I am a middle aged white guy too. I spent the last 25 years working my butt off. I paid into the system. I was taxed for all 25 of those years, and gave it willingly. I got in a car accident 2 years ago that caused nerve damage that gave me seizures at night if I don’t take 2 medications. I am in pain for most of the 18 hours that I am awake. I got laid off 1 year after my car accident, even though I called out sick LESS often than most of my co-workers. I now have no insurance and would LOVE a job. I have sent resumes and had over a dozen interviews and 2 dozen phone interviews. I am already at a disadvantage because of my age and my voice has a permanent quiver that disqualifies me for phone support positions, which I have done the last 7 years.

I have applied at computer jobs and at McJobs that would pay me less than my unemployment checks. My full time job is looking for full time work. I was the 53%, and now I wonder if I can make it through another day. I REFUSE to claim disability, even though my physical ailments would qualify me. I REFUSE to take food stamps or Welfare, though my income qualifies me. I only take unemployment because I PAID unemployment insurance for 25 years.

I take responsibility for myself. What I do NOT understand is how the folks at Wall Street AND the members of BOTH parties of the government can NOT take responsibility for what THEY did to create the financial mess that started in 2007. And when you dismiss the complaints of people who, like you, want people to take responsibility for their actions, you dismiss them as complainers who want something for nothing. We are people who want something for SOMETHING. We want our hard work to pay off. I want the American Dream! Up until I was laid off, I had a LOT of hard work, good mentoring, good hardworking parents who are still working into their 70s, the love a good woman, and, until recently, good luck. I spit on your handouts. How about a job? and barring that, how about some accountability from the Wall Street firms that took hundreds of billions of dollars in HANDOUTS from the US government after setting off a worldwide recession which doubled our unemployment rate?

Do you think its OK that, according to the CBO report on inequality, the top 1% has seen their share of ALL the wealth in the country go from 25% to 35% in the last 35 years? That means the entire rest of the 99% of all people in this country went from owning 75% to owning 65% of this country?

Just wanted to raise a new topic about the word Socialism being used nowadays. But its actually an inappropriate word for what’s happening in our government today. The word that more closely matches it is fascism. Don’t jump to the obvious conclusion before reading a bit more, and examine the origins of fascism, before and not including the end result of World War II and the racist overtones that were added later. Fascism originated in Italy, when the far right and far left of the country united under an ideology that included elements of both. Fascism prior to Hitler’s incorporation and domination of Germany and Italy believed in private property and private business, as you find under Capitalism. But it also included state owned enterprises, like Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae and the Fed. It also redistributed funds to non-state owned enterprises and bailed some out that were deemed essential to the state, as you found with Wall Street and automobile corporations in the US. It utilized a national healthcare system based upon monopolies of a few state owned and state supported healthcare corporations, as you find in the Obama healthcare system, which, by the way, is based upon Republican ideas put forward by Newt Gingrich, and later implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachussetts.

Trade unions were gradually incorporated and adopted into the government, as you find with labor unions today and the Democratic party, where they have virtually become one and the same unit. At the same time, Italy included the executive officers of corporations in government, or made members of the government part of the governing boards, similar to the US governnment and the heads of the Fed and virtually every Treasury Secretary for the last 30 years.

Abortion and birth control were banned and considered indecent, since new soldiers would always be needed, much as you find in the Republican party. There was a vote in Italy, and it was considered patriotic to vote. Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, by promising to protect small businesses and property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business. This is much like the noise made by the right about socialism. But while saying this, the fascists supported monopolies of key industries, much as you find in Telecommunications, Petroresources, and Finance. Make no mistake, certain industries in the US are NOT capitalist at all. These few companies dominate and prevent true competition from occurring.

Benito Mussolini promised a “social revolution” that would “remake” the Italian people. The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone.Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. This is very much in line with what has occurred under both parties in the US. As much as the Republicans talk a big game, they introduced the largest expansion since Roosevelt when they added the Medicare drug bill under Bush. And you won’t hear a peep from anyone on the right about this, Tea Party included. But obviously the Democrats introduced all of this under Roosevelt.

But this was not done as any sort of social justice, just a means of control. The Fascists believed in social darwinism. They cut funding for the sickest, oldest and poorest members of society so that the stronger members would survive. This belief is the element that was the seed for what happened later. At the same time, they cut capital gains taxes to zero, cut taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and cut taxes on foreign owned enterprises to encourage investment. And the economy tanked. Bad.

So, what am I trying to say with all of this. Obviously, there are a lot of differences. Our society would never support euthanizing an entire race of people. We have two parties, instead of one. We have a great deal of influence at the local level, as well as a free press and freedom to assemble, though our press is now corporate owned.

What I perceive is that some corporations and many politicians have been slowly and subtly manipulating us and our institutions for their own gain, using methods set out by governments in the past. The two parties are basically a lie. The Tea Party started as something, but in my opinion has been stolen by the more extreme elements of the Republican party, and is a lie. That if you criticize our government, you are also criticizing corporations, even if you don’t know it, because they are more and more closely becoming one and the same. That obviously, we need to balance the budget, but all the theatrics are nothing more than a CALCULATED tactic designed to replace the social issues that were used for 20 years as a means of keeping the American people so angry at each other that we are unable to see what’s happening and do something about it. The only reason the social issues (gays, abortion, etc) are no longer important is because the government supported financial corporations took a big dump on the American people and destroyed the economy so bad that we jumped into the worst recession since the Great Depression and Americans don’t care any more.

Except for the last few years of the Clinton Presidency (and first couple years under Bush, who rode Clinton’s economy for 2 or 3 years) , we have ALWAYS had a large, sometimes massive deficit, that includes Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Bush. Do we need to balance the budget or come close? Yes. Is it going to fix this shitty economy? Nope. It’ll actually make it worse in the short and medium term, as shown in many recessions in the past. But because the deficit is an economic issue, and does have LONG TERM impact, its an excellent way to change the subject and keep the American people at each other’s throats. The Republicans claiming to be Tea Party supporters are nothing more than tools who are screaming at the top of their lungs “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. The Democrats are little better.

So I read that 50% of the companies out there will throw your resume away if you’ve been out of work for 6 months or more. As if you were too lazy to find work. I’m glad I’ve kept somewhat busy with occasional short term contract gigs, so that I don’t look like a deadbeat! I just interviewed at a company that stated a PREFERENCE for unemployed workers that were hungry to get back to work. That is a more accurate way of looking at things more often than not. Most people (not all) are devastated at being unemployed and would be much more highly motivated to perform after escaping the abyss.

Why is it so hard to find a consensus in America today? Our political leaders are a mirror of American society today. Americans can no longer agree on how to get out of the mess we are in today. Politics, always a testy subject, is now guaranteed to make people angry in seconds.

I’m sure there are many reasons. One reason I can see is that Americans rely upon the media to make up their minds. And the media is no longer a responsible source of arbitration. News is entertainment, tailor fitted to preconceived ideas about economics, politics, family and social issues. Edward R Murrow’s standards of the media working hard to be as unbiased and removed as possible are gone.  People filter out the opinions that disagree with their own worldview, instead of allowing that worldview to be challenged. Facts are bent, twisted and outright denied. Liberals and conservatives both accuse any source that is not “their” media of lying and distorting, and both are sometimes or often correct. And holding on to your worldview unchallenged is easier today than ever - all you gotta do is change the channel.

So, honestly, I am not happy with the budget passed by California’s lawmakers. It relies too heavily on cuts to the poor. But, as someone who is not even remotely opposed to tax increases in the appropriate way at the appropriate time, I am glad there were no tax increases in the budget. I am glad Jerry Brown vetoed the budget previously passed two weeks ago, which was loaded with gimmicks and political magic tricks that would have really meant that the budget would not even remotely be balanced. The fact that both Democratic and Republican legislators are unhappy with the budget is a good indicator that it was the best that could be done under the current recession. And though the final bill went weeks past the deadline, this is the closest Sacramento has come to passing a budget on time in quite a few years. I give much of the credit to Jerry Brown.

I am also pleased that the new redistricting procedure will be in place for the next election. The corrupt bargain that was approved by both Democrats and Republicans allowed a majority of extremely safe districts for both sides. What this meant practically is that we had a legislature filled with Republicans that are more conservative than most of California and Democrats that are more liberal. The end result is a mirror of the gridlock in Washington. California is neither liberal nor conservative. It is a moderate state that leans somewhat Democratic.

The end result will be that a lot of incumbents will be tossed out. Republicans will probably gain a seat or two. But over the next decade, the more competitive districts should help to elect legislators that reflect the moderate politics of California. This should also ease the gridlock, hopefully, and allow budgets to pass on time, on target, and allow California to be the great state that it once was, the state that my parents and many others moved to for the sunshine, dynamism and first rate education system.

Whatever the founders’ original intent regarding the Second Amendment actually was, the currently accepted interpretation is that any American citizen has the right to buy and own a firearm. The liberal legal argument has been that this right referred specifically to organized militias ONLY. This assertion has been lost in the culture wars of the last 20 years, and will likely never gain any hold. As a Midwesterner who grew up around a culture of hunting, I am OK with that.

What I do not understand is the insistence that this right has been magically extended to handguns and assault weapons. Since neither of these weapons existed when the constitution was written, how can you say that you have the constitutional right to own a handgun or semi-automatic?  Personally, I am OK with being able to own a handgun, and may someday own my own. But, as with owning and operating a car or other dangerous piece of machinery, it should not be easy to do so. Like a car, you should have to take classes, pass safety tests, and be required to renew on a regular basis. Communities and public spaces should have the ability to prohibit handguns if they so choose, especially when a majority of residences or community members have voiced this opinion.

Semi-automatics are another thing entirely. What use is there for these weapons for private citizens that you cannot find with a rifle or handgun?