us change,

they had to outlaw smoking in public places. It would have happened anyway,

because people were getting annoyed with passive smoke.

You don't hear any non-smokers complaining about those anti-smoking laws

because they think of themselves as the beneficiary.

We've become so docile, we let them pass laws so they can pull us over and

ticket us if we forget to wear our seat belt.

In the 70s and 80s, I made people riding in my car wear their seatbelts and

many objected back then. But, now the government is acting like " big

brother " and telling us since it's for our own good, it's no longer a

choice. It started with infants first of course. Who didn't think how

stupid those people were who didn't use car seats? So, the government said

they knew what was best for our children, and car seats are mandatory.

Wasn't far to go to make adults wear seat belts too.

On most groups, you tell how stupid we are to allow such laws, they tell you

the " big brother " reason why it's actually a good thing. It keeps their

insurance rates down. Well, adjusted for inflation, I believe I paid less

for car insurance when I was a teenager. How could that be? Adjusted for

inflation, I pay more now then I did 30 years ago (before mandatory seat

belt laws), I don't have better insurance, and I have an excellent driving

record. Yet, police officers could pull me over and give me a ticket if I

don't wear my seat belt. And most people think that's a good thing.

Huge problems are pretty much ignored. I saw on Cspan a couple people

including congressmen, who were saying that China is acting unfairly. If

you have a factory, and keep up sales so you can keep their people busy,

they'll give you a factory in China, and a guaranteed labor cost. That

sounds a little like the government subsidizing manufacturing. And these

congressmen knew it. I haven't seen legislation to stop it.

Should there be outrage? Sure. But then, when I go into the local Meijers,

I see the population is happy to self-scan at the checkout, and don't even

need a discount to do it. The first thought I have, is if that catches on,

there go a lot of jobs. A lot of jobs. Yet, those self-scanners are busy.

OUr manufacturing isn't being protected by government against unfair

practices. As individuals we'll go to a computer instead of a person to

check out, or do our banking. We're becoming a self-service society when it

comes to these things, and not thinking about our neighbors much.

If it's a good idea to let computers do whatever they can, they'll

eventually be able to do almost any job a person can do. Eventually, no one

will have a decent job.

During this year's election, you could tell the population was mad, and the

Democrats now have the majority in congress. Most of us will forget we were

mad, because we told them at the voting booth we don't like what they're

doing, and things changed.

But, they still have those mandatory seat belt laws,

There's no fence on the Mexican border, (Oh, that's one of the reasons we

changed leadership, because we don't like racism and think illegals should

be given amnesty. That's what some of the Dems were saying right after

election.)

The NAFTA superhighway is still going to be built,

1% of the country got richer under GW. Now they pay a lower tax rate than

the working class, because they get a lot of dividends. The working class

pays 15.3% (7.65% they see come out of their check, and a matching amount

the government says the employer pays) of their check from the first dollar

on social security tax. On top of that they have income tax. The wealthy

collecting $10,000,000 in dividends only pay 15% of their income on tax.

(In the 2004 debates, wealthy Kerry only had a 15% tax rate.) So, the

wealthy now have lower tax rates than the working class.

There wasn't even outrage when the tax rate on the wealthy sank to lower

than the working class.

I couldn't believe it. I never heard the working people complain. Maybe

it's the fluoride in the water.

The estate tax is in place, because we didn't want to have a system of

wealthy lords and ladies like England did. We wanted a vibrant middle class

instead.

That's one reason for the estate tax, which will fade away in 2010 if

congress lets it. See the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 90%, but

they changed the " estate tax " to the " death tax " and made it unpopular even

with those people who never had a chance to be subject to the tax. Somehow,

if someone had a billion dollars, we felt sorry for the child having the

benefit of a wealthy parent during his lifetime, and then only getting

half-a-billion on his parent's death. Poor guy with the Ivy League

education, cash and trust fund dad gives him while he was alive, only

inhertis half a billion dollars. Yet people with no estates to pass on were

saying " the death tax is evil. "

Maybe it really is the " Dumbing Down of America. " And in the mental health

initiative, Bush said he'd be happy to give psychiatric drugs to anyone who

needed them.

And don't forget, the " feel nothing " drug, Prozac gets flushed into the

water supply too, along with a lot of hormones. Maybe it's not about not

caring, not being vigilant enough, but maybe we're more drugged than we

know.

Skipper

_________________________________________________________________

View Athlete’s Collections with Live Search

http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06 & FORM=MGAC01