Wednesday, May 27, 2009
and so it begins...
VAT- values add on tax (or sales tax) read this section from the washington post about Geithner thinking about it, "A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. (this is my favorite part) But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families. " We tax the poor to bring down their standard of living, but hey we will give you health-care. Bull. I also find it funny, how they (the government from both administrations, have increased spending and now they need money so they will tax the poor. Didn't king louis XVI do that, right before his head was cut off?
here is another section of the article, "The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem". Did no one see this coming? This is how they (the government) want to pay for health-care by, "Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol " (who has those drinks; the poor. yet another tax of the poor for the poor.)
Do they (the experts and government) think we are stupid. This paragraph makes me so mad! "The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits." (that has to be the stupidest idea ever. ) "I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz (a yale professor) said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious." And was it the People that have caused this unsustainable system or the government? It was the government who put us in two wars, and it was the government who signed a 787 billion bill to help the economy. (so wait a second, a bill that was to get us out of this downturn, now needs to be bailed-out with sales tax and other taxes. That makes no sense, why didn't they just tax us in the first place? oh that's right because the People don't like taxes.) I smell something and it stinks so bad I'm about to vomit. This is only a rant, besides the national sales tax is only being talked about nothing more. as a side show, it will be interesting if it does go to congress and the senate to see if the senators from Oregon and other non-sales tax states vote against the bill since it is clear that the People they represent don't want a sales tax.
forgive me for my rant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html
here is another section of the article, "The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem". Did no one see this coming? This is how they (the government) want to pay for health-care by, "Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol " (who has those drinks; the poor. yet another tax of the poor for the poor.)
Do they (the experts and government) think we are stupid. This paragraph makes me so mad! "The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits." (that has to be the stupidest idea ever. ) "I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz (a yale professor) said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious." And was it the People that have caused this unsustainable system or the government? It was the government who put us in two wars, and it was the government who signed a 787 billion bill to help the economy. (so wait a second, a bill that was to get us out of this downturn, now needs to be bailed-out with sales tax and other taxes. That makes no sense, why didn't they just tax us in the first place? oh that's right because the People don't like taxes.) I smell something and it stinks so bad I'm about to vomit. This is only a rant, besides the national sales tax is only being talked about nothing more. as a side show, it will be interesting if it does go to congress and the senate to see if the senators from Oregon and other non-sales tax states vote against the bill since it is clear that the People they represent don't want a sales tax.
forgive me for my rant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html
Monday, May 25, 2009
17th amendment
Interestingly there have been 16 amendments to the constitution since it was signed. 6 of those amendments happened between 1900-1933 (which is considered the progressive era). ((double interesting is even within that period they repealed one amendment with another; 18th and 21st.)) There are really two amendments in that period that i don't like, but i want to focus on the 17th. The 17th states,
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?
Friday, May 22, 2009
War on Terror Trials
This is a subject that I really haven't thought about. It just really hasn't interested me. I read another blog by Big Tent Democrat (its long just to warn you) http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/22/112959/706 and it kind of put some thoughts into my head about the detainees of the war on terror.
First thought, putting the detainees on trial in the US court system. What came to my mind was during the French Revolution robespierre set up a court called the committee of public safety. This court was set up to place on trial people who were counter-revolutionaries. It was this court that took the heads off of a few tens of thousands of people. What happened to the civilian court was that it placed too much power in the hands of a few. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that the people on the court, including the founder robespierre, were executed. Another "civilian" court was the court system in soviet union. This court was set up to find out if there was anyone plotting against the soviet union. The court was set up to attack political incorrectness. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that if you took a trip to France and came back, they would arrest you, put you on trial, judge you as an enemy of the state, and then send you to the gulag. It got to the point where everyone citizen of the ussr knew someone that had gone to or was in the gulag. Why explain all this boring history stuff? it goes to show you that even within civilian courts things can get out of hand. Those who demand that the detainees be on trial in the federal court system are placing a lot of power in the hands of the courts. Now civilian courts could decide what was terrorism, and therefore could expand upon the definition and put on trial american citizens who hint at anti-americanism. (worse-case scenario, i know. but it has happened. Even during McCarthy years in the united states). We have to be careful who we place in power to decide who should go to trial. By keeping the detainees in a more military setting I feel it would keep the temptation to charge united states citizens. (I maybe wrong) Civilian courts are not necessarily the ideal setting for such a case as terrorism. It was in fact robespierre who in some way is the grandfather of terrorism, through the use of civilian courts. In addtion, courts can be set up to act like they are really doing something, but infact they are just going thourgh the motions. The courts in the ussr convicted almost every person that went to them, but the officials in government could point to the court saying it was legitimate sentences. united states citizens must always go through the court system that we have now. if there is any new court system put in place to judge the war on terrorism we should be weary of its intent.
Second thought, is the value of the united states citizenship. Another history talk sorry (but i'm just going off what i know and that is just history; a very limited amount) During the fall of the roman empire they began to give out roman citizenship like it was day old bread. At the beginning and peak of roman power, roman citizenship was a high prize and granted only to a few. With it was certain privileges that made the citizenship special. One of those privileges was you went to a different court than non-roman citizens. In this court no matter what you could not be executed. You were held with higher esteem, even if you committed a horrible crime. During the british peak of empire, british citizens had special perks too. It was a valuable citizenship to have, but towards the end the british started giving out the privileges of the british citizenship to more and more people which devalued the citizenship. So by holding the detainees with the same rights as an american citizen we therefore devalue the american citizenship. There have been some us citizens charged with terrorism and they should go through our courts and get a lawyer and all that. But those that are not citizens of the united states should get no privilege that us americans get. What is the point of the us citizenship if you get nothing out of it except to pay taxes? There needs to be a separation, a clear one, between a citizen and a non-citizen. The more perks of being a citizen of a nation the more value the citizenship is. I fear that the value of an american citizenship has fallen. This is a nationalistic view, i know. But what's great about america is citizenship is not based on race (like it is in europe) or religion or anything. It is only based on you moving to the country and swearing allegiance to the idea of america, you don't even have to swear allegiance to the president or congress or any man or woman.
sorry for the long post.
First thought, putting the detainees on trial in the US court system. What came to my mind was during the French Revolution robespierre set up a court called the committee of public safety. This court was set up to place on trial people who were counter-revolutionaries. It was this court that took the heads off of a few tens of thousands of people. What happened to the civilian court was that it placed too much power in the hands of a few. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that the people on the court, including the founder robespierre, were executed. Another "civilian" court was the court system in soviet union. This court was set up to find out if there was anyone plotting against the soviet union. The court was set up to attack political incorrectness. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that if you took a trip to France and came back, they would arrest you, put you on trial, judge you as an enemy of the state, and then send you to the gulag. It got to the point where everyone citizen of the ussr knew someone that had gone to or was in the gulag. Why explain all this boring history stuff? it goes to show you that even within civilian courts things can get out of hand. Those who demand that the detainees be on trial in the federal court system are placing a lot of power in the hands of the courts. Now civilian courts could decide what was terrorism, and therefore could expand upon the definition and put on trial american citizens who hint at anti-americanism. (worse-case scenario, i know. but it has happened. Even during McCarthy years in the united states). We have to be careful who we place in power to decide who should go to trial. By keeping the detainees in a more military setting I feel it would keep the temptation to charge united states citizens. (I maybe wrong) Civilian courts are not necessarily the ideal setting for such a case as terrorism. It was in fact robespierre who in some way is the grandfather of terrorism, through the use of civilian courts. In addtion, courts can be set up to act like they are really doing something, but infact they are just going thourgh the motions. The courts in the ussr convicted almost every person that went to them, but the officials in government could point to the court saying it was legitimate sentences. united states citizens must always go through the court system that we have now. if there is any new court system put in place to judge the war on terrorism we should be weary of its intent.
Second thought, is the value of the united states citizenship. Another history talk sorry (but i'm just going off what i know and that is just history; a very limited amount) During the fall of the roman empire they began to give out roman citizenship like it was day old bread. At the beginning and peak of roman power, roman citizenship was a high prize and granted only to a few. With it was certain privileges that made the citizenship special. One of those privileges was you went to a different court than non-roman citizens. In this court no matter what you could not be executed. You were held with higher esteem, even if you committed a horrible crime. During the british peak of empire, british citizens had special perks too. It was a valuable citizenship to have, but towards the end the british started giving out the privileges of the british citizenship to more and more people which devalued the citizenship. So by holding the detainees with the same rights as an american citizen we therefore devalue the american citizenship. There have been some us citizens charged with terrorism and they should go through our courts and get a lawyer and all that. But those that are not citizens of the united states should get no privilege that us americans get. What is the point of the us citizenship if you get nothing out of it except to pay taxes? There needs to be a separation, a clear one, between a citizen and a non-citizen. The more perks of being a citizen of a nation the more value the citizenship is. I fear that the value of an american citizenship has fallen. This is a nationalistic view, i know. But what's great about america is citizenship is not based on race (like it is in europe) or religion or anything. It is only based on you moving to the country and swearing allegiance to the idea of america, you don't even have to swear allegiance to the president or congress or any man or woman.
sorry for the long post.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Religion and Health
In recent news there has been a case of a boy who is rejecting medicine to cure himself, saying that he believes in natural healing. The boy is mentally handicapped and is of the age of 13. The courts decided that he must and will be forced to take the medicine even if it is against his religion. Just today the boy and the mother are missing and no one knows where they are.
Upon reading this, at first I sided with the mother and boy, on the belief that the boy is old enough to know what is right or wrong. However, knowing that the boy is mentally handicapped that changed my mind on the subject. Not that my mind switched to the other side of the issue, but more that it became harder to come up with a correct decision.
In some states people are proposing that girls as young as 13 can get an abortion without their parents knowledge. This is a surgery, which I think is weird that you have to be 18 to get a tattoo but they think a 13 year old can decided to have surgery or not. What the question for this topic about the sick boy is, is he old enough to make his own decisions and under the separation of church and state does the state have a right to force someone to take medical treatments? Another question is, being mentally handicap place you in a different category with different rules?
Minnesota, where the boy is from, statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. Who decides what is "neccessary medical care".
I guess out of all this, the main poltical question is do parents have the complete right over their children? and if so at what age does it not apply? and if not, what rights do parents not have the right over their children?
Upon reading this, at first I sided with the mother and boy, on the belief that the boy is old enough to know what is right or wrong. However, knowing that the boy is mentally handicapped that changed my mind on the subject. Not that my mind switched to the other side of the issue, but more that it became harder to come up with a correct decision.
In some states people are proposing that girls as young as 13 can get an abortion without their parents knowledge. This is a surgery, which I think is weird that you have to be 18 to get a tattoo but they think a 13 year old can decided to have surgery or not. What the question for this topic about the sick boy is, is he old enough to make his own decisions and under the separation of church and state does the state have a right to force someone to take medical treatments? Another question is, being mentally handicap place you in a different category with different rules?
Minnesota, where the boy is from, statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. Who decides what is "neccessary medical care".
I guess out of all this, the main poltical question is do parents have the complete right over their children? and if so at what age does it not apply? and if not, what rights do parents not have the right over their children?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Righteousness or Peace
I worked at natural history museum today and there was a quote carved in the wall by Teddy Roosevelt. He asks the question
If you had to choose between righteousness or peace, what would you choose?
I found the question interesting. And would like to hear your thoughts.
If you had to choose between righteousness or peace, what would you choose?
I found the question interesting. And would like to hear your thoughts.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Current Affairs: Attack of the kings
For quite some time, I have noticed that there seems to be a change within our nation and globally. The change is really a restructuring of our current system; the Republic. I have at times, said it is the shift to more centralized government, which i still believe it is. I have also thought, that it could be the promise of Marx of the communist revolution, which now I don't think so. But I haven't been able to wrap my mind around who and what were their motives for a change of Republics. It wasn't until I read the words from Maurice Strong. "Maurice F. Strong, (born April 29, 1929, in Oak Lake, Manitoba) is one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations' involvement in world affairs. Supporters consider him one of the world's leading environmentalists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role in globalizing the environmental movement." This is just a background of who the guy is. This is what he said at the Rio Conference in 1992 that industrial countries have
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
After reading this, it then clicked for me. The recent movements and changes in our government since the beginning of the 20th century have been the actions of the upper-class. Strong attacks the middle class as the main cause of global warming. We talked about this unsustainable life-style before and both dan and nathan believe there needs to be sacrifices. To take on a marxist point-of-view, the major issues like global warming, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty are tools used in the over all struggle between the upper and middle classes. But it isn't between the poor and upper-classes. Since 1789 the middle-class has controlled the major governments. It has been the middle-class that has built-up europe and america and suppressed the upper-class. And it is now the rockerfellers and louis XVIs of this age that are trying to regain their power. Interestingly the poor have been left out of this, again.
By taxation, the upper-class can push the middle-class down while keeping the poor still poor. Higher energy costs would hurt only the middle and lower classes. By adding regulations on development it hurts those with less capital to begin with and therefore creating a road block for starter companies; only the wealthy could afford the risk. By creating boarderless nations, the elites can then higher lower-wage workers or take their business elsewhere without the worry of tariffs and trade regulations. By this shift in power from the Republics to centralized governments the middle-class and lower-class would be left out of the process.
This kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I really don't think it is. For the longest time I have been trying to put my finger on what is going on in the world. There is a change going on. Something different than a Republic is moving.
To continue with Strong, although there are many in his position that feel the same way, he writes this in an Essay titled, Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
The last sentence lays out the battle plan.
This post is a little different from the others, but I feel it is the attack of the old kings on our sacred and holy Republic. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you can calm my nerves. Again this post is not a debate about global warming, it is a debate on the struggle between the classes and who is winning and who is losing.
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
After reading this, it then clicked for me. The recent movements and changes in our government since the beginning of the 20th century have been the actions of the upper-class. Strong attacks the middle class as the main cause of global warming. We talked about this unsustainable life-style before and both dan and nathan believe there needs to be sacrifices. To take on a marxist point-of-view, the major issues like global warming, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty are tools used in the over all struggle between the upper and middle classes. But it isn't between the poor and upper-classes. Since 1789 the middle-class has controlled the major governments. It has been the middle-class that has built-up europe and america and suppressed the upper-class. And it is now the rockerfellers and louis XVIs of this age that are trying to regain their power. Interestingly the poor have been left out of this, again.
By taxation, the upper-class can push the middle-class down while keeping the poor still poor. Higher energy costs would hurt only the middle and lower classes. By adding regulations on development it hurts those with less capital to begin with and therefore creating a road block for starter companies; only the wealthy could afford the risk. By creating boarderless nations, the elites can then higher lower-wage workers or take their business elsewhere without the worry of tariffs and trade regulations. By this shift in power from the Republics to centralized governments the middle-class and lower-class would be left out of the process.
This kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I really don't think it is. For the longest time I have been trying to put my finger on what is going on in the world. There is a change going on. Something different than a Republic is moving.
To continue with Strong, although there are many in his position that feel the same way, he writes this in an Essay titled, Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
The last sentence lays out the battle plan.
This post is a little different from the others, but I feel it is the attack of the old kings on our sacred and holy Republic. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you can calm my nerves. Again this post is not a debate about global warming, it is a debate on the struggle between the classes and who is winning and who is losing.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Social Issues in Government
Nathan brought up the topic of discrimination the other day and it led me to thinking. In regards to government involovment, should the government be involved in social issues?
Now, I would say the government should make sure that everyone's rights are protected and secured. But about social issues, such as marriage, births, deaths, religions, clubs, orginizations, boy scouts and girl scouts, and all else that are social issues, should the government be involoved in these matters? Are there some social issues that you think should be and others not, and why?
Now, I would say the government should make sure that everyone's rights are protected and secured. But about social issues, such as marriage, births, deaths, religions, clubs, orginizations, boy scouts and girl scouts, and all else that are social issues, should the government be involoved in these matters? Are there some social issues that you think should be and others not, and why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)