Last Week Tonight: John Oliver: 'The National Debt'

Source:Last Week Tonight- with John Oliver on America's national debt.

"The national debt has long been portrayed as a burden we’re placing on future generations. John Oliver discusses how national debt works, why people are so concerned about it, and why it might be more helpful that you think." 

From The Last Week Tonight 

For anyone who is truly interested in the national debt (which is all of our national budget deficits that are piled on in total) you should first be looking at who you are voting for every two years, first. And if you are not voting at all, you probably couldn't give a damn about the national debt, but if you do vote on a regular basis, look at the people you are electing and reelecting first and then go from there. 

If you are voting for people who truly believe in fiscal responsibility (Democrat or Republican) and you are voting for people who generally vote against deficit spending, simply because it's deficit spending and refuse to vote against legislation in Congress that raises the deficit and debt, then fine, because you are doing your part to keep the debt and deficits down. 

But if you say that you care about the national debt and deficit, but vote for people who could care less about the debt and deficit and only say that they do because they think you are an idiot who would vote for a blind man to land their plane for them (because who needs vision anyway) and then you reelect the asshole that knows you are an asshole for electing them, then whose fault is it for the deficit and debt? How about the person that you see in the mirror everyday? (Just throwing a thought out there) 

To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin: we get the politicians that we vote for. If you don't like the politicians that we have and you are voting for them anyway, you are shooting yourself in the foot, while staring at your feet as you are shooting yourself in the feet. 

I'm not a fan of either Republicans or Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but I dislike Republicans, especially in Congress more on this issue, because at least the Democrats are honest in the sense that they don't care about the national debt and deficit and are fairly honest about it. (As honest as politicians go) But Republicans act like fiscal conservatives, but only when there is a Democratic President, especially a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. 

But when Republicans are in power, especially with The White House, they spend other people's money like drunken sailors celebrating their last night in the service on New Years Eve who have access to all the free alcohol that they can drink before it kills them. And if you don't believe me, just look at the four years of President Donald Trump where the national debt went up 10 trillion in just four years. Or look at the presidency of George W. Bush where the national debt went up 7 trillion-dollars in his eight years as President. 

Just to respond to what John Oliver what he's saying here: if the national debt and deficit doesn't matter (which is what he seems to be arguing here) then we can scrap the tax code right now, because Uncle Sam no longer needs our money to pay for his government. And we can just borrow all of our money to pay for all of our government. But the good news is that no serious economist actually believes that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Last Week Tonight: John Oliver: 'Health Care Sharing Ministries'

Source:Last Week Tonight- John Oliver talking about health care sharing ministries.

"Health Care Sharing Ministries, or HCSMs, advertise themselves as a more affordable, faith-based alternative to health insurance. But John Oliver explains some of the massive limitations these plans can have." 

From Last Week Tonight 

From what I've heard about health care sharing ministries, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them either. But at the same time I don't smoke anything, but I'm not in favor of outlawing tobacco and I would even legalize marijuana for personal use for adults. I don't drink alcohol, but I'm not for alcohol prohibition. 

I believe in an individualistic free society like America (unlike a collectivist welfare state like Britain, where John Oliver is from) that Americans need to be make their own decisions, short of hurting any innocent person with what they are doing,  even if those decisions offends the Far-Left or Far-Right, who believe that Uncle Sam is better qualified to make their own decisions, because Americans are just too damn dumb or immoral to make their own decisions for themselves. 

If you don't want health care sharing ministries, stay the hell away from it and find another way to pay for your own health care. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Last Week Tonight: John Oliver- The Filibuster

Source:Last Week Tonight- A 19 minute John Oliver filibuster on the filibuster and not one Senator objected. LOL

"John Oliver explains why filibusters exist, why they shouldn't, and why it's stupid to drink coffee like a cat."

From Last Week Tonight

Source:The AV Club- "John Oliver filibusters the filibuster on Last Week Tonight"

I guess my question for John Oliver would be: does he want to end the filibuster today, or as soon as the next Democratic Congress is sworn in with a Democratic President, like let's say in January, 2021. Which would be the next possible opportunity for Democrats to have complete control of Congress and The White House at the same time.

The honest and unfortunately less popular view for ending the filibuster is that people who actually take this view is that they don't believe in the filibuster, period. They want complete democratic rule and for the majority to rule at all times. Which was the view that Tom Harkin who served in Congress for 40 years, including six terms in the Senate took. He hated the filibuster all together and wanted to completely eliminate it, regardless of who was in control of Congress and who the President was.

But unfortunately the more popular and common view when it comes to the filibuster in Congress whether they're in the House or Senate, Democrat or Republican is: "we're in favor of the filibuster, when the other party is in control of the Senate. Especially when they're also in control of the House. And even more important than that: when the other party is in control of Congress and the presidency. If we have a large minority in the Senate or just 41 seats, we want to able to use that power to stop the majority party at all times."

"But when we're in control of Congress, we want to eliminate the Senate filibuster, because we see at as undemocratic and an absolute abuse of power by the minority against the majority." At least that's what Democrats and Republicans would say if they were under oath or under truth serum, because even jail is worst for them, then admitting to their constituents that they're just a bunch of hyper-partisan, hypocritical, lying assholes.

It's one thing to be against the filibuster, but then the obvious would be why: do you see it as an obstructing Congress to do their jobs, especially the Senate. Or you just hate it when your party is in control of Senate, especially when your party has the House and White House as well. And you're nothing more than a hyper-partisan, hypocritical, lying asshole. You know, those people that Americans continually elect and reelect from both party's to Congress every single freakin year. 

Last Week Tonight: Ayn Rand- 'How Is This Still A Thing?'

Source:Last Week Tonight- Objectivist author Ayn Rand.

"Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," is still kind of a thing. How?"

Source:Last Week Tonight

Source:All Top- "Author Max Barry once described reading Ayn Rand in this way,” I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection ..."

I'm not an objectivist and not a believer in objectivism, but I am a believer in individualism and if that makes me a selfish asshole or douchebag, ( as the guy said in the video ) then that's his damn problem, but not mind.

Ayn Rand, is not the mother of individualism or the creator of it, but perhaps is the strongest and most vocal advocate of it, which is why Liberals, ( such as myself ) Conservatives, Libertarians, even Socialists with her strong advocacy for feminism and the right to privacy can find something about Ayn that they can actually like, because most of us at least ( who aren't Socialists or Christian-Nationalists ) believe in some degree of individualism and freedom of choice and don't expect big government to even try to do everything for us.

Ayn Rand is sort of like ice cream or cookies: almost everyone can find something about her that they like. Almost everyone has a particular type of cookie or ice cream that they like and everyone has something about Ayn that they like: from 1960s Hippies to modern day Hipsters who don't want to be part of the establishment and want to be able to live their lives. To Christian-Nationalists who perhaps want big government to live in our homes and tuck us in at night so we're not living what they could call immoral lives, but like Ayn's advocacy for economic freedom.

Even Socialists who believe in women's reproductive rights and feminism, can find something that they like about Ayn Rand. To Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservative-Libertarians who believe in individual freedom and individualism and don't want big government running our lives for us at all.

Almost everyone has something about Ayn Rand that they like or can like, just like most of us have a cookie or flavor of ice cream that we like as well. Because Ayn believed in personal choice, reason, objective thought, free will, free expression, American liberal values that most Americans still love. While collectivists on both the Far-Left and Far-Right can find a lot about her that they hate, because her whole message was about individualism and individual choice, instead of a government collective deciding what's best for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Economic Development

Source: Last Week Tonight-

Source:The Daily Review

I get that John Oliver don't like corporate welfare and neither do I and perhaps views any tax incentives as private business and individuals steeling government's money. (As Socialists would argue) As if government has any of their own money. The old phrase that money doesn't grow on trees is particularly app when talking about government. Even when government prints money (which is government creating money out of thin air) they need to actually print the bills with a printing machine. Instead of planting paper in the ground and hoping it eventually grows on trees.

If this is about pork barrel spending, then I agree with Oliver on that as well. Tax dollars that are purely designed for politicians to be able to pay off their political debts to their contributors and creates no economic benefit for the constituents that they represent. Which is nothing more than a form of legal bribery in America whether its done from Congress, or at the state and local levels.

The reason why people stay in Congress for so so long, well their several reasons. They represent people who don't have enough time to research incumbents and candidates, because they're too busy staring at their i-phones and watching reality TV. Which of course is really important in life, not like trying to figure out where their hard-earned tax dollars go whether its for pork or for anything else.

But also people stay in Congress both in the House and Senate for so long because they get fat from pork. And are too fat to move out of Capitol Hill and actually get a real job. And as long as voters don't do their homework on people that are supposed to represent them and people who want to replace their porky Representative's and Senator's, we're going to see tax funded scandals like this. Money to companies that only get tax funded subsidies because they knew who in government to call and to payoff.

That fact is if you want jobs and you want Welfare even and a broader welfare state all together, which is the pot fantasy of a lifetime for Socialists in America, you need what John Oliver was talking about the beginning of his rant which are jobs. You want businesses investing in your communities and they need incentive to locate there. They need a workforce that is actually qualified to do the jobs that will be there. I know, that sounds crazy having people qualified for the jobs that they're supposed to do.

But you also need regulations that are easy to understand and actually make sense, are actually needed, and don't make doing business in your community too expensive. I know, more commonsense, I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. Otherwise we won't have a society where everyone is on Welfare and that socialist dream will never come because again money doesn't grow on trees, not even government money. (Sorry Bernie Sanders supporters) But instead a society where everyone is homeless or looking for an affordable place to live because no one has a job. Because taxes are too high and regulations are so strict that government is practically running what are supposed to be private businesses.
Source:Last Week Tonight With John Oliver

HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- The Confederacy

Source: HBO-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I believe this is an example of where Britain is very different from America. In Britain, you basically only have one government because the United Kingdom is a unitarian government with most of the governmental power in the country rests with London in England which gets to decide how the rest of the country including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and yes England which is actually a territory that is part of Britain, gets to live. Apparently too many people aren't aware of that and talk about England as if its  some independent country and talk about England as if they're talking about France or Germany.

America is very different where power is much more decentralized. We don't just have fifty states and those fifty states aren't Federal agencies. Their independent jurisdictions that are part of a nation state known as the United States and have jurisdiction over their own affairs in their state. So if Alabama wants to have confederate statues, thats their business. Even if it offends oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies that have nothing better to do with their nights like gee I don't know, studying, getting laid, and instead spend their nights protesting Halloween, Thanksgiving, and now confederate statues.

So if we were in Britain right now whether it was Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, and someone was offended by some statue, Parliament could just declare that statue offensive or the Prime Minister could just do that by herself and that statue would automatically be eliminated. Even if the people in Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, or Manchester, aren't offended by the statue themselves, at least not a majority of the people. But we're obviously not in Britain and neither is John Oliver.

If someone is offended by a statue in Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, Philadelphia, Boston, or wherever else in America, sure they could complain about it and even peacefully protest against it. But don't expect Congress to pass some law telling some city or cities that they have to remove a certain statue because it offends someone or a group of people. Perhaps especially a group of oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies, who keep local coffee houses and Red Bull in business by themselves.

 Because Congress would be out of their jurisdiction. And don't expect the President to even comment on it. Other than maybe President Donald Trump who will say that there's nothing wrong with having confederate statues. He might complain about having statues that honor African-Americans who fought for the Union in the Civil War, but thats a different issue.

"Mind your own damn business!" Is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not an indifferent person and I see bad things that happen to people all the time that make me feel bad because some innocent person had to experience that. But unless there's something that is really bad that is going on in Maryland, especially involving the State Government and Annapolis is trying to pass some law that I really don't like, I could really care less if Alabama or any other Bible Belt state tries to honor some Confederate figure. Or tries to pass some big government law that tries to outlaw homosexuality, or gambling, to use as examples.

We have a Federal Republic and as along as the states are passing laws that are within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights. Big government laws like banning homosexuality violate the Constitution and would get thrown simply because they violate the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy. But as long as any state is within the Constitution and putting up statues and keeping older statues is certainly within the Constitution, states can honor anybody from the Confederacy that they choose too. And if people are offended by that, they can always vote with their feet (to quote to Ronald Reagan) and move to a state that is more politically correct with the times.
HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- The Confederacy