16 February 2010
14 February 2010
The Not So Great Depression of 1920
I remember when I was in Middle School and my history teacher was going over the Great Depression. Of course when talking about the Great Depression, they were speaking about what happened between 1929 and 1944. They spoke about how we should not have increased interest rates and Import duties, since all of these things made things worse. I remember how all the books and teachers talked glowingly about FDR and how he fought so hard for the regular Joe to try to make things better for us. Lesson plans like these are what shaped America's belief that FDR was a great President and was the right guy for the right time. I sometimes wonder however, if our opinion of him would have been very different if they had showed more of who he really was, along with sort of a "Compare and Contrast". Especially a Compare and Contrast to Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the USA. Robert Murry has written a compelling book that seeks to dispel the myth's surrounding his administration, but for now, let's do some Comparing and Contrasting of our own.FDR Increased spending by the Federal Government.
-- The result? The Government was in the business of picking winners and losers, and usually the winners were the Big Businesses who had the "Right" connections. Crony Capitalism.
-- The result? The Government was in the business of picking winners and losers, and usually the winners were the Big Businesses who had the "Right" connections. Crony Capitalism.
Harding Reduced spending by the Federal Government.
-- The result? Federal Debt was paid off, increasing the amount of private capital available for the Private Sector. Banks now needed to look for opportunities to lend, with the Government not giving them any more "Free" business.
FDR Increased Government regulations on business to force them to be more "fair".
-- The result? Since it's always easier for big business to deal with regulations, smaller businesses suffered the most and were driven out of business, thereby increasing the levels of unemployment.
Harding Reduced Government regulations on business to go back to a state of "Normalcy" from the Wartime regulations.
-- The result? With Government "off their backs" all businesses, especially smaller businesses were able to exercise the kind of freedom that allows businesses to prosper and expand without government intervention, thereby increasing the levels of employment.
On Taxation:
Harding reduced the top marginal rate from 75% to 25%, the resultant boom in the economy brought in a 25% increase in Tax revenue with more people working. By the end of his administration, unemployment had dropped to just 1%, the lowest level EVER recorded.
When Hoover took over, his response to the crash of 1929 was to increase taxes from 25% to 63%. FDR was elected in part with campaign promises to reduce taxes, but instead he increased taxes to 100%! on anything over 50K!
-- The result?
With the incentive to make more money removed, the number of people earning over 50K a year plummeted, thereby DECREASING revenue going to the government in the form of Income taxes. Additionally, with the government confiscating an ever expanding amount of capital from the private sector, there was less capital available to start new businesses. New business creation stagnated.I could go on and on with this "Compare and Contrast", but I think you get the point. The real hero here was Harding, not FDR. Let's not forget that Harding's Recession (which he inherited from Wilson) while initially much worse, only lasted 18 months, while FDR's inherited mess and meddling ended up lasting for about a decade.
Just as we learned in "48 Liberal Lies of American History", our history is being distorted by people with an Agenda. They want us to believe that Big Government is the only solution to our problems, they want us to believe that higher taxation and regulation will bring us prosperity, when in fact history shows us that the reverse is actually true. Harding and Reagan should have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the only way back to prosperity is by getting government off our backs, reducing legislation, reducing taxes and reducing the size and scope of the government. If we revisited The New Deal, I think we will find that it was more like "The Raw Deal".
In the wise words of Abraham Lincoln,
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.Americans won't stay in the dark much longer, they are starting to get educated and they are finally starting to realize what the real truth is.
27 January 2010
Obama quietly continues to defend Bush's terror policies | McClatchy
Obama quietly continues to defend Bush's terror policies | McClatchy
WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans' phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight.
The FBI revealed this stance in a newly released report, troubling critics who'd hoped the bureau had been chastened enough by its own abuses to drop such a position.
In further support of the legal authority, however, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel backed the FBI in a written opinion issued this month.
The opinion by the OLC — the section that wrote the memos that justified enhanced interrogation techniques during the last administration — appears to be yet another sign that the Obama administration can be just as assertive as Bush's in claiming sweeping and controversial anti-terrorism powers.
The Justice Department's watchdog, the inspector general, said the OLC opinion has "significant policy implications that need to be considered by the FBI, the Department, and the Congress."
"The FBI says that this kind of activity is in the past," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who's now the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel. "But if they're saying that they have a continuing legal authority that means it's not in the past."
In another similarity to Bush era-legal decisions to keep legal theories under wraps, Obama's Justice Department refused to release to McClatchy the OLC opinion, despite the administration's vow to be more open than its predecessors.
The little-noticed revelation about the OLC opinion and the FBI's legal position appears in a heavily redacted section of an inspector general's report released Wednesday.
In the report, Inspector General Glenn Fine concluded the FBI committed egregious violations of the law when it obtained thousands of telephone records without court oversight or through any formal legal process.
The report described a "casual" environment in which FBI agents and employees of telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records so cavalierly that one senior FBI counter-terrorism official said getting access to them was as easy as "having an ATM in your living room."
Yet it also stated that "the OLC agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency."
FBI and Justice Department officials refused to comment on that assertion.
In a letter sent Friday, Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder release a copy of the memo.
"Although much of the information about the OLC opinion is redacted in the public version of the (inspector general) report, the opinion appears to have important implications for the rights of Americans," the senators wrote.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has said that the informal practice of requesting telephone records as described in the report was stopped in 2006 when he found out about it from the inspector general.
Since then, it appears the bureau now refrains from using the authority it continues to assert, according to another heavily redacted section of the inspector general's report.
"However, that could change, and we believe appropriate controls on such authority should be considered now, in light of the FBI's past practices and the OLC opinion," Fine warned.
Privacy and open government advocates called on the Justice Department to release the opinion outright.
"There's a tremendous mystery as to what this legal basis is," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates privacy protections for technology. "It does not seem like a legal justification should be a national security secret."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder released Bush administration OLC memos justifying interrogation methods that Bush's Justice Department had refused to release.
"It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making," he said at the time.
Such rhetoric hasn't necessarily translated into action, however, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an open-government group. CREW released a report this week that criticized the Obama administration for recent decisions to withhold information.
"Judging by CREW's interactions with various federal agencies over the past year, the promise of transparency and openness has not translated into new government-wide . . . policies," the group said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit Friday to try to compel the Justice Department to make public a report from Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility that examines possible ethics violations by lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos.
Holder had said in late November the report was finished and would be released soon.
Friday was also the deadline for executive branch agencies to release certain "high-value" data as part of President Obama's open government directive. Open government experts, however, said it remains to be seen how useful the information will be since the agencies themselves are determining what to divulge.
As of Friday afternoon, for example, the IRS had released its files tracking citizens' changes of addresses and the Department of Housing and Urban Development posted federal housing inspection data.
WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans' phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight.
The FBI revealed this stance in a newly released report, troubling critics who'd hoped the bureau had been chastened enough by its own abuses to drop such a position.
In further support of the legal authority, however, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel backed the FBI in a written opinion issued this month.
The opinion by the OLC — the section that wrote the memos that justified enhanced interrogation techniques during the last administration — appears to be yet another sign that the Obama administration can be just as assertive as Bush's in claiming sweeping and controversial anti-terrorism powers.
The Justice Department's watchdog, the inspector general, said the OLC opinion has "significant policy implications that need to be considered by the FBI, the Department, and the Congress."
"The FBI says that this kind of activity is in the past," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who's now the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel. "But if they're saying that they have a continuing legal authority that means it's not in the past."
In another similarity to Bush era-legal decisions to keep legal theories under wraps, Obama's Justice Department refused to release to McClatchy the OLC opinion, despite the administration's vow to be more open than its predecessors.
The little-noticed revelation about the OLC opinion and the FBI's legal position appears in a heavily redacted section of an inspector general's report released Wednesday.
In the report, Inspector General Glenn Fine concluded the FBI committed egregious violations of the law when it obtained thousands of telephone records without court oversight or through any formal legal process.
The report described a "casual" environment in which FBI agents and employees of telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records so cavalierly that one senior FBI counter-terrorism official said getting access to them was as easy as "having an ATM in your living room."
Yet it also stated that "the OLC agreed with the FBI that under certain circumstances (word or words redacted) allows the FBI to ask for and obtain these records on a voluntary basis from the providers, without legal process or a qualifying emergency."
FBI and Justice Department officials refused to comment on that assertion.
In a letter sent Friday, Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder release a copy of the memo.
"Although much of the information about the OLC opinion is redacted in the public version of the (inspector general) report, the opinion appears to have important implications for the rights of Americans," the senators wrote.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has said that the informal practice of requesting telephone records as described in the report was stopped in 2006 when he found out about it from the inspector general.
Since then, it appears the bureau now refrains from using the authority it continues to assert, according to another heavily redacted section of the inspector general's report.
"However, that could change, and we believe appropriate controls on such authority should be considered now, in light of the FBI's past practices and the OLC opinion," Fine warned.
Privacy and open government advocates called on the Justice Department to release the opinion outright.
"There's a tremendous mystery as to what this legal basis is," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates privacy protections for technology. "It does not seem like a legal justification should be a national security secret."
Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder released Bush administration OLC memos justifying interrogation methods that Bush's Justice Department had refused to release.
"It is my goal to make OLC opinions available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal executive branch debate and decision-making," he said at the time.
Such rhetoric hasn't necessarily translated into action, however, according to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an open-government group. CREW released a report this week that criticized the Obama administration for recent decisions to withhold information.
"Judging by CREW's interactions with various federal agencies over the past year, the promise of transparency and openness has not translated into new government-wide . . . policies," the group said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit Friday to try to compel the Justice Department to make public a report from Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility that examines possible ethics violations by lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos.
Holder had said in late November the report was finished and would be released soon.
Friday was also the deadline for executive branch agencies to release certain "high-value" data as part of President Obama's open government directive. Open government experts, however, said it remains to be seen how useful the information will be since the agencies themselves are determining what to divulge.
As of Friday afternoon, for example, the IRS had released its files tracking citizens' changes of addresses and the Department of Housing and Urban Development posted federal housing inspection data.
19 January 2010
15 January 2010
Rush Accused of not wanting donations to go to Haiti
| OBSCENE PROFIT CENTER 
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RUSH: To Paducah, Kentucky. This is April. That is one of my all-time, top ten favorite female names. April, thank you for calling. Nice to have you with us. Hello.
RUSH: Now, April, I must ask a serious question: Do you ever listen to my program or do you hear about it in places like the Huffington Post?
12 August 2009
The Socialism Utopia is Upon Us
The REAL Irony of America's "March to Socialism" is that in effect we are already a "Socialist Paradise". What is the goal of socialism, but to make everyone equal.
In the past, if you were part of the Rich, the elite, you had special privileges not available to your average working class person. This like Cruise Ship travel (they used to have "Steerage Class" for the "Peasants"). Things like Air Travel was restricted to the "Super Rich". 100 Years ago, the average mode of transportation was by Horse for the average Joe and by foot for the poor. While the Rich rode in class in their "Horseless Carriages". This is still the case in many of the undeveloped areas in the world.
Contrast that world with today's modern Utopia we call the USA. Where the "Super Rich Guy's" AC system in his $250,000.00 Rolls Royce works JUST AS WELL as the AC system in a $15,000 Ford Focus, same for the Air Bags and other safety features. We now share the same Roads, Cruise ships, the same Airplanes, the same Hospitals and the same neighborhoods. I used to live in a 1200 Sq. Ft. home, which is about the average size for a family in poverty. Now I live in a 3000 Sq. Ft. home and my "living area" is about the same as it was in my smaller home. Same goes for my Sister in her 7000 Sq. Ft. Home. the "other areas" of our houses are just BARELY used, since we all end up living in about the same sized space. There's only so much "space" that a human being can live in.
The "Socialist Utopia" has already arrived in the U.S. However, the Political class will only gain power by dividing us and pitting us against each other, so instead of pointing out our similarities, they point out our differences to build a wedge between us.
In the past, if you were part of the Rich, the elite, you had special privileges not available to your average working class person. This like Cruise Ship travel (they used to have "Steerage Class" for the "Peasants"). Things like Air Travel was restricted to the "Super Rich". 100 Years ago, the average mode of transportation was by Horse for the average Joe and by foot for the poor. While the Rich rode in class in their "Horseless Carriages". This is still the case in many of the undeveloped areas in the world.
Contrast that world with today's modern Utopia we call the USA. Where the "Super Rich Guy's" AC system in his $250,000.00 Rolls Royce works JUST AS WELL as the AC system in a $15,000 Ford Focus, same for the Air Bags and other safety features. We now share the same Roads, Cruise ships, the same Airplanes, the same Hospitals and the same neighborhoods. I used to live in a 1200 Sq. Ft. home, which is about the average size for a family in poverty. Now I live in a 3000 Sq. Ft. home and my "living area" is about the same as it was in my smaller home. Same goes for my Sister in her 7000 Sq. Ft. Home. the "other areas" of our houses are just BARELY used, since we all end up living in about the same sized space. There's only so much "space" that a human being can live in.
The "Socialist Utopia" has already arrived in the U.S. However, the Political class will only gain power by dividing us and pitting us against each other, so instead of pointing out our similarities, they point out our differences to build a wedge between us.
05 June 2009
Why American Capitalism is Gone with a Wimper
I was reading the Article Posted on Pravda Online, American Capitalism Gone With A Wimper, when I came across something that someone posted in reference to the article:
Jamesschwartz said...
Quote:"You talk a nice line, but, like most Russians I have met, you know little more than rhetoric. In fact, your country is a ganster nation, a country of lazy ingrates who are squandering the freedom which the Pope and Ronald Reagan bought for you.
In fact, Russia is a grossly unequal society where a few people are vastly wealthy and most of the value of the average worker's labor goes to further enrich the wealthy few, in which the masses are brainwashed by commercial advertising in a fruitless search for happiness in material form, and that which steals resources and exploits people throughout the Europe, using gansterism power to further profit the already wealthy at the expense of the common people"
Quote:"You talk a nice line, but, like most Russians I have met, you know little more than rhetoric. In fact, your country is a ganster nation, a country of lazy ingrates who are squandering the freedom which the Pope and Ronald Reagan bought for you.
In fact, Russia is a grossly unequal society where a few people are vastly wealthy and most of the value of the average worker's labor goes to further enrich the wealthy few, in which the masses are brainwashed by commercial advertising in a fruitless search for happiness in material form, and that which steals resources and exploits people throughout the Europe, using gansterism power to further profit the already wealthy at the expense of the common people"
This is how it starts. People like "Jamesschwartz" don't see all the gains the Russian people have made. They don't see the stores stocked full of goods, where there used to be lines. He doesn't see the ever rising prosperity of the average people. He only sees the Wealthy who helped make it happen. He believes that all the people who invest time, money and take risks should be just like everyone else and not make a dime off their efforts.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that is causing the collapse of the U.S.
He sees no problem with a SINGLE Company in the U.S. (Exxon-Mobile) paying more in taxes than HALF OF ALL Working Americans. He thinks this is Just. He sees no problem with the Government Robbing the Economy of all the Capital that it takes to create jobs, because he thinks that somehow this is "Fair", and punishes those who would dare to become successful.
Remember the Tenth Commandment not to covet they neighbor's house, wife, or anything that he has. Every Christian, Muslim and Jew have that Commandment in their Holy Books.
Americans have been convinced that it is Trickle Down economics and deregulation that has brought us down to where we are, when in fact it was Trickle down economics in the early 80's that saved the U.S. economy. It is, in fact what lifted us from the failed Tax and Spend and over regulation policies of the Left in the 70's led by then President Jimmy Carter.
Tax cuts left more money in the hands of the Capitalists to do what they do. What do Capitalists do? They wish to create more Capital. How do they create more Capital? By investing in or creating new Business Opportunities. What doe new Business Opportunities mean to your average Joe? It means more Jobs and more money in his pocket. If they the Capitalist get Rich off of that Formula, what business is that of anyone? Why should anyone care? Was it their money? Was it somehow "stolen" from the poor? Preposterous! The poor don't have any money.
It's a very simple theory, which any logical person can easily see how it will succeed, but our leftist media has convinced the people that this model in fact never did work, and that the Accumulation of Wealth that we experienced during the Reagan Revolution was a fantasy, that somehow, all of our problems started with Reagan, when in fact he had come in and FIXED our problems and our decline. He Reversed our fortunes and anyone who would dispute that, EXPECIALLY someone like Obama who grew up during the Reagan Revolution and took part in the opportunities that it created to become wealthy himself.
The Saddest part is that Japan, FDR and Carter have already tried the Big Government Big Spending Theory and as history has shown us, it simply doesn't work.
06 April 2009
The Personal Responsibility Act by No Socialism
I've written a previous article on this subject, but since I changed out my Commenting Engine to Disqus, people can't comment on the old article anymore, and I've been getting a lot of emails on this one. I'm going to re-post the Original 10 Points of the Act, and later get into some of the finer details in subsequent posts.
Burn all 60,000 pages of the Tax Code. It's a tax code that was designed specifically to give members of Congress powers to bestow upon special interests in an attempt to keep them in power. Eliminate all taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Death Taxes, Import Taxes and so forth. Eliminate all Payroll Taxes. The only responsibility that Employers have is to keep their business in business. While providing jobs is a nice side effect, it's not their responsibility to provide for things like Retirement, Health care, Unemployment Insurance and so forth. These are things that should be purchased by employees, and they should be fully aware of the full cost of such benefits.
The Personal Responsibility Act.
Burn all 60,000 pages of the Tax Code. It's a tax code that was designed specifically to give members of Congress powers to bestow upon special interests in an attempt to keep them in power. Eliminate all taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Death Taxes, Import Taxes and so forth. Eliminate all Payroll Taxes. The only responsibility that Employers have is to keep their business in business. While providing jobs is a nice side effect, it's not their responsibility to provide for things like Retirement, Health care, Unemployment Insurance and so forth. These are things that should be purchased by employees, and they should be fully aware of the full cost of such benefits.
- Replace current revenue with a 10% Sales Tax on ALL Goods and Services except for Cash Transfers (such as Bank Deposits) and a 10% Import tax with ZERO Exemptions. The U.S. Economy is currently running at around 13 Trillion and we import about 1.5 Trillion in goods alone. Current income taxes collect 1.1 Trillion and current Duties (Import Taxes) collect 26 Billion. This new model would collect 1.3 Trillion (assuming zero growth) in Sales taxes and 150 Billion in Import Taxes, almost 6X more than current levels (again assuming zero growth).
- Give Employees their FULL pay. Now that the Employer no longer has to pay all these taxes, he should go ahead and give that money directly to the employees. On average an employer spends approximately 10% on Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes and an additional 15% on Health Insurance. Your typical family salary is currently around $51,000.00, but once you take out all the Taxes and Social Security, that family only takes home about $39,000.00, not including their share of 401K's and Insurances, which on average reduces it another $3300.00 a year, but let's just keep the Original $39000.00 since not everyone has insurance today. This typical family would now see their take home pay increase to $63,750, a 61% increase without costing the employer a dime. He simply shifted the money he was ALREADY spending on Taxes and Insurance back to the employee.
Think about this for a moment, what kind of life would your family have if you had a 61% increase in your level of income. All of a sudden, things like Health insurance is affordable. Retirement Savings isn't an issue. Heck you could even get by without the Government paying for your kids lunch!
- Double the current Minimum Wage. Now that employers no longer have to comply with a crushing level of government mandates, he can afford to pay his employees more. He should pass on the savings to his employees.
- Give Employees a choice, but make retirement mandatory. Now that employees are flush with cash, the only responsibility that Employers now have is to offer an SS401K, (Social Security 401K) where they must put a minimum of 10% of their pay into. In addition, employers need to offer insurance, but all insurance premiums would be fully deducted from the employee's pay, again so he knows the FULL cost of these products.
Let's cover the SS401K's first. These special SS401K's will be Government certified to only invest into Grade A Commercial Paper, Midcap to Largecap growth companies and Home loans (NOT SubPrime Garbage). Every year employees must update the year they plan to retire, and at least half of their account must be moved out of the stock market no later than 5 years from retirement to reduce exposure to volatility. - Issue Bonds to pay for the current crop of Social Security recipients. Currently, the U.S. will have to pay about 17 Trillion over the next 30 years to the people who are currently enrolled in Social Security and Medicare. The U.S. should monetize this obligation and place it in each tax payers SS401K plan on a pro-rated basis, dependent upon how much they've paid into Social Security so far, in the form of U.S. Interest Bearing Bonds (instead of the non interest bearing type they're currently filling Social Security with). Chile has already set a precedence for this and their average retirees are actually worth more than your average retiree here in the richest country in the world. These bonds will require an additional 5% sales tax, but the good news is that once they're paid off (in about 30 years) that extra 5% drag on the economy will be gone.
- Make Employees take responsibility for their Health Care. Pre-existing conditions clauses would be eliminated. Age indexing would be eliminated, all policy holders will pay the same price, regardless of age, sex or condition. While you would think that this would cause rates to rise, in reality it won't because it will balance out with healthy people that currently choose NOT to buy insurance injecting cash into the system. HMO Type policies will also be eliminated because they mask true costs of health care from the general populace, which is why the health care industry is able to get away with increase that are usually 2 or 3X the level of inflation. All employees will have the choice of going with one of 3 policies, a modified Medical Savings Account which has a $5000.00 Cash allotment to be used for medical expenses on a special Credit Card), after which the company pays for all expenses (This would be the closest thing to an HMO, but at least the employee is AWARE of the TRUE cost of services). The second type of policy will be a Catastrophic policy that only pays after a $5000.00 deductible (this will be the cheapest, probably around 2 to $400.00 a month). The third option will be a standard indemnity policy with around a $250.00 deductible and 80/20 coverage, where you file paperwork with the insurance company and they reimburse you 80% of what you paid (usually to 5 or 10K then it covers 100%). All policies will have to cover up to 2 Million. Since Doctors and hospitals will no longer have to hire battalions of Billing Specialist to fight the HMO's for reimbursement, all Doctors that currently take insurance (yeah some don't) will be required to reduce their current prices by 25%. This price control will be in effect for 5 years to give the market time to adjust to the new realities.
- All those who chose to ignore the law (such as illegal Immigrants and the self employed who didn't buy policies) will be transferred to special Government run hospitals if they end up needing care, where they can receive Canadian Style wait for years to get treatment service. This way Hospitals can't use the uninsured as an excuse to charge us $100.00 for a Tylenol.
- Make Employees take responsibility for Mishaps. Mishaps happen, unemployment happens and so employees will have to take responsibility and buy their own unemployment insurance and Accident insurance. Policies like AFLAC pay a certain amount of CASH for every day that someone is in the hospital so they can pay their bills. Unemployment insurance should be offered by private companies with the risk rating relative to how many times someone has applied for unemployment. As an employer, I was keenly aware of employees who would work the minimum of 6 months to qualify for unemployment, they would then get themselves fired and then applied and "took 3 months off". Then went back to work for the next stooge.
Employees that show this pattern of behavior should be charged more for their unemployment insurance. Again, people will be required to buy these kinds of policies, but they shouldn't consume any more than about 1 to 3% of their pay. All of These insurance Policies, Retirement accounts and even savings accounts should be offered as a direct deduction to employees, but none of it should be subsidized by the employer. If the employer wishes to subsidize something, they should simply pay the employee more money and let the employee decide what to do with the cash. - Move more responsibility towards the States. Things like Welfare and other social programs should be administered by the States. With their constituents flush with cash, they will see a MASSIVE increase in sales tax revenue. Remember, even though the average person has to pay 15% more for their products (between the 10% sales Tax and the 5% special Assessment for Social Security Bonds) they will still have between 25 to 61% more money to spend. The average family won't be spending any more than about 15% to 25% of their pay on Retirement and Insurance, so that should leave PLENTY of extra cash for buying more stuff. The states can use this revenue to increase their
responsibility. - Reap the rewards. Small Business owners who inherited the business from their parents will no longer have to pay crushing death taxes and sell off parts of the business. With Oil imports permanently costing 10% more than the home grown variety, companies will have more incentives to both drill at home and develop alternatives, such as Wind and Solar. This alone will help to provide Millions of new jobs. The same goes for a variety of other businesses where imports are only marginally lower than the home grown variety. Businesses that relocated to other parts of the world will be flocking back to the U.S. totake advantage of the elimination of the Capital Gains tax. EVERY Multinational Company in the world will relocate their headquarters to the U.S. With 100% of Profits (instead of 65% under the old system) being reinvested in companies, the U.S. will see the most powerful boom in economic activity since the start of WWII, far eclipsing and surpassing any economic boom that we've ever had.
The only reason I feel that this plan will not work, is because it would never be implemented. The current congress would have way too much power to lose if the tax code were eliminated, and special interest groups would no longer have a need for them. Congressmen would lose MILLIONS in donations. The only way something like this would happen is if the people demanded it, and so here's thefirst voice, demanding that we do this.
05 April 2009
Sarah Palin Bikini Photos
I was reading a story from the Glenn Beck Newsletter, and I can't believe that this story is still out there, and there are still people that think there are real pictures out there of Sarah Palin in a Bikini!.Apparently there's been over 600,000 searches over the past several months with the following being the Hottest Key words:
Hot photos, Sarah Palin Bikini Photos, Sarah Palin Nude, Sarah Palin Naked.
Honestly, this just literally blows my mind that this is what people are looking for, they're not looking for the fact that she's running one of the only states with a massive budget surplus, they're not talking about the fact that even with surpluses, she's cut over a Billion dollars out of the budget. They're not talking or looking for information on all of her great accomplishments, instead they're looking for a Flesh Piece? Well to that all I can say is maybe America got what they deserved with the current administration.
For all you doubter's here's the REAL photograph that you see above:
If you need another party to verify, check out snopes.
03 April 2009
The Coming Environmental Disaster
The Environmental Protection Agency and some large business (especially GE who makes the bulbs and owns NBC and MSNBC), including Wal-Mart, are aggressively promoting the sale of compact fluorescent light bulbs as a way to save energy and fight global warming. They want Americans to buy many millions of them over the coming years.But the bulbs contain mercury, a neurotoxin, and the companies and federal government haven't come up with effective ways to get Americans to recycle them!
"The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens," says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, the trade group for the people who handle trash and recycling.
Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, and it's especially dangerous for children and fetuses. Most exposure to mercury comes from eating fish contaminated with mercury, however, that can change now that we're adding more and more mercury filled bulbs into our homes and places of business.
Some states, cities and counties have outlawed putting CFL bulbs in the trash, but in most states the practice is legal.
Pete Keller works for Eco Lights Northwest, the only company in Washington state that recycles fluorescent lamps. He says it is illegal to put the bulbs in the trash in some counties in Washington, but most people still throw them out.
"I think most people do want to recycle, but if it's not made easy, it doesn't happen," Keller says. "And they're small enough to fit in a trash can. So by nature, I think most people are not recyclers. So if it's small enough to fit in a trash can, that's where it ends up."
Experts agree that it's not easy for most people to recycle these bulbs. Even cities that have curbside recycling won't take the bulbs. So people have to take them to a hazardous-waste collection day or a special facility.
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency program concedes that not enough has been done to urge people to recycle CFL bulbs and make it easier for them to do so.
"I share your frustration that there isn't a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product," says Wendy Reed, who manages EPA's Energy Star program. That programs gives the compact bulbs its "energy star" seal of approval.
She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in the air.
The difference however is that while Mercury emissions at Coal Fired plants can be controlled with tougher legislation, Mercury in our homes and offices, and especially landfills cannot be easily contained.
Reed says the agency has been urging stores that sell the bulbs to help recycle them.
"EPA is actively engaged with trying to find a solution that works for these retailers around recycling the product, because it's really, really important," Reed says.
But so far, she says the biggest sellers of the bulbs haven't stepped up to the plate.
"The only retailer that I know of that is recycling is IKEA," she says, referring to the Swedish-owned furniture chain store.
Reed says the EPA has been prodding other retailers, such as Wal-Mart, to do more.
"We are working with Wal-Mart on it, we are making some progress. But no commitments have been made on the part of Wal-Mart," she says.
Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for a comment on the issue.
EPA also has asked retailers to sell the lower mercury compact bulbs that some manufacturers are making. Engineers say you can't cut mercury out completely.
Some other big companies have started paying attention to the recycling problem.
General Electric has been making compact fluorescents for 20 years. Now the company admits that the little bit of mercury in each bulbs could become a real problem if sales balloon as expected.
"Given what we anticipate to be the significant increase in the use of these products, we are now beginning to look at, and shortly we'll be discussing with legislators, possibly a national solution here," says Earl Jones, a senior counsel for General Electric.
In fact, Jones said he was having his first talks with congressional staffers on Thursday.
Story originally by Elizabeth Shogren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)