Posts
When I think about this 800 BILLION bail-out, I find some things interesting:
A) The banks are claiming there is no way to track where or how they spent the Billion dollars they received.
For 3 of the past 5 years I have worked for banks. I know this to be false. Banks track every fraction of a penny. They know where it goes and where it comes from. Otherwise, they would be negligent in their obligations to their customers and stock holders.
Don't be fooled, if they say, "I don't know where it is, where it went..." they are lying to you.
B) Democrats (the "friends of the People") and Republicans (the "friends of the Big Business") seem to have swapped places. The Democrats were all hot to give money cart-blanch to the Auto Industry, while the Republicans were asking for all kinds of restrictions and oversight.
Bush, himself, is letting the Auto Industry go bankrupt, although it is in a more controlled way...but still...
C) Bush has been a "Tax-Break and Spend" kind of guy. We have seen all kinds of plans to give us a tax break and yet, the government is spending more now than ever before. The National Debt has grown from about 6.3 Trillion to 10.3 Trillion in 8 years.
Obama's plans follow this pattern. He is looking to give tax breaks and yet, even before he gets into office, the National Debt is going UP at an alarming rate. If he continues this policy, we could go from 10.3 to 16.3 trillion in the next 8 years.
This brings to mind a little saying:
If you always do what you have always done, you always get what you always got.
In order for anything to get better, we have to let the Free Market roam Freely...we have to see what prices and what value is placed on goods and services. And it has to be done without government interference (with the exception of Anti-Trust and Monopoly issues)...
We need to shrink the Government. We need to get control of the Government Spending. We need to get more people involved in Government (Grass Roots) as well as get the Good Old Guys out of Government. We need new ideas. We need to restructure the Tax Plan. We need to remove the "perks" of serving in public office. We need to restore the people's confidence in their Government.
This is all "DIFFERENT"...if we did this, we would have a DIFFERENT outcome, not the "same old thing"...
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Rules of Self Defense
There have been lots of discussions around the "art" of self defense, the "right" to self defense, and many other things related to self defense. There are, however, not enough discussions about the consequences and the choices leading up to those consequences...
So I would like to take a moment of your time to outline some "Rules" in relation to Self Defense.
First, there is one caveat, every area is different. You must check with your local ordinances, and state laws about how your city/state views self defense. Some places require you retreat, other do not, some outline (very clearly) what is and is not self defense, and some places leave a big hole where that knowledge is concerned. So, this is just a guide, not a definitive list.
#1) If you own and carry a gun for self defense (a good idea in this economy) you should also own and carry a cell phone.
While it isn't a law, it is most commonly understood that the first person to call 911 in a confrontation is the Victim. If you have to defend yourself, YOU are the Victim, and YOU should be the first one to call 911.
#2) Self defense is NOT when you go looking for a confrontation. If you come upon something illegal, and no life is in immediate danger, call 911, make a report, but do not engage. Give the 911 Dispatcher AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE (rage, gender, height, clothing, cars, license plates, etc)
This changes if there is a life in immediate danger, engage, but have dialed 911 (if you can) first, let them record the proceedings. Use verbal commands (without "waiting"...if the situation calls for it, forgo the verbal commands and ACT). Using verbal commands can stop a situation.
#3) Retreat if possible. If someone breaks into your house, and you come home to a burglary in progress, call 911 and wait outside or at a neighbor's house. Again, give 911 as MUCH detail as possible.
Retreating also works in public and semi-public environments where it might be easier to leave a potentially bad situation.
I will say, this situation again changes if there is a life in immediate danger. Then you engage, and defend (yourself or others - your choice).
#4) If you are in your home, at work, or at school, these are places you (normally) do not have to retreat from. If you are attacked in these situations, call 911 (if you can) and let them get it on recording. Use verbal commands if you can, without putting yourself in danger, and if all else fails, and you have to defend yourself, DO SO.
#5) Using #1 and a guide, if you have had to defend yourself, and you were not able to call 911 prior to engagement, then you MUST now call 911.
When you call 911, you should always say something like:
"I am in danger",
"he has a {insert weapon here}",
"send the police"
and if a shooting has happened, "send an ambulance"...
You don't need to explain more than "I am the victim" to the 911 Dispatcher. NEVER say "I shot someone" or "I killed someone"...bad mojo.
#6) When the police arrive, YOU are the one attacked, YOU should be filing the report. At first, they are going to want all the details and statements...DO NOT give them any more than the very basics (at first)...
"He came at me",
"I was afraid for my life (or the life of someone else)" (this is KEY),
"I tried to warn them off/leave (whatever), but they kept coming"...
Then this is the very next phrase you say to the reporting officer:
"I am terribly shook up, I will gladly cooperate with you in your investigation, but I would like time to calm down and contact an attorney to protect my rights, please give me 24-48 hours to make a complete statement."
If you don't "go looking for trouble", if you attempt to "stay out of it", if you only engage because your life or the life of another person is in jeopardy, THEN you are NOT the Bad Guy.
If you go into a situation because you have a gun, if you go looking for confrontation, if you chase someone around (shooting or not), THEN you are the Bad Guy...
The difference is, sometimes, subtle. But in most cases, if you did what you could to avoid the confrontation, and only engaged because there was no other way to save a life (yours or someone else's) THEN it will be a clear case of Self Defense. Otherwise, at a minimum, you get "assault with a deadly weapon" and at a maximum, you get "Murder".
Be careful out there. Follow the laws. Get a gun legally, carry it legally. Use it only if you have no other choice. Be the first to call 911. Cooperate with police, but not at the sacrifice of your rights.
So I would like to take a moment of your time to outline some "Rules" in relation to Self Defense.
First, there is one caveat, every area is different. You must check with your local ordinances, and state laws about how your city/state views self defense. Some places require you retreat, other do not, some outline (very clearly) what is and is not self defense, and some places leave a big hole where that knowledge is concerned. So, this is just a guide, not a definitive list.
#1) If you own and carry a gun for self defense (a good idea in this economy) you should also own and carry a cell phone.
While it isn't a law, it is most commonly understood that the first person to call 911 in a confrontation is the Victim. If you have to defend yourself, YOU are the Victim, and YOU should be the first one to call 911.
#2) Self defense is NOT when you go looking for a confrontation. If you come upon something illegal, and no life is in immediate danger, call 911, make a report, but do not engage. Give the 911 Dispatcher AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE (rage, gender, height, clothing, cars, license plates, etc)
This changes if there is a life in immediate danger, engage, but have dialed 911 (if you can) first, let them record the proceedings. Use verbal commands (without "waiting"...if the situation calls for it, forgo the verbal commands and ACT). Using verbal commands can stop a situation.
#3) Retreat if possible. If someone breaks into your house, and you come home to a burglary in progress, call 911 and wait outside or at a neighbor's house. Again, give 911 as MUCH detail as possible.
Retreating also works in public and semi-public environments where it might be easier to leave a potentially bad situation.
I will say, this situation again changes if there is a life in immediate danger. Then you engage, and defend (yourself or others - your choice).
#4) If you are in your home, at work, or at school, these are places you (normally) do not have to retreat from. If you are attacked in these situations, call 911 (if you can) and let them get it on recording. Use verbal commands if you can, without putting yourself in danger, and if all else fails, and you have to defend yourself, DO SO.
#5) Using #1 and a guide, if you have had to defend yourself, and you were not able to call 911 prior to engagement, then you MUST now call 911.
When you call 911, you should always say something like:
"I am in danger",
"he has a {insert weapon here}",
"send the police"
and if a shooting has happened, "send an ambulance"...
You don't need to explain more than "I am the victim" to the 911 Dispatcher. NEVER say "I shot someone" or "I killed someone"...bad mojo.
#6) When the police arrive, YOU are the one attacked, YOU should be filing the report. At first, they are going to want all the details and statements...DO NOT give them any more than the very basics (at first)...
"He came at me",
"I was afraid for my life (or the life of someone else)" (this is KEY),
"I tried to warn them off/leave (whatever), but they kept coming"...
Then this is the very next phrase you say to the reporting officer:
"I am terribly shook up, I will gladly cooperate with you in your investigation, but I would like time to calm down and contact an attorney to protect my rights, please give me 24-48 hours to make a complete statement."
If you don't "go looking for trouble", if you attempt to "stay out of it", if you only engage because your life or the life of another person is in jeopardy, THEN you are NOT the Bad Guy.
If you go into a situation because you have a gun, if you go looking for confrontation, if you chase someone around (shooting or not), THEN you are the Bad Guy...
The difference is, sometimes, subtle. But in most cases, if you did what you could to avoid the confrontation, and only engaged because there was no other way to save a life (yours or someone else's) THEN it will be a clear case of Self Defense. Otherwise, at a minimum, you get "assault with a deadly weapon" and at a maximum, you get "Murder".
Be careful out there. Follow the laws. Get a gun legally, carry it legally. Use it only if you have no other choice. Be the first to call 911. Cooperate with police, but not at the sacrifice of your rights.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Preying on the hopeless
I came across the Web Site "Swoopo.com" back in October. After looking at how they do their auctions, I decided to write the Utah State Attorney General's office to see if this kind of auctioning is illegal (since it more resembles a raffle than an auction, and many types of raffling are illegal in Utah (and other states))
This letter went to them on 10/23/08.
I read BoingBoing, and today they had an article linked about the same issue entitled "Profitable Until Deemed Illegal" http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001196.html by Jeff Atwood.
Because he comes to the same conclusion that I did back in October, I figured it would be about time to say something on my Blog (especially in light of the silence I have received from the Utah AG's office)...
Swoopo preys on the hopeless.
I work in Technology, and I buy a lot of computer equipment for personal and business use.
Because of this, I am always looking to save some money.
Especially in today's economy, when we are finding it more and more difficult to purchase even the necessities.
I came across a web site called Swoopo (http://www.swoopo.com) which touts itself as an auction site like Ebay (http://www.ebay.com). I did find, however, that there are several things wrong with their claims - it is more like a gambling or a raffle outlet than an auction house.
To clarify; Ebay, like any auction outlet, provides items for sale "to the highest bidder". This is a Fair and Free Market tactic to let society determine what something is worth. I have seen something you could normally buy at $10 go for as much as $90 and as little as $5. The point is, there is (normally) no "artificial inflation" of a product's worth, especially when there are multiple auction sites and Internet Retailers fighting for your business. Ebay takes a small percentage of the winnings, or there is a small fee to list your items on Ebay. This is their business model.
Swoopo, on the other hand, is free to join, but in order to bid, you must purchase "bids" in packages for a set amount.
Since I originally wrote the Utah AG's office, Swoopo has changed their bid buying model. It used to be that you bought "bids" for $1.00 each and each "bid" was worth $0.01 or $0.15. It is now that you buy 50 "bids" for $37.50 (for the math challenged, that is $0.75 each), and they are worth $0.01 or $0.15 each (depending on the type of auction).
My examples below are still geared toward the $1.00 bid price, so they are off by 25%, but it is still an insane amount of money...
They claim an item sells for it's face value, or for actual bid value, HOWEVER, if $1.00 = $0.01 then an item that they claim sells for $15.00 actually sold for $1500.00, and if I purchased 20 "bids" or $20.00 and I bid 20 times, and I win the item that is now listed at $15.00, it didn't actually sell to me for $15.00, but for $20.00.
ONLY, that isn't really correct. The item gets BID UP to $15.00 on a penny auction, and you put in $20.00 or 20 bids, then you have to pay for the item, which is now set at $15.00...
YOUR TOTAL OUT OF POCKET is $35.
THEIR TOTAL PROFIT is $1500 (bids) + $15.00 (final price) - (actual cost of item)
As you can imagine, I have some serious questions about the Legality of this type of "auctioning"...it sounds more like outright "gambling" than a "raffle", but maybe a "lottery" describes it better...
Unfortunately, lotteries, raffles, and gambling all do the same thing...they take money from desperate people who cannot afford to throw money away in this manner...but people do it for a couple reasons:
1) they want something of great value for a small price
2) they get financially vested in an item (via "bidding") and want to realize their "investment"
Aren't raffles/lotteries/gambling illegal in Utah (among other states)? This is, essentially, what it is that Swoopo is doing:
Instead of selling "tickets" or "chances", they sell "bids" - the more "bids" you buy, the better
chance you have of winning
Aren't they falsely advertising their goods/service? If they say something sold for $15.00, but in reality, the final price of the item might be $15.00, but the profit realized from the "$15.00" price tag was 100 times that. This is almost like a play on words...
This seems to me like a scam, a raffle, a lottery...it smells of false advertising, deception, and fraud. And it is DEFINITELY preying on the poor, especially in this economy.
There are some things that I neglected to mention, that Jeff points out...
Each time a bid is made, in the final few seconds of an auction, it extends out the time of the auction by another 15 seconds. This is the same kind of thing as enticing a mule to move by following a dangling carrot in front of its face...no matter how many steps he takes, that carrot is still just as far away...
They also "auction off" bids (the same as receiving quarters back from a quarter slot machine)...
And finally, they have a clause that allows "bait and switch". If I bid on an item, they can ship me an "equivalent" item...is that "equivalent" as in PRICE or in FEATURES and FUNCTIONALITY?
I am going to resubmit my email to the Utah AG's office, and see what happens. I will clarify and maybe even have them call me with any questions.
This letter went to them on 10/23/08.
I read BoingBoing, and today they had an article linked about the same issue entitled "Profitable Until Deemed Illegal" http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001196.html by Jeff Atwood.
Because he comes to the same conclusion that I did back in October, I figured it would be about time to say something on my Blog (especially in light of the silence I have received from the Utah AG's office)...
Swoopo preys on the hopeless.
I work in Technology, and I buy a lot of computer equipment for personal and business use.
Because of this, I am always looking to save some money.
Especially in today's economy, when we are finding it more and more difficult to purchase even the necessities.
I came across a web site called Swoopo (http://www.swoopo.com) which touts itself as an auction site like Ebay (http://www.ebay.com). I did find, however, that there are several things wrong with their claims - it is more like a gambling or a raffle outlet than an auction house.
To clarify; Ebay, like any auction outlet, provides items for sale "to the highest bidder". This is a Fair and Free Market tactic to let society determine what something is worth. I have seen something you could normally buy at $10 go for as much as $90 and as little as $5. The point is, there is (normally) no "artificial inflation" of a product's worth, especially when there are multiple auction sites and Internet Retailers fighting for your business. Ebay takes a small percentage of the winnings, or there is a small fee to list your items on Ebay. This is their business model.
Swoopo, on the other hand, is free to join, but in order to bid, you must purchase "bids" in packages for a set amount.
Since I originally wrote the Utah AG's office, Swoopo has changed their bid buying model. It used to be that you bought "bids" for $1.00 each and each "bid" was worth $0.01 or $0.15. It is now that you buy 50 "bids" for $37.50 (for the math challenged, that is $0.75 each), and they are worth $0.01 or $0.15 each (depending on the type of auction).
My examples below are still geared toward the $1.00 bid price, so they are off by 25%, but it is still an insane amount of money...
They claim an item sells for it's face value, or for actual bid value, HOWEVER, if $1.00 = $0.01 then an item that they claim sells for $15.00 actually sold for $1500.00, and if I purchased 20 "bids" or $20.00 and I bid 20 times, and I win the item that is now listed at $15.00, it didn't actually sell to me for $15.00, but for $20.00.
ONLY, that isn't really correct. The item gets BID UP to $15.00 on a penny auction, and you put in $20.00 or 20 bids, then you have to pay for the item, which is now set at $15.00...
YOUR TOTAL OUT OF POCKET is $35.
THEIR TOTAL PROFIT is $1500 (bids) + $15.00 (final price) - (actual cost of item)
As you can imagine, I have some serious questions about the Legality of this type of "auctioning"...it sounds more like outright "gambling" than a "raffle", but maybe a "lottery" describes it better...
Unfortunately, lotteries, raffles, and gambling all do the same thing...they take money from desperate people who cannot afford to throw money away in this manner...but people do it for a couple reasons:
1) they want something of great value for a small price
2) they get financially vested in an item (via "bidding") and want to realize their "investment"
Aren't raffles/lotteries/gambling illegal in Utah (among other states)? This is, essentially, what it is that Swoopo is doing:
Instead of selling "tickets" or "chances", they sell "bids" - the more "bids" you buy, the better
chance you have of winning
Aren't they falsely advertising their goods/service? If they say something sold for $15.00, but in reality, the final price of the item might be $15.00, but the profit realized from the "$15.00" price tag was 100 times that. This is almost like a play on words...
This seems to me like a scam, a raffle, a lottery...it smells of false advertising, deception, and fraud. And it is DEFINITELY preying on the poor, especially in this economy.
There are some things that I neglected to mention, that Jeff points out...
Each time a bid is made, in the final few seconds of an auction, it extends out the time of the auction by another 15 seconds. This is the same kind of thing as enticing a mule to move by following a dangling carrot in front of its face...no matter how many steps he takes, that carrot is still just as far away...
They also "auction off" bids (the same as receiving quarters back from a quarter slot machine)...
And finally, they have a clause that allows "bait and switch". If I bid on an item, they can ship me an "equivalent" item...is that "equivalent" as in PRICE or in FEATURES and FUNCTIONALITY?
I am going to resubmit my email to the Utah AG's office, and see what happens. I will clarify and maybe even have them call me with any questions.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Paper and Ink tax vs. Ball and Powder tax
There is no secret that the government, failing to enact the type of gun restrictions it has been hoping for, has found a new way to prevent the use of firearms for anything but door-stops. They have determined that they can tax the ammo, or components of that ammo, at such a rate that a man can no longer afford to use a firearm.
This constitutes a "paper and ink" tax, which has already been struck down in Minnesota and has threatened to put "Student" newspapers out of business in California.
Article 1
Article 2
If the government cannot shut you up, they regulate you into silence. While it isn't common for the Paper and Ink tax to be instituted, and not at a high enough rate to prevent people from being able to express themselves, it is becoming more common for bloggers (like myself) to find themselves on the wrong end of the law. As if we really had to have a "press credential" to be able to report news, discuss our feelings and opinions openly, or investigate stories for discussion and informational purposes. The DMCA contains language to allow News Papers and other News publishers to force "free lance" bloggers into silence. Imagine that, those fighting for Free Speech fighting to silence individuals.
It all boils down to the same essence: the right to Free Speech is a "collective right" given to the Press only - the right to Bear Arms is a "collective right" given to the military only. What does this mean? That we can only do what the Government will allow us, regardless on who's RIGHT it is...
I (and the Founding Fathers) have a different view of this. Our Rights PRE-EXIST the Constitution, and the Constitution was devised as a method to Protect those Rights from our Government.
The right to free speech is regulated (and rightly so) to some degree...this prevents someone from entering a crowded movie theater and yelling "fire" when no fire exists. This kind of panic could cause the deaths or injury of hundreds of people, and infringes on those people's rights to NOT be injured or killed. One against the Many.
The same holds true for Felons and Firearms, although, I believe even that is too "general"...It should only prevent Convicted Violent Criminals from owning firearms. A felony for Fraud is different than a felony for Murder. But we still restrict this person from owning a firearm, because the Right for people to feel safe is greater than the right of the violent criminal to own a gun.
However, currently, according to the CDC, Alcohol and Tobacco are EACH more of a danger to the life and security of innocents than any firearm.
One must wonder why so much time, effort, energy, and money are being spent on the restriction of firearms when there are clearly more important issues to deal with.
All this proposed taxing schema will do is cost millions to fight in court on both sides. Another way for the Government to waste our tax dollars, especially in a time of hardship.
Another proposal is to serialize each component in the ammo making process. This will prove costly for everyone involved. It is intended as a way to trace ammo that is used in a crime, but in reality its is another restriction on your rights. It also makes instant criminals out of normally law abiding citizens (but this has never stopped California...)
Not to mention that NONE of these proposals will do anything to the Criminal, except make them find a new way around the law. After all, they said the same thing for putting cameras all over Miami, and to date (I believe it is 3 or 4 years running now) there have been NO arrests of criminals due to the cameras, face recognition, or any other reasoning they gave for their installation.
The same will hold true for these laws, regulations and taxes.
However, this won't stop the Government from trying.
My advice...
Fight for Net Neutrality and Blogger Rights
Fight for Freedom of Speech
Fight for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Fight for your Right to not be harassed by your Government
Go buy your reloading supplies now. Buy your guns, get prepared. At a minimum, it will be a long, hard 4 years...worst case scenario, it will be a long, hard 8 years...
And if we don't wise up in the next 4 - 8 years, it could even go longer.
This constitutes a "paper and ink" tax, which has already been struck down in Minnesota and has threatened to put "Student" newspapers out of business in California.
Article 1
Article 2
If the government cannot shut you up, they regulate you into silence. While it isn't common for the Paper and Ink tax to be instituted, and not at a high enough rate to prevent people from being able to express themselves, it is becoming more common for bloggers (like myself) to find themselves on the wrong end of the law. As if we really had to have a "press credential" to be able to report news, discuss our feelings and opinions openly, or investigate stories for discussion and informational purposes. The DMCA contains language to allow News Papers and other News publishers to force "free lance" bloggers into silence. Imagine that, those fighting for Free Speech fighting to silence individuals.
It all boils down to the same essence: the right to Free Speech is a "collective right" given to the Press only - the right to Bear Arms is a "collective right" given to the military only. What does this mean? That we can only do what the Government will allow us, regardless on who's RIGHT it is...
I (and the Founding Fathers) have a different view of this. Our Rights PRE-EXIST the Constitution, and the Constitution was devised as a method to Protect those Rights from our Government.
The right to free speech is regulated (and rightly so) to some degree...this prevents someone from entering a crowded movie theater and yelling "fire" when no fire exists. This kind of panic could cause the deaths or injury of hundreds of people, and infringes on those people's rights to NOT be injured or killed. One against the Many.
The same holds true for Felons and Firearms, although, I believe even that is too "general"...It should only prevent Convicted Violent Criminals from owning firearms. A felony for Fraud is different than a felony for Murder. But we still restrict this person from owning a firearm, because the Right for people to feel safe is greater than the right of the violent criminal to own a gun.
However, currently, according to the CDC, Alcohol and Tobacco are EACH more of a danger to the life and security of innocents than any firearm.
One must wonder why so much time, effort, energy, and money are being spent on the restriction of firearms when there are clearly more important issues to deal with.
All this proposed taxing schema will do is cost millions to fight in court on both sides. Another way for the Government to waste our tax dollars, especially in a time of hardship.
Another proposal is to serialize each component in the ammo making process. This will prove costly for everyone involved. It is intended as a way to trace ammo that is used in a crime, but in reality its is another restriction on your rights. It also makes instant criminals out of normally law abiding citizens (but this has never stopped California...)
Not to mention that NONE of these proposals will do anything to the Criminal, except make them find a new way around the law. After all, they said the same thing for putting cameras all over Miami, and to date (I believe it is 3 or 4 years running now) there have been NO arrests of criminals due to the cameras, face recognition, or any other reasoning they gave for their installation.
The same will hold true for these laws, regulations and taxes.
However, this won't stop the Government from trying.
My advice...
Fight for Net Neutrality and Blogger Rights
Fight for Freedom of Speech
Fight for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Fight for your Right to not be harassed by your Government
Go buy your reloading supplies now. Buy your guns, get prepared. At a minimum, it will be a long, hard 4 years...worst case scenario, it will be a long, hard 8 years...
And if we don't wise up in the next 4 - 8 years, it could even go longer.
Indoctrination vs. Education
We really don't have an educational system in the United States. We took all the competition out of it, so there is really no incentive to a) make sure our kids get educated, and b) make sure that the kids want to be educated.
All we do in indoctrinate our children to a defined set of "facts" and "acceptable" information heaped with "politically correct jargon" in a cesspool of intolerance.
I wonder why we wait until college (a school that isn't free and isn't mandatory) to teach our children about Critical Thinking, Logic, Tolerance, Acceptance, Government, Economics, and other important issues. Children should have even a basic understanding of these things by the time they get to Junior High. They should have a good understanding by High School, and by College, they should be learning the detailed skills they will need for their chosen career: med school, law school, engineering, advanced applied math, etc.
This will never happen in the current "educational system", and that is why we are failing when it comes to comparing our "students" with the students of other "advanced" countries.
How do we fix it?
Well, stop taking tax money to pay for schools and teachers. Privatize the school system, and let those that use the system, pay for it. Education is a privilege, not a "basic human right". When the parents are cutting the check every month for their children to go to school, they will make sure the kids go, and that they learn. A person's children, after all, are that person's responsibility, not the responsibility of the "state".
Schools could be non-profit or for-profit, but they could solicit grants, donations, scholarships, and other monies if they want/need.
I am afraid that this is the only way that we can get away from the failure that is our "educational system" and move in to a more enlightened and intelligent period. A place where children are taught all sides of the issues and are given enough information to make up their own minds, based on Logic and Critical Thinking.
Or, we can continue to go the rout we are going, and in another generation or 2, when these fool kids are being elected into political office (y'all complain about Bush...well just you wait...) and we will wish we had done something different, fixed the problem, instead of using band-aids.
The following story illustrates what I am talking about...
A teacher took HeliOS (linux) disks away from a student because a) it wasn't Microsoft Windows and b) no software could ever be free...
This just goes to show, even the Teachers need a little education...
If we spent billions on education instead of Microsoft Software, would the education system benefit? Note, I didn't say "do without computers and programs to help with education"...I said "not spend billions on Microsoft Software".
Linux is FREE. Linux takes a brain to operate (since we all have a brain, well, you get the idea). Linux offers opportunity for individuals to solve problems. Linux saves money.
Now, I don't what this to be another "linux rant", but I do want to point out that Education is more important than Indoctrination, and we are fully indoctrinated in the "educational system"...
Change, Mr. Obama? Lets do something about the State of Education in this Country.
All we do in indoctrinate our children to a defined set of "facts" and "acceptable" information heaped with "politically correct jargon" in a cesspool of intolerance.
I wonder why we wait until college (a school that isn't free and isn't mandatory) to teach our children about Critical Thinking, Logic, Tolerance, Acceptance, Government, Economics, and other important issues. Children should have even a basic understanding of these things by the time they get to Junior High. They should have a good understanding by High School, and by College, they should be learning the detailed skills they will need for their chosen career: med school, law school, engineering, advanced applied math, etc.
This will never happen in the current "educational system", and that is why we are failing when it comes to comparing our "students" with the students of other "advanced" countries.
How do we fix it?
Well, stop taking tax money to pay for schools and teachers. Privatize the school system, and let those that use the system, pay for it. Education is a privilege, not a "basic human right". When the parents are cutting the check every month for their children to go to school, they will make sure the kids go, and that they learn. A person's children, after all, are that person's responsibility, not the responsibility of the "state".
Schools could be non-profit or for-profit, but they could solicit grants, donations, scholarships, and other monies if they want/need.
I am afraid that this is the only way that we can get away from the failure that is our "educational system" and move in to a more enlightened and intelligent period. A place where children are taught all sides of the issues and are given enough information to make up their own minds, based on Logic and Critical Thinking.
Or, we can continue to go the rout we are going, and in another generation or 2, when these fool kids are being elected into political office (y'all complain about Bush...well just you wait...) and we will wish we had done something different, fixed the problem, instead of using band-aids.
The following story illustrates what I am talking about...
A teacher took HeliOS (linux) disks away from a student because a) it wasn't Microsoft Windows and b) no software could ever be free...
This just goes to show, even the Teachers need a little education...
If we spent billions on education instead of Microsoft Software, would the education system benefit? Note, I didn't say "do without computers and programs to help with education"...I said "not spend billions on Microsoft Software".
Linux is FREE. Linux takes a brain to operate (since we all have a brain, well, you get the idea). Linux offers opportunity for individuals to solve problems. Linux saves money.
Now, I don't what this to be another "linux rant", but I do want to point out that Education is more important than Indoctrination, and we are fully indoctrinated in the "educational system"...
Change, Mr. Obama? Lets do something about the State of Education in this Country.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
We like to talk about security...
We like to talk about our safety and security...
We like to talk about our right and responsibilities...
But why is it that we seem to polarize on a single issue?
We are either "anti gun", when that doesn't increase safety or security...
Or we are "pro gun", when that isn't the only protection we should offer ourselves.
Business Week reports that the US is Loosing the Cyber War.
Is your computer running Windows XP or Windows Vista?
If so, YOU could be part of the problem.
According to Secunia, Windows XP still has 13% of its defects UNPATCHED. This is even after Windows XP's debut in 2001. In other words, after 7 years and 3 major "updates" Windows XP still leaves you vulnerable.
Windows Vista isn't much better, with 12% of its flaws still unpatched after being released in 2007, almost 2 full years, and one major update.
Can we really afford to loose the cyber war?
I am putting out the call, "To Arms"...but not to go out and grab your gun, but I am asking you to grab your "cyber gun"...
It is our responsibility to defend against those that would enslave us.
Be it the Government, Enemy Combatants, Terrorists, or just the regular, old Bad Guy.
How can we do this? What is a "cyber gun" in this case? LINUX.
Switch to Linux. In most cases, the average user will not even notice.
Email, Web Browsing, Chats, Pictures, Printing...even word processing and more. All provided at no cost. The benefit? Linux is a secure system. Secunia reports that Ubuntu, out since 2004, is reporting 0% Unpached Vulnerabilities.
Get out from under the Corporate Giant, do your part to ensure we win the cyber war, secure your data and your computer, install Linux and become one of the Internet Patriots.
I recommend Ubuntu, DOWNLOAD HERE, but there are hundreds of flavors to choose from. And support is as open and free as the operating system.
Oops! Missed One Fix — Windows Attacks Under Way
Microsoft warns of new Windows bug, says attacks under way
Microsoft issues mammoth security update, biggest in five years
Experts Say To Switch Browsers In Light of IE Vulnerability
We like to talk about our right and responsibilities...
But why is it that we seem to polarize on a single issue?
We are either "anti gun", when that doesn't increase safety or security...
Or we are "pro gun", when that isn't the only protection we should offer ourselves.
Business Week reports that the US is Loosing the Cyber War.
Is your computer running Windows XP or Windows Vista?
If so, YOU could be part of the problem.
According to Secunia, Windows XP still has 13% of its defects UNPATCHED. This is even after Windows XP's debut in 2001. In other words, after 7 years and 3 major "updates" Windows XP still leaves you vulnerable.
Windows Vista isn't much better, with 12% of its flaws still unpatched after being released in 2007, almost 2 full years, and one major update.
Can we really afford to loose the cyber war?
I am putting out the call, "To Arms"...but not to go out and grab your gun, but I am asking you to grab your "cyber gun"...
It is our responsibility to defend against those that would enslave us.
Be it the Government, Enemy Combatants, Terrorists, or just the regular, old Bad Guy.
How can we do this? What is a "cyber gun" in this case? LINUX.
Switch to Linux. In most cases, the average user will not even notice.
Email, Web Browsing, Chats, Pictures, Printing...even word processing and more. All provided at no cost. The benefit? Linux is a secure system. Secunia reports that Ubuntu, out since 2004, is reporting 0% Unpached Vulnerabilities.
Get out from under the Corporate Giant, do your part to ensure we win the cyber war, secure your data and your computer, install Linux and become one of the Internet Patriots.
I recommend Ubuntu, DOWNLOAD HERE, but there are hundreds of flavors to choose from. And support is as open and free as the operating system.
Oops! Missed One Fix — Windows Attacks Under Way
Microsoft warns of new Windows bug, says attacks under way
Microsoft issues mammoth security update, biggest in five years
Experts Say To Switch Browsers In Light of IE Vulnerability
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Utah and Washington D.C.
I find the art of hiding legislation within legislation appalling. You know, when congress comes up with a real lemon, which fails the vote miserably and hides it in the tail end at the last minute of a real good piece of legislation?
One of two things happen in this case...
a) the bill passes, bringing the lemon into law, even after they couldn't pass it by itself
b) the bill fails, taking the good legislation down with the lemon
NEITHER of these scenarios are good, and neither SHOULD happen.
Well, there is this bill, (H.R. 1905)/(S. 1257), that could come again to a vote (some time in February, I believe). This bill wants to grant Utah another House seat, but it would also grant a House seat to "Washington D.C.".
This would clearly violate the Constitution which sets the District as being DISTINCT from the States. Granting Washington D.C. a Seat in the House would equalize the District with the States, negating the whole purpose of the District, namely to give our government a politically NEUTRAL area in which to do business, to provide for their own protection, and to be self reliant, instead of obtaining support from any one state. Granting any "state rights" to the District will remove its impartiality.
There are a lot of other really good arguments against letting Washington D.C. gain its own seat in the House, and many of them make themselves immediately apparent when you read the Wikipedia entry on Washington D.C....
The Constitution is the limiting factor, and any change to the status of Washington D.C. would require a Constitutional Amendment. This should never be taken lightly.
The argument about Taxation without Representation is valid, and because we cannot grant Representation to the District, it is a good argument to go to a Straight Federal Sales Tax. (FairTax.org)...this solves the problem of taxation while honoring the Constitution.
Changing the status of Washington D.C. would have far reaching and devastating effects on our Country. This change alone would grant the Government representation of itself, giving power and authority to act to itself, when that power and authority ultimately lies within The People, not the Government. It would be a spontanieous usurpation of power FROM the People, setting the Government above the People.
This legislation must not pass.
One of two things happen in this case...
a) the bill passes, bringing the lemon into law, even after they couldn't pass it by itself
b) the bill fails, taking the good legislation down with the lemon
NEITHER of these scenarios are good, and neither SHOULD happen.
Well, there is this bill, (H.R. 1905)/(S. 1257), that could come again to a vote (some time in February, I believe). This bill wants to grant Utah another House seat, but it would also grant a House seat to "Washington D.C.".
This would clearly violate the Constitution which sets the District as being DISTINCT from the States. Granting Washington D.C. a Seat in the House would equalize the District with the States, negating the whole purpose of the District, namely to give our government a politically NEUTRAL area in which to do business, to provide for their own protection, and to be self reliant, instead of obtaining support from any one state. Granting any "state rights" to the District will remove its impartiality.
There are a lot of other really good arguments against letting Washington D.C. gain its own seat in the House, and many of them make themselves immediately apparent when you read the Wikipedia entry on Washington D.C....
The Constitution is the limiting factor, and any change to the status of Washington D.C. would require a Constitutional Amendment. This should never be taken lightly.
The argument about Taxation without Representation is valid, and because we cannot grant Representation to the District, it is a good argument to go to a Straight Federal Sales Tax. (FairTax.org)...this solves the problem of taxation while honoring the Constitution.
Changing the status of Washington D.C. would have far reaching and devastating effects on our Country. This change alone would grant the Government representation of itself, giving power and authority to act to itself, when that power and authority ultimately lies within The People, not the Government. It would be a spontanieous usurpation of power FROM the People, setting the Government above the People.
This legislation must not pass.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Where'd the Money Go?
As with all things, there is a solution to much of the financial woes we are currently experiencing:
STOP SPENDING MONEY
DON'T GO INTO DEBT
MAKE APPROPRIATE CUTBACKS
ELIMINATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
BUY LOCAL
But BUSH and OBAMA, being the people that they are, have decided that SOMEHOW we can give tax cuts and tax rebates AND increase spending...
This is why the National Debt has grown so much under Bush, and with Obama's current thoughts on the Economy, it isn't going to end any time soon.
What we can do is tall the politicians to do something with Illegal Immigration. We are hiring illegals, because they will work for nothing AND we don't have to provide benefits, etc. However, they take most of that money, none of which has had any tax paid, and they ship it back to Mexico. Our money does us no good in Mexico...it does them a world of good, but it shorts our economy.
However, that doesn't make any difference to many politicians...they want to legalize the illegals, and create "guest worker" programs. Well, hold on...we have a dwindling economy, people out of work, and yet, we still want to invite people to come over and take jobs that rightly belong to Americans -
Ok, at least with a guest worker program, taxes are paid and benefits provided, but jobs and money are still GONE.
The other one is simple. Stop buying crap from China. Stop sending our money over seas. I would also say, stop buying gasoline, but that ain't happening...
Even with the price of gas down, we should be screaming for more fuel efficiency (which really hasn't changed since the 1930s) and for more alternatives to gasoline. I am just afraid that now that gasoline is under $2 that people will let this issue die.
Take a look at Dubai in the UAE...That is where all your money is going...
Funny thing is, if the Automakers sold the cars we want, and the fuel to run them (batteries, natural gas, hydrogen) then all that money would stay inside the United States, and our cities might look like Dubai...
Sad part is, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We have allowed things to get so bad. We buy our fuel from the Arabs and our junk from China. Electric cars have been around since the 50s, turbine cars (that will burn any alcohol (from plants, etc)) were produced (shortly) in the 50s, Bio Diesel has been around for about 30-40 years...there really is no excuse for our reliance on foreign oil. Oh, and everything sold to us by China could be manufactured and sold right here in America, if someone cared to do it...yes, it might cost a little more, but it would be free of LEAD (unless you like to eat off lead painted plates, or having your children put lead painted toys in their mouths) because our quality and safety standards are higher here then over there...
We need to make the right types and the right number of cuts in the government...and I don't mean in services alone...in personnel and in "special services" and salaries...I will write later to show just how much could be saved (estimate) if these changes are made. While I don't know for sure, and I can only make a slight guess as to they types and number of jobs that need cutting, I would say that we could save BILLIONS a year.
So, lets get off our duffs and get this situation FIXED. It isn't in the power of our corrupt politicians to do it, so we, THE PEOPLE, need to start forcing change...
Stop buying foreign, get out of debt, save money and invest in America, contact your congress critter and get them to rethink their spending policies...
Trust me, in 3-5 years, you will thank me for this advice...
STOP SPENDING MONEY
DON'T GO INTO DEBT
MAKE APPROPRIATE CUTBACKS
ELIMINATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
BUY LOCAL
But BUSH and OBAMA, being the people that they are, have decided that SOMEHOW we can give tax cuts and tax rebates AND increase spending...
This is why the National Debt has grown so much under Bush, and with Obama's current thoughts on the Economy, it isn't going to end any time soon.
What we can do is tall the politicians to do something with Illegal Immigration. We are hiring illegals, because they will work for nothing AND we don't have to provide benefits, etc. However, they take most of that money, none of which has had any tax paid, and they ship it back to Mexico. Our money does us no good in Mexico...it does them a world of good, but it shorts our economy.
However, that doesn't make any difference to many politicians...they want to legalize the illegals, and create "guest worker" programs. Well, hold on...we have a dwindling economy, people out of work, and yet, we still want to invite people to come over and take jobs that rightly belong to Americans -
Ok, at least with a guest worker program, taxes are paid and benefits provided, but jobs and money are still GONE.
The other one is simple. Stop buying crap from China. Stop sending our money over seas. I would also say, stop buying gasoline, but that ain't happening...
Even with the price of gas down, we should be screaming for more fuel efficiency (which really hasn't changed since the 1930s) and for more alternatives to gasoline. I am just afraid that now that gasoline is under $2 that people will let this issue die.
Take a look at Dubai in the UAE...That is where all your money is going...
Funny thing is, if the Automakers sold the cars we want, and the fuel to run them (batteries, natural gas, hydrogen) then all that money would stay inside the United States, and our cities might look like Dubai...
Sad part is, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We have allowed things to get so bad. We buy our fuel from the Arabs and our junk from China. Electric cars have been around since the 50s, turbine cars (that will burn any alcohol (from plants, etc)) were produced (shortly) in the 50s, Bio Diesel has been around for about 30-40 years...there really is no excuse for our reliance on foreign oil. Oh, and everything sold to us by China could be manufactured and sold right here in America, if someone cared to do it...yes, it might cost a little more, but it would be free of LEAD (unless you like to eat off lead painted plates, or having your children put lead painted toys in their mouths) because our quality and safety standards are higher here then over there...
We need to make the right types and the right number of cuts in the government...and I don't mean in services alone...in personnel and in "special services" and salaries...I will write later to show just how much could be saved (estimate) if these changes are made. While I don't know for sure, and I can only make a slight guess as to they types and number of jobs that need cutting, I would say that we could save BILLIONS a year.
So, lets get off our duffs and get this situation FIXED. It isn't in the power of our corrupt politicians to do it, so we, THE PEOPLE, need to start forcing change...
Stop buying foreign, get out of debt, save money and invest in America, contact your congress critter and get them to rethink their spending policies...
Trust me, in 3-5 years, you will thank me for this advice...
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Republicans and Democrats: Tax-Break and Spend
All Things in Common or How the Democrats will follow the Republicans into the Tax-Break and Spend Freely abyss...
President Elect Obama has decided that we would be better off if we had "all things in common", or basically, a socialist system in which the people that make less than $250,000 would have no increase in their tax. This puts more of the burden squarely on the shoulders of those earning more than $250,000.
While this might sound good, it is doomed to failure. Look at other programs that have tried the same thing: Russia and Communism, Canada and their failing Socialist Health Care System...the United States and Medicaid and Social Security.
We should also have a look back in History...
William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth settlement in the 1600's, wrote in his journal, "Of Plymouth Plantation", about the first few years the colonists were in America:
The early settlers tried to live with "all things in common" and it nearly wiped them out. It wasn't until they went back to a more capitalist approach that,
This is why Thanksgiving didn't happen until 1623, even though they had been in the Americas since 1620.
Further back in history, we can look at people's reactions to communal living within the New Testament in the Bible:
Acts 4:32-37
Ok, working so far...but now, human nature is introduced, the need to have something of our own, the desire to ownership, or having something more than someone else...
Acts 5:1-11
These systems might work in a wholly religious aspect, but, as Peter alludes to here, it is VOLUNTARY, but must be done HONESTLY.
And more recently in History, Joseph Smith and the LDS Church set up what was called the Law of Consecration. This is a program similar to what you read in Acts above, but different in that people gave all to the Church, and were given a stewardship (a responsibility) for a portion of what the Church had. This stewardship made the individual responsible for whatever it was; a farm, a store, a printing press, etc. Similar to the parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:15-30.
With the Law of Consecration, each individual was responsible for "doing their part" to make it all work. But like as happened in the New Testament, and in the Early American Settlement of Plymouth, Greed and Slothfulness prevented this system from working.
These individuals were religious, all of them. And in a Religious society, the members "fear God" or rather, they fear not receiving their Eternal Reward. If these individuals can be caught up in Greed and Slothfulness, what hope do regular "non-religious" people have of making this type of system work? When people "want what they didn't earn" or when they "don't want to do the work for someone else" the system fails.
Especially when you take into account the desire of many Americans to remove religion from ANYTHING that touches the "public domain"...
And, just to bring about the death knell of this Obama "all things in common" thing...Bush's plan was to give tax rebates, and then spend more to help the poor...but if you give back taxes, where does the money come from to "spend more"?
"Middle class tax cuts, state bailouts could come soon"
"Obama's tax hike for the rich may be delayed"
Cut taxes (the equivalent of a "rebate") and spend more... Recently, our National Debt reached 10 TRILLION. It took Bush 8 years to go from 6.3 TRILLION to 10.7 TRILLION. If Obama continues this policy (as is in evidence by these latest news reports on his economic policy) we could hit 15 to 20 TRILLION in the next 4-8 years.
President Elect Obama has decided that we would be better off if we had "all things in common", or basically, a socialist system in which the people that make less than $250,000 would have no increase in their tax. This puts more of the burden squarely on the shoulders of those earning more than $250,000.
While this might sound good, it is doomed to failure. Look at other programs that have tried the same thing: Russia and Communism, Canada and their failing Socialist Health Care System...the United States and Medicaid and Social Security.
We should also have a look back in History...
William Bradford, Governor of the Plymouth settlement in the 1600's, wrote in his journal, "Of Plymouth Plantation", about the first few years the colonists were in America:
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them."
"And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them."
The early settlers tried to live with "all things in common" and it nearly wiped them out. It wasn't until they went back to a more capitalist approach that,
"They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression? By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God."
This is why Thanksgiving didn't happen until 1623, even though they had been in the Americas since 1620.
Further back in history, we can look at people's reactions to communal living within the New Testament in the Bible:
Acts 4:32-37
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 ...
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Ok, working so far...but now, human nature is introduced, the need to have something of our own, the desire to ownership, or having something more than someone else...
Acts 5:1-11
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy [Spirit], and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
These systems might work in a wholly religious aspect, but, as Peter alludes to here, it is VOLUNTARY, but must be done HONESTLY.
And more recently in History, Joseph Smith and the LDS Church set up what was called the Law of Consecration. This is a program similar to what you read in Acts above, but different in that people gave all to the Church, and were given a stewardship (a responsibility) for a portion of what the Church had. This stewardship made the individual responsible for whatever it was; a farm, a store, a printing press, etc. Similar to the parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:15-30.
With the Law of Consecration, each individual was responsible for "doing their part" to make it all work. But like as happened in the New Testament, and in the Early American Settlement of Plymouth, Greed and Slothfulness prevented this system from working.
These individuals were religious, all of them. And in a Religious society, the members "fear God" or rather, they fear not receiving their Eternal Reward. If these individuals can be caught up in Greed and Slothfulness, what hope do regular "non-religious" people have of making this type of system work? When people "want what they didn't earn" or when they "don't want to do the work for someone else" the system fails.
Especially when you take into account the desire of many Americans to remove religion from ANYTHING that touches the "public domain"...
And, just to bring about the death knell of this Obama "all things in common" thing...Bush's plan was to give tax rebates, and then spend more to help the poor...but if you give back taxes, where does the money come from to "spend more"?
"Middle class tax cuts, state bailouts could come soon"
"Obama's tax hike for the rich may be delayed"
Cut taxes (the equivalent of a "rebate") and spend more... Recently, our National Debt reached 10 TRILLION. It took Bush 8 years to go from 6.3 TRILLION to 10.7 TRILLION. If Obama continues this policy (as is in evidence by these latest news reports on his economic policy) we could hit 15 to 20 TRILLION in the next 4-8 years.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Our Tax Folly
The United States is not taking advantage of many trillions of dollars that it could benefit from...and no, I am not talking about any Government Bailouts, or Foreign Bailouts...in fact, I am suggesting the United States could become a tax haven for most of the world's money by simply dispensing with "income tax".
Some time ago, I thought a different tax system would better represent the people and their interests in the Government. The only problem is, there is really no way to appease all the people and squarely deal with everyone.
I am all for equal treatment...i.e. if you have money, you pay your fair share...if you don't have money, then you still need to pay your share, but "how" becomes an issue...
Our American Entitlement Mentality has lead us into troubled waters along this front.
Currently, things aren't fair at all...
Another Blogger, Dan S., uses an analogy that I have heard before to describe how our current tax system works... the link to his site
Now, I want to illustrate something quickly here...
The Federal Government has a budget. Currently, that Budget is approx. $3.1 TRILLION...
There are 301,139,947 people in the United States, (men, women, and children) which means that our FAIR SHARE is $10,140.76 EACH. (PER YEAR)...now, why it isn't fair for us to simply charge everyone $10,140.76 to pay the budget, I am not sure...
Even if we subtract the unemployed, the total bill per individual is $10,596.40, or less than $1000 a month.
Now, when we look at our tax system, the graduated income tax, we see that we are paying between 10% and 35%. I wish there was an easy way to break this down, but there isn't. We have 4 different filing categories, and they all incorporate different minimum tax amounts, etc...not to mention that the Government also collects all kinds of other taxes; gas tax, death tax, sales tax, investment tax, business tax...and then there are the fees for everything (supposedly for paying for those services - except, they are already included in the budget)...
So, since there is no easy way to calculate our total effect on the budget and tax structure, we will leave it at the analogy mentioned above (which illustrates why people got all up in arms over the Bush tax credit ...)
So, how is it fair that 20% of the population pays for 80% of the budget? Is this why we have so many companies moving their manufacturing and investments OUT of the USA?
Our system was originally supposed to fund the Federal Government by imposing tariffs, not an income tax. According to Federal Law, and the IRS's own Rules and Regulations (IRSC) an Income Tax is illegal. Income is a representation of your labor - put in 8 hours of work for $100...$100 = 8 hours labor. The Code/Law states that tax is to be collected on monies BEYOND "income"...i.e. foreign investments, etc. (if you don't believe me, the internet is full of resources with this information)...
So, what Free Trade (etc) has done is forced you to pay an income tax (the difference is, letting foreign companies, individuals, businesses pay a greater share of our Government's expenses, not the United States' People)
So, what can we do to make it fair? Well, as I mentioned above...the only way to make it fair (or even close) is to charge everyone directly for their "fair share" of the budget. Now the socialists will say that we cannot expect the poor to pay as much as the rich, because they don't have as much money...
Well, this is where "fair" takes a left turn, and goes out the window. SO we search for other solutions, like a Flat Tax.
Well, a Flat Tax doesn't work either. Sad but true. If we reduce the burden to a percentage of our "fair share" then we have to take a look at (more simplified data) the average income of the average person in the United States...
Since there is just too much math and other factors involved here, we will just "run with it" which will still give us an idea of what we are looking at...
The average Income for a US Household is $46,326
Anyway, this means that every household must pay (in my estimation) about 25% to be "fair"...
This means that those paying 10% will pay more, and those paying 35% will pay less.
However, this still isn't "fair" because now, even more people are unable to pay the tax, not just the unemployed...so, how do we compensate for them?
A new org has come out with an Idea that I believe deserves further study...basically a national "sales tax",
This puts the tax burden on those that purchase...purchase more, pay more...
People that have little money are usually only buying the necessities, so their burden will be light...while those that have money buy more and have a bigger burden of the tax (similar to the current system, except no one is exempt...)
Unfortunately, there isn't a real way to measure who spends how much, and where...but FairTax.org has done a great job and spent the money and done the legwork to devise a method of collecting only 23% in sales tax...while this sounds high...but it is still smaller than the 25% in the flat rate, and only on goods purchased. SO those receiving types of benefits (food and clothing) aren't spending, and aren't paying the tax.
Just the ability to save $280 BILLION in government spending makes me want to try this system...
This basically outlines the world of hurt we are in...we tax labor (illegal) instead of taxing purchases (legal) and in so doing, have the opportunity to give people more money to spend, and collect more in taxes...
And for all you bleeding heart liberals, you can still credit back the "poor" by making this tax 24% (or whatever) and returning the total tax collected to those that can prove they spent the money...bank account statements, receipts, etc.
Now, my original statement was, "we are not taking advantage of trillions of dollars..." and this is true...
If we didn't charge an income tax, then we would have more people investing and storing their money in US Banks, to gain the greater investment (tax free)...THIS is the biggest reason people move their money offshore, and THIS is why we must change the way we do things...
Smart people know how to use their money, WISE people know how to use other people's money...
Some time ago, I thought a different tax system would better represent the people and their interests in the Government. The only problem is, there is really no way to appease all the people and squarely deal with everyone.
I am all for equal treatment...i.e. if you have money, you pay your fair share...if you don't have money, then you still need to pay your share, but "how" becomes an issue...
Our American Entitlement Mentality has lead us into troubled waters along this front.
Currently, things aren't fair at all...
Another Blogger, Dan S., uses an analogy that I have heard before to describe how our current tax system works... the link to his site
Now, I want to illustrate something quickly here...
The Federal Government has a budget. Currently, that Budget is approx. $3.1 TRILLION...
There are 301,139,947 people in the United States, (men, women, and children) which means that our FAIR SHARE is $10,140.76 EACH. (PER YEAR)...now, why it isn't fair for us to simply charge everyone $10,140.76 to pay the budget, I am not sure...
Even if we subtract the unemployed, the total bill per individual is $10,596.40, or less than $1000 a month.
Now, when we look at our tax system, the graduated income tax, we see that we are paying between 10% and 35%. I wish there was an easy way to break this down, but there isn't. We have 4 different filing categories, and they all incorporate different minimum tax amounts, etc...not to mention that the Government also collects all kinds of other taxes; gas tax, death tax, sales tax, investment tax, business tax...and then there are the fees for everything (supposedly for paying for those services - except, they are already included in the budget)...
So, since there is no easy way to calculate our total effect on the budget and tax structure, we will leave it at the analogy mentioned above (which illustrates why people got all up in arms over the Bush tax credit ...)
So, how is it fair that 20% of the population pays for 80% of the budget? Is this why we have so many companies moving their manufacturing and investments OUT of the USA?
Our system was originally supposed to fund the Federal Government by imposing tariffs, not an income tax. According to Federal Law, and the IRS's own Rules and Regulations (IRSC) an Income Tax is illegal. Income is a representation of your labor - put in 8 hours of work for $100...$100 = 8 hours labor. The Code/Law states that tax is to be collected on monies BEYOND "income"...i.e. foreign investments, etc. (if you don't believe me, the internet is full of resources with this information)...
So, what Free Trade (etc) has done is forced you to pay an income tax (the difference is, letting foreign companies, individuals, businesses pay a greater share of our Government's expenses, not the United States' People)
So, what can we do to make it fair? Well, as I mentioned above...the only way to make it fair (or even close) is to charge everyone directly for their "fair share" of the budget. Now the socialists will say that we cannot expect the poor to pay as much as the rich, because they don't have as much money...
Well, this is where "fair" takes a left turn, and goes out the window. SO we search for other solutions, like a Flat Tax.
Well, a Flat Tax doesn't work either. Sad but true. If we reduce the burden to a percentage of our "fair share" then we have to take a look at (more simplified data) the average income of the average person in the United States...
Since there is just too much math and other factors involved here, we will just "run with it" which will still give us an idea of what we are looking at...
The average Income for a US Household is $46,326
Anyway, this means that every household must pay (in my estimation) about 25% to be "fair"...
This means that those paying 10% will pay more, and those paying 35% will pay less.
However, this still isn't "fair" because now, even more people are unable to pay the tax, not just the unemployed...so, how do we compensate for them?
A new org has come out with an Idea that I believe deserves further study...basically a national "sales tax",
This puts the tax burden on those that purchase...purchase more, pay more...
People that have little money are usually only buying the necessities, so their burden will be light...while those that have money buy more and have a bigger burden of the tax (similar to the current system, except no one is exempt...)
Unfortunately, there isn't a real way to measure who spends how much, and where...but FairTax.org has done a great job and spent the money and done the legwork to devise a method of collecting only 23% in sales tax...while this sounds high...but it is still smaller than the 25% in the flat rate, and only on goods purchased. SO those receiving types of benefits (food and clothing) aren't spending, and aren't paying the tax.
Just the ability to save $280 BILLION in government spending makes me want to try this system...
This basically outlines the world of hurt we are in...we tax labor (illegal) instead of taxing purchases (legal) and in so doing, have the opportunity to give people more money to spend, and collect more in taxes...
And for all you bleeding heart liberals, you can still credit back the "poor" by making this tax 24% (or whatever) and returning the total tax collected to those that can prove they spent the money...bank account statements, receipts, etc.
Now, my original statement was, "we are not taking advantage of trillions of dollars..." and this is true...
If we didn't charge an income tax, then we would have more people investing and storing their money in US Banks, to gain the greater investment (tax free)...THIS is the biggest reason people move their money offshore, and THIS is why we must change the way we do things...
Smart people know how to use their money, WISE people know how to use other people's money...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Annie, Get yer guns...
This is just about as surreal as you could imagine...
On Monday (I think) KUTV has this news article,
"Bad Economy And Holiday Could Increase Utah Bank Robberies"
And like a bad dream, one day later, KSL reports,
"Police searching for credit union robber"
Then, because we are buying less (fewer taxes collected) and working less (higher unemployment, etc) The Government is faced with Cutbacks...I could tell you where they could make these cutbacks, but that is a discussion for later...and one of the first things to go is protection...
"Utah County Sheriff's Office Will Be Downsized Because Of Budget Cuts "
What does this mean for you and me?
Well, see, I have always believed that MY Safety and MY Security are MY Responsibility. So, for me, this only means that I need to buy some more ammo, and practice more at the range.
However, I am going to suggest to you , any one of you, that you go out to the local Gun Store, or Gun Show, buy a nice handgun, and find out about training classes AND when the next Concealed Carry class is.
Then, start to carry your legally owned, lawfully concealed weapon. Now, if anything happens while you are home, or in the bank, or on the street...instead of becoming a VICTIM of a crime, you may now defend yourself.
I know, normally you would capitulate and let the bad guy have whatever he wants...however, that is no guarantee that you wouldn't end up dead...and if he takes your purse or wallet, he now has your money, your identity, and your address - in fact, it isn't uncommon for a person to be victimized multiple times from one encounter with a Bad Guy...identity theft, home break-ins, etc...just because they now have a way to your house, and a new name to ruin...
Ok, so maybe you would call the police? Well, as you see above, there won't be as many around to protect you (not that there ever was enough)...I figured it out once...it would take ONE police officer for every FOUR people to ensure your safety in society...
In 2006 the population of Utah was 2,550,063. This means that we would have to have about 630,000 officers. The entry level officer will make about $50,000 - that is a total budget of $31,500,000,000 for law enforcement...but the total Utah State Budget is $12,022,169,299...that is almost 3 times what we spend now, for everything...
It cannot be done. And with the cut backs, it isn't likely that a police officer will be able to protect you...he will, however, when he gets around to it...investigate your crime.
Besides, it isn't the government's responsibility to protect you...According to law suits filed by victims of crimes, the police are under no obligation to protect the INDIVIDUAL, only SOCIETY in general...(see a book called "Dial 911 and Die")
SO, face it...you are on your own. But, that is OK...if you want something done right, do it yourself! That was never so true as it is today....
Go out and buy a gun, learn to use it, and get legal to carry it.
With headlines like this,
"Utah Crime on the Rise"
You, someone you know, or someone you love will thank you for it.
Other Stories:
Armed robber gets away on bicycle
December 1st, 2008 @ 8:48pm
Woman Raped In Dowtown Salt Lake In Broad Daylight
11/06 8:43 pm
Police Looking For Attempted Abduction Suspect In Box Elder County
9/11 10:22 am
Police Investigate Attempted Abduction In Provo
9/02 11:21 pm
Teen Girl Escapes Attempted Kidnapping In Holladay
4/18 12:23 pm
One wounded in shooting inside Philadelphia Kmart
12/2 9:04 am
Armed robbers break into Salt Lake home
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:56am
Neighbors frustrated with crime after latest break-in
December 2nd, 2008 @ 12:08pm
Man Suspected Of Attacking Woman With Sword In Salt Lake City
December 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Teen's 911 call gets intruder arrested
December 5th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
On Monday (I think) KUTV has this news article,
"Bad Economy And Holiday Could Increase Utah Bank Robberies"
And like a bad dream, one day later, KSL reports,
"Police searching for credit union robber"
Then, because we are buying less (fewer taxes collected) and working less (higher unemployment, etc) The Government is faced with Cutbacks...I could tell you where they could make these cutbacks, but that is a discussion for later...and one of the first things to go is protection...
"Utah County Sheriff's Office Will Be Downsized Because Of Budget Cuts "
What does this mean for you and me?
Well, see, I have always believed that MY Safety and MY Security are MY Responsibility. So, for me, this only means that I need to buy some more ammo, and practice more at the range.
However, I am going to suggest to you , any one of you, that you go out to the local Gun Store, or Gun Show, buy a nice handgun, and find out about training classes AND when the next Concealed Carry class is.
Then, start to carry your legally owned, lawfully concealed weapon. Now, if anything happens while you are home, or in the bank, or on the street...instead of becoming a VICTIM of a crime, you may now defend yourself.
I know, normally you would capitulate and let the bad guy have whatever he wants...however, that is no guarantee that you wouldn't end up dead...and if he takes your purse or wallet, he now has your money, your identity, and your address - in fact, it isn't uncommon for a person to be victimized multiple times from one encounter with a Bad Guy...identity theft, home break-ins, etc...just because they now have a way to your house, and a new name to ruin...
Ok, so maybe you would call the police? Well, as you see above, there won't be as many around to protect you (not that there ever was enough)...I figured it out once...it would take ONE police officer for every FOUR people to ensure your safety in society...
In 2006 the population of Utah was 2,550,063. This means that we would have to have about 630,000 officers. The entry level officer will make about $50,000 - that is a total budget of $31,500,000,000 for law enforcement...but the total Utah State Budget is $12,022,169,299...that is almost 3 times what we spend now, for everything...
It cannot be done. And with the cut backs, it isn't likely that a police officer will be able to protect you...he will, however, when he gets around to it...investigate your crime.
Besides, it isn't the government's responsibility to protect you...According to law suits filed by victims of crimes, the police are under no obligation to protect the INDIVIDUAL, only SOCIETY in general...(see a book called "Dial 911 and Die")
SO, face it...you are on your own. But, that is OK...if you want something done right, do it yourself! That was never so true as it is today....
Go out and buy a gun, learn to use it, and get legal to carry it.
With headlines like this,
"Utah Crime on the Rise"
You, someone you know, or someone you love will thank you for it.
Other Stories:
Armed robber gets away on bicycle
December 1st, 2008 @ 8:48pm
Woman Raped In Dowtown Salt Lake In Broad Daylight
11/06 8:43 pm
Police Looking For Attempted Abduction Suspect In Box Elder County
9/11 10:22 am
Police Investigate Attempted Abduction In Provo
9/02 11:21 pm
Teen Girl Escapes Attempted Kidnapping In Holladay
4/18 12:23 pm
One wounded in shooting inside Philadelphia Kmart
12/2 9:04 am
Armed robbers break into Salt Lake home
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:56am
Neighbors frustrated with crime after latest break-in
December 2nd, 2008 @ 12:08pm
Man Suspected Of Attacking Woman With Sword In Salt Lake City
December 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Teen's 911 call gets intruder arrested
December 5th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
Big Brother and Auto Makers
For a long time, people have been accusing "Big Brother" of all kinds of things...most seem improbable, and many are just too complicated for someone on government pay...but there are those time when people just might have the right idea, and at those times, we need to stand up and say, "Say What?"...
When the Government decided it would be a good idea to put RFID chips in a passport...Say What?
When the Government decided to put video surveillance all over town, just on the off chance a criminal might be dumb enough to get caught on camera...Say What?
When the Government wanted to track cell phone signals to monitor traffic...Say What?
Or
When the Government wanted to monitor all cellphone, land lines, emails, and other communication, just because "someone might do something illegal"...Say What?
Well, here is a new one...
New program could eliminate need for emissions testing
Now, before you all go off thinking I am paranoid...well...I am, and that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me...
If emissions were really a concern, the auto makers would have sensors that would track the average emissions, and over time, warn you when those numbers fall out of the acceptable "norm". These "norms" would be adjustable year by year, so you would never be "out of date".
Then, when you have fallen out of compliance, it warns you to get it fixed. If you are out of compliance long enough, it would simply fail to start one morning, and you would not be able to drive it until it was fixed. The cost of towing should be enough of a deterrent to get it fixed when it tells you to.
No need to broadcast anything, no need to go in for a yearly check-up, no need for any of that. It tells you to get it fixed, or you loose the ability to drive it, till it is fixed.
But see, this would require some thought...and Detroit hasn't had a good thought about cars in far too long. We end up in a gas crunch and SUVs fall out of favor...why were we producing SUVs in the first place...and with all the advancements in engine technology, why are cars no more efficient NOW than they were in the 1930s?
Another question to ask auto makers is, since we have all known the oil is a dwindling product, why have they waited until now to do something about it? And why is Honda (a non US vehicle manufacturer) the only one making a production CNG car?
Why are we not building more of the "really efficient" serial-hybrid-electrics that get 60mpg or greater? Why are we only producing the hybrid-electrics that get 30-40 mpg?
How is it that VW has a car that WILL be available in the US in 2010, that gets 280mpg...but US auto makers cannot seem to get better than 45mpg?
How does VW get a standard Diesel to get 50+ mpg? But Detroit gets 20s or 30s from theirs?
The Auto Makers of the US DO NOT CARE about the environment, and maybe they should go out of business. You will notice that Honda, Nissan, VW, Mercedes, and others ARE NOT going out of business...only Ford, Dodge, and Chevy...isn't this ODD?
It has, however, been convenient for the Oil Companies, and our Government...
When the Government decided it would be a good idea to put RFID chips in a passport...Say What?
When the Government decided to put video surveillance all over town, just on the off chance a criminal might be dumb enough to get caught on camera...Say What?
When the Government wanted to track cell phone signals to monitor traffic...Say What?
Or
When the Government wanted to monitor all cellphone, land lines, emails, and other communication, just because "someone might do something illegal"...Say What?
Well, here is a new one...
New program could eliminate need for emissions testing
Now, before you all go off thinking I am paranoid...well...I am, and that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me...
"The county's proposal involves a computer chip about the size of a mini Post-it note. Technicians would plug it into your car, and it would transmit emissions information about your car to receivers set up throughout the county. If something is wrong, you'll get a letter in the mail; if not, you'll never have to bring your car in to get tested."
If emissions were really a concern, the auto makers would have sensors that would track the average emissions, and over time, warn you when those numbers fall out of the acceptable "norm". These "norms" would be adjustable year by year, so you would never be "out of date".
Then, when you have fallen out of compliance, it warns you to get it fixed. If you are out of compliance long enough, it would simply fail to start one morning, and you would not be able to drive it until it was fixed. The cost of towing should be enough of a deterrent to get it fixed when it tells you to.
No need to broadcast anything, no need to go in for a yearly check-up, no need for any of that. It tells you to get it fixed, or you loose the ability to drive it, till it is fixed.
But see, this would require some thought...and Detroit hasn't had a good thought about cars in far too long. We end up in a gas crunch and SUVs fall out of favor...why were we producing SUVs in the first place...and with all the advancements in engine technology, why are cars no more efficient NOW than they were in the 1930s?
Another question to ask auto makers is, since we have all known the oil is a dwindling product, why have they waited until now to do something about it? And why is Honda (a non US vehicle manufacturer) the only one making a production CNG car?
Why are we not building more of the "really efficient" serial-hybrid-electrics that get 60mpg or greater? Why are we only producing the hybrid-electrics that get 30-40 mpg?
How is it that VW has a car that WILL be available in the US in 2010, that gets 280mpg...but US auto makers cannot seem to get better than 45mpg?
How does VW get a standard Diesel to get 50+ mpg? But Detroit gets 20s or 30s from theirs?
The Auto Makers of the US DO NOT CARE about the environment, and maybe they should go out of business. You will notice that Honda, Nissan, VW, Mercedes, and others ARE NOT going out of business...only Ford, Dodge, and Chevy...isn't this ODD?
It has, however, been convenient for the Oil Companies, and our Government...
Monday, November 24, 2008
Global Warming?
I think there is something missing in the whole debate about Global Warming...there are some things that seem logical and tend to support a conclusion, and other things that look like they are being ignored, fabricated, or blown out of proportion.
One might ask, why ignore/fabricate anything when it comes to science? Well, it might not fit in the current political climate, or it isn't popular among those with power at the moment. Science changes over time, and in some cases it isn't because things have actually changed, or things are true today but weren't true yesterday...
Ok, so what am I getting at?
It is generally agreed that the climate of our little blue ball is changing. They experts, however, are now moving away from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change". Which makes sense, but what is this change, and how did it happen, and is it detrimental?
Well, the answer to that is different depending on who you are talking to...Greenhouse Gases (CO2, H2O, etc), solar activity, natural cycle, and people are some of the causes given.
Hmmm...
I recently came across an article (that, strangely, isn't there any more) that claimed that the vegetation biomass on earth is growing, not shrinking.
I would like to point out that plants like CO2, warmth, and water. With all these things "more abundant" now than before, it isn't a real shock to me that there would be more plants.
Now, if we have more plants, we have more O2 because the plants convert CO2 to O2, which also means less CO2. This cycle should continue until a peak at some point, where the balance is tipped the other way, and the plant's need for CO2 has grown greater than the CO2 production... the CO2 levels will decline...and we go back down the other direction on this cycle, and in this debate.
Now here is the funny part...
Once we start the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will cool off a bit, just natural, right?
Then a bunch of people will jump out of the woodwork and proclaim "Global Cooling" and they will warn of the imminent ice age...
Only, you will never hear anything about how we (people) actually affect the whole scheme of things...instead, the governments will draft plans and spend money to fight something that will fix itself, given time.
I am not saying that we shouldn't recycle, reduce CO2 emissions, or any other good thing...this is, after all, our home. What I am saying is that we can do all these good things without creating mass panic and hysteria and lauding the "worst case scenarios" ... But then, what else would MSNBC have to cry about?
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
One might ask, why ignore/fabricate anything when it comes to science? Well, it might not fit in the current political climate, or it isn't popular among those with power at the moment. Science changes over time, and in some cases it isn't because things have actually changed, or things are true today but weren't true yesterday...
Ok, so what am I getting at?
It is generally agreed that the climate of our little blue ball is changing. They experts, however, are now moving away from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change". Which makes sense, but what is this change, and how did it happen, and is it detrimental?
Well, the answer to that is different depending on who you are talking to...Greenhouse Gases (CO2, H2O, etc), solar activity, natural cycle, and people are some of the causes given.
Hmmm...
I recently came across an article (that, strangely, isn't there any more) that claimed that the vegetation biomass on earth is growing, not shrinking.
I would like to point out that plants like CO2, warmth, and water. With all these things "more abundant" now than before, it isn't a real shock to me that there would be more plants.
Now, if we have more plants, we have more O2 because the plants convert CO2 to O2, which also means less CO2. This cycle should continue until a peak at some point, where the balance is tipped the other way, and the plant's need for CO2 has grown greater than the CO2 production... the CO2 levels will decline...and we go back down the other direction on this cycle, and in this debate.
Now here is the funny part...
Once we start the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will cool off a bit, just natural, right?
Then a bunch of people will jump out of the woodwork and proclaim "Global Cooling" and they will warn of the imminent ice age...
Only, you will never hear anything about how we (people) actually affect the whole scheme of things...instead, the governments will draft plans and spend money to fight something that will fix itself, given time.
I am not saying that we shouldn't recycle, reduce CO2 emissions, or any other good thing...this is, after all, our home. What I am saying is that we can do all these good things without creating mass panic and hysteria and lauding the "worst case scenarios" ... But then, what else would MSNBC have to cry about?
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Cost of Living
Back in the 70s, my dad was making good money.
Population: 204,879,000
Unemployed in 1970: 4,088,000 (1.9%)
National Debt: $382 billion
Average salary: $7,564
Food prices: milk, 1.34 cents a gal.; bread, 24 cents a loaf; round steak, $1.30 a pound
Gallon of Gas: $0.30
BBL of oil: $3.30
Today, I think I make OK money.
Population: 305,697,052
Unemployment in 2008: 13,144,973 (4.6%)
National Debt.: $10.7 Trillion
Average salary: $77,634
Food Prices: milk, $3.66; bread, $1.40; Steak, $4.37
Gallon of Gas: $4.76
BBL of oil: $149
So, it turns out, my dad was making (in equivalent dollars) about $98,000 a year...
Turns out, I would be doing better if my salary kept up with the increase in things...
I would have been making $5972 in 1970...not so good...
It takes about $13 today to equal what $1 was in 1970
Why is it we seem to be getting the short end of the stick?
I haven't had a "cost of living" increase in about 6 years. The cost of living is currently about 5.8%, about equivalent to what it was in the 1970s. But, as I mentioned, I haven't received an increase in 6 years or more. I do get a small raise every year; about 2-3% of my salary...which should be added ON TOP OF my cost of living increase...
So, to make matters worse...
Electricity has gone up about 6% per year. In 1970 the cost was $0.02 per kwh, to today at about $0.24.
Natural Gas has also gone up...
Taxes have gone up...
Education costs have gone up...
Medical expenses have gone up...
And INTEREST RATES have gone up...
Then we get taken advantage of by every business and every organization that things we won't notice..."Fuel Surcharge" came into being in 2008, from Traffic Tickets to the price to ride the UTA system...
Now fuel has gone down, and is currently at $1.80...but NONE of the other prices have gone down.
I don't see any relief. My only hope is to wait until my youngest is in School, and my wife can get a job during the day...this will provide extra money to stay caught up...
Why is this such a sticky point? CEOs and Major Corporations making RECORD PROFITS, while their employees become "working poor"...
The economic revolution is on the way...just wait and watch...
Population: 204,879,000
Unemployed in 1970: 4,088,000 (1.9%)
National Debt: $382 billion
Average salary: $7,564
Food prices: milk, 1.34 cents a gal.; bread, 24 cents a loaf; round steak, $1.30 a pound
Gallon of Gas: $0.30
BBL of oil: $3.30
Today, I think I make OK money.
Population: 305,697,052
Unemployment in 2008: 13,144,973 (4.6%)
National Debt.: $10.7 Trillion
Average salary: $77,634
Food Prices: milk, $3.66; bread, $1.40; Steak, $4.37
Gallon of Gas: $4.76
BBL of oil: $149
So, it turns out, my dad was making (in equivalent dollars) about $98,000 a year...
Turns out, I would be doing better if my salary kept up with the increase in things...
I would have been making $5972 in 1970...not so good...
It takes about $13 today to equal what $1 was in 1970
Why is it we seem to be getting the short end of the stick?
I haven't had a "cost of living" increase in about 6 years. The cost of living is currently about 5.8%, about equivalent to what it was in the 1970s. But, as I mentioned, I haven't received an increase in 6 years or more. I do get a small raise every year; about 2-3% of my salary...which should be added ON TOP OF my cost of living increase...
So, to make matters worse...
Electricity has gone up about 6% per year. In 1970 the cost was $0.02 per kwh, to today at about $0.24.
Natural Gas has also gone up...
Taxes have gone up...
Education costs have gone up...
Medical expenses have gone up...
And INTEREST RATES have gone up...
Then we get taken advantage of by every business and every organization that things we won't notice..."Fuel Surcharge" came into being in 2008, from Traffic Tickets to the price to ride the UTA system...
Now fuel has gone down, and is currently at $1.80...but NONE of the other prices have gone down.
I don't see any relief. My only hope is to wait until my youngest is in School, and my wife can get a job during the day...this will provide extra money to stay caught up...
Why is this such a sticky point? CEOs and Major Corporations making RECORD PROFITS, while their employees become "working poor"...
The economic revolution is on the way...just wait and watch...
Kids Today...
I am using this phrase in a good way. I think it is interesting that a 12 year-old (Jaden Brophy of Syracuse, UT) has noticed something that many adults have not noticed.
What he noticed is the double-standard, or the dichotomy, of the individuals and organizations opposed to the Church's (or anyone's) support of Prop. 8.
They want Separation of Church and State (one of the most misunderstood phrases in our country), yet they will attack Utah, its government and its businesses, to "punish" the Church.
After reading his thoughts, I found other dichotomies...
For instance, they describe the supporters of Prop. 8 as bigots and hate mongers. Yet, they attack LDS Churches with vandalism. They boycott business of people that supported Prop. 8. They have absolutely nothing good to say about anyone who supported Prop. 8. They even want to limit the rights of the Church and anyone who supported Prop. 8, even though they decry what they view as a limiting of their rights.
Hmmmm...
Maybe Jaden was right, their beliefs are only ONE-WAY...
I propose EQUALITY for all. Allow everyone to have and act on their opinions and respect their opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and you can speak out against it, or talk about , or try and persuade someone to change their opinion, but violence, hate, destruction of property...NONE of these things has place in politics...we are, after all, an advanced, civilized society. And as such, we advocate equality and tolerance.
There are a couple facts that I believe people have yet to come to terms with:
1) It was NOT the LDS Church alone, but a conglomeration of Churches and other organizations that advocate "Traditional Family" and "Traditional Values"
2) It was NOT the LDS Church that voted Prop. 8 into law, it was the people of California State
3) There aren't enough LDS Church Members in all of California to constitute a Majority to pass any legislation.
4) Vandalism, hate speech, demonstrations against a Church or Individual, and boycotting are all forms of hate and bigotry.
What he noticed is the double-standard, or the dichotomy, of the individuals and organizations opposed to the Church's (or anyone's) support of Prop. 8.
They want Separation of Church and State (one of the most misunderstood phrases in our country), yet they will attack Utah, its government and its businesses, to "punish" the Church.
After reading his thoughts, I found other dichotomies...
For instance, they describe the supporters of Prop. 8 as bigots and hate mongers. Yet, they attack LDS Churches with vandalism. They boycott business of people that supported Prop. 8. They have absolutely nothing good to say about anyone who supported Prop. 8. They even want to limit the rights of the Church and anyone who supported Prop. 8, even though they decry what they view as a limiting of their rights.
Hmmmm...
Maybe Jaden was right, their beliefs are only ONE-WAY...
I propose EQUALITY for all. Allow everyone to have and act on their opinions and respect their opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and you can speak out against it, or talk about , or try and persuade someone to change their opinion, but violence, hate, destruction of property...NONE of these things has place in politics...we are, after all, an advanced, civilized society. And as such, we advocate equality and tolerance.
There are a couple facts that I believe people have yet to come to terms with:
1) It was NOT the LDS Church alone, but a conglomeration of Churches and other organizations that advocate "Traditional Family" and "Traditional Values"
2) It was NOT the LDS Church that voted Prop. 8 into law, it was the people of California State
3) There aren't enough LDS Church Members in all of California to constitute a Majority to pass any legislation.
4) Vandalism, hate speech, demonstrations against a Church or Individual, and boycotting are all forms of hate and bigotry.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Madness of King *AA
How is it, in this country, that we have become so litigious?
First off, the RIAA and MPAA have somehow gotten specialized legislation that makes it a crime to broadcast your own art/work/music in any way shape or form without paying them some kind of royalty.
Now, wait a minute...
If I write the original music, if I write the original vocals, if I play that music on an instrument that I developed myself, and if I build my own computer, and set up my own equipment to broadcast on any frequency or over any wire...I have somehow committed a crime?
So, the RIAA and MPAA have found ways to get people for "doing nothing" and they have somhow found a way to sue "John/Jane Doe" because they don't have any real proof of a crime or any infringement.
This would be like me filing a lawsuit for thousands of dollars agains "someone" for doing "something"...
HUH?
They have been using the law to force innocent people into paying a type of extortion. Including, at one point, a woman who doesn't even own and has never used a computer.
HUH?
Someone tell me this madness will end...
I only went back about a year, but these started showing up all the way back to before 1999. This has been going on for 10 years? When will the madness stop?
Anyway, here is the last year's info, basically, where we are today with this madness...(beware, the list is long...both the "good news" and the "bad news")
THE GOOD NEWS
Duke Demands Proof of Infringement From RIAA
Friday November 14, @10:01PM
RIAA Litigation May Be Unconstitutional
Wed Oct 29, 2008 05:05 PM
RIAA Loses $222K Verdict
Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:10 AM
RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951
Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:33 AM
RIAA Foiled By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
Sat Aug 09, 2008 04:09 PM
Tenise Barker Takes On RIAA Damages Theory
Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:17 PM
NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas
Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:56 PM
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:19 AM
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
Fri May 09, 2008 06:22 PM
NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP
Sat May 03, 2008 01:21 AM
Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online
Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:35 PM
RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court
Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:29 AM
University of San Francisco Law Clinic Joins Fight Against RIAA
Fri Feb 29, 2008 05:22 AM
RIAA Expert Witness Called "Borderline Incompetent"
Tue Feb 26, 2008 05:18 PM
Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory
Mon Feb 25, 2008 05:26 PM
RIAA's Attack On NewYorkCountryLawyer Fails
Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:02 AM
White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts
Wed Feb 06, 2008 03:02 PM
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:02 PM
Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers
Tue Jan 29, 2008 06:48 PM
MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA
Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:04 PM
EFF Takes On RIAA "Making Available" Theory
Sat Jan 12, 2008 05:21 PM
RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict
Sat Jan 05, 2008 06:30 PM
RIAA-fighting Maine Law Professor Speaks Out
Fri Dec 28, 2007 08:29 PM
EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI
Thu Nov 29, 2007 09:10 AM
RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:34 AM
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM
FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims
Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:20 PM
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:29 AM
RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride
Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 PM
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA
Fri Nov 02, 2007 08:56 AM
Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient
Sun Oct 28, 2007 04:06 AM
New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA
Sun Sep 23, 2007 03:20 AM
THE BAD NEWS
RIAA and MPAA Developing Domain-Based DRM
Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 AM
A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others
Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:17 AM
Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry
Tue Jun 10, 2008 07:20 AM
Massive Increase in RIAA Copyright Notices
Fri May 02, 2008 07:18 AM
Why the RIAA Really Hates Downloads
Mon Mar 31, 2008 01:20 AM
Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos"
Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Leaked RIAA Training Video
Wed Feb 20, 2008 09:05 PM
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
Thu Feb 14, 2008 07:50 AM
RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied
Wed Jan 30, 2008 05:04 PM
What the MPAA Still Isn't Telling Us
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 PM
DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages
Tue Dec 04, 2007 04:23 PM
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed
Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:48 AM
BSA Software Piracy Fight Smacks of RIAA Crackdown
Mon Nov 26, 2007 04:25 AM
Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks
Tue Oct 09, 2007 08:41 PM
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:43 PM
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
Thu Oct 04, 2007 07:14 PM
First off, the RIAA and MPAA have somehow gotten specialized legislation that makes it a crime to broadcast your own art/work/music in any way shape or form without paying them some kind of royalty.
Now, wait a minute...
If I write the original music, if I write the original vocals, if I play that music on an instrument that I developed myself, and if I build my own computer, and set up my own equipment to broadcast on any frequency or over any wire...I have somehow committed a crime?
So, the RIAA and MPAA have found ways to get people for "doing nothing" and they have somhow found a way to sue "John/Jane Doe" because they don't have any real proof of a crime or any infringement.
This would be like me filing a lawsuit for thousands of dollars agains "someone" for doing "something"...
HUH?
They have been using the law to force innocent people into paying a type of extortion. Including, at one point, a woman who doesn't even own and has never used a computer.
HUH?
Someone tell me this madness will end...
I only went back about a year, but these started showing up all the way back to before 1999. This has been going on for 10 years? When will the madness stop?
Anyway, here is the last year's info, basically, where we are today with this madness...(beware, the list is long...both the "good news" and the "bad news")
THE GOOD NEWS
Duke Demands Proof of Infringement From RIAA
Friday November 14, @10:01PM
RIAA Litigation May Be Unconstitutional
Wed Oct 29, 2008 05:05 PM
RIAA Loses $222K Verdict
Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:10 AM
RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951
Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:33 AM
RIAA Foiled By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
Sat Aug 09, 2008 04:09 PM
Tenise Barker Takes On RIAA Damages Theory
Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:17 PM
NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas
Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:56 PM
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:19 AM
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
Fri May 09, 2008 06:22 PM
NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP
Sat May 03, 2008 01:21 AM
Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online
Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:35 PM
RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court
Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:29 AM
University of San Francisco Law Clinic Joins Fight Against RIAA
Fri Feb 29, 2008 05:22 AM
RIAA Expert Witness Called "Borderline Incompetent"
Tue Feb 26, 2008 05:18 PM
Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory
Mon Feb 25, 2008 05:26 PM
RIAA's Attack On NewYorkCountryLawyer Fails
Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:02 AM
White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts
Wed Feb 06, 2008 03:02 PM
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:02 PM
Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers
Tue Jan 29, 2008 06:48 PM
MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA
Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:04 PM
EFF Takes On RIAA "Making Available" Theory
Sat Jan 12, 2008 05:21 PM
RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict
Sat Jan 05, 2008 06:30 PM
RIAA-fighting Maine Law Professor Speaks Out
Fri Dec 28, 2007 08:29 PM
EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI
Thu Nov 29, 2007 09:10 AM
RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:34 AM
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM
FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims
Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:20 PM
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:29 AM
RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride
Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 PM
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA
Fri Nov 02, 2007 08:56 AM
Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient
Sun Oct 28, 2007 04:06 AM
New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA
Sun Sep 23, 2007 03:20 AM
THE BAD NEWS
RIAA and MPAA Developing Domain-Based DRM
Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 AM
A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others
Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:17 AM
Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry
Tue Jun 10, 2008 07:20 AM
Massive Increase in RIAA Copyright Notices
Fri May 02, 2008 07:18 AM
Why the RIAA Really Hates Downloads
Mon Mar 31, 2008 01:20 AM
Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos"
Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Leaked RIAA Training Video
Wed Feb 20, 2008 09:05 PM
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
Thu Feb 14, 2008 07:50 AM
RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied
Wed Jan 30, 2008 05:04 PM
What the MPAA Still Isn't Telling Us
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 PM
DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages
Tue Dec 04, 2007 04:23 PM
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed
Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:48 AM
BSA Software Piracy Fight Smacks of RIAA Crackdown
Mon Nov 26, 2007 04:25 AM
Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks
Tue Oct 09, 2007 08:41 PM
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:43 PM
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
Thu Oct 04, 2007 07:14 PM
Please tell me people aren't this stupid...
Ok, so the Governments are having a hard time banning firearms, what with the Heller decision on Washington, D.C.
So to try something new, they are trying to make owning anything but their approved and registered ammo a crime. So far, we have been lucky, and avoided this round of mass stupidity, but it won't be long before they somehow convince enough people to agree that ammo isn't firearms (even though one isn't good without the other.)
Here is a little from the NRA about this issue:
So to try something new, they are trying to make owning anything but their approved and registered ammo a crime. So far, we have been lucky, and avoided this round of mass stupidity, but it won't be long before they somehow convince enough people to agree that ammo isn't firearms (even though one isn't good without the other.)
Here is a little from the NRA about this issue:
Gay Rights? Or a Civil Dispute?
"Gay Rights"... somehow this seems to fall in the same category as other "Rights" issues. Only, I don't think this has anything to do with "Gays" or "Rights"... All we end up doing is giving Rights to people/minorities that the rest of the people don't have. Think back to "affirmative action" and how it was recently struck down as unconstitutional...
See, I think people have gotten hung up in the "entitlement" mentality for so long that we don't know up from down or a right from a privilege. You have the right to health care. This doesn't mean that you have the right to insurance to help pay for that health care. Insurance companies (auto, home, health, life, etc) all have criteria on what they will and will not cover based on a variety of factors (risk, age, past incidents, etc). We have been feeling the pinch for our government's involvement in the housing and lending industry; allowing higher risk mortgages for one thing, and none of us like what has happened to the economy. Are we now suggesting it is a good idea to allow the government to get involved in allowing insurance companies to take on higher risk policies? Or having the Government go into direct competition with insurance companies, using our tax dollars? When did we become a socialist country?
We do have the right to health care, but we also have the right to pay for it. If we can get insurance to help pay for it, all the better, but that is a separate issue, and one that should be between the insurance company and you.
The real issue, as I see it, when it comes to "Gay Rights" isn't an issue of "Rights" at all. It is an issue of corporations, employers, insurance companies (the way they do business) and legal contracts, and the recognition of something other than a "traditional family"; it is a CIVIL ISSUE.
Currently, to get insurance, you have to purchase an individual or a family plan. Some of these are provided by the insurance company to an individual/family directly (the individual/family pays the full amount) or to an employer for their employees (the employer may subsidizes some of the premiums). You still have the two types of plans, individual and family, and it is the definition of "family" that has people so "up in arms".
The minority, homosexuals, are demanding that their "family units" be recognized as normal family units. And I use the term "normal family units" specifically, here. A family unit in science, biology, history, and religion is described as "a male/female union that produces children", it is a biological process. Even in psychology, a science that can claim a family unit to be just about anything, defines a difference between a traditional family unit (mother(female), father(male), and children(non-adults)) and a non-traditional family unit (someone acting in the role of father(male or female), mother(male or female) and children(adult or not)) Male/Male and Female/Female unions cannot produce children, so these relationships fall outside of what is considered a "traditional family unit", so they currently don't qualify for some of these legal protections provided a traditional family. So, what are they to do?
Well, it isn't a question of "gay rights" it is a question of civil law, how insurance companies do business, and how employers treat their employees. Instead of insurance companies providing only for individual plans and family plans, maybe they should provide for individual plans, family plans and/or "group" plans (while the insurance thing is more complex than I describe here, I am trying to keep this simple).
The "group" in this new insurance "group plan" would be defined as necessary. For instance, if I wanted to add my brother or sister to my "group plan", or my father or mother, then I would pay a higher premium, the same way that I pay a higher premium for adding children to my family plan now. So my group could be defined to include, brothers, sisters, parents, or even perfect strangers, if I wanted to pay the increase in premiums.
The next thing would be to get employers to recognize this ability to add individuals that aren't "family" and to offer the subsidy they provide for traditional family and individual plans to the new group plans. Although this is still up to the company, because they don't have to subsidize anything and at best all you could hope for is getting the "bulk rate" that is offered to employers by the insurance companies. These bulk rates would have to include, not just the individual and traditional family plans, but the "group" plans as well.
Now, the insurance issue has become a civil one, not one of legislation. No need to create new laws, no need to lobby congress, no need to get the government involved (so they cannot screw things up for the rest of us)...just lobby the insurance industry, or sue them in civil court to get what you want. The same would hold true to get companies to recognize this new type of group plan.
Now, in legal matters, we still aren't talking about "family", we are talking about contract and biological law. The marriage of a man and a woman is nothing more than a contract in the law and at court. Marriage is something that happens in a church or in religion, and is also a "legal contract" or "civil union". This does not mean that a "marriage contract" or "civil union" is a Marriage in a religious way. Legal rights concerning property, money, and children are defined by a marriage contract. The only item in this list that could be in dispute is the parental legal rights concerning children.
There are the two parts to a marriage/family contract...the property side and the biological side. The property side is easy as anyone can enter into a legal contract with anyone else over property. This has been changed and amended over the years to include (in some cases) prenuptial agreements (among other types of agreements) that define property rights before a marriage contract, and hold throughout the marriage time frame. This isn't the issue. Any same-sex couple could enter into property contract (even if not recognized as a "marriage" or even if there is no civil union), and acquire legal rights equal to having been married.
The hard part of this issue is the biological side. Since a same-sex couple cannot produce children, we must use other laws governing children that are brought into a same-sex union. In a female/female union, for instance, if one person gets pregnant the legal rights belong to that person and the "biological father". The adoption laws would have to cover the other female in this situation, if the father is unknown, deceased, or has legally given up his rights to the child, There is no need to create a whole host of new laws here, it is pretty well covered.
For male/male unions, both "parents" would have to be covered by the adoption laws. This is similar to "traditional" families where the current father in the current family unit may not be the biological father of the/some children in the family. The step-father's rights do not extend to any but his own biological children, unless an adoption occurs. This would be the same for step-mothers, and others involved in the traditional or non-traditional family units.
The biggest hurdle here is getting approval from the adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. But now, this situation has been removed from the legislative arena to the civil arena. Sue the adoption agencies to get recognition.
Now, what were once such huge and daunting tasks have become small and manageable. What used to be considered a matter for legislation is now only a matter of a civil dispute.
There are some big HOWEVERs that are attached to all this.
HOWEVER: None of this is to preclude the rights of a religion to have their opinion, membership criteria, or to even support (so far as the law will allow) issues they believe in. None of this can be used to force a Religion to recognize a civil union as a Marriage, so long as the Religion supports, believes in, and teaches Traditional Family, and Traditional Family Values.
Religions are like private clubs, private businesses, and government agencies. They can have criteria for membership/employment. For instance, a Police Department can claim to be an equal opportunity employer even if they will not or can not hire a convicted felon. This is still discrimination. In the same way, a Religion can deny membership to anyone they view as "living in sin". Just because someone has the "right" to engage in behavior does not mean we all have to like or agree with it. That doesn't mean we are bigots, it simply means we have the right to not do or like something, we have the right to believe in what we believe in.
HOWEVER: If we open the law and open the corporate, employment, and insurance arenas to accepting "non-traditional" families...besides accepting same-sex couples, we would have to accept polygamous families (this includes bigamy (being married to more than one person), polyandry (being married to more than one man), and polygyny (being married to more than one woman)), and this could become even more complex if these "non-traditional", same-sex families become polygamous.
Where do we draw the line, who do we exclude? Or do we just accept it, and force the courts to deal with impossibly complex issues such as; are biological rights greater than adoptive rights when dealing with 5 female "parents" where one has biological rights and the other 4 have equal adoptive rights? In this situation, how do you deal with the rights of the child over the rights of the parents? What is truly best for the child? Being left with the biological parent (even if she is a drug addict/alcoholic/mentally incompetent, abusive and negligent individual?) Or one of the other parents, and how do you choose one over the other? And what is more important for the child, the stability of a cohesive family unit, or being passed around to 4 or 5 individuals over a space of time to not have lasting, deep, or bonding relationship with any individual? What is the psychological impact of such relationships on children? What are the long term effects? How about the effects (short and long term) on society?
HOWEVER: Traditional Families may not have been completely successful, they are a known quantity and teh statistics give us a good idea of what we are looking at. Single-Parent families aren't a good as Traditional Families. Same-Sex Families have more problems than Traditional Families.
HOWEVER: Biology dictates that children must be born, or the race goes extinct. This is why homosexuality in animals is rare, compared to the human race. Homosexuality is a drive to extinction. There is a good argument, legally, for disallowing homosexuality, and that is to protect the society, the human race, from going extinct.
Populations must have a positive birth rate to keep the genetic pool alive and active. Populations that fall into stagnation will soon find inbreeding a problem. Societies with a negative birth rate will soon become extinct. It would not even take a majority of a population to practice homosexuality for a negative birthrate to occur. In fact, the Global Birth Rate is in decline, and has been since 1972. Some estimates are that by 2070 the world population will peak, and then decline. That is only just over 30 years from now.
So, how do we balance the rights of an entire population, an entire species, over the rights of a minority?
See, I think people have gotten hung up in the "entitlement" mentality for so long that we don't know up from down or a right from a privilege. You have the right to health care. This doesn't mean that you have the right to insurance to help pay for that health care. Insurance companies (auto, home, health, life, etc) all have criteria on what they will and will not cover based on a variety of factors (risk, age, past incidents, etc). We have been feeling the pinch for our government's involvement in the housing and lending industry; allowing higher risk mortgages for one thing, and none of us like what has happened to the economy. Are we now suggesting it is a good idea to allow the government to get involved in allowing insurance companies to take on higher risk policies? Or having the Government go into direct competition with insurance companies, using our tax dollars? When did we become a socialist country?
We do have the right to health care, but we also have the right to pay for it. If we can get insurance to help pay for it, all the better, but that is a separate issue, and one that should be between the insurance company and you.
The real issue, as I see it, when it comes to "Gay Rights" isn't an issue of "Rights" at all. It is an issue of corporations, employers, insurance companies (the way they do business) and legal contracts, and the recognition of something other than a "traditional family"; it is a CIVIL ISSUE.
Currently, to get insurance, you have to purchase an individual or a family plan. Some of these are provided by the insurance company to an individual/family directly (the individual/family pays the full amount) or to an employer for their employees (the employer may subsidizes some of the premiums). You still have the two types of plans, individual and family, and it is the definition of "family" that has people so "up in arms".
The minority, homosexuals, are demanding that their "family units" be recognized as normal family units. And I use the term "normal family units" specifically, here. A family unit in science, biology, history, and religion is described as "a male/female union that produces children", it is a biological process. Even in psychology, a science that can claim a family unit to be just about anything, defines a difference between a traditional family unit (mother(female), father(male), and children(non-adults)) and a non-traditional family unit (someone acting in the role of father(male or female), mother(male or female) and children(adult or not)) Male/Male and Female/Female unions cannot produce children, so these relationships fall outside of what is considered a "traditional family unit", so they currently don't qualify for some of these legal protections provided a traditional family. So, what are they to do?
Well, it isn't a question of "gay rights" it is a question of civil law, how insurance companies do business, and how employers treat their employees. Instead of insurance companies providing only for individual plans and family plans, maybe they should provide for individual plans, family plans and/or "group" plans (while the insurance thing is more complex than I describe here, I am trying to keep this simple).
The "group" in this new insurance "group plan" would be defined as necessary. For instance, if I wanted to add my brother or sister to my "group plan", or my father or mother, then I would pay a higher premium, the same way that I pay a higher premium for adding children to my family plan now. So my group could be defined to include, brothers, sisters, parents, or even perfect strangers, if I wanted to pay the increase in premiums.
The next thing would be to get employers to recognize this ability to add individuals that aren't "family" and to offer the subsidy they provide for traditional family and individual plans to the new group plans. Although this is still up to the company, because they don't have to subsidize anything and at best all you could hope for is getting the "bulk rate" that is offered to employers by the insurance companies. These bulk rates would have to include, not just the individual and traditional family plans, but the "group" plans as well.
Now, the insurance issue has become a civil one, not one of legislation. No need to create new laws, no need to lobby congress, no need to get the government involved (so they cannot screw things up for the rest of us)...just lobby the insurance industry, or sue them in civil court to get what you want. The same would hold true to get companies to recognize this new type of group plan.
Now, in legal matters, we still aren't talking about "family", we are talking about contract and biological law. The marriage of a man and a woman is nothing more than a contract in the law and at court. Marriage is something that happens in a church or in religion, and is also a "legal contract" or "civil union". This does not mean that a "marriage contract" or "civil union" is a Marriage in a religious way. Legal rights concerning property, money, and children are defined by a marriage contract. The only item in this list that could be in dispute is the parental legal rights concerning children.
There are the two parts to a marriage/family contract...the property side and the biological side. The property side is easy as anyone can enter into a legal contract with anyone else over property. This has been changed and amended over the years to include (in some cases) prenuptial agreements (among other types of agreements) that define property rights before a marriage contract, and hold throughout the marriage time frame. This isn't the issue. Any same-sex couple could enter into property contract (even if not recognized as a "marriage" or even if there is no civil union), and acquire legal rights equal to having been married.
The hard part of this issue is the biological side. Since a same-sex couple cannot produce children, we must use other laws governing children that are brought into a same-sex union. In a female/female union, for instance, if one person gets pregnant the legal rights belong to that person and the "biological father". The adoption laws would have to cover the other female in this situation, if the father is unknown, deceased, or has legally given up his rights to the child, There is no need to create a whole host of new laws here, it is pretty well covered.
For male/male unions, both "parents" would have to be covered by the adoption laws. This is similar to "traditional" families where the current father in the current family unit may not be the biological father of the/some children in the family. The step-father's rights do not extend to any but his own biological children, unless an adoption occurs. This would be the same for step-mothers, and others involved in the traditional or non-traditional family units.
The biggest hurdle here is getting approval from the adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. But now, this situation has been removed from the legislative arena to the civil arena. Sue the adoption agencies to get recognition.
Now, what were once such huge and daunting tasks have become small and manageable. What used to be considered a matter for legislation is now only a matter of a civil dispute.
There are some big HOWEVERs that are attached to all this.
HOWEVER: None of this is to preclude the rights of a religion to have their opinion, membership criteria, or to even support (so far as the law will allow) issues they believe in. None of this can be used to force a Religion to recognize a civil union as a Marriage, so long as the Religion supports, believes in, and teaches Traditional Family, and Traditional Family Values.
Religions are like private clubs, private businesses, and government agencies. They can have criteria for membership/employment. For instance, a Police Department can claim to be an equal opportunity employer even if they will not or can not hire a convicted felon. This is still discrimination. In the same way, a Religion can deny membership to anyone they view as "living in sin". Just because someone has the "right" to engage in behavior does not mean we all have to like or agree with it. That doesn't mean we are bigots, it simply means we have the right to not do or like something, we have the right to believe in what we believe in.
HOWEVER: If we open the law and open the corporate, employment, and insurance arenas to accepting "non-traditional" families...besides accepting same-sex couples, we would have to accept polygamous families (this includes bigamy (being married to more than one person), polyandry (being married to more than one man), and polygyny (being married to more than one woman)), and this could become even more complex if these "non-traditional", same-sex families become polygamous.
Where do we draw the line, who do we exclude? Or do we just accept it, and force the courts to deal with impossibly complex issues such as; are biological rights greater than adoptive rights when dealing with 5 female "parents" where one has biological rights and the other 4 have equal adoptive rights? In this situation, how do you deal with the rights of the child over the rights of the parents? What is truly best for the child? Being left with the biological parent (even if she is a drug addict/alcoholic/mentally incompetent, abusive and negligent individual?) Or one of the other parents, and how do you choose one over the other? And what is more important for the child, the stability of a cohesive family unit, or being passed around to 4 or 5 individuals over a space of time to not have lasting, deep, or bonding relationship with any individual? What is the psychological impact of such relationships on children? What are the long term effects? How about the effects (short and long term) on society?
HOWEVER: Traditional Families may not have been completely successful, they are a known quantity and teh statistics give us a good idea of what we are looking at. Single-Parent families aren't a good as Traditional Families. Same-Sex Families have more problems than Traditional Families.
HOWEVER: Biology dictates that children must be born, or the race goes extinct. This is why homosexuality in animals is rare, compared to the human race. Homosexuality is a drive to extinction. There is a good argument, legally, for disallowing homosexuality, and that is to protect the society, the human race, from going extinct.
Populations must have a positive birth rate to keep the genetic pool alive and active. Populations that fall into stagnation will soon find inbreeding a problem. Societies with a negative birth rate will soon become extinct. It would not even take a majority of a population to practice homosexuality for a negative birthrate to occur. In fact, the Global Birth Rate is in decline, and has been since 1972. Some estimates are that by 2070 the world population will peak, and then decline. That is only just over 30 years from now.
So, how do we balance the rights of an entire population, an entire species, over the rights of a minority?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Country's reaction to Obama's Election
Before NOVEMBER, I predicted that if we elect Obama into office, within 8 months of him being president, we will regret it...the people will change their opinion of Obama, and he will loose popularity...we will see through the rhetoric and start to seek the truth...
What I didn't realize, we might not have to wait that long...
The first several just about say it all...
We realized what is about to happen, and regret it...
Keep in mind, the last links talk about more bail-out money...
No matter HOW you slice it, Bush is Republican, but the Congress is Democrat Controlled, and it is Congress passing the Bail-Out programs, giving money to the failing businesses...businesses that have a history of making bad financial choices...
Now, we will have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress...if you think federal spending is bad right now, you ain't seen nothing yet...and THAT is what the Stocks are reacting to...
Stocks plunge anew as recession worries resurface
11/05 2:30 pm
Stocks tumble
11/06 2:26 pm
Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores
Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:15am EST
Election Results Prompt Run on Guns
10:43 PM Nov 8, 2008
Wall Street falls, unable to shake economic woes
11/10 2:14 pm
Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to seven-year high
11/13 7:01 am
Foreclosure rates up 25 percent year-over-year
11/13 5:15 am
Congress may require more lending for bailout help
11/13 9:37 am
Democrats at work to tap bailout for automakers
11/13 11:54 am
Stocks tumble as investors refocus on economy
11/14 3:49 pm
More Tennesseans Apply For Gun Permits
Nov 14, 2008 06:14 PM
Group: More Utah children lack health insurance
Nov 19. 2008 3:20 pm
Dow falls below 8,000
Nov 19, 2008 2:12 pm
October existing home sales fall by 3.1 percent
Nov. 24, 2008 8:32 am
Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for Dow
December 1st, 2008 @ 4:04pm
Intermountain Healthcare suspends employer-match benefit
December 1st, 2008 @ 6:00pm
Unincorporated Utah County to see tax increase
December 2nd, 2008 @ 8:11am
Layoffs expected today at West Jordan plant
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:32am
What I didn't realize, we might not have to wait that long...
The first several just about say it all...
We realized what is about to happen, and regret it...
Keep in mind, the last links talk about more bail-out money...
No matter HOW you slice it, Bush is Republican, but the Congress is Democrat Controlled, and it is Congress passing the Bail-Out programs, giving money to the failing businesses...businesses that have a history of making bad financial choices...
Now, we will have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress...if you think federal spending is bad right now, you ain't seen nothing yet...and THAT is what the Stocks are reacting to...
Stocks plunge anew as recession worries resurface
11/05 2:30 pm
Stocks tumble
11/06 2:26 pm
Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores
Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:15am EST
Election Results Prompt Run on Guns
10:43 PM Nov 8, 2008
Wall Street falls, unable to shake economic woes
11/10 2:14 pm
Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to seven-year high
11/13 7:01 am
Foreclosure rates up 25 percent year-over-year
11/13 5:15 am
Congress may require more lending for bailout help
11/13 9:37 am
Democrats at work to tap bailout for automakers
11/13 11:54 am
Stocks tumble as investors refocus on economy
11/14 3:49 pm
More Tennesseans Apply For Gun Permits
Nov 14, 2008 06:14 PM
Group: More Utah children lack health insurance
Nov 19. 2008 3:20 pm
Dow falls below 8,000
Nov 19, 2008 2:12 pm
October existing home sales fall by 3.1 percent
Nov. 24, 2008 8:32 am
Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for Dow
December 1st, 2008 @ 4:04pm
Intermountain Healthcare suspends employer-match benefit
December 1st, 2008 @ 6:00pm
Unincorporated Utah County to see tax increase
December 2nd, 2008 @ 8:11am
Layoffs expected today at West Jordan plant
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:32am
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Links that might be of interest...
This is a list of websites about Freedoms, Guns, and Government...y'all might find something interesting in here...
http://bruce.bolingbroke.com/node
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_11_09_archive.html#5796309297489669302
http://www.barackobamatest.com/
http://www.constitutionalconservative.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/home
http://www.rlc.org/
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/
http://www.ldsfreedomportal.net/
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/
http://personal.palouse.net/joeh/pages/facts.htm
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/policestate.htm
http://papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.bordc.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.fija.org/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/?q=ARTICLE5/
http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/two-more-us-military-units-assigned-for-homeland-security/
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.goutahorg.org/
http://www.gunowners.com/
http://gilc.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm
http://www.pazooter.com/truth/gaftir20.htm
http://www.getusout.net/
http://www.firearmslaw.com/
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1
http://epic.org/
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/america.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://opencarry.org/
http://www.nonationalid.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.ncac.org/home.cfm
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
http://www.saf.org/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://patriotpost.us/
http://www.libertyamendment.com/
http://www.thegunzone.com/
http://www.americanrevolution.com/
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
http://www.trtnational.com/
http://www.truthattack.org/
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
http://www.downsizedc.org/
http://change-congress.org/
http://utahminuteman.org/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/
http://bruce.bolingbroke.com/node
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_11_09_archive.html#5796309297489669302
http://www.barackobamatest.com/
http://www.constitutionalconservative.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/home
http://www.rlc.org/
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/
http://www.ldsfreedomportal.net/
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/
http://personal.palouse.net/joeh/pages/facts.htm
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/policestate.htm
http://papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.bordc.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.fija.org/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/?q=ARTICLE5/
http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/two-more-us-military-units-assigned-for-homeland-security/
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.goutahorg.org/
http://www.gunowners.com/
http://gilc.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm
http://www.pazooter.com/truth/gaftir20.htm
http://www.getusout.net/
http://www.firearmslaw.com/
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1
http://epic.org/
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/america.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://opencarry.org/
http://www.nonationalid.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.ncac.org/home.cfm
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
http://www.saf.org/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://patriotpost.us/
http://www.libertyamendment.com/
http://www.thegunzone.com/
http://www.americanrevolution.com/
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
http://www.trtnational.com/
http://www.truthattack.org/
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
http://www.downsizedc.org/
http://change-congress.org/
http://utahminuteman.org/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/
Gotta Love Obama - Right on Target
I pulled this information from another blog,
I may not believe these things completely, but there is a ring of truth to some of them...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss these...
Here are Obama's Priorities:
1- a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms
2- legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states
3- legislation that would overturn abortion restrictions, such as parental notification, gender 4- selection abortions and requiring doctors to have local hospital certificates when performing abortions
5- legislation that currently prevents non-government organizations, which receive federal funding, from providing abortions in other nations, such as China where coercive abortions are performed based on the gender of the fetus
6- a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included
7- a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%
8- bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections
9- cut defense spending by 25%
10- redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans
11- the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans
12- signing the Freedom of Choice Act one of his very first acts in office. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify every legal limit on abortion, federal, state or otherwise
13- a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home
14- a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime
15- legislation that would have banned almost all ammunition used for deer hunting
16- a ban on all semi-automatic firearms
17- a proposal that would have banned single shot and double barreled shotguns
18- government should be allowed to censor radio programs
19- In the model for the new renovations, they have taken out "In God We Trust."
I am currently pulling my hair out...
another site that looks interesting...
I may not believe these things completely, but there is a ring of truth to some of them...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss these...
Here are Obama's Priorities:
1- a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms
2- legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states
3- legislation that would overturn abortion restrictions, such as parental notification, gender 4- selection abortions and requiring doctors to have local hospital certificates when performing abortions
5- legislation that currently prevents non-government organizations, which receive federal funding, from providing abortions in other nations, such as China where coercive abortions are performed based on the gender of the fetus
6- a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included
7- a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%
8- bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections
9- cut defense spending by 25%
10- redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans
11- the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans
12- signing the Freedom of Choice Act one of his very first acts in office. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify every legal limit on abortion, federal, state or otherwise
13- a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home
14- a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime
15- legislation that would have banned almost all ammunition used for deer hunting
16- a ban on all semi-automatic firearms
17- a proposal that would have banned single shot and double barreled shotguns
18- government should be allowed to censor radio programs
19- In the model for the new renovations, they have taken out "In God We Trust."
I am currently pulling my hair out...
another site that looks interesting...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Conspiracy? Or Master Plan...?
Many people like to delve into Conspiracies; I don't...too many of them seem like the same hokus pokus that the Greeks came up with to explain things like Thunder, Lightning, Earthquakes, Floods, and other natural disasters...There are some things that I might not be able to explain, but that doesn't mean that Zeus is responsible...
I also don't believe in coincidences.
Also, I am LDS and being LDS, maybe I read a little too much into the whole Gadianton thing...what with secret combinations and all...it isn't like we don't see them today or anything...
The following is a work in progress...but I thought it was worth trying to get an opinion or two on it...
The following are some thoughts that I really would like to share and hear some comments on, They are interesting observations, and I would like to see if my point of view is valid or if I have missed something or if I have been just a little too eager to see something that isn't there...
How would you take over a government?, or maybe I should phrase it more accurately, How would you take control of a government?
Think about it from a "puppet master" point of view. Everything we see, we are supposed to see - it is what is happening behind the scenes that scares me.
After all, it would be foolish to attack the government straight on, roll tanks up to the capital building, let the entire world know that the US Government has fallen into the control of "someone else". There are too many people that are still loyal to the idea of "America" and too many countries that are still reliant on us for our money to allow another power to take over (other than the one we believe we elect into office). So it would have to be done another way, while keeping up the appearance that we still have something to do with controlling our government.
9/11, I think, should have been a wake-up call to us. For some, it was, for others, it was another "conspiracy" to expose, and still others bought the party line. I am still unsure about the whole origins of the attacks on the World Trade Center (both attacks) and the Oklahoma Federal Building. There is just too much that doesn't seem to add up, and still too many questions unanswered.
I don't think it was a conspiracy from within the government...but I don't know for sure. If it was, it would mean that high ranking (presidential level, etc) politicians from both the Democrat and Republican parties had been planning 9/11 from about the same time Kennedy was assassinated. With the Internet and related "free" information sources, and the accompanying "leaks", I doubt any organization could have kept something like that quiet for so long. So I still have questions on the whole thing...
I do believe, however, that the organization or the individuals "behind" the government used these events to their full advantage. The government's reaction to these events is what I find most intriguing, and those events are what scare me.
After the first WTC Attack, during the Clinton administration, the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed. This looks very similar to the Patriot Act, so similar it has been called the "baby patriot act" and even more people believe it was the "first draft" of the patriot act, something to test the waters. It was also Clinton that started the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the use of Federal Troops on American soil), and Bush finished it off with another executive order. Both presidents past more executive orders for more various and sundry items than any other president ever. Executive orders are just a way to circumvent the established process of law, and when abused can give the executive branch too much power. We are all familiar with the Patriot Act's passage...which was forced down our throats right after 9/11. Has anyone wondered how they managed to have that much legislation READY TO GO so quickly after 9/11? It must have been ready to be introduced PRIOR to the WTC attack. It has been modified a few times, to correct some of the glaring violations of our rights, but it still controls way too much and gives to much power and authority to the Federal and State governments and their law enforcement agencies. This kind of legislation could NEVER have been passed if 9/11 hadn't happened, too many people would have complained about it and its violations. This is why the Omnibus Crime Control Act passed, it was a very mild version of the Patriot Act, and again, it was passed in response to the first WTC attack.
This gives a little background of the laws and "power and authority" issues that we have faced during the past several administrations. The over-all policy in this regard has been "unanimous" or "bi-partisan" between the Democrats (Clinton) and the Republicans (Bush)...interesting that the same kinds of policy, the very same types of legislation (Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Patriot Act) can be brought to the table by two different (and supposedly opposite) forces.
Our country is currently facing a financial crisis which could ruin our quality of life. Money might not buy happiness, but it does make the world go around. During the Clinton administration a "false economy" was built up in technology. We now call it the "bubble". That bubble burst right after Bush came into office. Naturally, everyone blamed Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Believe it or not, a lot of the pain we are feeling in the financial sector right now, is a direct result of a lot of the other financial hocus pocus during the Clinton administration. The changes that were made to the mortgage lending laws, changes in the financial rules and regulations, many of the changes to the investment markets, the unchecked ability to build up a false economy, and the underhanded accounting practices of major corporations; these all add up to disaster...
Not to mention that American corporations (especially their CEOs) have a pay scale that is 12 times higher than that of their European counterparts. It gets even worse when you consider that the financial crunch is exacerbated by the energy crunch...oil and gasoline prices being at record highs. The costs of every good and service going up astronomically to cover the added fuel costs. Companies going out of business and people being left unemployed.
Everything ads up. When you talk financial markets and money, you cannot separate it all out. Unemployment causes foreclosure, foreclosure causes a surplus in un-purchased homes, banks have property they cannot liquidate, interest rates go down, banks close, financial crisis.
I am sure that most are aware that we wouldn't really have to ever fight a war if we were a little more smart about how we do things. If we stopped giving "foreign aid" to other countries (these foreign aid packages are actually loans: loans that are never paid back by the countries we give the money to). If we took the time to use American resources to manufacture American goods. If we built up a solid economy on Research and Development of new technologies...we could become the world leader in new technology. If we would build up our economy by INVESTING in other countries, just like individuals when they invest in new technologies, or in markets...if we would bring our jobs back to American soil, if we would enact TRULY fair trade (we sell and purchase about the same dollar amount of goods from other countries), we could have a very strong dollar.
A strong dollar is leverage, leverage we can use to get what we want. We wouldn't need to send troops, we could send aid packages (these packages could include food or money)...if they aren't "playing ball" we withhold the aid packages...and I am not talking a loan that would never be paid, but a purchase of goods are more than market price, or as a way to get military strongholds in certain territories, or some other concession...nothing is "free" and anything is better than NOT getting repayment on the loans we give.
No one dies when you use $money as ammo, and the financial markets as troops.
We also need to stop the farm subsidies. I understand it is to control a "run-away" market (farmers cannot make a living if the price of grain is too low) but we can use the excess grain (etc.) to help fund alternative fuel sources, or as good-will for starving people in OUR own country (and other countries as needed - part of the foreign aid)...
Instead of making money on what is happening around the world, we are spending money faster than ever in the history of this country. The dollar has fallen, the financial markets are over stretched, and the government is looking at a $700 BILLION bail-out package. What does the government get for the $700 billion? They get part ownership or a majority stake in the financial companies they bail out. They gain control of the financial standing (more than just the Federal Reserve and interest rate settings) of our country. It would no longer be in the hands of the private sector.
If so much good and bad can be done with money, if money can control the rise and fall of nations, if the ebb and flow of life can be controlled by the almighty dollar, we have now given that control to the Federal government.
Social services come in all shapes and sizes. from Federal highways, freeways, roads, and federally controlled and regulated "state" lands, to food stamps and medical care. These are all controlled by the various Local, State and Federal governments. Once the Federal government gets involved, the states loose their freedom to act independently. Ask Montana. Montana moved their Freeway speeds to "reasonable and prudent" which generally meant "anything under 100 mph was acceptable for most vehicles. The Federal government told them to re-enact a standard 75 mph limit, or they would loose federal funding. Wouldn't they call this extortion if a private individual or company tried something similar?
The ever increasing control of how the states run their social services (no child left behind) and the increasing reliance on federal funding put us at the mercy of the Federal government.
Back in the time of Joseph Smith, education was provided by the community. The people with children in school paid for the teacher and the supplies needed. Going to school was a privilege...Today, children MUST get education or they or their parents could face criminal charges. "No child left behind" is just ensuring that all children march to the slowest drummer, so they are all being left behind.
Other social services were handled by the Churches. Not just the LDS Church, but all other churches too. They had their requirements, and their expectations for how you received help; how much for how long, but it was wasn't controlled by the Government, and it wasn't a "free ride".
While it would be nice to be able to provide for everyone, we aren't a socialist country. Our whole philosophy is free market/capitalism. You didn't just receive something for nothing.
Illegal immigrants coming into this country are taking jobs and money. The money they get is usually paid without being taxed, and then the bulk of it is shipped out of the country back to Mexico (or another country). By not taking this seriously, or by trying to find a way to excuse or enable this illegal immigration, we are starting a path to bankruptcy. We give free medical care to illegal immigrants, but not to our own "working poor". We give free education to illegal immigrants, but not to our poor. We have all kinds of housing subsidies, grants, and other moneys that can be provided to illegal immigrants, but not to United States Citizens, if they are "working poor", homeless, or otherwise bad off.
The government also needs to be held accountable. They are paid higher salaries than the average American. They have tons of "perks" like a special retirement plan, NOT social security. They take money from special interest groups and lobbyists. They get kick-backs for pork programs. They aren't accountable to the people for their actions. If they were, the Clintons would have been prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L and housing scams. And what happened to all our social security money any way? Why aren't we holding the government accountable? We hold Enron accountable...we bail out AIG and Mac/Fae...(or try to) all because they mismanaged money...why isn't the government being held to the same standard?
Earlier, I stated that I do not believe in coincidence. I really don't. What I see is a trail; the Clinton era "set-up" and the Bush era "spending spree". What I see are two events that created the situation where the Federal Government could take control of the financial markets, and our privacy and personal freedoms.
As the Omnibus Crime Control Act lead to the Patriot Act (which has eroded our rights and freedoms), the poor financial planning, management, and policy have lead to the take-over of our financial institutions (money is power), and the increasing reliance on social services because of the widening gab between the "rich" and the "poor", all point to something that really disturbs me.
So, if someone or some organization really wanted to take over the government, they would only have to do a few things:
Most of the individuals in the high government are rich. This makes us a "Plutocracy" not a "Democracy" (Representative Republic, actually). Supplying money to these individuals ensures their loyalty. Money is power.
Control rights and freedoms in an ambiguous way, so the law can be taken, twisted, and misinterpreted to the benefit of those in power. Once the rights are taken away from the people, there is no freedom. When rights are "controlled" they are no longer rights, but privileges. Privileges are granted by those in power.
Control the money. The ability to give money or take it away to obtain a desired behavior, creates financial oppression. We become a country of "rich" and "poor", and as a plutocracy, the Rich become the "ruling class" over everyone else.
Increase the reliance on federal (and state) social services (mortgage bail-outs, unemployment, disability, etc) gives the Government control on where you live, what you can buy, and how much you can do.
This is happening as I write. The process in the Congress is again being circumvented. The House drafts and then defeats the "bail-out" so the Senate is now doing it on their own. Why not skip all the show, and just enact an executive order to bail-out the companies?
Every problem is a situation waiting for a solution. So, to that end, here are some things that I believe would improve the situation - solutions:
We need to work with all countries that have and are receiving any form of foreign aid to work out a repayment program. Grain, oil, iron, or other products, commodities, services, etc. If we get involved in other countries' wars, they should pay for our services. Iraq, for instance, could pay for 2/3rds of the cost of the war (right now) in OIL. They could repay the other 1/3 later, after the war, or in other "goods or services".
We need to work to better understand the Constitution. People need to know how legislation like the Patriot Act affects their freedoms. The courts need to hear more cases and rule on more constitutional issues. We need clarification, support, and enforcement of the basic principals of the constitution. Not only that, but the constitution lays out the blueprint for the Federal Government's role in the American union of the states. Part of education should be constitutional and governmental classes (just like the "Boy's and Girl's State" programs).
Education should be paid by the people using the service. This would ensure a better education for our children (if you pay for it out of your pocket, not in taxes, you will make sure your child gets the full benefit).
We need to apply the law to individuals and organizations. If you do business outside of the USA, and you import your goods, then you pay the same taxes and tariffs that everyone else pays. Trade agreements should be equal. We should export and import about the same amount of stuff, and all imports must be held to the minimum standard of any product manufactured in the US. This would effectively end our trade with China, as they import about 1/100th from us as we import from them. And it would be an incentive for companies to come back to the USA with their manufacturing.
We should reduce reliance on social services. Let the churches take back control of things like food stamps, unemployment, and other "temporary" services. Let them set the rules and regulations governing "how much" and for "how long" people can receive help. Let the people invest their money instead of a mandated "social security" (which doesn't get used for what it was intended, anyway), my 401K has a higher return rate than social security...
Let education be provided by those using the service. Let the states collect and regulate their taxes for roads, etc. The Federal Government's revenue should come from tariffs and the State's revenue from taxes (sales tax). When the people have more money (pay no income taxes) they buy more goods (with a sales tax system, this means that more taxes are being paid and not just by individuals, but at the same rate by businesses).
Limit the power and authority of the Governments to what is outlined in the Constitution (state and federal) and let the people hold the politicians accountable. Treat politicians as public servants, not aristocracy. Because most of them are "rich" they don't have need of a $100,000 a year salary with all the "perks". As public servants, they should get a small stipend for their service. They should have their food, health care, housing, and transportation paid WHILE THEY ARE WORKING. We should also enact term limits for all elected government positions.
Illegal immigration should be stopped. People that are in this country illegally should not receive any free rides. They should pay taxes. If someone is hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the taxes on the money, they go to jail, have their assets seized and sold at auction. Illegal immigrants, when found, should be immediately deported. No special services offered to them that aren't also offered to our poor, and I would say, if they are here illegally, then NO services provided (a hospital would be required to render aid, and then report the illegal immigrant, who would then be deported).
People need to take a more active role in their government, the government needs to take a less active role in the people.
Bring the US companies back to the US. Or make them pay tariffs just like everyone else, and "foreign taxes" lust like everyone else. Made In America should be the normal, not Made in China...
I know I ask a lot, but with the way things are going, I fear for the future of my children. Is it too much to ask that people educate themselves about their government, their constitutions(s), and their politics? Is it too much to ask that people get involved in the process and help regulate their government? After all, it is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People...shouldn't we treat it as such? Shouldn't we be more "self reliant", and exercise "personal responsibility"?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-does-iraq-war-cost-per-month.html
I also don't believe in coincidences.
Also, I am LDS and being LDS, maybe I read a little too much into the whole Gadianton thing...what with secret combinations and all...it isn't like we don't see them today or anything...
The following is a work in progress...but I thought it was worth trying to get an opinion or two on it...
The following are some thoughts that I really would like to share and hear some comments on, They are interesting observations, and I would like to see if my point of view is valid or if I have missed something or if I have been just a little too eager to see something that isn't there...
How would you take over a government?, or maybe I should phrase it more accurately, How would you take control of a government?
Think about it from a "puppet master" point of view. Everything we see, we are supposed to see - it is what is happening behind the scenes that scares me.
After all, it would be foolish to attack the government straight on, roll tanks up to the capital building, let the entire world know that the US Government has fallen into the control of "someone else". There are too many people that are still loyal to the idea of "America" and too many countries that are still reliant on us for our money to allow another power to take over (other than the one we believe we elect into office). So it would have to be done another way, while keeping up the appearance that we still have something to do with controlling our government.
9/11, I think, should have been a wake-up call to us. For some, it was, for others, it was another "conspiracy" to expose, and still others bought the party line. I am still unsure about the whole origins of the attacks on the World Trade Center (both attacks) and the Oklahoma Federal Building. There is just too much that doesn't seem to add up, and still too many questions unanswered.
I don't think it was a conspiracy from within the government...but I don't know for sure. If it was, it would mean that high ranking (presidential level, etc) politicians from both the Democrat and Republican parties had been planning 9/11 from about the same time Kennedy was assassinated. With the Internet and related "free" information sources, and the accompanying "leaks", I doubt any organization could have kept something like that quiet for so long. So I still have questions on the whole thing...
I do believe, however, that the organization or the individuals "behind" the government used these events to their full advantage. The government's reaction to these events is what I find most intriguing, and those events are what scare me.
After the first WTC Attack, during the Clinton administration, the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed. This looks very similar to the Patriot Act, so similar it has been called the "baby patriot act" and even more people believe it was the "first draft" of the patriot act, something to test the waters. It was also Clinton that started the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the use of Federal Troops on American soil), and Bush finished it off with another executive order. Both presidents past more executive orders for more various and sundry items than any other president ever. Executive orders are just a way to circumvent the established process of law, and when abused can give the executive branch too much power. We are all familiar with the Patriot Act's passage...which was forced down our throats right after 9/11. Has anyone wondered how they managed to have that much legislation READY TO GO so quickly after 9/11? It must have been ready to be introduced PRIOR to the WTC attack. It has been modified a few times, to correct some of the glaring violations of our rights, but it still controls way too much and gives to much power and authority to the Federal and State governments and their law enforcement agencies. This kind of legislation could NEVER have been passed if 9/11 hadn't happened, too many people would have complained about it and its violations. This is why the Omnibus Crime Control Act passed, it was a very mild version of the Patriot Act, and again, it was passed in response to the first WTC attack.
This gives a little background of the laws and "power and authority" issues that we have faced during the past several administrations. The over-all policy in this regard has been "unanimous" or "bi-partisan" between the Democrats (Clinton) and the Republicans (Bush)...interesting that the same kinds of policy, the very same types of legislation (Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Patriot Act) can be brought to the table by two different (and supposedly opposite) forces.
Our country is currently facing a financial crisis which could ruin our quality of life. Money might not buy happiness, but it does make the world go around. During the Clinton administration a "false economy" was built up in technology. We now call it the "bubble". That bubble burst right after Bush came into office. Naturally, everyone blamed Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Believe it or not, a lot of the pain we are feeling in the financial sector right now, is a direct result of a lot of the other financial hocus pocus during the Clinton administration. The changes that were made to the mortgage lending laws, changes in the financial rules and regulations, many of the changes to the investment markets, the unchecked ability to build up a false economy, and the underhanded accounting practices of major corporations; these all add up to disaster...
Not to mention that American corporations (especially their CEOs) have a pay scale that is 12 times higher than that of their European counterparts. It gets even worse when you consider that the financial crunch is exacerbated by the energy crunch...oil and gasoline prices being at record highs. The costs of every good and service going up astronomically to cover the added fuel costs. Companies going out of business and people being left unemployed.
Everything ads up. When you talk financial markets and money, you cannot separate it all out. Unemployment causes foreclosure, foreclosure causes a surplus in un-purchased homes, banks have property they cannot liquidate, interest rates go down, banks close, financial crisis.
I am sure that most are aware that we wouldn't really have to ever fight a war if we were a little more smart about how we do things. If we stopped giving "foreign aid" to other countries (these foreign aid packages are actually loans: loans that are never paid back by the countries we give the money to). If we took the time to use American resources to manufacture American goods. If we built up a solid economy on Research and Development of new technologies...we could become the world leader in new technology. If we would build up our economy by INVESTING in other countries, just like individuals when they invest in new technologies, or in markets...if we would bring our jobs back to American soil, if we would enact TRULY fair trade (we sell and purchase about the same dollar amount of goods from other countries), we could have a very strong dollar.
A strong dollar is leverage, leverage we can use to get what we want. We wouldn't need to send troops, we could send aid packages (these packages could include food or money)...if they aren't "playing ball" we withhold the aid packages...and I am not talking a loan that would never be paid, but a purchase of goods are more than market price, or as a way to get military strongholds in certain territories, or some other concession...nothing is "free" and anything is better than NOT getting repayment on the loans we give.
No one dies when you use $money as ammo, and the financial markets as troops.
We also need to stop the farm subsidies. I understand it is to control a "run-away" market (farmers cannot make a living if the price of grain is too low) but we can use the excess grain (etc.) to help fund alternative fuel sources, or as good-will for starving people in OUR own country (and other countries as needed - part of the foreign aid)...
Instead of making money on what is happening around the world, we are spending money faster than ever in the history of this country. The dollar has fallen, the financial markets are over stretched, and the government is looking at a $700 BILLION bail-out package. What does the government get for the $700 billion? They get part ownership or a majority stake in the financial companies they bail out. They gain control of the financial standing (more than just the Federal Reserve and interest rate settings) of our country. It would no longer be in the hands of the private sector.
If so much good and bad can be done with money, if money can control the rise and fall of nations, if the ebb and flow of life can be controlled by the almighty dollar, we have now given that control to the Federal government.
Social services come in all shapes and sizes. from Federal highways, freeways, roads, and federally controlled and regulated "state" lands, to food stamps and medical care. These are all controlled by the various Local, State and Federal governments. Once the Federal government gets involved, the states loose their freedom to act independently. Ask Montana. Montana moved their Freeway speeds to "reasonable and prudent" which generally meant "anything under 100 mph was acceptable for most vehicles. The Federal government told them to re-enact a standard 75 mph limit, or they would loose federal funding. Wouldn't they call this extortion if a private individual or company tried something similar?
The ever increasing control of how the states run their social services (no child left behind) and the increasing reliance on federal funding put us at the mercy of the Federal government.
Back in the time of Joseph Smith, education was provided by the community. The people with children in school paid for the teacher and the supplies needed. Going to school was a privilege...Today, children MUST get education or they or their parents could face criminal charges. "No child left behind" is just ensuring that all children march to the slowest drummer, so they are all being left behind.
Other social services were handled by the Churches. Not just the LDS Church, but all other churches too. They had their requirements, and their expectations for how you received help; how much for how long, but it was wasn't controlled by the Government, and it wasn't a "free ride".
While it would be nice to be able to provide for everyone, we aren't a socialist country. Our whole philosophy is free market/capitalism. You didn't just receive something for nothing.
Illegal immigrants coming into this country are taking jobs and money. The money they get is usually paid without being taxed, and then the bulk of it is shipped out of the country back to Mexico (or another country). By not taking this seriously, or by trying to find a way to excuse or enable this illegal immigration, we are starting a path to bankruptcy. We give free medical care to illegal immigrants, but not to our own "working poor". We give free education to illegal immigrants, but not to our poor. We have all kinds of housing subsidies, grants, and other moneys that can be provided to illegal immigrants, but not to United States Citizens, if they are "working poor", homeless, or otherwise bad off.
The government also needs to be held accountable. They are paid higher salaries than the average American. They have tons of "perks" like a special retirement plan, NOT social security. They take money from special interest groups and lobbyists. They get kick-backs for pork programs. They aren't accountable to the people for their actions. If they were, the Clintons would have been prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L and housing scams. And what happened to all our social security money any way? Why aren't we holding the government accountable? We hold Enron accountable...we bail out AIG and Mac/Fae...(or try to) all because they mismanaged money...why isn't the government being held to the same standard?
Earlier, I stated that I do not believe in coincidence. I really don't. What I see is a trail; the Clinton era "set-up" and the Bush era "spending spree". What I see are two events that created the situation where the Federal Government could take control of the financial markets, and our privacy and personal freedoms.
As the Omnibus Crime Control Act lead to the Patriot Act (which has eroded our rights and freedoms), the poor financial planning, management, and policy have lead to the take-over of our financial institutions (money is power), and the increasing reliance on social services because of the widening gab between the "rich" and the "poor", all point to something that really disturbs me.
So, if someone or some organization really wanted to take over the government, they would only have to do a few things:
Most of the individuals in the high government are rich. This makes us a "Plutocracy" not a "Democracy" (Representative Republic, actually). Supplying money to these individuals ensures their loyalty. Money is power.
Control rights and freedoms in an ambiguous way, so the law can be taken, twisted, and misinterpreted to the benefit of those in power. Once the rights are taken away from the people, there is no freedom. When rights are "controlled" they are no longer rights, but privileges. Privileges are granted by those in power.
Control the money. The ability to give money or take it away to obtain a desired behavior, creates financial oppression. We become a country of "rich" and "poor", and as a plutocracy, the Rich become the "ruling class" over everyone else.
Increase the reliance on federal (and state) social services (mortgage bail-outs, unemployment, disability, etc) gives the Government control on where you live, what you can buy, and how much you can do.
This is happening as I write. The process in the Congress is again being circumvented. The House drafts and then defeats the "bail-out" so the Senate is now doing it on their own. Why not skip all the show, and just enact an executive order to bail-out the companies?
Every problem is a situation waiting for a solution. So, to that end, here are some things that I believe would improve the situation - solutions:
We need to work with all countries that have and are receiving any form of foreign aid to work out a repayment program. Grain, oil, iron, or other products, commodities, services, etc. If we get involved in other countries' wars, they should pay for our services. Iraq, for instance, could pay for 2/3rds of the cost of the war (right now) in OIL. They could repay the other 1/3 later, after the war, or in other "goods or services".
We need to work to better understand the Constitution. People need to know how legislation like the Patriot Act affects their freedoms. The courts need to hear more cases and rule on more constitutional issues. We need clarification, support, and enforcement of the basic principals of the constitution. Not only that, but the constitution lays out the blueprint for the Federal Government's role in the American union of the states. Part of education should be constitutional and governmental classes (just like the "Boy's and Girl's State" programs).
Education should be paid by the people using the service. This would ensure a better education for our children (if you pay for it out of your pocket, not in taxes, you will make sure your child gets the full benefit).
We need to apply the law to individuals and organizations. If you do business outside of the USA, and you import your goods, then you pay the same taxes and tariffs that everyone else pays. Trade agreements should be equal. We should export and import about the same amount of stuff, and all imports must be held to the minimum standard of any product manufactured in the US. This would effectively end our trade with China, as they import about 1/100th from us as we import from them. And it would be an incentive for companies to come back to the USA with their manufacturing.
We should reduce reliance on social services. Let the churches take back control of things like food stamps, unemployment, and other "temporary" services. Let them set the rules and regulations governing "how much" and for "how long" people can receive help. Let the people invest their money instead of a mandated "social security" (which doesn't get used for what it was intended, anyway), my 401K has a higher return rate than social security...
Let education be provided by those using the service. Let the states collect and regulate their taxes for roads, etc. The Federal Government's revenue should come from tariffs and the State's revenue from taxes (sales tax). When the people have more money (pay no income taxes) they buy more goods (with a sales tax system, this means that more taxes are being paid and not just by individuals, but at the same rate by businesses).
Limit the power and authority of the Governments to what is outlined in the Constitution (state and federal) and let the people hold the politicians accountable. Treat politicians as public servants, not aristocracy. Because most of them are "rich" they don't have need of a $100,000 a year salary with all the "perks". As public servants, they should get a small stipend for their service. They should have their food, health care, housing, and transportation paid WHILE THEY ARE WORKING. We should also enact term limits for all elected government positions.
Illegal immigration should be stopped. People that are in this country illegally should not receive any free rides. They should pay taxes. If someone is hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the taxes on the money, they go to jail, have their assets seized and sold at auction. Illegal immigrants, when found, should be immediately deported. No special services offered to them that aren't also offered to our poor, and I would say, if they are here illegally, then NO services provided (a hospital would be required to render aid, and then report the illegal immigrant, who would then be deported).
People need to take a more active role in their government, the government needs to take a less active role in the people.
Bring the US companies back to the US. Or make them pay tariffs just like everyone else, and "foreign taxes" lust like everyone else. Made In America should be the normal, not Made in China...
I know I ask a lot, but with the way things are going, I fear for the future of my children. Is it too much to ask that people educate themselves about their government, their constitutions(s), and their politics? Is it too much to ask that people get involved in the process and help regulate their government? After all, it is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People...shouldn't we treat it as such? Shouldn't we be more "self reliant", and exercise "personal responsibility"?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-does-iraq-war-cost-per-month.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)