Something old, something new
Something borrowed, something blue
and a silver sixpence in her shoe
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Issue 23 Wedding charms feb,28,2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Issue 22 Sequester "BS" feb, 27,2013
Some of you have probably heard the word "sequester" on the news recently. For those who don't know, they are talking about the automatic spending cuts that are part of the deal made by members of Congress and the President (apparently his idea) to get America's spending under control. But now that we are just a day away from the cuts kicking in I thought it appropriate for me to put my two cents in. I say let the cuts happen, as spending is not being decreased in the first place.
The 85 billion being cut is from the budget the Federal government wants. However, even with those "cuts" we are still spending approximately 25 billion more dollars than last year. Some of you are saying "how the hell is that a cut?" Well, to the government, or any other governmental entity like State governments, Public School budgets, and the like, that is considered a cut in spending.
It is a myth that police and fire fighters will loose their jobs if the cuts go through. Mainly because the police and fire departments are not funded by the Federal government. Criminals going free, parks shutting down, every bad thing they are saying will not happen at all. This is because, just like when the government has made previous cuts, the fear mongers went into over drive because they want that extra money. Money that is used to garner political favoritism, and lobby members of Congress. What, you thought it was just corporations who lobby Congress, think again. The people who lobby Congress the most is actually our own government agencies, as they have to constantly try to make their efforts look more valuable than they really are to justify their continued existence. These same threats happened under the Reagan administration when he wanted cuts, and you know what did him in? The national parks service threatened that the
Truth is there are no real cuts that are going to take place. At least the cuts that matter like eliminating redundancy, and failing/non- successful programs. Instead we get political games. The President blames the Republicans, and the Republicans counter that it was the Presidents idea in the first place. Notice the careful way the Republicans are saying it "was the Presidents idea" and that they use video of him saying his favoritism of the idea. Truth is, Republicans, and Democrats in Congress voted for it, and the President signed it, so God forbid anything bad actually does result from the cuts (less than 1% chance from a historical stand point) everyone is to blame.
So all in all, let the cuts happen. Let them "reduce" spending just a little bit more. It will not hurt us, just a minor set back to some politicians political careers.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Issue 21 Hyphenated Americans feb,26,2013
Did you know that President Theodore Roosevelt aka "Teddy" despised the idea of a hyphenated American? So strongly was he disgusted with the idea of Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans, that he felt that they should be deported? Even today, there are some people who despise this notion of being a hyphenated anything. They want Americans to be just that "Americans." They want Italians as Italians, Irish as Irish, because they feel that to be hyphenated in such a way that they are disloyal to the country. Put in a better way, they feel that a hyphenated American has two allegiances, one to
This is not to say that those people who feel that way are correct. I believe that a hyphenated American is just embracing a part of their heritage in such a way that it separates them from the main part of American culture. In other words, it is a way to achieve an identity and also embrace the culture of your heritage. In fact I believe that a person embracing their historical traditions will enhance the American culture by giving the populace a glimpse of other ways of living and embracing life. Those ideas that rise to the top will become part of the mainstream culture that makes up
Like I said, to be Irish-American, African-American, etc, is to form an identity and is a life style that should be embraced. It is not for others to judge you on how you identify yourself. People who worship different faiths also go through something similar. They embrace a part of the religious culture of society and thus define themselves as Catholic, Mormon, Sunni Muslim, or Jewish. And even then, they may embrace aspects of their faith that agree with them.
The problem I have however is those with dual citizenship. This is where I begin to question loyalty to
So I say let there be hyphenated Americans. They contribute to society in many ways, through cultural crossovers, opens up new sources of commerce and most of all it allows people to feel like they belong somewhere as part of a group in a society that is built on individuality and Independence. I don't think we should be focusing on what they hyphenate themselves with, but remember, they stick American at the end of that hyphen.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Issue 20 Computer Revolution Feb,25,2013
Computers. We live in a day and age where we are no longer able to comprehend doing any task without them. They make it easy to find information, communicate with people around the globe and of course share our own information and data with those of our choosing. However, this technology has not remained static. We now have social media devices like Face Book and Twitter, and thus our demand and need for greater band with has increased.
For those who don't know, bandwidth is essentially the information highway for a computer with the speed at which that data is received, processed, and redistributed all being determined by how much bandwidth is allocated. We have, for the most part solved this problem by both compressing data and creating cloud servers to make it easier to access information while still keeping and continually shrinking our personal computers and cell phones. Still the demand for processing power goes on. Thus scientists have found a way to make fiber optic cables that can literally twist light so as to carry more data. Lasers are being experimented with as different varieties and spectrum's of lasers can surpass the traditional light spectrum when transmitting data. In addition, some computers are getting an upgrade, for as technology progresses, the expense and size of a server has shrunk, and will soon turn all home computers into their own independent servers which will expand processing power.
Wi-Fi is also going to have its own revolution. With television broadcasts and radios being transmitted as a digital signal (it allows for more TV channels, can't explain it any better than that) it frees up the traditional radio frequency bands that were used to transmit TV and radio signals. So powerful are these signals that in some cases a company can provide free wi-fi to a city or even and entire country.
Another, revolution is coming in the form of the wearable computer. Jackets with fiber optic cables woven in allow for phones, radios, speakers, and even life monitoring devices to be built into clothing. Even the new paper thin computer technology may be integrated as a TV or computer monitor may be built using plastics that change color due to the electricity flowing through it. Now there are also glasses that have built in computers in them which both Google and Apple are working on. Of course, their main challenge is not the functionality of such devices; it's the marketability for these things have to look fashionable to the wearer.
Soon, we will have implants and even wearable devices that will allow us to use computers to interact with both our natural environment and also the virtual world (yes, these are being experimented with, but primarily for the use by disabled people).
Finally, the mouse, the little device that allows us to click the icons on our screens will probably disappear. With touch screens and now facial recognition technology we can either press on the screen ourselves, or a computer program will recognize from how we are looking at the object if we want an icon or an app pressed. Even old school keyboards may be wiped away as laser projectors will be able to project a keyboard onto any flat surface for our personal use, assuming a device that monitors brain waves that can tell what we want written is not produced first. Heck why bother with a monitor when you can just wear the Google glasses and see what you want on an eye glass while eliminating that bulk from your home office.
Computer technology is only still in its infancy. Nothing can stop this computer revolution and innovation, not to mention the fact that with 3D printers, we ourselves will be able to produce our own unique designs. Lets just say this is a fun period in history to be living in, here's to the first BIO computer (modeled on the human brain and how it processes and stores data) coming maybe in the next decade or so ;)
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Issue 19 Restrain it One More Time! feb,24,2013
Final one, and have fun. :)
Restrain
it One More Time!
We all want a sound fiscally
responsible government, so here I list some ideas for solutions to set the
government right. Let’s deal with the
national debt first. Debt for a
government can mean the difference between a government surplus with low taxes
and a government with large deficits, higher taxes and painful cuts to programs
that some people rely on like our seniors.
So how do we reform to take on the debt?
First you create a strict limit on how much debt a government can take
on. This limit can be based on
government revenue, surpluses with both in combination with how much interest
the debt will accumulate. Or you can
have a sinking fund which pays off the debt itself through its own source of
revenue and can be used to limit debt to the amount of money collected in the
fund (it does not include the interest on the debt incurred for that year).
Another limitation on the debt is
deciding under what circumstances a government may borrow money. Under no circumstance should a government be
funding its activities by the accumulation of more debt. Nor should a government’s deficit spending be
carried over until the next fiscal year at least that is if you want a balanced
budget and prevent the further need to borrow more money. So I say limit debt to only the most
essential things such as to finance infrastructure or in the federal
governments case the military in war time (as it is unforeseen spending). Of course, if money is borrowed to finance a
war it should be limited to only when Congress has declared war.
The final way to limit debt is to
create a supermajority vote to issue bonds of any kind (a.k.a. debt). I think a 2/3 majority vote would be best.
Add onto this the ability of a tax payer to sue in court to challenge any form
of illegal debt issuance and the United States America
Then there is another issue,
taxes. Excessive taxation can be just as
bad as burdensome debt. One idea to
prevent burdensome taxes is a supermajority vote to increase taxes or to create
new taxes. This will make it almost
impossible to level new taxes on the public unless such an increase becomes an
absolute necessity. Another option is to
limit the types of taxation. The three
major types are property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. In general, only two forms of taxation should
exist at any given time so as to prevent tax burdens from becoming too
large. Property taxes are probably the
fairest because only rich people can own million dollar homes. It can be based on the square footage of
living space or the total amount of square footage of your whole property. A sales tax is also fairly fair, i.e. it only
taxes you on what you buy. The Fair Tax,
Vat tax and the like are all forms of sales tax. If done in the right way (no picking of
winners and losers) it can produce and promote economic prosperity. Income taxes can also come in many forms as
well and is typically the least fair. It
encourages unequal treatment of the rich and poor and when taxing business
income spawns lobbyists for rich companies to get tax breaks and leave less
financially stable small businesses to be slowly stamped out. Even though I do not like taxes in general as
it is legal theft of ones property or taxing something that rightfully belongs
to you, I will take any tax, and I mean any, that rids us of the income tax and
all other types of taxes that breed lobbyists and harm small businesses.
The final piece of a sound
government is a balanced budget, but who’s going to make it? It’s probably best if the legislative branch
of government makes it and then the President or Governor as the case may be
cuts out the pork with both the Line Item and Line Reduction Veto’s. At all times however, the budget must account
for all funds, whether it is taxes, debt, and future costs of current
programs. Spending itself can be limited
via caps on the federal, state or even local government’s budgets, but these
must be designed carefully or it will become detrimental. It might be best to limit what percentage of
the total revenue can be spent on what like 15% for infrastructure, 20% for
research and development etc., but again it must be designed carefully.
There are lots of things we can do
to fix government and make it fiscally sound.
Also you must remember a government that borrows is no longer 100% loyal
to its citizens for its loyalty is now divided between its creditor and
you. No government should have divided
loyalties to its people. Let us together
make government responsible only to us, the citizens of America
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Issue 18 Restrain it Some More!! feb,23,2011
Part 2 of this series is here...it's the Texan inspired way to restrain the government. :)
look foward to the next and final installment of this series :)
Restrain it Some More!!
So we want term limits, but did you
know that there is another way to limit excessive spending, and lobbyist money
corrupting our government. The way to do
it is to limit how often and at what times the United States Congress can
meet. I got this idea from Texas
Other advantages to this idea are
that it forces Congress to go home to its constituents. This is obviously a good thing as it keeps
the members of Congress from losing perspective on the needs of those they
represent. It also reduces the need for
the excessive amount of Congressional staffers as they would be working mostly
during the 90 day period leaving only basic personnel to man the more important
offices.
The only possible problem is a state
of emergency. While treaties can wait
until the next legislative session, a state of emergency cannot. I say if we are attacked like on 9/11 the
President can call forth Congress to vote on a military issue and aid the
affected areas only. But even then, I
would think Congress would have already prepared a contingency plan and the
President can already repel an enemy attack here at home thanks to the Constitution. Natural disasters should be handled by
National Guard troops, emergency service personnel and a reserve fund at the
Presidents disposal to provide monetary support to the affected areas. The only time I believe that the Congress can
meet outside of the 90 period is if a State government makes a direct overture
for aid from the Federal Government after that State has declared a state of
emergency. Congress would be limited to
financial relief and the President can call forth the National Guard from other
States to help out. After voting,
Congress will then retire until the next scheduled session or is called due to
another emergency. It may be prudent to
limit how long Congress can meet due to a state of emergency as we do not want
them voting beyond what is called for in that emergency situation. I would limit them to 10 day sessions with a
2/3 majority vote to extend it by an additional 10 days, with them
voting to extend it on the 10th day exclusively to prevent them
extending the 10 day period until the next legislative session. Also, any law passed that did not relate to
the state of emergency will be rendered null and void even if signed by the
President thus preventing further abuse of the emergency session by Congress.
This is just an idea. It does not guarantee any form of success,
but it may be worth a try as our government is consumed with people trying to
justify the continuation of their life as an elected official. Voting today is no guarantee of shoving out a
bad politician as they bribe the electorate with pork barrel spending. Term limits and limiting how long a
Congressional session lasts is but two short term solutions which hinder the
foolishness and the political horse trading that goes on in Washington
look foward to the next and final installment of this series :)
Friday, February 22, 2013
Issue 17 Restrain it!!! feb,22,2013
Here is the first of 3 essays on restraining the government, while not an entirely new idea for this first one, it is sure to get you in the mood for the next two in this series.
Restrain
it!
Let’s
face it, our founding fathers had no idea how big the Federal Government would
get. But how big is too big? Well, I think too big is when you spend
American tax payer dollars on individual businesses who can afford to pay for
themselves, paying for roads for
fiscally irresponsible State governments and having to bribe each other with
pork barrel spending just to get essential laws passed. Are you upset my dear reader, because I am? These actions by politicians are what I call legalized
corruption. It’s a series of accepted
practices done by the government that in many cases are against the law for
private businesses or individuals to do.
So what are we going to do about it?
Well
I have an idea, an idea everyone has on there mind. That idea is term limits. Originally, in writing the Constitution the
founders did not include term limits for any elected official under the belief
that experience in office was essential to being a good representative. Obviously it’s not, for after awhile
representatives become tainted by lobbyists and Washington D.C.
The
benefits to term limits are that it hurts lobbyists. They don’t want to have to lobby a new
representative every few years, they want their political pet. Other advantages are we get fresh new faces
into office with fresh ideas and will power without the chains of the old
system. However, there is a
disadvantage. In a representative’s
final term of office, they are no longer beholden to their constituents on
account of that they are no longer worried about re-election. So there is no actual accountability, aside
from their conscience, the impeachment process and other politicians who vote
the other way. This problem can be
mitigated by just removing the 17th Amendment to make Senators
accountable to their States and people respectively. Remember, the only role Governors play in the
Senatorial process, both past and present, is to appoint a Senator if there is
a vacancy otherwise the State legislators, our representatives at the State
level have full control over the process.
They can even replace or accept the State Governors appointee if they
wished. This also has the advantage of
ending unfunded mandates imposed by the Federal Government on the States. A possible problem with this is that it may
cause lobbyists to begin lobbying State governments more, but that can be
solved by term limits at the State level.
Another
solution is that instead of 2 two year terms for the House of Representatives
we could have 2 three year terms. This
would allow for a higher turn over rate in the house of representative with 1/3
being elected every year which would hinder rouge politicians who no longer
fear the wrath of their constituents.
The only problem is that the lobbyists have one more year of use per
term out of a representative, so it is moderately less effective than 2 two
year terms. Though combining it with the
removal of the 17th Amendment should mitigate this factor.
It
is a balancing act. Too many terms or
too long in office allows for corruption.
Too short a term or not enough time in office and the representative is
less effective at doing their job. Each
reform must have a check and a balance built in to negate any negatives. Just giving term limits to our elected
officials is not enough to stop abuses of power. That’s why I believe the 17th
Amendment must go so as to balance any term limits, however long they may be,
that are imposed on the House of Representatives. With this combination; we can prevent
government corruption, save money on elections and the political games that go
on behind the scenes, and bring down much of the black hole of arbitrary laws
made by these politicians to keep themselves relevant.
The next post in the series takes a different approach to reduce government stupidity.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Issue 16 My random facts feb,21,2013
Well folks, this is my first of hopefully many random fact issues. Here I will present, well you probably guessed it, random facts....I hope you like it.
1. Did you know that the medication Vicoden (hydrocodone and similar medications) is going to become a narcotic on February 23? This means that if you wish to have a refill on this medication you will have to get a new prescription every single time from your doctor. Also, expect a longer wait if you get your medication from a busy pharmacy as only the pharmacist is allowed to touch the narcotics and count them. If you have anyone to blame for this inconvenience then blame those who abuse the medication.
2. Did you know that 100 people die from drug overdoses each day? Please be careful when taking your medication and take your medication at the same time each day to avoid such an unfortunate situation.
3. Bill O'reilly's new book is announced. It is called Killing Jesus; it follows his other two best sellers Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy. Look forward to a very interesting read.
4. For those who don't know..."Time, Day, and Year" is a human invention. Created originally to judge the best time to plant and harvest food, it has now become an important invention that governs our very lives. Think about it, how else you would be able to plan out your day.
And 5. Did you know the internet was originally created for the military? It was designed as a communication device in the event of a nuclear holocaust. Now though, as inventors and entrepreneurs have gotten their fingers on it, the internet has become a boom industry with no end in sight. We communicate, do financial transactions, shop, and look up information all on the internet. And through these basic functions have created massive industries and start ups that are slowly changing our world.
Hope you enjoyed my random facts issue...tomorrow will be a first in a series of 3 about restraining the government.
Issue 15 We own you America feb,21,2013
Here is a fun one :)
Debt Bonds
We all know it’s bad to try and pay
off debt with more debt. This is the
unfortunate plight of the United
States
Savings bonds, for those who don’t
know, are loans to the Federal government with a controlled interest rate. This means they can only gain a certain
amount of interest beyond their original value.
A stark contrast to the near perpetual interest we owe to countries like
China
The debt bonds will only be
accessible to American citizens so as to prevent future foreign and other forms
of national debt. Essentially it
replaces all debt with debt that is owed exclusively to the American people and
is more manageable due to interest rates being capped once the bond reaches a
certain value over the original loan. To
prevent the Federal government from owing too much money to any individual
citizen and thus gaining too much influence in America America United States
To speed up the process of replacing
our current U.S. debt to the
likes of China U.S.
I am sure we can agree that we hate
the idea of owing China
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Issue 14 sonic screw drivers!? feb,20,2013
I know it's a day late (busy yesterday), but the wait is over. :)
Sonic Screw Drivers!?
Did you know that within the last decade that science and technology have been going through a rapid evolution? Well, it has, and one of the cool things to come out of this revolution is the ability to manipulate sound. I first heard of the technology on the military channel (no surprise there right), and they had created a device that can shoot a beam of sound at an opponent to debilitate them. By debilitate, I mean force a relaxation of the targets muscles and the people collapse while all their voluntary and involuntary muscles are affected. It was so effective that they shut down the project. The weapon did not kill, it stunned, but the people who were hit by the beam literally peed and pooped in their pants. Thus, it was felt the weapon was too inhumane.
While yes the military could have done further research, and the
Deviating from the military, sound wave technology is impacting the field of medicine. Another recent development is a device capable of using sound to heat liquids, stir liquids together, act as a centrifuge to separate particles in the liquid, and potentially both cool liquids and break down particles further within a liquid. The device uses different frequencies of sound and adjusts how sound hits the target liquid to perform this feet of engineering. An amazing technology to be sure, as with this machine you don't have to waste precious time transferring the sample from one machine to the other.
Sound technology is only going to become more ubiquitous. It can be used to loosen tight nuts and bolts on a work sight, weld metals and plastics by heating them up, cut materials or even cancel out other noises with noise cancelling devices which use sound to destroy other sounds. Heck, we have sonic fences to keep out dogs and cats in and other pests out. A technology even in "Star Wars" may come about where sound is used to separate pathogens (bacteria, poisons, unwelcome chemicals and viruses) from the blood stream. Even tumors are not out of the realm of possibility of being blasted away by sound. The idea was to use sound on the body at different frequencies to remove and destroy what is harmful to the body and now that technology may become fully realized. The applications are endless as sound can be used to aid in physical therapy, traditional messages (a sonic message sounds nice), sonic showers to avoid using water (star trek anyone) or just a basic relaxation aid. Sound it now a tool that we can use, and potentially abuse to our benefit.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Issue 13 More Power to the President feb,18,2013
Is this too anti-libertarian for a libertarian...hmmm....lol. Enjoy ;)
More
Power to the President:
The
Line Item and Line Reduction Veto
Many
people have heard of the Line Item Veto.
It’s the type of veto that President Clinton used to strike provisions from
Federal spending bills before signing them into law. The Congress had the opportunity to overturn
these veto provision by vetoed provision with the traditional 2/3 override as
prescribed by the Constitution. However,
it was deemed by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional for the Constitution
stipulates that the President can only veto an entire law, not individual
provisions. I think it is time though to
add the Line Item Veto to the Constitution.
The
Line Item Veto I want only applies to government spending. If say Congress wants to buy a missile, but
the military says they don’t need it, then President can use the Line Item Veto
to cut it from the spending bill while leaving everything else intact. It will only apply to budget items, the things
government spends our tax dollars on and nothing else.
To
get this addition you will need a Constitutional Amendment which outlines
exactly how it is to be used. It would
allow the President to veto the money going to specific programs, projects,
agencies or even entire Federal Departments which would result in there
termination. However, Congress must be
allowed to overturn those veto's with a 2/3’s majority on a one to one
basis. For example the President veto’s
a missile project and a new Federal Agency, Congress would have to overturn
these two veto's individually. Why
individually you ask? By having Congress
vote on each one individually it prevents the usual give and take politics that
politicians use to get their pet projects passed. So if both veto's were together the people who
liked the individual pieces being vetoed would overturn the veto. But separately these two groups would be a minority if they voted on each one
individually and thus preventing the unnecessary law from passing. It becomes insurance to make
sure the majority of Congress believes it’s worth the expense.
The
other veto I call for is the Line Reduction Veto. It works very similarly to the Line Item
Veto, but rather than an outright veto of a particular spending provision it
merely reduces the amount of money going to a particular project, program,
agency or department. The project,
program, agency or department will still remain, but the money going to it is
“reduced.” The President will not have
the power to reduce spending to one program only to increase another’s for this
would make the President more subject to lobbying than he/she already is and it
would hinder the checks and balances of the government. It also needs a constitutional amendment and
would compliment the Line Item Veto.
With
the Line Reduction Veto the President can only reduce the amount of money going
to a federal expenditure and then like normal he would sign the bill into
law. Congress would have its 2/3’rd
override and vote on each individual spending reduction if the reduction was
deemed worthy enough to try and be overturned.
The override process is exactly the same as the Line Item Veto. It works because say you can’t eliminate a
program with the Line Item Veto, and then you can just reduce its money to
minimize the damage to our society. Or
say the agency getting the money constantly has a surplus, but the agency in
question keeps getting even more money, so the President can reduce the amount
going to that agency.
We
need these two options to the traditional veto.
For one it allows the president more flexibility to get rid of arbitrary
federal spending by controlling it. At
the same time it forces integrity on the Congress through the veto override
process by having them vote based on the merit of the spending itself. Checks and balances are still maintained due
to the 2/3’s override by Congress while the courts maintain there judicial
review authority.
There
are a few objections to both these types of veto's. One of the fears is that the President will
horse trade with members of Congress, allowing certain programs and projects in
while saying no to others, or in the case of the Line Reduction Veto,
sabotaging others. It could even allow
the President to get political revenge on certain groups and politicians. However, this truly does not concern me. It does not concern me for much of the fluff
the President will horse trade and terminate are pet projects used by
politicians to continuously get elected as that money and projects go to
benefit their campaign financiers. Plus
its not like this is not already done, it instead will become much more visible
to the general public. So it really
comes down to my hope that superfluous spending will at least be reduced. Therefore we must rely on the integrity of
the President who we vote into office.
It’s
not like the President doesn’t have power over spending. He can freeze spending, but that program will
still be getting money that it has been allocated.
In other words the money will simply sit there. But with the Line Item Veto and the Line Reduction
Veto we give more flexibility to sure up Americas
I hope you enjoyed the article, tomorrow I switch from political reform to technology with "sonic Screwdrivers"....stay tuned :)
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Issue 12 Taxes and Welfare: Siamese Twins feb,17,2013
Continuing with the alternate forms of taxation I give you the Nobel Prize winning Milton Freedman and his Negative Income Tax.
Taxes
and Welfare: Siamese Twins
While
my idea of a deduction (from Issue number 6 Taxes and Welfare Make a baby, posted on Feb,11,2013) could work, its inspiration changes the entire income
tax structure. Rather than the usual tax
code alterations, Milton Freedman brings the tax code and welfare together in
his negative income tax. It is a tax
code that gives the poor money and keeps as much money as possible in the
pockets of the tax payer.
Unlike
my idea, the negative income tax does much more than rid us of most welfare,
but all welfare in addition to Medicare, Social Security, unemployment and food
stamps. Sounds radical right? Well not really, for Milton Freedman was not a
Noble Prize winner for nothing. Here’s
how it works, compliments of Jeffrey A. Miron and his article “Rethinking
Redistribution” in National Affairs number 6 winter 2011 edition. The federal government would first set a
guaranteed minimum of say $5,000 and a tax rate of say 10%. Keep in mind for this idea to work everyone
must be taxed at the same rate. From
this point the formula is simple: your earned income is multiplied by the tax
rate (10%) and then you subtract the guaranteed minimum ($5,000). If the gross liability (what you pay in
taxes) were to go below the guaranteed minimum then you would receive a check
in the mail from the federal government equal to the difference. Ok, it’s slightly more complex for some
people, so here are some examples using the $5,000 guaranteed minimum and the
10% tax rate. If say you have no income
what so ever, you will get a $5,000 check from the government. Let’s try another example. Say you’re making $100,000 which is then
multiplied by the 10% tax rate. You will
owe $10,000 to the government in taxes, but you then minus the $5,000 guaranteed
minimum which results in you paying only $5,000 to the government and you keep
a total of $95,000. That’s a nice chunk
of change. In this last example you make
$10,000 that year and you now owe $1,000 dollars to the government. You minus the $1,000 from the $5,000
guaranteed minimum and you are thus going to get a check for $4,000 dollars
letting you keep a total of $13,000. You
not only keep the majority of your money, but you eliminate the need for all
welfare in the United States
There
is a problem however. You probably
noticed that if you get no income, you’re going to get the proverbial free
lunch. Freedman thought it would be best
to let people spend the money how they will.
He felt that if they got that money they would be forced to be
responsible with it for that’s all the money they would be going to get. As a result, they would have an incentive to
get out of poverty to acquire more money and therefore exit the poverty
trap. Unlike Mr. Friedman we are not
that trusting. So what is the solution
to make the negative income tax work?
Simple, a voucher that limits what that money can be used for. Lets limit the money to the essential such
as, food, clothing (within a certain price range), and medical. This could be too limiting though for you
still have State and local taxes (lets hope they adjust there tax codes to) so
this voucher could be used to pay for that.
We should also include the rent, mortgage payments (we don’t want people
losing there homes), and the heating and electric bills (we want people to be
warm in winter and cool in summer), so lets include all those as well. When it’s all said and done, an impoverished
person can only pay for the essentials and not the cable TV bill or a magazine
subscription. Of course the voucher
would only apply to the people at or below the poverty level. We don’t want to be telling our middle and
higher income earners how to spend their own money. This idea would provide an incentive to the
impoverished to make more money especially if they want that cable TV or the
Internet.
A
simple solution to a complex and over burdened system. I know it will take a lot to convince people
to give up on the old school programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid
and those 900 plus welfare programs, but think of the benefits. You still get the money you need to live here
in America America United States
Hope you all enjoyed the article by yours truely....expect more interesting topics in the future ;)
Hope you all enjoyed the article by yours truely....expect more interesting topics in the future ;)
Friday, February 15, 2013
Issue 11 What are RIGHTS? feb,15,2013
The title says it all, enjoy :)
What are
RIGHTS?
In order to understand where some of
my ideas and thoughts come from, we must first define rights? We will also define what is not a right. Let us begin.
Who thinks education is a
right? Who thinks health care is a
right? Who thinks the freedom of speech
is a right? You probably answered the
questions in your self, but you probably only got the answer to the last
question correct. That correct answer is
the freedom of speech is indeed a right.
The other two are in fact privileges.
You’re probably thinking I’m out of my mind here but I ask you to bear
with me a little longer.
A right, to my knowledge and
research via our founding documents and classical philosophers, cannot be
purchased, sold, given, provided or bartered by anyone. Whether you have your own definition of what
a right is I will tell you this, a right cannot in actuality be defined. However, we can say what is not a right: which
is anything that has to be purchased, given, or provided by another
person. Therefore what ever has to be
purchased, given or provided is a privilege.
Let us take health care as an
example. Health care must be purchased
and provided by someone else so it is a privilege and not a right. However, you do have the right to stay
healthy. I bet some are thinking what’s
the difference? Simple really, unlike
health care, your staying healthy does not need to be purchased or given to
you. You can do it all on your own under
your own strength and will. It is as
simple as exercising, eating healthy and keeping up good hygiene. In other words you can take care of yourself. What is also a right in this scenario is your
ability to seek out health care and contract with a doctor to help get
better. Contracts are a property right
which you can establish with anyone. In
this case you are contracting with a doctor to heal you in exchange for money,
but the money given and the health care received in exchange is not a right,
they are the terms of the contract.
How about education? Education has to be purchased, given or
provided to you. What about public
schools you ask? Nope, they were never
free, nor shall they ever for their services are purchased through our tax
dollars. You pay for education via taxes
whether you have kids in school our not, to aid in other children going to
school. Therefore it is not a right but
another privilege. You do however have a
right to learn. Your right to learn is
practiced everyday. When you read a book or an essay (even this one) you are learning. When
you watch television or looking things up on the computer, you are
learning. Going to a museum, talking a
tour while on vacation, talking to your friends about "what is a right?" is all an
expression of the right to learn.
Interesting right?
The final example of what is not a
right is one of America Davis
Thank you for getting this far and I
promise that the majority of everything else I write will be less
controversial. We now understand what a
right is not and have a good understanding of what a right is. Regardless of whether you believe our rights
come from God, nature or man kind, it is important to know what our rights are
and how to differentiate them from a privilege.
If you have any questions or comments feel free to post them in the comments section and I will do my best to answer them to your satisfaction.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Issue 10 V-day Special feb,14,2013
Are you one of those last minute Valentines Day shoppers? If you have the time to read this, then you probably are. Don't get the usual crap, and put a little extra meaning behind your gift(s) through the language of flowers and colors.
Here I present to you a list of colors and flowers and their associated meanings to provide that extra bit of love toward your loved ones and impress them with your inner ladies man (or men’s woman--if that makes sense).
COLORS
Blue: Peace, truth and intellect, loyalty, chastity, spirituality, eternity
Green: (when paired with other colors) new life, hope, fertility and regeneration
Pink: femininity, innocence, good health, love, patience
Red: (when paired with other colors) vitality and life force, passion, energy, sexuality
Saffron: spirituality, holiness, good fortune
Violet: Knowledge and intelligence, piety, sobriety, humility, temperance, peace and spirituality
White: purity, virginity, death and rebirth, beginning and an end, and in some places mourning (I personally stay away from this one)
Yellow: power, authority, the intellect and intuition, goodness, light, life, immortality, endurance (pair it with other colors as on its own it means cowardice and treachery)
FLOWERS
Amaranth: faith, immortality, unfading love
Apple Blossom: Preference, better things to come, good fortune
Aster: daintiness, a talisman of love
Baby's Breath: Innocence, purity of heart
Cactus: endurance, my heart burns with love (even I don’t know how this means what it means)
Clover: fertility
Clover (4 leaf): Be Mine
Daisy: Innocence, loyal love, purity, beauty, respect
Dandelion: faithfulness, happiness, love's oracle
Gardenia: You're lovely, secret love, purity, refinement
Hibiscus: consumed by love, delicate beauty
Honeysuckle: the bond of love
Ivy: Wedded love, fidelity, friendship, affection
Lavender: love, devotion
Mint: virtue
Pansy: Merriment, thoughts (as in "you occupy my thoughts")
Rose (bridal): happiness
Rose (red): Love, I love you, respect and beauty (note this is the important one for that special someone HINT HINT)
Rose of
A single rose in full bloom: I truly love you, simplicity
Sunflower: Constancy and devotion
Tulip (general): perfect lover
Venus fly trap: caught at last
Violet: Modesty, virtue, affection, steadfastness
Yucca: yours until death
Please note that some of these flowers are out of season and can only be obtained from a nursery (the flower kind for those who don’t know).
Enjoy your Valentines Day (hopefully in more ways than one: wink)
My information comes from:
The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Signs and Symbols by Adele Nozedar, published in 2008 through Barnes & Noble, Inc in arrangement with Harper Collins Publishers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Issue 9 “Dead: Are you loving it?” feb,13,2013
In honor of Ash Wednesday I present my college essay on the
afterlife...Enjoy :)
Steven Gracey 9/24/10
Religion 80: Life Death and Immortality
“Dead:
Are you loving it?”
In
Chapters 6—9 of Death and Afterlife the Jewish, Christian and Muslim
perspectives of life after death are presented.
For both Jews and Christians, there seems to be no clear cut idea of a
life after death. Muslims on the other
hand seem to have a clear idea of what is going to happen when they die. Whatever the concept of the afterlife, it
seems that the three religions of the book have something to look forward to
when they die. Does anyone have to agree
with these religions various concepts? The answer is no, for wherever we end up
and when is always dependant on our conduct in life.
I
do not have a typical concept of the afterlife.
I am a byproduct of both Irish and Roman Catholic faiths. Thus the Druidic influences on the Irish
Catholics and the current Roman Catholic dogma affect how I believe in the
afterlife. My personal view is that all of
Gods creatures go to heaven, animals included, and all that is material on
earth (man made) is stuck to rot and decay.
In addition, paradise in heaven is a place where friends and family are
reunited in Gods good graces with the exception of those who end up in hell. In hell the sinners will be punished based
upon what sins they have committed. As
to being judged on if a person goes to heaven or hell, it to me is decided on
the day we die and we are immediately sent to where we belong. According to Leander E. Keck in chapter 6 of Death
and Afterlife Christians in general do not have a cohesive idea of what the
afterlife is or what it will look like.
My concept of the afterlife is evidence of that. However, I must disagree with Keck on whether
or not some members of the Christian faith follow the bible to the letter or
not. According to the History Channel
documentary “Hillbilly: The Real Story” there are groups of Christians who do
follow the bible to the letter and even attempt to perform various acts in the
bible to become closer to God.
Apparently various State and local governments in the United States have
tried to ban or regulate such practices including the handling of venomous
snakes as part of Church worship.
As
to the point about how one concept of death and afterlife affects people’s
thoughts about their mortal lives, I believe without a doubt that is true. I myself, while not the best example of a
Catholic, do try to at least follow the 10 commandments which were not
originally 10, but 613 according to the History Channel documentary “The Ten
Commandments”. Those commandments while
still fitting on two stone tablets also out lined various rituals and other
religious practices. The commandment
thou shalt not kill had three exceptions being self—defense, war and capitol
punishment. Eagleton the author of The
Meaning of Life would no doubt agree as well that a concept of an afterlife
would affect people’s thoughts on everyday life. Eagleton might even postulate that people’s
thoughts on the afterlife would become their meaning of life and would create a
collective religious dogma on what the meaning of life is for its
practitioners. This is neither wrong nor
is it right because how a faith operates guides how people will use a concept
of the afterlife to ascertain if the afterlife has anything to do with the
meaning of life.
In
chapters 6—9 of Death and Afterlife we see each religions concept of
resurrection. Jews before Christians
arrived only believed in resurrection and all of the dead went to a place
called Sheol. Although even before
Christianity, not all Jews believed in resurrection till 200 C.E. when a group
called the Mishnah ruled that any who denies resurrection will be excluded from
the next world. There is nothing like
the fear of isolation and being kept out of paradise to get someone to
believe. Resurrection for Christians is
not clear either, specifically the fact that we don’t know if we will be in the
grave, heaven or hell when we are resurrected.
Personally the Day of Judgment when resurrection occurs should be held off
as long as possible because on that day, to me, many of the people of earth are
not at a point where they can be saved.
That however is just a personal thought.
This mentality of wanting as many people to be saved probably is why in
Christian dogma it emphasizes that what you do in life is what you will be
judged upon in death.
I
have to say Muslims are lucky. Their
afterlife seems to be well defined and thus don’t have to concern themselves
much on that issue. They know that they
will be questioned and stored in a good or bad place till resurrection where
scales will be used to judge them. Not
to mention that for Muslims there is 8 levels of heaven and 7 levels of hell
each with its own unique compartment for each individual. There is even a tenant that sinners will be
redeemed. It’s a nice idea and I do
agree that sinners can be redeemed if they repent for their sins. In similar concept to the Muslim vision of
hell, rather than different subsections of hell, I believe in customized
punishments in a location where they can see the penalties their fellow sinners
face. With that, ones thoughts and
motivations for repenting and the impression one gets from witnessing the
punishment of others will be the qualifier to earn a place in heaven. Think of it as when the two criminals were
crucified alongside Jesus. One told
Jesus that if he had so much power he should save them from death. The other criminal recognized that Jesus did
not belong there on the cross and said to Jesus that you committed no crime and
that Jesus should not be punished. For
that Jesus granted the man salvation, for he had recognized his sins and
thought of others who were being wrongfully punished.
As
to immortality, I agree with what is described in chapter 8 that living in
common with God is true immortality and that immortality on earth is just a
myth. This is a stark contrast to the
immortality in Gilgamesh which had the concept of the kind of
immortality that conquered death. If we
were immortal on earth then there would be no need for a pious life for a
person would not need to earn salvation if they are never to die in the first
place. Also, to me immortality is more
of a punishment as one is forced to watch the living wither away and die, much
the same way Gilgamesh watched Enkidu die leaving him alone in mourning. On the other hand, purgatory seems perfectly
logical. It acts as a proving ground for
minor sinners to redeem themselves. As
to whether it is paradise or not, I do not know. However, I do believe that if anyone enters
purgatory, life there will be set up as a constant test to aid in the cleansing
of ones minor sins.
Then
there is this notion that heaven does not have pain, sorrow and the like. I believe that is wrong. In the infinite of heaven, the only true pain
and sorrow that are gone are the pain and sorrow of loss and the symptoms that
cause it. Beyond that all other pain is
necessary to keep the soul pious and clean.
On
to the theory that the concept of eternal life on the Christian idea that
liberating mankind from the “yokes of the stifling past” (122 Obayashi)
inspires various theologies. Those
theologies being Black theology, liberation theology, feminist theology and
even political theology (122 Obayashi) all set to change the present to further
the groups they advocate for. However,
while some are inspired by such Christian notions they are not all good. Anyone of them that seeks a collectivist
salvation is not inspired by Christianity, but by Marxism as well. For Marx’s teacher, the philosopher Hegel
despised Jesus Christ and his sacrifice.
The reason being that when Jesus died, he died so that people will be
judged by their individual actions, while Hegel believed it should have
remained the way it was before, a collective salvation. True Christianity believes in Jesus’
sacrifice for the individual. The
collectivist notion to salvation is counter to religious thought. Individuals are judged and thus incentivized
to be pious. Groups are a mob who
ignores the rules thinking they can piggy back on someone else’s merits and
piousness. Thus the unworthy will either
overwhelm the pious or the sinners can slip through unpunished for their
sins. This is not to say that wanting to
relieve others from suffering is wrong, but a theology that saves one at the
expense of others saves none.
All
in all, Death and Afterlife is a good reminder of how my faith looks at
the afterlife. It is also a good
introduction to both Jewish and Muslim beliefs in regards to the
afterlife. To me it is acceptable that
others will disagree with my own notions of the afterlife. Disagreement is a
good thing as we should not know what the afterlife will be like till after we
die. If we did know what heaven and hell
would be like, then what would we look forward to. In the end, it is preferable to dream of an
idealistic heaven than have one set down by the dreams and ideas of those who
came before us.
Works
Cited
Eagleton, Terry. The Meaning of
Life Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.
Hegel, G.W.F. Reason in History:
A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History
The
Liberal Arts Press, Inc., The Bobbs—Merrill Company, Inc, United States,
1953.
“Hillbilly: The Real Story” History
Channel Documentary, aired September, 26, 2008.
Mason, Herbert. Gilgamesh: A
Verse Narrative A Mariner book: Houghton Mifflin
Company. Boston,
New York, 2003.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The
Communist Manifesto Penguin Classics, England,
2002.
Obayashi, Hiroshi. Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World
Religions
Praeger
Publishers, New York, 1992.
“The Ten Commandments, Part 1: The
Laws of God and Part 2: The Laws of Man”
History Channel
Documentary, DVD release April, 12, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)