Hillary's Idiot Fanbase

This is just another absurd example of a public display of confusion getting treated as if it is newsworthy.  And, of course, if it is a woman displaying the confusion, and anyone points it out, then it is acceptable to label them a misogynist.  It's our old friend the ad hominem fallacy again — when you are unable to address criticism, at least try to discredit those who level it.  And who would not believe that if you criticize the behavior of a particular woman, you must hate all women?

Here is a post at national.suntimes.com, from May 29, 2015, entitled 'Lena Dunham fights of 'misogynistic BS' with semi-nude Lil' Kim', in regard to Dunham being criticized for supposedly reflexively supporting Hillary Clinton for president simply because she is a woman. (see the image of that post below)
     http://national.suntimes.com/national-celebrity/7/72/1202842/...lena-dunham-fights-misogynistic-bs/
     https://archive.is/lVxMc

Just hours after that post appeared at national.suntimes.com, abcnews.go.com added to the spin on Dunham's Instagram post with this: 'Lena Dunham Takes on 'Misogynistic' Hillary Clinton Haters With Risque Photo of Lil' Kim' — it's an interesting title, considering that the Dunham quotes included in that post made no mention of a response to Hillary personally.  There's nothing new here — just another non-intrepid reporter with a non-objective exposé about pointless nonsense.
     http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lena-dunham-takes-misogynistic-hillary-clinton-haters-risque/story?id=31402484
     https://archive.is/ZZS4x

What is tragically amusing about this is that nothing of substance is written in any of these posts.

The writer of the post at national.suntimes.com used the phrases 'fights off' and 'strong words' to describe what Dunham wrote, but Dunham wrote nothing to justify either her support for Hillary, or the notion that it is somehow misogynist to accuse a woman of voting along gender lines — as if it is ridiculous to even suggest that anyone would vote along gender or racial lines.

On the contrary, Dunham demonstrates that she is voting along gender lines when she writes —

Yes I think it’s time for a female president but I’m not part of a witch’s cabal that senses ovaries and suddenly MUST VOTE.  Plus if I was gonna vote for someone just because she was female it would be this chick, written in on all my ballots always.

Is she kidding?  This begs the painfully obvious question: 'Why is it time for a female president, rather than the most qualified president from the available candidates?'  In short, why would anyone use race or gender as a criterion when voting?  And why would you announce your support for a particular candidate, before you even knew who was going to be running?  Dunham is obviously contradicting herself here, by writing that she does not reflexively vote for a particular gender, but then states she wants a president of a particular gender.

Of course, it is never time for a president with any particular characteristics, other than the characteristics ethical and competent (don't hold your breath waiting for that).

It is telling that Dunham makes a feeble attempt to give substance to her support for Hillary, but fails miserably —

Hey, just a head’s up: accusing women of supporting Hillary just because she’s female is misogynistic BS- women are smart enough to make decisions based on a number of factors: policy, track record, campaign strategy.

If Hillary is so deserving of the kind of unwavering support that Dunham describes, why is it difficult to name any specific Hillary accomplishment that justifies that support?   And notice that Dunham lists 'campaign strategy' as a decision factor — really?   Again, is she kidding?  Why on earth would anyone support a politician because of a campaign strategy?

And also notice that Dunham favorably quotes the rapper Lil' Kim — who, like many talentless performers, must resort to vulgarity and exposing themselves to get attention.  It shouldn't really come as a surprise, given the utter stupidity of her music.  For example, consider these other lines from 'Notorious K.I.M', the same Lil' Kim song that Dunham partially quoted in the post below (you might want to have a bucket handy, in case you feel the urge to throw up) —

...
Everybody wanna Shyne off of BIG
Get it, Shyne try-na sound like him when they rhyme
You ain't a murderer
Nigga please come off that
I'm next up to bat motherfuckers get their jaws tapped
Bum ass nigga don't even know how to bust a gun ass nigga
You dumb ass nigga
Rappers acting out the late Frank White's path
Once they get in jail they get fucked in the ass
Never snitch, never send a nigga to jail
I'd rather find him by a boat doing the deadman's float
We gangsters, Real gangsters b
Gun in the greenroom up at BET
We gangsters, Real gangsters nigga
Kill you and cut the head off your babysitter
We gangsters, We gangsters bitch
Even more dangerous now we're filthy rich
...

I know that there are women who deserve respect (so I'm not a misogynist), but it is only because I have met numerous women who are nothing like Lena Dunham or Lil' Kim — if one only encountered women who behaved like Lena Dunham and Lil' Kim, why should one think women were worthy of repsect?

It would be nice to believe that Dunham is not fairly representative of today's electorate, but the long careers of many corrupt politicians — both Republican and Democrat (Hillary among them) — dramatically contradicts that belief.

---

https://instagram.com/p/3RPMyJC1H1/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lena-dunham-takes-misogynistic-hillary-clinton-haters-risque/story?id=31402484
http://national.suntimes.com/national-celebrity/7/72/1202842/hillary-clinton-lena-dunham-fights-misogynistic-bs

---

The 'Trust Fund' Tolls For Thee

Here's a description of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds on the Social Security website, in the 'SUMMARY OF THE 2014 ANNUAL REPORTS'  from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees.  Pay special attention to the second paragraph, and recall that any investment in U.S. Government securities puts money in the U.S. Government's general fund to be spent — that is, both the principle and interest payments for U.S. Government securities (whether marketable or not), are made from the earnings of U.S. taxpayers --

---

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2014/index.html

...
What Are the Trust Funds?  Congress established trust funds managed by the Secretary of the Treasury to account for Social Security and Medicare income and disbursements.  The Treasury credits Social Security and Medicare taxes, premiums, and other income to the funds.  There are four separate trust funds.  For Social Security, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits and the DI Trust Fund pays disability benefits.  (OASDI is the designation for the two trust funds when they are considered on a theoretical combined basis.)  For Medicare, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund pays for inpatient hospital and related care.  The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund comprises two separate accounts: Part B, which pays for physician and outpatient services, and Part D, which covers the prescription drug benefit.  In 2013, 47.0 million people received OASI benefits, 11.0 million received DI benefits, and 52.3 million were covered under Medicare.

The only disbursements permitted from the funds are benefit payments and administrative costs.  Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.  The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government which earn a market rate of interest.  The balances in the trust funds, which represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, provide automatic authority to pay benefits.
...

---

Now notice these paragraphs from the same page, and especially the statement that deficits in these programs contribute to U.S. Federal budget deficits, and that the redemption of trust fund bonds provides no new net income to the Treasury --

---

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2014/index.html

...
What are the Budgetary Implications of Rising Social Security and Medicare Costs?  Concern about the long-range financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security often focuses on the depletion dates for the HI and OASDI trust funds—the times when the projected trust fund balances under current law will be insufficient to pay the full amounts of scheduled benefits.  A more immediate issue is the effect the programs have on the unified Federal budget prior to depletion of the trust funds.

Chart D shows the excess of scheduled costs over dedicated tax and premium income for the OASDI, HI, and SMI trust funds expressed as percentages of GDP.  Each of these trust funds’ operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years.  General revenues pay for roughly 75 percent of all SMI costs.  Until 2030, interest earnings and asset redemptions, financed from general revenues, will cover the shortfall of HI tax and premium revenues relative to expenditures.  In addition, general revenues must cover similar payments as a result of growing OASDI deficits through 2033.

In 2014, the projected difference between Social Security’s expenditures and dedicated tax income is $80 billion.  For HI, the projected difference between expenditures and dedicated tax and premium income is $25 billion.  The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $248 billion.  Thus, the total General Fund requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2014 are $352 billion, or 2.0 percent of GDP.  Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

...

---

The last sentence in the quote above deserves to be repeated, since so many people wish to pretend that the Social Security and Medicare 'trust funds' hold assets that are helpful to taxpayers, rather than simply a claim on their wages —

Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

This is probably the clearest statement that will ever come from the government that the bonds in the trust funds do not represent an asset to taxpayers.  As stated above, if the redemption of trust fund bonds is expected to generate any funds to be spent (as one would expect), the only way to finance that spending is through increased taxation or additional borrowing.

Without additional taxation or borrowing, the dollar amounts of the bonds in the trust funds cannot be spent — so the only way to prevent the trust fund bonds from triggering new taxation or borrowing is to throw them away (i.e. not redeem them).

In short, the trust fund bonds simply act as an accounting tool — a way to track the debt owed by U.S. taxpayers, that they must pay in order for future recipients of Social Security and Medicare to actually receive meaningful benefit payments.

If you are a U.S. taxpayer, the U.S. government trust funds do not make payments to you — you make payments to them.

The World Owes Me A Living

Here's an article on Salon.com, from April 2015, entitled 'I secretly lived in my office for 500 days', in which the writer actually attempts to build a rationalization for having others pay his housing costs.  The author writes of living in his company office for 500 days, and describes it as 'a unique solution to overpriced housing woes' —

---

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/i_secretly_lived_in_my_office_for_500_days/

I secretly lived in my office for 500 days

TERRY K.   THURSDAY, APR 30, 2015 04:00 PM PDT

...
Living at the office remains a unique solution to overpriced housing woes. But there are alternatives. Many working folks, balancing skyrocketing cost-of-living with grounded wages, are employing their own varying degrees of minimalism. From starving artists living in their vehicles to the middle class moving into tiny homes, from dumpster-dwelling college professors to Volkswagen “vanimal” Major League Baseball players, how Americans are defining “home” is changing at all levels of the socioeconomic scale.
...

---

Decades ago the attitude expressed by the author of the article quoted above would have been considered laughably ridiculous.  For example, here's an old Disney cartoon about a fable entitled 'The Grasshopper and the Ants', that provides a humorous warning against the kind of irresponsibility the author is advocating —

https://dai.ly/x29c2x4

The moral of that fable is pretty obvious — except, perhaps, to those who desperately want to pretend that it is somehow moral for others to work to support them.

Someone must work to support you, and if you do not, you will either become another's dependent, or you will die.

But in certain circles today, such dishonesty and dependency is celebrated — as if the attitude that gives rise to it contains an important insight.

In that regard, consider this quote from the same article, where the author, who described living at the office as 'a solution to overpriced housing woes', ascribes an entitlement mentality to landowners —

---

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/i_secretly_lived_in_my_office_for_500_days/

...
But something seemed off. Having spent over a year rent-free, I realized I valued how I spent my expenses differently. Dropping over a grand every month on a single budget item felt like it ought to result in overwhelming returns. Instead, the housing options were bland. Each had a laundry list of glaring flaws—aging units with no parking, thin walls with no outdoor space, poor walkability and a long commute. What’s more was the sense of entitlement on behalf of many landowners, like I was doing them a favor by handing over 40 percent of my income for a glorified doghouse. The transaction felt oddly imbalanced, a product of seriously misplaced supply and demand.
...

---

I have to assume the author's writing is bad here, and he intended to write: 'like they were doing me a favor when I handed over 40 percent of my income' — since that passage doesn't make sense otherwise, and certainly not in the context of an article that conveys the attitude that no one should have to pay rent.

This comment from the author: 'the sense of entitlement on behalf of many landowners', is especially revealing of his mentality, when you honestly consider what is at stake in a rental agreement.  And that comment is beyond parody when you consider it was written by someone who thinks they should be able to live in Southern California near the ocean, for almost nothing — now that's an entitlement mentality.

In general, renters take almost no risk in entering into a rental agreement (or lease) — they can fully inspect a rental property before moving in, and they sign a document that fully specifies the conditions they must abide by to rent the property.  If the property is in poor condition, or the terms of the rental agreement are undesirable, a prospective tenant can simply decline to rent a given property.  Even if it turns out that the landlord is not responsive after a renter moves into a rental, the tenant can simply not pay the last month's rent in order to spend a portion (if not all) of their deposit, before moving (by not having to pay for those days in a new rental).  The tenant does risk having an eviction on their credit report, as well as the loss of part of their deposit, if they end up in a dispute with a landlord — but that risk is trivial in comparison to what the landowner faces.  Bad tenants often don't pay the last month's rent as a matter of course — they simply secure a new rental before the current landlord can put an eviction on their record, so their ability to move isn't affected.

The landowner, on the other hand, is risking an asset that is potentially worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing a tenant to live in it.  It doesn't take much damage to generate multiple months of repair costs in most rentals — so even if a tenant who causes such repair expenses gives a normal notice, and the landlord keeps their deposit, the landlord won't be able to collect any additional amounts owed without the expense and trouble of taking the tenant to court (assuming the tenant doesn't pay those costs voluntarily).  In any case, it's the landowner who is taking a risk in renting to a particular tenant, so, yes, the landowner is doing the tenant a favor in renting to them.  If a tenant considers a potential rental property to be a 'glorified doghouse', as the author quoted above put it, then they need to consider taking on additional roommates to make the rental cost of a nicer property more affordable.  Short of that, their only other choice is to move to a more affordable location, where the rents are lower (of course, that will bring other offsetting disadvantages — which is why the rents will be lower).

In Southern California most real estate is expensive, and even more so for properties within a few miles of the ocean (where the author of the article quoted above was living) — this is generally one of the most desirable areas in the world.   To quote the author again: '... a product of seriously misplaced supply and demand'?   Is he kidding?   What should one expect in a densely populated, fully developed area (both economically and structurally), with strict zoning laws, and with an average daily high temperature that is rarely more than 5° from 68°?

That's what happens when large numbers of people compete for a scarce, highly desirable resource — the price goes up.

That is exactly what everyone should want to happen.  Why?  Because fluctuating prices are the reason free markets are so effective at allocating scarce resources — as prices rise for a given resource, it forces people to conserve that resource (like people taking roommates in the case of rental properties), because they can't afford to consume what they would have at a lower price, as well as the rising price encouraging people to produce more of that resource, in order to profit from the price increase.

It's a pity that the author quoted above won't write an article on the zoning and rent control laws that limit the supply of housing in Southern California, and by necessity drive up rents — but of course, it's more politically correct to pretend that someone who worked for years to acquire an expensive asset has an entitlement mentality because they won't act as if they are grateful to take a risk on a prospective tenant.

And it's a pity that today a silly old Disney cartoon contains much more wisdom than the typical article on a prominent media web site.

Pretending Employers Control Wages

Here's an article at Salon.com, from December 2013, entitled 'The “middle class” myth: Here’s why wages are really so low today', with the wildly promising subtitle: 'Want to understand the failures of the "free market" and the key to getting a decent wage? Here's the real story' —
     http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
     https://archive.is/sVvSu

Not surprisingly, especially for an article dealing with the wages of low paid workers, the article does nothing to explain what it purports to, instead offering the trite rationalization that the decline of union participation is the root of every worker's problems.

This paragraph quoted below gives the main premise of the article, and is the only real substance the article contains.  The bulk of the article gives examples of various union employees who earned higher wages than similar non-unionized workers, as if that alone proves this premise --

---

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
https://archive.is/sVvSu

The “middle class” myth: Here’s why wages are really so low today

EDWARD MCCLELLAND   MONDAY, DEC 30, 2013 10:00 AM PST

...
The argument given against paying a living wage in fast-food restaurants is that workers are paid according to their skills, and if the teenager cleaning the grease trap wants more money, he should get an education. Like most conservative arguments, it makes sense logically, but has little connection to economic reality. Workers are not simply paid according to their skills, they’re paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers. And in an era when only 6 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, and when going on strike is almost certain to result in losing your job, low-skill workers have no negotiating power whatsoever.
...

---

The fallacy here is obvious — this statement from the author: 'they're paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers', is simply an assumption by the author that employers face no competition for workers, and can pay them as little as they choose, regardless of the value of their labor, unless the workers join a union.

Of course, it's obvious that in conditions of high unemployment, when there are often many applicants for the same job, an employer can sometimes fill positions for a very low wage, since job applicants that are having difficulty finding a job will be willing to accept a lower wage (it's better than nothing).  But how will joining a union in this situation give a job applicant more negotiating power?  As long as there are a large number of unemployed workers, even employed union members will have little bargaining power with employers, since every worker is more easily replaced when unemployment is high.

When there are many more job seekers than jobs, the majority of employers are not attempting to hire at all, and for those employers that are, the only way for applicants to be competitive is to be willing to accept a lower wage than other workers with the same skills.

Recall that in August 1981, former President Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the striking 'Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)', citing the oath those employees took not to strike.  Over 11,000 air traffic controllers refused to return to their jobs and were replaced.  Here's Reagan reading a statement to the press on August 4, 1981, giving air traffic controllers 48 hours to return to their jobs —
     http://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-fires-striking-air-traffic-controllers

How one views Reagan's action isn't relevant here — the point is that being a member of the union did nothing to give the air traffic controllers more bargaining power.  They were replaceable because there were a large number of people who were willing and able to do their job without the pay increase the union was demanding.

And by definition, in periods of low unemployment there will be few (if any) applicants for a particular job, so in this situation the only choice employers have, if they wish to attract applicants, is to offer an above market wage.

But as much as people want to pretend that low-skilled workers can have high paying jobs — if they can just force an employer to pay them enough — there is no escaping the obvious fact that no one is willing to pay a lot for something that anyone can do.  And this is the root of this absurdity that labor unions can make low-skilled workers well off by increasing their negotiating power, rather than by increasing the value of their work to those who are willing to purchase it.

Since low-skilled workers can't produce anything of great value (hence the term, low-skill), they are worth very little to anyone looking to purchase their services — if such workers attempt to charge a high wage, while knowing that there are many others who can provide the same service, and possibly for less, such workers risk unemployment.  But ultimately, it is the prices that customers are willing to pay for a particular good or service that determines wages, rather than the greed or generosity of employers.

A labor union may be able to achieve above market wage rates for its members for some period of time (even years), but ultimately the end result is that the affected industries become less competitive, increasing the incentives to customers to switch to alternative products, or to companies that are able to eliminate the inefficiencies of union labor.

In that regard, consider this ironic quote from the same article quoted above regarding the loss of jobs in an industry that was traditionally unionized --

---

http://http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

...
The greatest victory of the anti-labor movement has not been in busting industries traditionally organized by unions. That’s unnecessary. Those jobs have disappeared as a result of automation and outsourcing to foreign countries. In the U.S., steel industry employment has declined from 521,000 in 1974 to 150,000 today.

“When I joined the company, it had 28,000 employees,” said George Ranney, a former executive at Inland Steel, an Indiana mill that was bought out by ArcelorMittal in 1998. “When I left, it had between 5,000 and 6,000. We were making the same amount of steel, 5 million tons a year, with higher quality and lower cost.”
...

---

It's strange that in an article praising the supposed benefits of labor unions, the author would acknowledge a productivity and quality increase that resulted from a massive elimination of union labor — and at the same time fail to acknowledge the role the union had in making the business less competitive, and the even more obvious point, that every business should be striving to eliminate such inefficiencies.

The author used the term 'anti-labor movement', as if there is some group of people that do nothing but attack labor, but in the most fundamental sense we are all anti-labor, because we are all trying to purchase the highest quality goods and services for the lowest possible price — and as demonstrated by ArcelorMittal, the steel company the author mentioned above, high quality at a low price isn't easily achieved with union labor.