There was a song that Sting had in the 80s that struck me to be pretty profound. The name of that song is Russians. The lyrics follow:
In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if the Russians love their children too
End.
What struck me so deeply was that like us Americans, the Russians do love their children. This more than anything else would deter a nuclear exchange between our nations.
What terrifies me now is that our enemy today does not feel this way. The Islamic Extremist believes that no matter the cost here and now, Allah is waiting with paradise. They believe it to the point that counting costs is dismissed as irrelevant. If children must die, well, Allah has them as well. When I think of these guys, I think of this:
Kyle: (to Sarah Connor) Listen, and understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
These Islamic Extremist are much like the Terminator. They do not count cost to themselves. They are true believers. They are mindless automations. They are terminators. Their target is our way of life. Their target is us.
Can you not see the difference between the Russians and the Islamic Extremist?
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The lowdown on the taxes
In less than six months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.
They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.
On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...
First Wave:
Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.
These will all expire on January 1, 2011.
Personal income tax rates will rise.
The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).
The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.
All the rates in between will also rise.
Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as highermarginal tax rates.
The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family.
The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.
The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.
The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.
The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax.
This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent
top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn’t make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?
Higher tax rates on savers and investors.
The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.
The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.
These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave:
Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"
Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The "Special Needs Kids Tax"
This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.
There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.
Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.
Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.
This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAsand other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave:
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.
The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.
According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.
Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000.
This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.
In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.
There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.
The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.
Tax credits for education will be limited.
Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.
Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.
The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.
Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.
This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.
PDF Version Read more:
And worse yet?
Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!
Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.
If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.
For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.
This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.
Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....
On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,
as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."
- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.
- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.
Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.
People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November!
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Overwhelmed
Right now as I look over the news I feel overwhelmed. I am in stunned incredulousness when looking at statements made by people who believe government and more government is the answer to....anything. I am stunned at people who seriously speak of greedy capitalists. I am amazed at people who blame free markets for our present issues. I am amazed that they do not know that there has been no free market in many things for decades.
Parts of our current problems go back to ratification of the constitution. I guess the founders felt like their political descendants would be able to comprehend at a third grade level. I can read the constitution and understand it. What is this nonsense about 'interpreting the constitution?' The thing is in plain English. It isn't in runes. If you hear talk of interpreting the constitution, that means making it say something other than that which it does.
A huge part of the problem is in the diminution of the states.
A huge part of the problem is in citing things as being from the constitution that are nowhere in it. One example is the separation of church and state.
Thus falling like a waterfall from points above, the federal government involves itself in things constitutionally left to states and individuals.
1913. My grandmother was born. She is a hero to me. Yet, that same year brought the federal reserve and the income tax system.
Social Security came along. Medicare came along. As quickly as they were created, they were looted.
Our government has no desire to enforce our borders. A country without borders is no country. Any entity without borders is no entity. Things cannot exist without borders.
We wage war against human nature and a human's right to decide what do do with his body. Has the war on drugs solved a thing? Sorry Ron. I love you man, but you were as wrong as a man can be in deciding to declare a war on drugs.
We are supposed to be a free people. The individual was to reign supreme. We are no democracy. A democracy is mob rule. We are a constitutional republic. With freedom comes responsibility. Being responsible is hard. It is so much easier to let someone else do it. In giving up responsibility, we have given up our individual liberty.
Here we are.
To regain our liberty means shouldering the responsibility. I like to think I can, but the fact is, I don't know. I don't know if my shoulders can hold. I have never used them before - not in this way. I do know that I am more able than 70% of the population at the least. But will it be enough?
There is no choice you know. If we don't fix it. It will all collapse under it's own weight. Then there will be blood.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Parts of our current problems go back to ratification of the constitution. I guess the founders felt like their political descendants would be able to comprehend at a third grade level. I can read the constitution and understand it. What is this nonsense about 'interpreting the constitution?' The thing is in plain English. It isn't in runes. If you hear talk of interpreting the constitution, that means making it say something other than that which it does.
A huge part of the problem is in the diminution of the states.
A huge part of the problem is in citing things as being from the constitution that are nowhere in it. One example is the separation of church and state.
Thus falling like a waterfall from points above, the federal government involves itself in things constitutionally left to states and individuals.
1913. My grandmother was born. She is a hero to me. Yet, that same year brought the federal reserve and the income tax system.
Social Security came along. Medicare came along. As quickly as they were created, they were looted.
Our government has no desire to enforce our borders. A country without borders is no country. Any entity without borders is no entity. Things cannot exist without borders.
We wage war against human nature and a human's right to decide what do do with his body. Has the war on drugs solved a thing? Sorry Ron. I love you man, but you were as wrong as a man can be in deciding to declare a war on drugs.
We are supposed to be a free people. The individual was to reign supreme. We are no democracy. A democracy is mob rule. We are a constitutional republic. With freedom comes responsibility. Being responsible is hard. It is so much easier to let someone else do it. In giving up responsibility, we have given up our individual liberty.
Here we are.
To regain our liberty means shouldering the responsibility. I like to think I can, but the fact is, I don't know. I don't know if my shoulders can hold. I have never used them before - not in this way. I do know that I am more able than 70% of the population at the least. But will it be enough?
There is no choice you know. If we don't fix it. It will all collapse under it's own weight. Then there will be blood.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Groups
ANY disent from ANY part of a group's agenda makes you suspicious to that group. I would not fit in with any political party. I agree more with the conservative viewpoint than the liberal. I am mostly, but not completely of a libertarian mindset. I am me. I am an individual. I am the minority. There is only one of me. Each of you are a minority...only one of each of you. I know what I know to be true. Who said??...I did!! I evaluate for myself. There have been white people I despised, there have been white people I loved. There have been black people I despised, there have been black people I loved. You cannot do a thing about the pigmentation of your skin. You can live in the past - picking at old wounds to make them bleed. You can take advantage of the present instead. You can have callous disreagard for old wounds. You can be compassionate in consideration that old wounds always change the sufferer's viewpoint. I call on my black brethren to soar past the oppression long gone. I call upon you to reject being pigeonholed. Soar!!! Fly!!! You can if only you will!!! Why listen to leaders that complain about how oppressed they are when they are among the richest of any of us? I call upon my white brethren to do the same. For those of you that labor primarily to divide and injure, I call upon you to find your humanity.
My rant on an Article about Greta Van Sustern.
Greta Van Sustern's show mixed up pics of a couple of individuals that happen to be other than white. Over on Yahoo, there is a bunch of name calling and stupidity going on over it. It is everything from racial accusations to hatefulness aimed in every direction. I posted the following. I am trying to reason with people, get them to see that there is more to things they think are simple, while the truly small things are made complicated beyond belief.
Reply Below:::::
Look, her show made a mistake. She has apologized. Let it go. For those who spew vileness at Fox, how about saving some of that for MSNBC??
Lets not talk Obama, let us talk about a position.
Do YOU think that healthcare is a right? Unlike speech, healthcare is a service and a product. If any service or product is a right, someone is under an obligation to provide that service or product. So, if you have the right to be seen by a Doc, the what of the Doc's rights? After all, time is all that any of us truly have - and in a finite amount. If a Doc is obligated to provide you with healthcare, then you are claiming entitlement to part of his time...part of his life. Do you follow? Do you still want to go down this road?? Suppose the Doc doesn't WANT to treat YOU?? Suppose that he wants to start a practice where he sees only patients that can pay him in full - He wants no involvement in the government healthcare system. Will the government allow that? Do you REALLY think they will? Do you think invention and innovation occur under coercion? After all, that expensive new drug is expensive now. Just because it can cure a disease, does that give a disease sufferer automatic claim to it? Would it help the disease sufferer that cannot afford it and may die - if the drug were never invented? What about the disease sufferer that can afford the drug 10 years down the road when the drug has become cheap? Like ANY new thing, the price is higher until the R&D have been paid. The price is higher until it starts gaining wider use. As that happens, the price will fall. As similar cures hit the market, the price falls further. No Doctor or Drug Company OWES you ANYTHING. They are in it for various reasons. One of them is to make money. Do you think that is evil? Would YOU work where your clientele claimed that you owed your product or service to them? Where they have a right to a portion of YOUR life?
Do you think Health Insurance too expensive? Why do you think an INSURANCE should cover every doctors visit? Health Insurance was originally about covering Hospitalization. In other words, health insurance was about catastrophic coverage. If car insurance was run like health insurance, it would cover oil changes and cost 10 times what it does now. Can you tell me how much the cash price is to your local doc? Did you know that many will negotiate cash price with you? Would you buy a car where the dealership did not tell you the price - where you find out the price only after the bill is sent to your house a month after you have started driving the car?? Why do we allow this in the medical field? Why do the prices keep going up for medical insurance? It is because it is being used like crazy. An insurance company, like any other, HAS to take in more than it puts out.
Any time an administrative layer is introduced into something, inefficiencies are created and resources are consumed. So hypothetically speaking, if currently only 50 cents of every dollar invested in the healthcare industry actually makes it to the patient, that amount will fall with government added into it. Maybe only 25 cents of a dollar makes it to the patient. It costs to push paper.
Seriously, think about these things!! Honestly consider them. That is all that I ask.
Reply Below:::::
Look, her show made a mistake. She has apologized. Let it go. For those who spew vileness at Fox, how about saving some of that for MSNBC??
Lets not talk Obama, let us talk about a position.
Do YOU think that healthcare is a right? Unlike speech, healthcare is a service and a product. If any service or product is a right, someone is under an obligation to provide that service or product. So, if you have the right to be seen by a Doc, the what of the Doc's rights? After all, time is all that any of us truly have - and in a finite amount. If a Doc is obligated to provide you with healthcare, then you are claiming entitlement to part of his time...part of his life. Do you follow? Do you still want to go down this road?? Suppose the Doc doesn't WANT to treat YOU?? Suppose that he wants to start a practice where he sees only patients that can pay him in full - He wants no involvement in the government healthcare system. Will the government allow that? Do you REALLY think they will? Do you think invention and innovation occur under coercion? After all, that expensive new drug is expensive now. Just because it can cure a disease, does that give a disease sufferer automatic claim to it? Would it help the disease sufferer that cannot afford it and may die - if the drug were never invented? What about the disease sufferer that can afford the drug 10 years down the road when the drug has become cheap? Like ANY new thing, the price is higher until the R&D have been paid. The price is higher until it starts gaining wider use. As that happens, the price will fall. As similar cures hit the market, the price falls further. No Doctor or Drug Company OWES you ANYTHING. They are in it for various reasons. One of them is to make money. Do you think that is evil? Would YOU work where your clientele claimed that you owed your product or service to them? Where they have a right to a portion of YOUR life?
Do you think Health Insurance too expensive? Why do you think an INSURANCE should cover every doctors visit? Health Insurance was originally about covering Hospitalization. In other words, health insurance was about catastrophic coverage. If car insurance was run like health insurance, it would cover oil changes and cost 10 times what it does now. Can you tell me how much the cash price is to your local doc? Did you know that many will negotiate cash price with you? Would you buy a car where the dealership did not tell you the price - where you find out the price only after the bill is sent to your house a month after you have started driving the car?? Why do we allow this in the medical field? Why do the prices keep going up for medical insurance? It is because it is being used like crazy. An insurance company, like any other, HAS to take in more than it puts out.
Any time an administrative layer is introduced into something, inefficiencies are created and resources are consumed. So hypothetically speaking, if currently only 50 cents of every dollar invested in the healthcare industry actually makes it to the patient, that amount will fall with government added into it. Maybe only 25 cents of a dollar makes it to the patient. It costs to push paper.
Seriously, think about these things!! Honestly consider them. That is all that I ask.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The iPad
What is WRONG with people? The iPad is a product. It is a voluntary purchase. Yet, the vitriol is incredible.
First, Yes, I bought one.
For what purpose?
For me....:
1) web browsing
2) book reading
3) expense reports
4) email
5) planner
6) games
7) watch movies
8) listen to music
9) view and edit photos
10)finances
11) remote desktop
12) note taking with synchronized voice recording.
Now let's break down web browsing. Note that Adobe Flash is not supported on i-anything.
1-eBay
2-craigslist
3-Anything that doesn't require flash.
4-This blog.........and on and on and on.
Here is the kicker - all this in a hand held form factor. About 1.5 pounds. Instant on...no bootup wait. 10 hour battery life. Perfectly executed touchscreen. For me, it takes the iPod touch and makes it useful.
Over 90% of the time I used to spend on a pc is now spent on the iPad.
Do I wish that this little marvel could function for my complete computer needs? Heck yes I do!!! It is all the more frustrating because this thing is so close to being able to do just that. Yet, it is a huge step forward. Remember, it was this company that pushed us all from the world of the command line to the world of the graphical user interface. Sooner or later, I think we will see high horsepower tablets that can do CAD, run Photo Shop, rip music and movies, edit video, and play the latest games.
Now, to the insanity.
I have seen articles that have
Accused users of the iPad of
1) Being Apple Fanboi's (what is fan boy too mundane????)
2) Being narcissisists
3) Being unintelligent
4) Being a mind slave to Steve Jobs.
5) Being anti open source.
6) Being unkind people.
I have also seen much mud slung the other way as well.
Just how did I end up with one? What made me decide to purchase one.
I had a Sony Reader. I had started getting books on it. I had placed all of my technical literature on it. I liked it a lot too. Then one day, I took it out to read a book I had just downloaded. The e-ink cells had ruptured in the screen turning it black. I sent it back to Sony to be repaired. The next day, I had to drive to St. Louis on a business trip. I stopped near Huntington,WV for supper. There was a Best Buy there. I went in considering purchasing a second Sony reader. I had heard of the iPad. (this was three days after launch in April) I was doubtful. I went to see it just out of curiosity. Obviously, I liked what I saw. Now, I have the Sony back. My wife has it, but she not so secretly lusts after my iPad. I have bought ebooks from numerous sources. They are all in Ibooks. If you know that you aren't supposed to be able to do that, ask me no questions. (if I sound a bit smug, I am. I BUY the books. I will NOT be told what I can and cannot do with it. Screw DRM. By the same token, don't pirate the book. That is why the DRM weed was able to sprout in all forms of media digital.)
Try one if you are interested. Best Buy in Lynchburg, Va and in Christiansburg, Va have them. The Roanoke Best Buy is so abysmal that I wonder if they will ever get them. Try it, if you like it enough, buy one. If not then don't. I like it. It fits my needs well. Is there any need to insult me because of it?
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
First, Yes, I bought one.
For what purpose?
For me....:
1) web browsing
2) book reading
3) expense reports
4) email
5) planner
6) games
7) watch movies
8) listen to music
9) view and edit photos
10)finances
11) remote desktop
12) note taking with synchronized voice recording.
Now let's break down web browsing. Note that Adobe Flash is not supported on i-anything.
1-eBay
2-craigslist
3-Anything that doesn't require flash.
4-This blog.........and on and on and on.
Here is the kicker - all this in a hand held form factor. About 1.5 pounds. Instant on...no bootup wait. 10 hour battery life. Perfectly executed touchscreen. For me, it takes the iPod touch and makes it useful.
Over 90% of the time I used to spend on a pc is now spent on the iPad.
Do I wish that this little marvel could function for my complete computer needs? Heck yes I do!!! It is all the more frustrating because this thing is so close to being able to do just that. Yet, it is a huge step forward. Remember, it was this company that pushed us all from the world of the command line to the world of the graphical user interface. Sooner or later, I think we will see high horsepower tablets that can do CAD, run Photo Shop, rip music and movies, edit video, and play the latest games.
Now, to the insanity.
I have seen articles that have
Accused users of the iPad of
1) Being Apple Fanboi's (what is fan boy too mundane????)
2) Being narcissisists
3) Being unintelligent
4) Being a mind slave to Steve Jobs.
5) Being anti open source.
6) Being unkind people.
I have also seen much mud slung the other way as well.
Just how did I end up with one? What made me decide to purchase one.
I had a Sony Reader. I had started getting books on it. I had placed all of my technical literature on it. I liked it a lot too. Then one day, I took it out to read a book I had just downloaded. The e-ink cells had ruptured in the screen turning it black. I sent it back to Sony to be repaired. The next day, I had to drive to St. Louis on a business trip. I stopped near Huntington,WV for supper. There was a Best Buy there. I went in considering purchasing a second Sony reader. I had heard of the iPad. (this was three days after launch in April) I was doubtful. I went to see it just out of curiosity. Obviously, I liked what I saw. Now, I have the Sony back. My wife has it, but she not so secretly lusts after my iPad. I have bought ebooks from numerous sources. They are all in Ibooks. If you know that you aren't supposed to be able to do that, ask me no questions. (if I sound a bit smug, I am. I BUY the books. I will NOT be told what I can and cannot do with it. Screw DRM. By the same token, don't pirate the book. That is why the DRM weed was able to sprout in all forms of media digital.)
Try one if you are interested. Best Buy in Lynchburg, Va and in Christiansburg, Va have them. The Roanoke Best Buy is so abysmal that I wonder if they will ever get them. Try it, if you like it enough, buy one. If not then don't. I like it. It fits my needs well. Is there any need to insult me because of it?
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Rights and Healthcare
What is a right? Can you define it? Most of us have an amorphous idea of rights. I tend to be more libertarian with a couple of kinks thrown in here and there. To have complete liberty, one must be alone on an island somewhere. Then one can do whatever one wishes and will bear the responsibility and the consequences of ones choices. It is on the island that you will find the only intrinsic absolute. One has the here and now and one's past. That is IT! One has the right to make decisions that affect one's life, and one bears the consequences of those decisions. Add another person to the island. Now the stronger overall will rule the weaker to the extent of the strength of the stronger, the desire to influence of the stronger, and the tolerance of the weaker. The strength of which I speak is not necessarily physical, but it can be. Now what are the rights of each? They are each still bound by the intrinsic absolute of the decision of the moment. They still each bear the consequences. If the weaker follows the stronger and the stronger makes a bad decision, the weaker does bear the consequences of the bad decision made by the stronger. However, those consequences flow back further to the decision to submit to the stronger.
I listen to many of the conservative pundits. I agree with much of what they have to say. However, I start to get real angry when they start shoveling the rights by God horse manure. Now I am in no way an atheist. What I am is attentive to the most fundamental thing my religion states. Free Will. There are things that God wants of us, but he is hands off. For Pat Robertsons and Falwells that claim that some natural disaster is Devine retribution for some failing as a society, guys...who made YOU gods? Who are YOU to sit in judgement? For you Islamic adherents that like to use force to spread the message of Allah, I ask you this. Is Allah such an effeminate deity that he can't take care of things such as judgement for himself? God is hands off. Furthermore, if we distill it down to an issue of a decision in a moment, not even an atheist can argue. What we have beyond the intrinsic NOW are rights created by civilization.
Free speech, right to bear arms, searches and seizures are all rights created by our American Society. Does our being cry out for these freedoms? Perhaps, but that does not mitigate the fact that they are enjoyed because we value them as a people. This makes our rights all the more fragile - all the more precious.
So do you have a right to healthcare? If you are alone on the island, how does that work? There may be a civil right to healthcare if the society as a whole deems it so. However, societal rights are even more complex than the simple case of two people on an island. Now we have millions and millions. Let's look at a case of freedom of speech in society.
I have a freedom of speech. However, I am not on a desert island. How does my freedom of speech interplay with someone else's right to be secure in their person? If one has an absolute right of freedom of speech then one can threaten and intimidate. The other party has no recourse. However, by the same token, one can not have absolute security in their person. That would mean that any speech that made them angry or uncomfortable must be squelched. As a rule, the borderland between rights tends to be on a physical level. I can call you a dumb ass, but I can't threaten to physically harm you. I can tell others that I think you are stupid, but I may not tell falsehoods about you to cause damage to your standing amongst other men.
Let's look at another thing that some call a right. That thing is healthcare.
Healthcare is a product. It is a service. Should it be a right? That is for society as a whole to decide and for individuals to decide whether or not that will stand. Consider this. Unlike other rights that we have, healthcare IS a product and a service. This means that another human must labor to provide healthcare to someone. Labor and Invention are rooted in time. Time is a finite thing for any individual. To assert a right to a product or service is to assert a right to someones time. If a product or service is a right, then the person providing it has no choice but to provide the product or service. So now one person has the right to take part of someone's life. Is this where we want to go? Perhaps you say it is not healthcare but access....... We already have that. If you can pay the price that the provider requests, you can have any procedure you want. Do you call that evil? Why?
Do you say that the doctors and nurses will be paid by the government? Where is that money coming from? Will the doctor still be able to be in business for himself and not have to take what the government offers, but be able to charge what he wants? I would say not. If that is allowed the system falls apart even faster. The talent will go where the reward is.
So many people want health insurance to be that which pays everything medical. If people treated car insurance this way, all car repairs would be covered under insurance. Insurance is meant to protect against catastrophic events. It is not meant to cover a doc's visit for a cold. What we have done by pushing insurance down to the office visit level is to increase the price of the office visit. Now the fee for the office visit must also cover the cost of the paper pushing staff. What we have done is obfuscated the price for anything medical. When I was a child, I used to go to Dr. McLung or Dr. Coffey. We knew the office visit was going to be a certain amount. If a shot was involved, that was a certain amount. However, the corruption was proceeding even then.
It is also human nature to use something more freely if one does not attribute a concrete value to it. So many people with insurance go to the doctor for things that they would otherwise let time heal. This drives up costs as well. And the office visit fee not only pays for the doctors office paper pushers, it also has to account for those in the insurance company. Every middleman involved has his cost added to the tab. Do you really want government healthcare with government as an additional middleman?
Also we are already paying for medical care for others. Should we be? Should we be paying for treatment for the abusers of modern chemistry? Should we be paying for treatment for those who engaged in risky sexual behaviors? Both of these groups of people made a choice to engage in these activities. Both of these groups of people would protest my interference in their engaging of these activities. Each group would assert their right to their own individuality and choices. If I get no say in your behavior, why should I be forced to bear the financial repercussions of your behavior? I agree completely with Andrew Wilkow in the following statement. Your freedom to be you includes my right to be free from you.
The fact is as with anything that new drugs and treatments are expensive at first. With adoption and use, price goes down. The 16gb iPad wifi only is $500.00 right now. Five years from now, a tablet that dwarfs the $500 iPad in ability will cost substantially less. The fact that we are talking about things that save lives is irrelevant. Would you rather these things not come at all? Brilliant people are not going to invent and innovate under compulsion.
So if you have some disease and the price of treatment is too high, beg charity, friends, family, and those wealthy enough to pay. What of those before the treatment was invented? They suffered or died. They were not so greedy that in their grasping, they prevented the treatment from being invented. Are you so greedy that you feel if you can't have it, no one should? You are a fool if you think you can compel invention and innovation.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
I listen to many of the conservative pundits. I agree with much of what they have to say. However, I start to get real angry when they start shoveling the rights by God horse manure. Now I am in no way an atheist. What I am is attentive to the most fundamental thing my religion states. Free Will. There are things that God wants of us, but he is hands off. For Pat Robertsons and Falwells that claim that some natural disaster is Devine retribution for some failing as a society, guys...who made YOU gods? Who are YOU to sit in judgement? For you Islamic adherents that like to use force to spread the message of Allah, I ask you this. Is Allah such an effeminate deity that he can't take care of things such as judgement for himself? God is hands off. Furthermore, if we distill it down to an issue of a decision in a moment, not even an atheist can argue. What we have beyond the intrinsic NOW are rights created by civilization.
Free speech, right to bear arms, searches and seizures are all rights created by our American Society. Does our being cry out for these freedoms? Perhaps, but that does not mitigate the fact that they are enjoyed because we value them as a people. This makes our rights all the more fragile - all the more precious.
So do you have a right to healthcare? If you are alone on the island, how does that work? There may be a civil right to healthcare if the society as a whole deems it so. However, societal rights are even more complex than the simple case of two people on an island. Now we have millions and millions. Let's look at a case of freedom of speech in society.
I have a freedom of speech. However, I am not on a desert island. How does my freedom of speech interplay with someone else's right to be secure in their person? If one has an absolute right of freedom of speech then one can threaten and intimidate. The other party has no recourse. However, by the same token, one can not have absolute security in their person. That would mean that any speech that made them angry or uncomfortable must be squelched. As a rule, the borderland between rights tends to be on a physical level. I can call you a dumb ass, but I can't threaten to physically harm you. I can tell others that I think you are stupid, but I may not tell falsehoods about you to cause damage to your standing amongst other men.
Let's look at another thing that some call a right. That thing is healthcare.
Healthcare is a product. It is a service. Should it be a right? That is for society as a whole to decide and for individuals to decide whether or not that will stand. Consider this. Unlike other rights that we have, healthcare IS a product and a service. This means that another human must labor to provide healthcare to someone. Labor and Invention are rooted in time. Time is a finite thing for any individual. To assert a right to a product or service is to assert a right to someones time. If a product or service is a right, then the person providing it has no choice but to provide the product or service. So now one person has the right to take part of someone's life. Is this where we want to go? Perhaps you say it is not healthcare but access....... We already have that. If you can pay the price that the provider requests, you can have any procedure you want. Do you call that evil? Why?
Do you say that the doctors and nurses will be paid by the government? Where is that money coming from? Will the doctor still be able to be in business for himself and not have to take what the government offers, but be able to charge what he wants? I would say not. If that is allowed the system falls apart even faster. The talent will go where the reward is.
So many people want health insurance to be that which pays everything medical. If people treated car insurance this way, all car repairs would be covered under insurance. Insurance is meant to protect against catastrophic events. It is not meant to cover a doc's visit for a cold. What we have done by pushing insurance down to the office visit level is to increase the price of the office visit. Now the fee for the office visit must also cover the cost of the paper pushing staff. What we have done is obfuscated the price for anything medical. When I was a child, I used to go to Dr. McLung or Dr. Coffey. We knew the office visit was going to be a certain amount. If a shot was involved, that was a certain amount. However, the corruption was proceeding even then.
It is also human nature to use something more freely if one does not attribute a concrete value to it. So many people with insurance go to the doctor for things that they would otherwise let time heal. This drives up costs as well. And the office visit fee not only pays for the doctors office paper pushers, it also has to account for those in the insurance company. Every middleman involved has his cost added to the tab. Do you really want government healthcare with government as an additional middleman?
Also we are already paying for medical care for others. Should we be? Should we be paying for treatment for the abusers of modern chemistry? Should we be paying for treatment for those who engaged in risky sexual behaviors? Both of these groups of people made a choice to engage in these activities. Both of these groups of people would protest my interference in their engaging of these activities. Each group would assert their right to their own individuality and choices. If I get no say in your behavior, why should I be forced to bear the financial repercussions of your behavior? I agree completely with Andrew Wilkow in the following statement. Your freedom to be you includes my right to be free from you.
The fact is as with anything that new drugs and treatments are expensive at first. With adoption and use, price goes down. The 16gb iPad wifi only is $500.00 right now. Five years from now, a tablet that dwarfs the $500 iPad in ability will cost substantially less. The fact that we are talking about things that save lives is irrelevant. Would you rather these things not come at all? Brilliant people are not going to invent and innovate under compulsion.
So if you have some disease and the price of treatment is too high, beg charity, friends, family, and those wealthy enough to pay. What of those before the treatment was invented? They suffered or died. They were not so greedy that in their grasping, they prevented the treatment from being invented. Are you so greedy that you feel if you can't have it, no one should? You are a fool if you think you can compel invention and innovation.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Are you really a liberal?
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.
A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals want those they don't like to be silenced.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal is a non-believer he wants any mention of religion silenced.
If a conservative needs health insurance he shops for it, or looks for a job that will provide it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us provide for it.
A conservative will read this and will forward it, so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will read this and delete it, because he's offended.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution
Below is A1S8. My analysis is at the end.
Section 8.
8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
8.4 To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
8.5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
8.6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
8.7 To establish post offices and post roads;
8.8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
8.9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
8.10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
8.11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
8.13 To provide and maintain a navy;
8.14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
8.17 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now, note the phrase 'General Welfare' in section 1.
8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This is improperly construed to mean that the federal government can make any law it pleases. What this means is a tax can be levied to pay debt, to pay for defense, and to WAIT!!!!!!!! The phrase is "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This implies that the general welfare of the United States means the welfare of the nation's sovereignty. This in no way means healthcare. The Welfare clause is applied to the welfare of the nation AS an independent sovereign nation.
Now, note 'necessary and proper' in section 18
8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
This implies that congress may pass laws as needed to carry out 8.1 through 8.17.
This would be correct.
HOWEVER ......there is a catch. The catch is this
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The first 10 amendments.
So the enumerated powers are restricted by the amendments.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Section 8.
8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
8.4 To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
8.5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
8.6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
8.7 To establish post offices and post roads;
8.8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
8.9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
8.10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
8.11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
8.13 To provide and maintain a navy;
8.14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
8.17 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now, note the phrase 'General Welfare' in section 1.
8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This is improperly construed to mean that the federal government can make any law it pleases. What this means is a tax can be levied to pay debt, to pay for defense, and to WAIT!!!!!!!! The phrase is "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This implies that the general welfare of the United States means the welfare of the nation's sovereignty. This in no way means healthcare. The Welfare clause is applied to the welfare of the nation AS an independent sovereign nation.
Now, note 'necessary and proper' in section 18
8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
This implies that congress may pass laws as needed to carry out 8.1 through 8.17.
This would be correct.
HOWEVER ......there is a catch. The catch is this
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The first 10 amendments.
So the enumerated powers are restricted by the amendments.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
When the striking of a gun ban is bad
For those of you that know me, you may be surprised. I am emphatically against the Supreme Court ruling on Chicago's gun ban. I also detest gun bans. WHAT?!?! HOW can that BE? The article linked below explains it perfectly.
http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4759:160-years-no-longer-counts-as-precident-if-you-follow-the-incorperation-doctrine&catid=960:public-transcripts&Itemid=300038
Read the constitution folks. Read it carefully.
Defining the incorporation doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4759:160-years-no-longer-counts-as-precident-if-you-follow-the-incorperation-doctrine&catid=960:public-transcripts&Itemid=300038
Read the constitution folks. Read it carefully.
Defining the incorporation doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Heart of the Matter
Let us dismiss left and right, Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative. Let us dismiss these labels and speak to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is in where to place government in relation to the individual entity. The individual entity can be a person or any group of people. To drill deeper, any individual group is comprised of individual people.
To have no government at all is unworkable in any scale beyond Gilligan's Island. Even there in that farce there were Skipper and Professor that were authority on the island. To have no government is to revert to Darwin - survival of the fittest. To have no governance in a population is to have no rights and no peace beyond what the strongest individual permits. In a population there is always governance. In a population, there is no such thing as no government. That of which we are speaking is the Strongman. The secret is that the practical effects of no government and complete government control are similar for the individual people under each.
To have complete government is to leave no choices to the individual at all. All is decided by government - from bedtime, sexual partner, choice of food. Like the complete absence of government, complete government is impossible. It is a practical impossibility to micromanage a population of individual people in such a manner.
Human nature is the rule of the strongman. Or should is say the strongman is our animal nature? To be human is to rise above our base animal nature. Furthermore, we have to use our animal nature as a beast in harness to make possible our humanity. We have to make our animal nature serve us rather than us serving our animal nature. What is our animal nature controlling us? It is murder, theft, dishonesty. In Christian parlance, an individual that succumbs to his animal nature in an instance has sinned. Someone that steals is giving in to animal nature. In the theft, he is failing to be human in that instance.
The function of a just government is to allow the greatest amount of it's population to be human. The function of government is that of any protective structure. Unfortunately, government is made up of individual people and can have the same failings as an individual.
So we return to the question. What is the proper position of the government in relation to individual entities such as people, businesses, schools, churches, and so on. I have my opinion as does any other intelligent person. The position of government in relation to individual entities defines the type of government that we have.
Other than the two opposites of strongman and absolute government, what are the common types of government? They are Democratic, Constitutional
Republic, Communist, Socialist, Theocratic, Dictatorial, and an Oligarchy.
Democratic Government is rule of the mob. We do not have a democracy in the United States. In a democracy, the rights of 49% of the individuals are decided by 51% of the other individuals.
A Constitutional Republic is what the United States most resembles. Representatives are elected to groups that must vote in a vast majority to enact a alteration to the structure of a governing charter. Common laws must pass multiple groups by simple majority to be presented to an executive that may approve or deny the law. The executive may be overruled by the legislative body by reaffirming the law by a super majority. Then there is a judiciary that has the duty to reconcile the law to the governing charter if the legislation is challenged in a court of law. The judiciary will either affirm or strike the law depending on whether or not the law falls within the structure of the governing charter. Our governing charter in the United States is the Constitution and it's amendments. The dividing of the government into three branches is what is known as Separation of Powers. The Constitution limits what may be done.
In my research, there are numerous '-archies.' There are monarchies. There are simply dozens. Most fit into one called an Oligarchy. An oligarchy is made up of a very small ruling class that controls the functions of government.
A communist government is almost a oxymoron. Supposedly, the people all share in all the functions of government to the point where an official government withers away from lack of need. In real terms, a communist state usually is single party rule with the legislative body superior to the executive and judiciary. When the legislature is not in session, the legislature's powers pass to a small group of senior legislators. Usually, the communist state exerts a heavy hand in production, which is why socialism and communism are often confused.
A socialist government is one in where the means of production are owned and controlled by the government. Usually that government has a plan of production that the owned industry must implement.
A Theocracy is a government where there is rule by a divinely guided group of people.
There is rarely a pure form of any of these governments.
Now let us pay attention to our government. We in the USA enjoy a Constitutional Republic.
The Constitution and it's amendments are the supreme law of the land. The branches of the federal government have to act in accordance with the constitution. Any law that acts outside the constitution is unconstitutional. A law that is unconstitutional may be made constitutional by means of amending the constitution.
Each official in our government takes a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution. This means that any official that tries to circumvent the constitution by means other than the amendment process is violating the oath of office and is open to criminal prosecution.
Unfortunately, the constitution is being circumvented by interpretation of plain English. The constitution is written and punctuated in a language still living. There are records aplenty of the vernacular in use at the time.
You see, it is within the law of our land to amend our constitution so that a thing can be done. To do the thing without reconciling it to the constitution is lawlessness. If we have lawlessness, we fall.
So we have to decide.
1 - What social programs do we want government to administer. Keep in mind that the administration is done by appointed individual people with their own degrees of humanity. Realize that with each thing that government is asked to do requires transfer of individual liberty to government. You are giving government some control of some facet of your life.
2 - What is the proper role of government in business. Realize that government involvement in business usually increases expense that is passes to the consumer. Realize that the government involvement can often produce results opposite to those intended.
3 - what role should government have in the administration of the economy. The USA, like other governments, has a fiat currency. This means that the currency, the money, itself has no intrinsic value. This gives government enormous power. Let's say you have worked hard to earn a million dollars. That million will buy a certain house. Say the government elects to print money until the supply of money has doubled. Your million will no longer buy the house. It will now take two million to buy it. That is one form of inflation. Let's say that instead, the Federal Reserve pulls money out of the economy until the money supply is halved. Now you will only have to use half of your million to buy that house. That is deflation. Let me explain. In the case where the government increases the supply of money, the value of each dollar decreases relative to something of value such as a house. The value of the dollar has deflated while the amount of money required to buy something of value has inflated. In the case where government decreases the money supply, each dollar increases in value relative to the house. The dollar has inflated while the amount required to buy something of value has deflated. So basically, this whole thing is an exercise in faith. There is no gold held in equivalent value to the amount of currency in circulation. Is this the right way to do things?
In every single thing, you must always remember the beast under the human. If there is room in a law for it to be abused by the animal nature, it will be abused sooner or later.
Government has to be funded.....it has to be paid for. It's laws and policies have to be paid for. For every dollar given to someone on a social program, more than a dollar is taken from someone else to be given to the recipient. Government on it's own makes no money. If you point to the stock ownership of GM, is it making money? If it is and government owns part of that business, what does that mean? Does that mean ford and Toyota have to compete against a company owned by an entity that has regulatory authority over them? If the government is doing most mortgages through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which are government owned entities, what happened to the rest of the players in that market?
If healthcare is a right, then that means you have the right to the labor of the doctor. What of the right of the doctor?
These things have to be considered and decided.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
To have no government at all is unworkable in any scale beyond Gilligan's Island. Even there in that farce there were Skipper and Professor that were authority on the island. To have no government is to revert to Darwin - survival of the fittest. To have no governance in a population is to have no rights and no peace beyond what the strongest individual permits. In a population there is always governance. In a population, there is no such thing as no government. That of which we are speaking is the Strongman. The secret is that the practical effects of no government and complete government control are similar for the individual people under each.
To have complete government is to leave no choices to the individual at all. All is decided by government - from bedtime, sexual partner, choice of food. Like the complete absence of government, complete government is impossible. It is a practical impossibility to micromanage a population of individual people in such a manner.
Human nature is the rule of the strongman. Or should is say the strongman is our animal nature? To be human is to rise above our base animal nature. Furthermore, we have to use our animal nature as a beast in harness to make possible our humanity. We have to make our animal nature serve us rather than us serving our animal nature. What is our animal nature controlling us? It is murder, theft, dishonesty. In Christian parlance, an individual that succumbs to his animal nature in an instance has sinned. Someone that steals is giving in to animal nature. In the theft, he is failing to be human in that instance.
The function of a just government is to allow the greatest amount of it's population to be human. The function of government is that of any protective structure. Unfortunately, government is made up of individual people and can have the same failings as an individual.
So we return to the question. What is the proper position of the government in relation to individual entities such as people, businesses, schools, churches, and so on. I have my opinion as does any other intelligent person. The position of government in relation to individual entities defines the type of government that we have.
Other than the two opposites of strongman and absolute government, what are the common types of government? They are Democratic, Constitutional
Republic, Communist, Socialist, Theocratic, Dictatorial, and an Oligarchy.
Democratic Government is rule of the mob. We do not have a democracy in the United States. In a democracy, the rights of 49% of the individuals are decided by 51% of the other individuals.
A Constitutional Republic is what the United States most resembles. Representatives are elected to groups that must vote in a vast majority to enact a alteration to the structure of a governing charter. Common laws must pass multiple groups by simple majority to be presented to an executive that may approve or deny the law. The executive may be overruled by the legislative body by reaffirming the law by a super majority. Then there is a judiciary that has the duty to reconcile the law to the governing charter if the legislation is challenged in a court of law. The judiciary will either affirm or strike the law depending on whether or not the law falls within the structure of the governing charter. Our governing charter in the United States is the Constitution and it's amendments. The dividing of the government into three branches is what is known as Separation of Powers. The Constitution limits what may be done.
In my research, there are numerous '-archies.' There are monarchies. There are simply dozens. Most fit into one called an Oligarchy. An oligarchy is made up of a very small ruling class that controls the functions of government.
A communist government is almost a oxymoron. Supposedly, the people all share in all the functions of government to the point where an official government withers away from lack of need. In real terms, a communist state usually is single party rule with the legislative body superior to the executive and judiciary. When the legislature is not in session, the legislature's powers pass to a small group of senior legislators. Usually, the communist state exerts a heavy hand in production, which is why socialism and communism are often confused.
A socialist government is one in where the means of production are owned and controlled by the government. Usually that government has a plan of production that the owned industry must implement.
A Theocracy is a government where there is rule by a divinely guided group of people.
There is rarely a pure form of any of these governments.
Now let us pay attention to our government. We in the USA enjoy a Constitutional Republic.
The Constitution and it's amendments are the supreme law of the land. The branches of the federal government have to act in accordance with the constitution. Any law that acts outside the constitution is unconstitutional. A law that is unconstitutional may be made constitutional by means of amending the constitution.
Each official in our government takes a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution. This means that any official that tries to circumvent the constitution by means other than the amendment process is violating the oath of office and is open to criminal prosecution.
Unfortunately, the constitution is being circumvented by interpretation of plain English. The constitution is written and punctuated in a language still living. There are records aplenty of the vernacular in use at the time.
You see, it is within the law of our land to amend our constitution so that a thing can be done. To do the thing without reconciling it to the constitution is lawlessness. If we have lawlessness, we fall.
So we have to decide.
1 - What social programs do we want government to administer. Keep in mind that the administration is done by appointed individual people with their own degrees of humanity. Realize that with each thing that government is asked to do requires transfer of individual liberty to government. You are giving government some control of some facet of your life.
2 - What is the proper role of government in business. Realize that government involvement in business usually increases expense that is passes to the consumer. Realize that the government involvement can often produce results opposite to those intended.
3 - what role should government have in the administration of the economy. The USA, like other governments, has a fiat currency. This means that the currency, the money, itself has no intrinsic value. This gives government enormous power. Let's say you have worked hard to earn a million dollars. That million will buy a certain house. Say the government elects to print money until the supply of money has doubled. Your million will no longer buy the house. It will now take two million to buy it. That is one form of inflation. Let's say that instead, the Federal Reserve pulls money out of the economy until the money supply is halved. Now you will only have to use half of your million to buy that house. That is deflation. Let me explain. In the case where the government increases the supply of money, the value of each dollar decreases relative to something of value such as a house. The value of the dollar has deflated while the amount of money required to buy something of value has inflated. In the case where government decreases the money supply, each dollar increases in value relative to the house. The dollar has inflated while the amount required to buy something of value has deflated. So basically, this whole thing is an exercise in faith. There is no gold held in equivalent value to the amount of currency in circulation. Is this the right way to do things?
In every single thing, you must always remember the beast under the human. If there is room in a law for it to be abused by the animal nature, it will be abused sooner or later.
Government has to be funded.....it has to be paid for. It's laws and policies have to be paid for. For every dollar given to someone on a social program, more than a dollar is taken from someone else to be given to the recipient. Government on it's own makes no money. If you point to the stock ownership of GM, is it making money? If it is and government owns part of that business, what does that mean? Does that mean ford and Toyota have to compete against a company owned by an entity that has regulatory authority over them? If the government is doing most mortgages through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which are government owned entities, what happened to the rest of the players in that market?
If healthcare is a right, then that means you have the right to the labor of the doctor. What of the right of the doctor?
These things have to be considered and decided.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Just some observations - draw your own conclusions.
1-Obama and his cabinet seem to mention an international this or that quite often.
2-Obama and his cabinet are purportedly made up of intelligent people
3-Obama and his cabinet often make seemingly obvious mis-statements and gaffes
4-Obama and his cabinet seem to have difficulty calling things what they are in many cases.
5-Obama and his cabinet seem to be overly eager to criticize America and it's history
6-Obama and his cabinet seem to have trouble participating in many patriotic ceremonies.
7-Obama has chosen many people to be in his cabinet that say many controversial things
8-Obama seems to continually attempt to shift responsibility away from himself and his cabinet - even when he says he is responsible.
9-Obama and his followers seem to want to interpret the constitution through a lens of relativism.
10-Obama seems to have an enmity towards Christianity unless he is trying to co-opt it through 'faith based initiatives.'
11-Obama seems to bow to other state heads an awful lot.
12-Obama has chosen to associate with various people who have openly anti-American agendas
13-Obama chose to sit in a church where hatred for America was spewed. He chose to sit in that church for 20 years.
14-Obama threw his pastor and friend of 20 years under the bus.
15-Obama seems to claim intense focusing of his attention on an issue while examination of his itinerary shows huge blocks of recreation.
16-Obama criticizes Arizona's immigration enforcement policies while lauding Mexico's president. Mexico's immigration law is draconian.
17-Obama plays soft with Iran.
18-Obama deals disrespectfully with Israel.
19- the assistant to the head of the NSA called Jerusalem by it's Islamic name instead of by it's actual name.
20-Some in the media are comparing Arizona's immigration laws to Teinamen Square and Nazism.
21-the speaker of the house, president, and other politicians have spoken disrespectfully of the American people.
22-the president and some of his cabinet have spoken positively on redistribution of wealth.
23-the president speaks as if he is pro business while promoting policy that will harm business
24-under Obama's watch, GM, the student loan industry, and the health insurance industry have been nationalized or set on the road to nationalization.
25-Obama has overseen the quadrupling of the deficit and has outdone all the other presidents preceding him - combined.
26-Obama's administration and his allies in congress revert to threats and intimidation in order to get their way.
27-Obama and his allies are seeking to use regulatory authority to silence their critics
28-Obama and his allies in congress wish to bring the Internet under the regulatory umbrella of the FCC
29-Obama wants and legislation has been introduced that would give Obama the ability to shut the Internet down under 'emergency' conditions.
Look at these, there are more I could give. Think what you will. Look them up, research them. Don't take my word fog any of it.
2-Obama and his cabinet are purportedly made up of intelligent people
3-Obama and his cabinet often make seemingly obvious mis-statements and gaffes
4-Obama and his cabinet seem to have difficulty calling things what they are in many cases.
5-Obama and his cabinet seem to be overly eager to criticize America and it's history
6-Obama and his cabinet seem to have trouble participating in many patriotic ceremonies.
7-Obama has chosen many people to be in his cabinet that say many controversial things
8-Obama seems to continually attempt to shift responsibility away from himself and his cabinet - even when he says he is responsible.
9-Obama and his followers seem to want to interpret the constitution through a lens of relativism.
10-Obama seems to have an enmity towards Christianity unless he is trying to co-opt it through 'faith based initiatives.'
11-Obama seems to bow to other state heads an awful lot.
12-Obama has chosen to associate with various people who have openly anti-American agendas
13-Obama chose to sit in a church where hatred for America was spewed. He chose to sit in that church for 20 years.
14-Obama threw his pastor and friend of 20 years under the bus.
15-Obama seems to claim intense focusing of his attention on an issue while examination of his itinerary shows huge blocks of recreation.
16-Obama criticizes Arizona's immigration enforcement policies while lauding Mexico's president. Mexico's immigration law is draconian.
17-Obama plays soft with Iran.
18-Obama deals disrespectfully with Israel.
19- the assistant to the head of the NSA called Jerusalem by it's Islamic name instead of by it's actual name.
20-Some in the media are comparing Arizona's immigration laws to Teinamen Square and Nazism.
21-the speaker of the house, president, and other politicians have spoken disrespectfully of the American people.
22-the president and some of his cabinet have spoken positively on redistribution of wealth.
23-the president speaks as if he is pro business while promoting policy that will harm business
24-under Obama's watch, GM, the student loan industry, and the health insurance industry have been nationalized or set on the road to nationalization.
25-Obama has overseen the quadrupling of the deficit and has outdone all the other presidents preceding him - combined.
26-Obama's administration and his allies in congress revert to threats and intimidation in order to get their way.
27-Obama and his allies are seeking to use regulatory authority to silence their critics
28-Obama and his allies in congress wish to bring the Internet under the regulatory umbrella of the FCC
29-Obama wants and legislation has been introduced that would give Obama the ability to shut the Internet down under 'emergency' conditions.
Look at these, there are more I could give. Think what you will. Look them up, research them. Don't take my word fog any of it.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Arizona
There has been much made of Arizona's new immigration law. The first objection to this law is that the state is overstepping it's bounds to undertake a federal function. EVERY level of government has a duty to protect it's citizens and it's citizen's property. So if the federal government is not performing it's duties in this area, it is incumbent upon the states to do so. Let us establish another point, that of rights. A United States CITIZEN has rights under the Constitution, an illegal alien in our country has no rights under the constitution. Let us establish another point. The pertinent part of 'illegal alien' is illegal. This means that that particular person's very presence within the borders of the United States is against the law. The Arizona law states that a police officer may only inquire about a person's immigration status if that person has already been contacted by the police for some other infraction. Even then, the police may only inquire if there is demonstrable cause to inquire. Such cause could be the fact that the person has no identification or identification that looks as if it may be fake. Let us also look at the question of profiling. Racial profiling is specifically prohibited by the Arizona law. Is this politically correct stance on profiling wise? Let us look at it thus. If a Klingon has infiltrated a federation outpost, is it wise to spend time shaking down people whose life signs are human or Vulcan? Would it be wiser to set the tri-corders to scan for Klingon life signs? If a white woman robs a bank, is it wise to shake down black men? If a state borders Mexico, is it wise to interrogate European white or black people? If most terrorism has been perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, is it wise to pull 80 year old women in a TSA line? A profile is simply an aggregate portrait of the most likely perpetrator of a particular type of crime in a specific geographical area. If the numbers show that a certain group of people are more likely to commit a particular crime in a particular area, a profile based upon those numbers is not racist or wrong. It is wise. Arizona borders Mexico. To willfully ignore the fact that most illegal aliens in that state are going to be Hispanic is foolish. To state this is not racist. It is factual. Facts cannot be racist. The current president as well as his predecessor and congress have all been remiss in carrying out their constitutionally appointed duties. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I don't mind someone visiting, just sign the guestbook on the way in. In any case, if we reward illegal aliens for their illegality, then I want to drive drunk and be given a sportscar and a keg as a reward. If there is no rule of law then there is nothing that we can count on as citizens. If law is so dismissible, how can we feel secure in any law? How can we be secure in our property? There is a Hispanic caucus in our congress. How would it be taken if there were a White caucus? Both sound racist to me. Remember Jesse Jackson and the 'Hymie' incident? That was blatantly bigoted. It seems as if it is ok for any group other than white males to be bigoted. It is not ok for any group to be bigoted. Group....therein lies the problem.......Group. As a white male, I do not allow the Klan to affect my action or views. I as people that happen to have black pigmented skin to look at those who profess to be your leaders. I ask those who are of Hispanic origin to look at those who profess to speak for you. I ask those of the Islamic religion to look at those who profess to speak for you. Look at these self proclaimed leaders spokespersons. Do they truly represent your views. Do they truly represent your morality? Understand that any organization will be like an individual and look out for it's own interests first. If an organization is dedicated to fighting racism, and that racism falls to the point that the organization is not needed, that organization is not simply going to go away. That organization will wish to either perpetuate the issue or create the perception that the issue is still at the level that justifies it's existence. So, back to Arizona. I think that Hispanics should be given more scrutiny. In Arizona, Hispanics are the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens. That is not racist, it is fact. To truly appreciate how humanely and kindly we treat illegal aliens, contrast our laws on the subject with those of Mexico. The political show that is unfolding, has little to do with this issue. The political show is there for political ends.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Charity, morality, and government
What is morality? What is charity? What should the role of government be in either? My position is that government ought have no role at all in charity, and only a minimal role in morality.
Let me first define the role that I believe FEDERAL and STATE government should have in morality. The FEDERAL and STATE government SHOULD enforce the respect of each citizen's life, property, and liberty. That is ALL. No one citizen's life, property, or liberty should abridge another's in any material form. This shall not be construed to apply to the mental distress caused to one citizen by another citizen's exercise of his life, property, or liberty. In other words, if Joe is offended by Bill's attire, the fact that Bill has offended Joe is NOT an abridgement of Joe's life, property, or liberty.
LOCAL government is where morality may most be defined. A LOCAL government is by nature comprised of LOCAL citizenry elected ONLY by LOCAL citizenry. As such, restriction on different conducts and actions by individuals most properly belongs at this level of government where the citizens have the most direct input. Even so, local government may only go to a point that equally preserves the greatest liberty of the individual amongst other individuals. IE: Certain zoning ordinances that are needed in order that property values are preserved. Yet the ordinances may NOT address matters of taste...IE color of house etc.
CHARITY is the province of the private sector ONLY!!! NO level of government may engage in charitable acts. It is NOT possible for a government to engage in charity. The government in itself engages in the production of no goods. The government has nothing to sell that it has produced. The only money that the government possesses is that of it's citizens. That money, collected in various taxes and fees, is taken from the individual citizen under threat of force. If I do not pay my taxes, the government may seize my property and deny me of my liberty. By definition, taking money from one by force to give to another is not charity, it is robbery of one, and it makes the other a receiver of stolen goods.
Now, to be honest, I am ok with social safety nets - but it is not charity. What I can't abide is people living their entire lives on those safety nets. As a further matter, I advocate that after a certain amount of time, an individual receiving assistance must work at some job for their local or state government until they are gainfully employed. In this way, some value is given for the money spent. In the matter of international disaster assistance, I argue that the recipient country be obligated to give us some value in return. IE - We get oil at a lower price for a certain time, We get military outpost rights etc.
Let me first define the role that I believe FEDERAL and STATE government should have in morality. The FEDERAL and STATE government SHOULD enforce the respect of each citizen's life, property, and liberty. That is ALL. No one citizen's life, property, or liberty should abridge another's in any material form. This shall not be construed to apply to the mental distress caused to one citizen by another citizen's exercise of his life, property, or liberty. In other words, if Joe is offended by Bill's attire, the fact that Bill has offended Joe is NOT an abridgement of Joe's life, property, or liberty.
LOCAL government is where morality may most be defined. A LOCAL government is by nature comprised of LOCAL citizenry elected ONLY by LOCAL citizenry. As such, restriction on different conducts and actions by individuals most properly belongs at this level of government where the citizens have the most direct input. Even so, local government may only go to a point that equally preserves the greatest liberty of the individual amongst other individuals. IE: Certain zoning ordinances that are needed in order that property values are preserved. Yet the ordinances may NOT address matters of taste...IE color of house etc.
CHARITY is the province of the private sector ONLY!!! NO level of government may engage in charitable acts. It is NOT possible for a government to engage in charity. The government in itself engages in the production of no goods. The government has nothing to sell that it has produced. The only money that the government possesses is that of it's citizens. That money, collected in various taxes and fees, is taken from the individual citizen under threat of force. If I do not pay my taxes, the government may seize my property and deny me of my liberty. By definition, taking money from one by force to give to another is not charity, it is robbery of one, and it makes the other a receiver of stolen goods.
Now, to be honest, I am ok with social safety nets - but it is not charity. What I can't abide is people living their entire lives on those safety nets. As a further matter, I advocate that after a certain amount of time, an individual receiving assistance must work at some job for their local or state government until they are gainfully employed. In this way, some value is given for the money spent. In the matter of international disaster assistance, I argue that the recipient country be obligated to give us some value in return. IE - We get oil at a lower price for a certain time, We get military outpost rights etc.
The Ratchet Effect
How many of you have ever used a ratcheting tie down or a ratchet wrench?? For those that have, you are aware that the ratcheting mechanism allow action in a single direction only. In the economic/political world, there is also a phenomenon known as 'The Ratchet Effect.' This phenomenon is observable by looking at the history of our government. The quick and dirty is thus: Once a tax, liberty, power, etc. is ceded to a government, it is almost never given back. There are a few notable exceptions such as prohibition and the occasional tax cut.
The question is - As more of our life is taken from the individual in the form of taxes, as more liberty is taken in the form of laws - Where does it end?? Each little surrender of life, property, and liberty is a click in the ratchet.
The question is - As more of our life is taken from the individual in the form of taxes, as more liberty is taken in the form of laws - Where does it end?? Each little surrender of life, property, and liberty is a click in the ratchet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)