Will increasing tax rates on the wealthy close the budget deficit?

NO!  The Answer is NO!!!  Not even a tenth.  In the long term not even a hundredth.  This is just an FYI for those that don't actually want to read the post.  I'm actually fine with increasing taxes on the wealthy.  But it won't get us out of our hole.  It will make us go deeper slightly less quickly.


http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/federal-deficit-spending-billions


Increasing tax rates for Americans who earn more than 250,000 to the pre-Bush levels will result in 60,000,000,000 to 120,000,000,000 next year.  As cool as it was to write that, it's easier to just write 60-120 billion dollars.  That's a ton of money.  Probably way more than a ton of money.  Tons of money.  What will it do to stop the deficit spending?  Nothing.  It will reduce next year's shortfall of 1 trillion dollars by 5-10%.  We'll still have a much bigger hole than we did before.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006461-higher-taxes-on-the-rich-would-barely-dent-the-deficit


http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/11/cartoon-round-up_12.html

I'm still a little bit upset with hardcore President Obama voters who slammed Mitt Romney's plan.  Taxing the wealthy was Obama's plan. It was the only one I ever heard, except once, when the issue was pressed, he said he'd deal with it in 6 months.  Mitt's numbers didn't add up all the way.  He only would have managed 80-90% of the debt... Now we have Obama, and 5-10% of the new debt will get reduced.  The 16.5 trillion in debt that we have.  No plan for that.  But it's cool.  Done is done.  Obama has some advantages that I like along with the things I dislike.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2370685/posts
The above cartoon was from 2009.  Imagine how big that hole is now.  :)

Using the term "fiscal cliff" is wrong.  Just thought I'd throw this out there.

http://www.examiner.com/article/with-gop-on-defense-as-voters-say-tax-the-rich-does-boehner-fear-fiscal-cliff


http://davidswanson.org/node/1713

Reading another article, it looks like President Obama is also planning to increase investment tax rates to 20% (they're now at 15%) and dividends tax rates to the same level as a person's top income rate (they're also now at 15%)  It looks like this will only be done on "the rich."  And this is almost exactly the same thing I heard out of Mitt Romney explaining his tax plan.  Not sure who thought of it first, but I think it's a good idea.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/economy/obama-taxes-deficit/


http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/tag/economy

I understand the idea of giving people an incentive to save by reducing their tax rates on income gotten through savings, but lets face it, most Americans aren't saving.  The probability that a person saves money increases almost directly parallel to their income.


http://redalexandriava.com/2012/02/24/cartoon-of-the-day-obamas-pledge-to-cut-the-deficit/

I keep seeing 1.6 trillion quoted as the increased revenue from changed tax rates for the wealthiest, and my understanding is that this is the amount over ten years.  Why they had to multiply the savings over ten years and give it to us that way I have no idea.  But 1.6 trillion in ten years is not much at all when we already have 16.5 trillion in debt, and the debt is increasing by more than 1 trillion per year.


http://brianwoods.com/?m=200904

My big thought about all of this though, is that it won't be enough.  It never can be.  I think when any entity is spending more than it takes in, the main control has to be on reducing expenditures, not on increasing income.  Very rich multi-millionaire athletes and others find themselves in the poor house all the time.  It's easy to spend money, and in the case of many democrats, it's fairly easy to increase government income from taxing the American people.  Controlling expenditures is hard.  That's the key to the federal deficit.  Medicare and Medicaid will have increasing expenses over time.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

Compare the US deficit to Canada's 26 billion dollar deficit.  Their government is actively working to balance the budget.  Good job Canadians.  Come on US, let's follow suit.

http://www.globalmontreal.com/fiscal+update+showing+larger+deficit+puts+federal+government+promises+in+doubt/6442752860/story.html


http://polymath07.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html

In contrast, the US deficit increased by 120 billion dollars.  Just for the month of October.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/11/14/Tax-Hikes-Worthless-Without-Entitlement-Reform.aspx#page1


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57326268-503544/national-debt-crosses-15-trillion-mark/

As it stands now, by 2025 all federal revenue, ALL of our tax money, will be just enough to pay interest on debts, medicare, medicaid, and social security.  This is according to the Simpson-Bowles commission that President Obama requested.  It looks like both parties are guilty for not pushing it forward, as the resulting plan included some tax hikes which Republicans hated, and lots of spending reduction, which Democrats hated.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/11/22/Super-Flaw-If-Only-Obama-Had-Upheld-Bowles-Simpson.aspx#page1


http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-the-us-national-debt-2011-1

The following link is especially upsetting to me.  Apparently a poll says that Americans prefer to tax the rich and keep Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security how they are.  Nobody told these Americans that THE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP!!!  They heard all about how Romney's math didn't add up.  They appear not to understand that Obama's math doesn't add up either, and by a lot more.  Oh well.

http://peoplesworld.org/clergy-reject-grand-bargain-tax-the-rich/


http://blogs.fayobserver.com/mohn/March-2012

Why I'm voting for Mitt Romney

I'm that guy that can't stop with the devil's advocate thing.  I was told this in high school by Edward Davis, one of my best friends.  He was telling me this horror story about how mean a certain girl at school was.  I didn't even know her, but I was explaining how she couldn't be as bad as he was saying, and he said "Jeff, why do you always go against anything people say to you?"  He went on and on.  I'd never thought about it.  Well I have now.  I still have no idea why, but I try and temper it sometimes.

http://www.cityprofile.com/forum/national-politics-debate/funny-political-cartoons-memes-18687/

Before I tell you who I'm going to vote for... wait, I already did.  Anyway, in the name of being objective, I want to get out all of the reasons why I didn't want to vote for Mitt Romney.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2008/11/21/image-of-the-day-political-cartoon-borgman/

First and probably foremost, if I'm honest, is that I'm a Mormon white man.  I absolutely hate being stereotyped, and probably 95% of Mormon white men are voting for Romney.  So I don't like that immediately, and that's points for Obama in my book.  Or it was until I admitted it to myself and decided it was irrelevant to the decision.

http://www.anvari.org/cols/Political_Cartoons_about_Iran.html

Second, I disagree with Romney and most Republicans in their views regarding illegal immigration.  Being an illegal immigrant is slightly less bad in my book than driving 26 in a 25 mile an hour zone.  We need more people in this country.  Illegal immigrants aren't criminals.  Their crime rate is less than that of citizens.  They aren't a significant drain on the economy.  They are people just like anyone else.  Disenfranchised people.  Remember that "No taxation without representation!"  All of them pay some taxes in some form, and some of them (more than you'd think) pay every tax that a citizen pays, but none of them get representation.  I know many of them, and if I were to make a mental list of good and bad people by judging everyone (which I think is a dumb idea), they would be spread out along the continuum just like any other group.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/fire.html

Third, I don't like this whole 'less taxes for the rich' thing.  I don't buy Obama's line of "he'll drop taxes for the rich and increase them for the middle class" thing.  No politician would do that.  It would be political suicide.  I do think he might reduce taxes for the wealthy though.  Or I did.  My problem with cutting the capital gains tax was that for the most part it's only people with extra income that invest, and might have to pay a capital gains tax, therefore it's mostly them that benefit from it.  My understanding of his policy at present is that those earning less than 200,000 a year will have no capital gains tax, and those earning more would have the same (14%?) or an even higher (20%?) rate.  Don't quote me on the over 200,000 per year percentages.  I could be wrong.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2008/05/political_cartoons_galore.html

In that same 'help the rich' vein, I don't like the whole "the rich will pay the same proportion of all taxes (60%?) that they do now" idea.  A rich finance guy said that the rich are paying more now relative to the rest of the country than ever before.  Maybe it was even "the 1%" pay more.  The reason that this is so, is that, relatively speaking, they are making more in comparison to the rest of us than ever before.  If before, the regular guy made 1 dollar for every 20 dollars earned by the 1% guy, now it's the regular guy making 1 dollar for every 70 dollars earned by the 1% guy.  Of course the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthiest will go up when they're earning so much more.  As it should!  While the mega bucks earned by the rich are more volatile than the average guy, they are still massive.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Waiting-for-Economic-Growth.htm

I have no problem with distributing wealth.  150 years ago, there were factory owners and workers.  The owners said 'hey, for every dollar less I pay my workers, that's a dollar more in my pocket!'  And they made tons of money, while the workers made very little.  I don't consider those tons of money to be earned or deserved.  Anyway, this article isn't about fairness, so I'll stop now.

http://thoughtfulconservative.wordpress.com/category/political-cartoons/

I'm voting for Romney for the following reasons:
I do think his business acumen will translate into a better economy.  He knows how to take struggling businesses, trim off the fat, and make them profitable.  Our government has some similarities to a struggling business that seem obvious to me.  It's also not like a struggling business in other ways.  Anyway, I like the experience in terms of reducing government waste.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2009/02/01/political-cartoons-of-the-week-2.htm

Mitt Romney has some plans to reduce government spending.  In any election, the candidate that talks about spending less government money than the other guy gets painted as being 'against' any group that receives government money.  Any specifics are used against him or her.  My biggest problem with Obama, is that every one of his four years have been one of the four years in the history of this country where the USA has increased the deficit by the most.  I understand that in a growing economy, government expenditures should grow by 1-3%.  But his first year (budget came from Bush) was an 18% increase, and then the spending never dropped back down.  That's huge!!!

http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/06/political_carto_1.html

This country cannot afford to spend more than it takes in.  And doing it by such large numbers, year after year after year.  This is a disaster!    What really upsets me is the people that say Mitt Romney's numbers don't add up.  It's probably true.  But at least he has a plan.  It will require adjusting, but it is set up to be as painless as possible.  I don't hear any plan out of President Obama at all.  Just the standard "Oh, we'll take care of that 6 months from now."  I don't hear any of the objective voices calling him out on that.  It's just "Romney's plan is only covering 98% of what it claims to."  Taking care of 98% of the problem is a lot better than taking care of 0% of the problem.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/photos/political-cartoons-march-2011

I also agree with Romney generally in terms of abortion.  I believe that we were all fetuses at one time.  Any of us that were aborted would not be here.  All of those that were aborted are not here.  I agree that there may be terrible consequences and/or suffering by some women, and I'm OK with some of the proposed exceptions to the no abortion rule.  Generally however, I see no difference between killing the baby the day before it is born or the day after.  I don't think a baby should be killed because she was a girl and her parents wanted a boy.  I don't think a baby should be killed because it will have down syndrome.  In coming years, many variables may become known about a person from when they are in the womb.  Maybe Mom and Dad don't want a short child, or a red-headed child.  Is it ok to kill them for it?  In any case, I don't think presidents have much sway in terms of abortion law, so it doesn't really affect my vote.

http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/daily/2012-10-25

I'm not sure what Romney's detailed position is on homosexual marriage.  What is mine?  I guess the easiest oversimplification is that I think marriage is between a man and a woman.  Always has been.  Always should be.  I don't mind something else, like legal recognition of a relationship, including the visitation rights and many of these things that have been denied to same sex couples.  I do understand the idea that my beliefs shouldn't be imposed on other people.  I believe the homosexual act to be a sin.  I also believe the heterosexual act outside of marriage to be a sin.  Not my job to criticize or judge people who believe different than I do.  Unfair legal practices, like not allowing visitation rights, need to be changed.  Probably the easiest way to do this would be via civil unions that offer similar legal recognition to marriage.  There have been societies where homosexuality is tolerated and even encouraged, and many others where it is prohibited.  There are apparently some cultures present today where it doesn't exist.  As far as I know, there has never been a culture where the same word is used for the permanent relationship of a man and a woman as for a homosexual relationship.  The ideas are different.  The names are different.  Why do they need to be called the same thing?  Not really an issue for me in this election, but oh well.

http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/daily/2012-10-25

As far as other reason I go with Romney over Obama... I am a little bit upset by Obama's tactics in the election.  The whole idea of so much time spent on attacks on Romney, little or no substance on what Obama will do in a second term kind of upsets me.  More of the same isn't good enough for me.  I can't imagine the national debt after 8 years of this.  I tend to agree with Romney that most of Obama's attacks are 'small.'

http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/

I don't like the pandering done by both sides.  President Obama waited until the election was coming around to take some actions to rally his constituents.  The reversal and support of gay marriage, conveniently takes place at election time, and only when the public opinion polls show majority support for gay marriage proponents.  The new 'don't remove certain illegal immigrants' rule went into effect years after it could have.  Obama could have done this whenever he wanted.  But he wanted increased energy from the Latino community, so he waited until election time.  Mitt Romney does similar things, but on a much smaller scale.

http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/daily/2012-10-25

I've felt that I learned just how 'liberal' the 'liberal media' is recently, watching much of the media follow the president's lead, when, after the first debate, when Romney destroyed the "uber conservative plutocrat elitist" image that the liberals had spent so long creating, they switched back to the "flip flop will say anything" Romney.  I see a lot of articles devoted to how Obama probably wishes he was still facing 'severely conservative' Mitt and not the new moderate Mitt.  They make a long winded assertion that Mitt Romney has flip flopped his character to win votes.  This is Obama's new attack line.  None of them say "Obama switches campaign strategies from painting Mitt as ultra conservative to painting him as a flip flop."  Mitt Romney is talking more moderately now than in the primaries.  As does every candidate in every presidential election.

http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/daily/2012-10-25

For me, there are also a number of non-issues involved.  I don't care about tax returns.  I don't care about the recent problems in Benghazi, or who knew what when.  I don't care about Obama saying "When I was president" in a debate instead of "As president."  I don't care about 'binders of women.'  It was a poorly worded phrase, but he has a record to be proud of regarding women in his administration.  Even if much of it was due to outside influence of that women's group.  Nobody made him accept their influence.  I don't care about President Obama's middle name.  He is not a Muslim.  And even if he was, I would be OK with that.  I don't believe he's trying to destroy the country, or intentionally send the USA into mediocrity.

http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/

I think president Obama has a good heart, and wants to do good for lots of people that need help.  But there are limits to what we can do.  I like Mitt Romney's idea of comparing every federal expense and saying "Is this important enough to borrow money from China for?"  Of course the great majority of US national debt is held by US citizens, and the China bit is mostly for political points, but the point stands.  I believe in helping people.  I think Jesus Christ would do it if he were president.  He wouldn't tow the conservative line and say that giving and serving was for individuals only and not for government.  In a democracy, we are the government.  Do we want to help those in need? We do.  I think Mitt Romney does to.  But there are limits, and he knows them better than president Obama.

Killing and cloning mammoths!

I've loved seeing the back and forth about the destruction of the huge animals in North America 12,900 years ago.  In the last few decades the idea of humans causing ecological destruction became popular.  While this no doubt has happened at times similar to how Jared Diamond explains in his book Collapse (which I haven't read...) I think the theory immediately got over applied to every kind of ecological collapse.

http://greatplainshistory.blogspot.com/2009/04/megafauna-fires-and-black-blizzards.html

It was applied to the extinction of mega fauna in North America.  12,900 years ago, humans were somewhat new in North America (those dates keep getting pushed back), and around this time, the destruction of thirty plus species of large animals were wiped out.  This is where the Mastodon, Mammoth, Sabre Toothed Tiger, different species of lions, camels, dire wolves, sloths, giant beavers, horses, sloths, stag-moose and others died out.

http://rewilding-symposium.weebly.com/

One article claimed that the variety of mega fauna in North America 13,000 years ago was greater than the variety of mega fauna in the wild unpopulated areas of Africa, and probably similar in terms of animal interactions.  Pretty sweet.

http://scinewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-humans-or-climate-change-kill-off.html

So of course these little human Clovis peoples walked around North America and Canada, destroying all the mega fauna.  It seems to me that you'd need a lot of people to do all that hunting.  Like several million.  If you look at the history of Great Britain, you'll see that they didn't kill all the bears on that tiny little island until historic times.  How many times bigger is North America than Great Britain?  Probably like 75 times bigger.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/Dinosaurs-by-State/tp/The-Dinosaurs-And-Prehistoric-Animals-Of-New-Mexico.htm

It took the Brits until recently (10th century-ish, no one knows) to wipe out all the bears on that tiny island.  There are 11 states in the US that are larger than Great Britain.  So these Clovis guys wiped out 36 species of animals that were all human sized or bigger just to eat them?

http://ccsbio.blogspot.com/2012/04/rewilding.html

Similarly, if you think humans wiped out the North American animals, why didn't they wipe out all the African animals?  Many animals still roam the African savanna.

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/Dinosaurs-by-State/tp/The-Dinosaurs-And-Prehistoric-Animals-Of-North-Dakota.htm

Or the 'new' other option is a Comet!  As funny as it is to say, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.  The linked article makes the case.  Or at least reports on the research that makes the case.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120918111320.htm


http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2012/06/extraterrestrial-object-crashed-into-earth-13000-years-ago-new-evidence-supports-the-controversial-cosmic-impact-theory/

Anyway, for me, and my disbelieving ways... I just can't believe the "we evil humans killed them all" stuff.  Not in this case.  Frankly I'm amazed at the professionals that attempted to persuade others that it was the case.  Couldn't they have put in the disclaimer "this is what we think based on the evidence that we have, which consists of taking what happened in some other places, and agreeing that it must have happened here as well because we got nothing else."

http://studiamirabilium.com/2011/07/31/extinct-megafauna-at-the-mall/

OK rant over.  In related news, the return of the Mammoths approaches. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-russia-mammoth-idINBRE88B0Y620120912


http://eas.unl.edu/~tfrank/History%20on%20the%20Rocks/Nebraska%20Geology/Cenozoic/cenozoic%20web/5/Flora%20and%20Fauna.html

All we need is some living cells that have survived for like 40,000 years, and we're good to go.  I put money on the first one being named "Harry"  ya know.  like 'hairy' but not.  Because it's "Harry"  D'ya see?  Ha!  Where do I come up with 'em?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_North_America

Mormon Prayer

How do Mormons pray?  What gods do they pray to?  What kind of crazy wild stuff do they pray about?


http://primaryclipart.com/search.php?search=pray

Well, I have more information than you'll ever read.  http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-1/lesson-23-pray-for-guidance?lang=eng  This link is to a lesson taught on Sunday (this lesson would be taught about once every three years) to the young men ages 12-18 in church.  The Sunday meeting for Mormons is three hours long, consisting of a Sacrament Meeting, a Sunday School with many classes, and an Auxiliary meeting where Adult Men, Adult Women, Young Men, Young Women, etc. meet separately.  The linked lesson takes place in the third hour and is for the Young Men.  While I highly recommend looking over the lesson for Mormon beliefs on prayer, it isn't targeted to people that know nothing of how Mormons pray.


http://elderjohansson.blogspot.com/

So Mormons pray in a fairly simple pattern.  First, we address God the father.  For us, he is physically separate from Jesus Christ.  While they are one in purpose, they are different beings.  In John 17:22 (we use the King James version of the Bible) http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/john/17/22b Christ is praying to God the father, that his followers be one, even as he and God the father are one.  Mormons believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ are one in purpose, vision, action, but not one in substance.  Christ wants his followers to be one.  Not physically or metaphysically or mysteriously, but one in purpose, vision, action, etc.  Ok soap box over.  We usually say dear heavenly father, dear kind father in heaven, or something like that, always directing the prayer to God the Father.  Not Jesus Christ.  Not Apostles, Prophets, Saints, the Holy Ghost, Mary, Peter, or anyone else.  We pray to God the Father.


http://www.latterdaybanners.com/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=8

Second step usually involves giving thanks.  We believe all that we have comes from God.  And all that you have.  And all that anyone has.  :)  We thank him.  Not because he needs it.  We thank him, first of all because he said to.  In Alma 34:38 (In the Book of Mormon) it says "live in thanksgiving daily, for the many mercies and blessings which he doth bestow upon (us)"  We also thank him to help us remember all the things he has done for us.  When remembering what he has done for us, it is that much harder to make bad choices that will bring sorrow and a need for repentance.  



http://rebeccairvine.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html


Then we ask him for things that we need.  I cut and pasted the following paragraph and scripture: Seek Heavenly Father's guidance and strength in all we do. Alma counseled his son Helaman: “Cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever. Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day” (Alma 37:36-37; see also Alma 34:17-26).  So we do ask God for things in prayer.  



http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/tidbits/2009/tidbits091223.htm


The last step in Mormon prayers is closing in the name of Jesus Christ.  This is found in John 16:23-26.  We usually say "In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."  I know in other church's, it's "In Jesus' name, amen" and, well, I don't think it makes much of a difference.  The important thing is that people are following Jesus Christ, and putting their hope for salvation in him.  



http://whatmormonsbelieve.org/prayer_mormonism.html


Wahoo!  Found another really good page on prayer the Mormon way.  http://www.lds.org/study/topics/prayer?lang=eng Kindof a topical guide on prayer.   



http://ldstalk.com/189/mormon-prayer-6


We don't do rote prayers in the Mormon church.  With few exceptions (like ordinances), each prayer should reflect the thoughts and feelings of the individual giving it at that moment, as opposed to what another person has come up with.  We believe that Heavenly Father answers prayers, so we try to pray sincerely, and we look for answers to prayer during prayer, after prayer, and in our daily lives.


http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/lord_traditional_king_james.html

Even the "unbiased" articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS(Mormon)) church tend to talk about two or three negative themes pretty consistently (polygamy, racism, $), and tend to hit on positive themes (welfare, education, growth) in regards to non theological areas, if at all.  I want to talk about beliefs and practices concerning God.  Sometimes people get the idea that Mormons are very different from other Christians because only the areas of difference are noted, such as non biblical scripture and modern prophets and apostles.  Very good LDS info can be found at http://mormon.org/  This is the church's own website designed for those that are interested in learning more about Mormons.


http://www.thechoicedrivenlife.com/seven-thoughts-on-prayer

I apologize for how boring the article may have been.  There's nothing too spicy and different about the way that Mormons pray.

Why you shouldn't "Tell it like it is"

I hear this over and over.  "I just tell it like it is!  If somebody can't handle it, then..."  Here's what you're really doing when you tell it like it is.


http://www.mattehavoc.com/2008/06/insulting-your-readers.html

1) Insulting people or gossiping.  Fat.  Stupid.  Short.  Ugly.  Whatever.  It may be a truthful description.  It may not.  In either case, it doesn't help the person you are telling.  And it is nearly always intended as an insult.  You say it when you want to hurt their feelings.  What do we do with people that are like this?  As much as possible, we stay away from them.  Unfortunately for their families, this isn't possible.


http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMS0wNmEwMjhkY2I5MWI0OWRh

2) Seeing the cracks in the tile.  A lot of times when someone has done something wrong, the person that "tells it like it is" is the first to let them know what they did wrong, how bad it was, and to pass judgment on their character.  Even if the comment is absolutely correct, and whatever happened was a dumb thing to do, the person that is first to criticize is last to praise.  If you criticize how he does the dishes, next time he might just decide not to do the dishes at all.  Before we criticize others for their errors, we need to make sure that we are praising or thanking them for the good things they do.  You never hear someone compliment others and then say "I just tell it like it is."  It would be cool!


http://mikehowell.tumblr.com/

3) Inaccurate perceptions.  The person that "tells it like it is" is usually not aware of the full picture.  None of us really are aware of the full picture of others' lives.  We can't pass judgment on a bully if we don't know the first thing about what they go through in their own lives.  A lot of the times "telling it like it is" is actually just telling it the way that we see it, and that's often incomplete.  In one of my church classes once the teacher talked about a very large class that he taught, and there were two students at the back that were sitting close, writing notes back and forth through the entire class.  He was very tempted to call them out or ask them to leave, and was upset by their disturbance.  He found out after the class that one of the two was deaf, and the other was communicating his class to them.


http://www.newrichstrategies.com/2012/01/insult-quotes-insulting-sayings/

4) It implies that you bring objectivity where others only see things subjectively.  The person that "tells it like it is" is passing implicit judgment on others that don't tell it like it is.  Usually this is a criticism of others that are too "cowardly" to tell the truth.  Occasionally, I think this is partially fair, in that sometimes people don't open their mouths to defend themselves and others, or put a stop to something that shouldn't be happening, to warn others of consequences, etc.  If your best friend sees you walk out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to you, you want the person to tell you about it.  On the other hand, a lot of the time, those that don't "tell it like it is" are not telling it because they have the social skills to realize that it's not nice, it's not helpful, it's not true, or it's not worth it.


http://fails.failblog.org/2012/02/18/epic-fail-insulting-your-patients-fail/

5) It shows that you don't care how others feel.  Honestly, you don't have to really care about others to avoid making others feel bad unnecessarily.  Just decide that you aren't going to do it.  Try and track down the times and people you do it with, and stop.  It's easy if you think of people you speak bad about.  Just think of who they are, and then about others that "share" your opinion.  Caring about how other people feel doesn't make you weak.  A friend of mine and fellow Mormon has his year's supply of food storage, as we are asked to do in church.  (This has been advised for church members for decades)  One of his coworkers says he doesn't have to worry if the world ends, he'll just go to my friend's house, kill him and his family, and have plenty of food.  He'll just lay outside his house and pick people off from afar.  What the coworker doesn't realize is that my friend has neighbors, good people that are his friends, who will probably share in the food.  They wouldn't appreciate someone in their yard pointing a gun at him.  And this is Nevada.  Practically everyone has guns.

6) It shows off your acidic and negative personality.  When you meet someone that talks bad about everyone and their mother, you know that they will talk bad about you too.  That's just the way it is.


http://pithlessthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/03/orthgraph-56-speaking-of-speaking-of.html

And that's all I have to say about that.  Telling it like it is!  :)