Depressing enough title for you?
Truth sucks and no one wants to hear it, but explain to me what is there to be optimistic about.
Congress is going to continue to increase taxes and spend more. I don't have a party affiliation, so you can suck a dick with that bullshit argument. Both of them bite it and want to spend, spend, spend, stealing the money from those who produce and give it away to the moochers and looters. I don't care if it's a corporation like GE, GM, Citibank, or Archer Daniels or the people who've been on unemployment for over a year+, who spit out bastard child after bastard child, or the people who didn't plan for their older years when working wouldn't be as easy as it was when you were younger.
Yes, I'm blaming old people here, too. The federal government STOLE YOUR MONEY! It's gone! The money these people are using for Social Security and Medicare is the money currently being taken from those who are working. YOU'RE A LEECH! Define for me where you're somehow entitled to retire. If you can afford to stop working, because you've put money aside to live without working, have at it. More power to you. But if you haven't, your "retirement" is being paid for by the rest of the country who're working. You're telling them "I'm done, take care of me." I have no obligation to your life, so why do I have pay for it?
"These people have worked all their life. We owe it to them!" WHY?!?! They worked to pay for their life! That's why we all work! Because I provide goods and services to others, they are somehow responsible for me once I get old?!
"You just want old people to die when they get old! You want them to eat dog food!" The argument that it's nihilism or statism and there are no other choices is hilarious. Communities always found a way to take care of those who truly cannot care for themselves. Families used to care for their elders. This was all before the GOVERNMENT stepped in and said, "You people live like the children we see you as. We'll take care of the old, infirmed, and those who need us. Which will eventually be you all. So just give us your money and we'll care for you."
I fully expect to work into my 70's or until I'm dead, whichever comes first. I'm setting aside money to care for myself and my family, but yes, it could all evaporate in a blink. So I'll have to work to provide for myself. If this means I have a coronary on the job, then that's life.
So, because Congress keeps spending money it doesn't have, jacking up the debt, I say the check will come due this year, as other countries who've loaned us money see the negative return on their "investments", as the fallacy that is the Federal Reserve comes to light, and the economy continues its downward spiral. By about June, we'll have a Greece moment where it all comes apart at the seams.
The same assmonkey's in Washington D.C. will also try and implement 'gun control' and the Republicans will bend over and take a fist in the ass because "We have to do something" and they have no idea how to control their own press. This will blow up in their faces, literally.
In the 3 weeks since Sandy Hook, I would guess that the amount of semi-auto rifles sold will be pretty close to the amount sold since the 'assault weapons ban' expired in 2004. Many manufacturers have said they've sold out of their current and future stock for the next 6 months of production. Magazines? Brownell said they sold out of a 3 years supply in 3 days. Ammo? Sold out or prices are skyrocketing again. So, will all these people capitulate to their federal masters on the proposed legislation/regulation or will someone resist and will blood run? European nations erupted in violence when people were told they will have to pay more for their own retirement or their healthcare or their education. There are enough people in this country who are so dyed in the wool resistors that an act like that would set them off. I wish it wouldn't happen on either side, but I see it. What then? Martial law? More violence?
We're already heading toward a police state. Local police departments are more militarized. More no-knock warrants for minor infractions or drug violations. We have to give ID and have our purchases tracked to get relief from a cold. We subject ourselves to intrusive, unconstitutional searches when we wish to travel by air and it's now coming to those who want to travel by train or bus. Random stops on the road are already springing up in states around the country to check for ID and where people are going. You will comply or you will go to jail!
PLUS... the government can spy on your communications without warrants because "It's for your own safety." They can imprison you without trial because "It's for your own safety." The common good mean obey or be broken.
With all this starting to fall apart, society itself is falling down. A man took pictures while a person was pushed in front of a subway train. When a fight erupts in a restaurant, people break out their phones to take a picture or video so it can "go viral". History Channel doesn't show history. The Learning Channel is all about learning how emotional women get when choosing a wedding dress or how pedo's leer at children dressed up like high-end hookers or how one of those pint-sized trollops is a loud-mouth, fat little brat. People are going into incredible levels of debt for TV's, iPads, new cars and houses they can't afford, trips all over the world, sports tickets, etc... Hell, our sports "stars" are reacting in a violent manner to being pushed a little too much, or a bad call and we applaud them while those who lead virtuous lives are mocked incessantly. Our 'leaders' are liars and philanderers. Business leaders are corrupt thieves. And we all just shrug or shake our fists in anger, yet we continue to vote for these jackals or buy their products.
I said it in a couple posts back, but I say it again: The future is black. It will all begin to fall apart in 2013. It wouldn't have mattered if Mitt Romney or going back 4 more years, John McCain were elected. Both are useless slugs and wouldn't have stopped this progression of madness. We've become a vulture society, happy to see the pain and suffering of others as long as we get a chuckle or get to feed off their effort. It's coming back at us at full speed and we're too fucking stupid to get out of the way.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Is that a gun in your pocket...
...or are you happy to see me.
Yeah, silly, but I need something like that to help change my mood. I'm pissed, depressed, aggravated, frustrated, and all manner of flummoxed by the massive level of stupidity that has taken hold, especially around guns.
In general, the brain power of the American society has fallen by leaps and bounds. I blame this on my biggest pet peeve; the lack of responsibility that has taken place. We don't hold others responsible for their actions or hold ourselves responsible for what we do. Someone or something else is always to blame. Drunk driver kills someone; the bartender over-served them. A young man joins a street gang; he's from a poor neighborhood. A child is obese; fast food makers are the problem. A young man shoots up a crowd of people; we need to ban guns. Our children are stupid; more money is needed for schools. The true problems in these cases: The drunk who gets in the car, the young man who took the "easy" way out, the parents who don't control what their child eats, the young man himself, and once again, the parents who don't truly care for their offspring.
The progressive mindset (I try to avoid the term 'liberal' because these people have no idea what liberty means) wants to stay in college forever. They want to have a place to live at their level of comfort, to be able to 'party' as they please, to attempt to show others how intellectual they are by protesting, marching, and shouting down those they don't like, but again, to not be responsible for the backlash that is prone to come, and to have no true responsibility in any of it. They want it provided to them.
They are not responsible to produce anything, other than a semi-positive grade on a piece of paper, which the way many schools are now, you can do that by showing up. They want to be cared for, but not have to answer to anyone for it. They want to be protected from violence, but applaud when violence is perpetrated against "those who deserve it." It's because of this mindset that I can see why they're so opposed to private citizens owning guns and being responsible for their own safety.
The modern progressive (and so many others) wanders around the Earth without a care. They drive their cars mindlessly, talking on the phone, texting, doing their hair, reading, shaving, talking with friends, or anything that takes them away from the fact that they're wielding a 1-2 ton vehicle capable of inflicting death or carnage upon anyone in their path. They 'play' with drugs, prescription and non, because "It makes me feel creative/able to cope/motivated/happy/etc..." yet these can kill in minutes. Sex has long since past its purpose to them, that being reproduction, and it's simply a way to feel good, or empowered, or a way to express their feelings, or just something to do, yet to deal with the outcome, whether it being pregnancy or a disease, is beneath them. Someone else needs to deal with these problems; not them.
So when faced with something whose sole purpose was to actually kill, they panic. They call those of us who own or wield such things "Nuts! Idiots! Pathetic! Terrorists!" Because we're willing to take responsibility for our own safety or the safety of our families, we're "Less of a man".
Slight aside, but that one always amuses me. I'm somehow less of a man because I bring a gun to a fistfight. Ask any real fighter; not someone who thinks they're a tough guy, but someone who has gotten into many fights time after time and they will use whatever means at their disposal to either get out of or win that fight. Glasses, chairs, tables, pipes, bricks, bats, knives, or even guns. If it stops the fight before it even begins, letting both people walk away or at least I get to walk away, I'll bring a nuclear weapon to a fist fight. "Fair fights" are for a ring or when two people want to see who has the bigger balls and if you're comparing balls, that's kinda gay.
Gun owners know they're dealing with something that can kill. That's the purpose of it. And the overwhelming majority do their best to treat their gun(s) with the respect and fear that they deserve.
Now without fail, someone would invariably argue about "rednecks" (the term only became derogatory a couple decades ago. Before then, it meant someone who worked outside for a living and always found a way to solve a problem, even if it was with duct tape, a garden hose, a pillow case full of goose feathers and bacon grease) who get drunk and play 'William Tell' with shotguns and these are gun owners who aren't responsible. Fair enough. In response, I give you National Socialists, aka Nazi's. They believe in the same socialist ideals as their progressive brethren, but they throw in a whole heaping of racism. All groups have their fringe elements. If you blame the whole for the fringe then we might as well truly end it all because as a species, we're no longer worthwhile keeping around.
Yeah, silly, but I need something like that to help change my mood. I'm pissed, depressed, aggravated, frustrated, and all manner of flummoxed by the massive level of stupidity that has taken hold, especially around guns.
In general, the brain power of the American society has fallen by leaps and bounds. I blame this on my biggest pet peeve; the lack of responsibility that has taken place. We don't hold others responsible for their actions or hold ourselves responsible for what we do. Someone or something else is always to blame. Drunk driver kills someone; the bartender over-served them. A young man joins a street gang; he's from a poor neighborhood. A child is obese; fast food makers are the problem. A young man shoots up a crowd of people; we need to ban guns. Our children are stupid; more money is needed for schools. The true problems in these cases: The drunk who gets in the car, the young man who took the "easy" way out, the parents who don't control what their child eats, the young man himself, and once again, the parents who don't truly care for their offspring.
The progressive mindset (I try to avoid the term 'liberal' because these people have no idea what liberty means) wants to stay in college forever. They want to have a place to live at their level of comfort, to be able to 'party' as they please, to attempt to show others how intellectual they are by protesting, marching, and shouting down those they don't like, but again, to not be responsible for the backlash that is prone to come, and to have no true responsibility in any of it. They want it provided to them.
They are not responsible to produce anything, other than a semi-positive grade on a piece of paper, which the way many schools are now, you can do that by showing up. They want to be cared for, but not have to answer to anyone for it. They want to be protected from violence, but applaud when violence is perpetrated against "those who deserve it." It's because of this mindset that I can see why they're so opposed to private citizens owning guns and being responsible for their own safety.
The modern progressive (and so many others) wanders around the Earth without a care. They drive their cars mindlessly, talking on the phone, texting, doing their hair, reading, shaving, talking with friends, or anything that takes them away from the fact that they're wielding a 1-2 ton vehicle capable of inflicting death or carnage upon anyone in their path. They 'play' with drugs, prescription and non, because "It makes me feel creative/able to cope/motivated/happy/etc..." yet these can kill in minutes. Sex has long since past its purpose to them, that being reproduction, and it's simply a way to feel good, or empowered, or a way to express their feelings, or just something to do, yet to deal with the outcome, whether it being pregnancy or a disease, is beneath them. Someone else needs to deal with these problems; not them.
So when faced with something whose sole purpose was to actually kill, they panic. They call those of us who own or wield such things "Nuts! Idiots! Pathetic! Terrorists!" Because we're willing to take responsibility for our own safety or the safety of our families, we're "Less of a man".
Slight aside, but that one always amuses me. I'm somehow less of a man because I bring a gun to a fistfight. Ask any real fighter; not someone who thinks they're a tough guy, but someone who has gotten into many fights time after time and they will use whatever means at their disposal to either get out of or win that fight. Glasses, chairs, tables, pipes, bricks, bats, knives, or even guns. If it stops the fight before it even begins, letting both people walk away or at least I get to walk away, I'll bring a nuclear weapon to a fist fight. "Fair fights" are for a ring or when two people want to see who has the bigger balls and if you're comparing balls, that's kinda gay.
Gun owners know they're dealing with something that can kill. That's the purpose of it. And the overwhelming majority do their best to treat their gun(s) with the respect and fear that they deserve.
Now without fail, someone would invariably argue about "rednecks" (the term only became derogatory a couple decades ago. Before then, it meant someone who worked outside for a living and always found a way to solve a problem, even if it was with duct tape, a garden hose, a pillow case full of goose feathers and bacon grease) who get drunk and play 'William Tell' with shotguns and these are gun owners who aren't responsible. Fair enough. In response, I give you National Socialists, aka Nazi's. They believe in the same socialist ideals as their progressive brethren, but they throw in a whole heaping of racism. All groups have their fringe elements. If you blame the whole for the fringe then we might as well truly end it all because as a species, we're no longer worthwhile keeping around.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Fiscal Cliff - Yup, gonna go right over
The stupidity of government is almost palpable. I'd say their actions are illogical, but that would imply they actually think about what they're doing and I say it's pretty obvious they don't.
We (the greater We) have a spending problem. Period. It's not a matter of revenue (I.E. taxes), but of spending. Governments, on all levels in the US, are spending money they do not have. From towns to counties to states to the federal level; they are borrowing money or "creating" it out of thin air and giving it away to their cause du jour.
And before some fool tries to make the claim that the Democrats want to spend it on the poor and middle-class (what ever that means) and the Republicans want to spend it on the rich and corporations: Show me the politicians at all levels who have NOT gotten wealthy while serving in government and I will show you the politicians who actually want to reduce spending. Both parties distribute money to corporations and "the rich", it's just a matter of what purpose they serve that party.
Obama's proposals are ludicrous at best, blatantly stupid, and lack any understanding of simple math. The sound bite is his proposal will raise $1.6 trillion dollars. What is left off that sound bite is "...over 10 years." Here's some simple math to show the ignorance:
The deficit (the "revenue" the federal government has raised - the money the federal government has spend= deficit) for fiscal year 2011 was approx $1.4 trillion. That was in ONE YEAR. His proposal is to attempt to raise just over last years deficit, over a span of 10 years. So, annually, he proposes to raise the money to cover just over 1/10th of that years actual deficit. This means we will go deeper into debt by approx $1 trillion dollars per year! It's fighting a forest fire with a garden hose.
Now, deeper into this and with the help of history, we see that EVERY government that has attempted to raise more "revenue" by raising taxes and has projected how much they'll raise, has come pathetically short of that target by BILLIONS of dollars. You don't have to go that far back. If memory serves, England tried it last year and came up short by over half. It doesn't work!
And he's not serious about solving the problem. Why do I say that? Boner... sorry, Boehner, the slimy coward he is, proposed cutting deductions and "loopholes" for those making over $250k, which supposedly would have generated the same "revenue", along with spending cuts, and Obama rejected it. "Raises tax rates!" cried Barry. "Give me the power to raise the debt limit!" shouted Dear Leader. "And if I feel like it, I may chose to cut spending in the future. If I'm in the mood." Boehner, Mr. Dickbag himself, scurried back to his rathole, cried himself to sleep a few nights, then came back and said, "Fine... we'll raise rates on those making over $1 million. But we need those cuts, you know. Please. I'll be good." With a laugh, Chairman Maobama shooed him off and said, "Silly little clown, I said EVERYONE making over $250K. Not $1 million. Away with you and come back with what I want or I'll blame you like I did Bush." I will guarantee Boehner capitulates and proves he's as useless as a mesh condom.
"The rich need to pay their fair share!!!" Is the rallying cry of the Sheeple.
Define fair share? Pull any tax record you want; 10% of the population pays about 70% of federal income taxes. Obviously, being they make more money, they will naturally pay more. Isn't 70% of the income tax "revenue" fair enough?
But let's stop for a moment and open this up a little.
Yes, there are people who's salaries are in this $350K and above range (~$350k is that entry into the top 10% range). However, many of these "income earners" are small businesses, whose tax filings put them in the "individual bracket", as opposed to a business. AND, I would say a vast majority of this income when you get into $1 million range, is in the form of capital gains.
"What are capital gains?" In short, they're returns on investments. An interest payment. I loan you $100 dollars so you can buy a new widget to increase your production capabilities. In return, I charge you 5% interest, so I expect to get back $105. The Sheeple will say this is greedy and I'm trying to make a buck off the "workin' man", but let's put stupidity aside for a moment. A) If you don't increase production and thus increase your profits, my $100 is toast. Gone. Bye-bye. B) Without my $100, you can't increase production for a long time, so you can't hire more people, make more goods for others, make more money for yourself and your employees, etc... So for letting you use my money in the short term, you're saying "Thank you."
AND... that investment money I gave you? That came from my income, which thanks to tax rates, was already taxed before I loaned it to you! So then I try to make that money work, loaning it to others, and when they pay me back with a little more, I then have to pay taxes on that little more! Fuck me in the goat ass! Tell me how that isn't theft!?
Our government is overspending. No amount of tax "revenue" is going to solve the problem. NONE. If your child is spending more money than you give them for allowance, you don't keep giving them more. You ground them and then give them EVEN less, to make up for their stupidity.
At the current rate, it needs to spend approx $1.6 trillion LESS per year. Let's call is $2 trillion. How?
Military - Gut it! Yes, gut it. We have a presence in 70 something countries around the world. This is asinine on a biblical scale. I will guarantee you could spend 1/10th the amount and still be able to protect U.S. interests abroad. Other countries? Deal with your defense yourself. We have our own problems. And to the assmonkey who claims we'd be defenseless? Nuclear fucking weapons. We're the only country on the globe to use them and it made us the big cheese. Tell people that if they mess with us, they'll be lucky to get nuked. War sucks and if you're not ready to play for keeps, don't even get in the fight.
Foreign aid - Fuck you all! That goes for the UN, too. The US is by far the largest contributor to the UN, borrowing money to do so, and for this we get pissed on. Let China and Russia pay for it.
Social Security - If you're not on it or not going on in within say the next 5 years, too bad, so sad. Your government lied to you. They stole your money, spent it elsewhere and said, "Oh well." THE MONEY IS GONE! If you get on it now, you're not getting your money. You're getting your kids money. Or you grandkids. Cut out the middle man and go live with your kids if you didn't plan for "retirement". No kids? There are (or at least were before the Fed got involved) organizations who help those truly in need.
Medicaid/Medicare - Same as Social Security. The money is long since spent.
State "aid" - If a state can't pay for its own programs, that's its own fault. The people of North Carolina shouldn't have to pay for the retirement, welfare, healthcare, road issues, etc... of the people of New York or California or Oregon or Massachusetts or the dozens of other states that OVERSPENT! We have our own problems. Go eat a dick!
Long winded, but that's me.
I truly believe we have gone too far. There is no returning to fiscal normalcy, if you'll forgive the term. Like society as a whole, who buys everything on credit, our government is a reflection of Us and as such, it will collapse upon itself. Look at Europe and explain to me how we're different. We're going down the exact same path as the EU, following in lockstep.
2010 was the last year we could have turned back. Republicans promised they would return to fiscal sanity and hoping against hope, like those who voted for Obama in 2008, I thought they could do it. But like so many who through Barry was different, I too was let down and the leadership kept playing the same game. Sure, there were and are some in office who are trying, but it's like a gang rape; it stops every so often, but that's only until the next animal gets on.
The future is bleak. Sorry to be the downer, but it's not going to get better. Surely not any time soon. But like all collapses, there's opportunity to start again. To rebuild. The question is: Do we rebuild like where we came from? From the late 18th century; a land ravaged by war, but with hope and courage to build and prosper. Or do we rebuild like post WWI Germany? Or post WWII China? Totalitarian states where pain and suffering became a way of life for all but the privileged.
We (the greater We) have a spending problem. Period. It's not a matter of revenue (I.E. taxes), but of spending. Governments, on all levels in the US, are spending money they do not have. From towns to counties to states to the federal level; they are borrowing money or "creating" it out of thin air and giving it away to their cause du jour.
And before some fool tries to make the claim that the Democrats want to spend it on the poor and middle-class (what ever that means) and the Republicans want to spend it on the rich and corporations: Show me the politicians at all levels who have NOT gotten wealthy while serving in government and I will show you the politicians who actually want to reduce spending. Both parties distribute money to corporations and "the rich", it's just a matter of what purpose they serve that party.
Obama's proposals are ludicrous at best, blatantly stupid, and lack any understanding of simple math. The sound bite is his proposal will raise $1.6 trillion dollars. What is left off that sound bite is "...over 10 years." Here's some simple math to show the ignorance:
The deficit (the "revenue" the federal government has raised - the money the federal government has spend= deficit) for fiscal year 2011 was approx $1.4 trillion. That was in ONE YEAR. His proposal is to attempt to raise just over last years deficit, over a span of 10 years. So, annually, he proposes to raise the money to cover just over 1/10th of that years actual deficit. This means we will go deeper into debt by approx $1 trillion dollars per year! It's fighting a forest fire with a garden hose.
Now, deeper into this and with the help of history, we see that EVERY government that has attempted to raise more "revenue" by raising taxes and has projected how much they'll raise, has come pathetically short of that target by BILLIONS of dollars. You don't have to go that far back. If memory serves, England tried it last year and came up short by over half. It doesn't work!
And he's not serious about solving the problem. Why do I say that? Boner... sorry, Boehner, the slimy coward he is, proposed cutting deductions and "loopholes" for those making over $250k, which supposedly would have generated the same "revenue", along with spending cuts, and Obama rejected it. "Raises tax rates!" cried Barry. "Give me the power to raise the debt limit!" shouted Dear Leader. "And if I feel like it, I may chose to cut spending in the future. If I'm in the mood." Boehner, Mr. Dickbag himself, scurried back to his rathole, cried himself to sleep a few nights, then came back and said, "Fine... we'll raise rates on those making over $1 million. But we need those cuts, you know. Please. I'll be good." With a laugh, Chairman Maobama shooed him off and said, "Silly little clown, I said EVERYONE making over $250K. Not $1 million. Away with you and come back with what I want or I'll blame you like I did Bush." I will guarantee Boehner capitulates and proves he's as useless as a mesh condom.
"The rich need to pay their fair share!!!" Is the rallying cry of the Sheeple.
Define fair share? Pull any tax record you want; 10% of the population pays about 70% of federal income taxes. Obviously, being they make more money, they will naturally pay more. Isn't 70% of the income tax "revenue" fair enough?
But let's stop for a moment and open this up a little.
Yes, there are people who's salaries are in this $350K and above range (~$350k is that entry into the top 10% range). However, many of these "income earners" are small businesses, whose tax filings put them in the "individual bracket", as opposed to a business. AND, I would say a vast majority of this income when you get into $1 million range, is in the form of capital gains.
"What are capital gains?" In short, they're returns on investments. An interest payment. I loan you $100 dollars so you can buy a new widget to increase your production capabilities. In return, I charge you 5% interest, so I expect to get back $105. The Sheeple will say this is greedy and I'm trying to make a buck off the "workin' man", but let's put stupidity aside for a moment. A) If you don't increase production and thus increase your profits, my $100 is toast. Gone. Bye-bye. B) Without my $100, you can't increase production for a long time, so you can't hire more people, make more goods for others, make more money for yourself and your employees, etc... So for letting you use my money in the short term, you're saying "Thank you."
AND... that investment money I gave you? That came from my income, which thanks to tax rates, was already taxed before I loaned it to you! So then I try to make that money work, loaning it to others, and when they pay me back with a little more, I then have to pay taxes on that little more! Fuck me in the goat ass! Tell me how that isn't theft!?
Our government is overspending. No amount of tax "revenue" is going to solve the problem. NONE. If your child is spending more money than you give them for allowance, you don't keep giving them more. You ground them and then give them EVEN less, to make up for their stupidity.
At the current rate, it needs to spend approx $1.6 trillion LESS per year. Let's call is $2 trillion. How?
Military - Gut it! Yes, gut it. We have a presence in 70 something countries around the world. This is asinine on a biblical scale. I will guarantee you could spend 1/10th the amount and still be able to protect U.S. interests abroad. Other countries? Deal with your defense yourself. We have our own problems. And to the assmonkey who claims we'd be defenseless? Nuclear fucking weapons. We're the only country on the globe to use them and it made us the big cheese. Tell people that if they mess with us, they'll be lucky to get nuked. War sucks and if you're not ready to play for keeps, don't even get in the fight.
Foreign aid - Fuck you all! That goes for the UN, too. The US is by far the largest contributor to the UN, borrowing money to do so, and for this we get pissed on. Let China and Russia pay for it.
Social Security - If you're not on it or not going on in within say the next 5 years, too bad, so sad. Your government lied to you. They stole your money, spent it elsewhere and said, "Oh well." THE MONEY IS GONE! If you get on it now, you're not getting your money. You're getting your kids money. Or you grandkids. Cut out the middle man and go live with your kids if you didn't plan for "retirement". No kids? There are (or at least were before the Fed got involved) organizations who help those truly in need.
Medicaid/Medicare - Same as Social Security. The money is long since spent.
State "aid" - If a state can't pay for its own programs, that's its own fault. The people of North Carolina shouldn't have to pay for the retirement, welfare, healthcare, road issues, etc... of the people of New York or California or Oregon or Massachusetts or the dozens of other states that OVERSPENT! We have our own problems. Go eat a dick!
Long winded, but that's me.
I truly believe we have gone too far. There is no returning to fiscal normalcy, if you'll forgive the term. Like society as a whole, who buys everything on credit, our government is a reflection of Us and as such, it will collapse upon itself. Look at Europe and explain to me how we're different. We're going down the exact same path as the EU, following in lockstep.
2010 was the last year we could have turned back. Republicans promised they would return to fiscal sanity and hoping against hope, like those who voted for Obama in 2008, I thought they could do it. But like so many who through Barry was different, I too was let down and the leadership kept playing the same game. Sure, there were and are some in office who are trying, but it's like a gang rape; it stops every so often, but that's only until the next animal gets on.
The future is bleak. Sorry to be the downer, but it's not going to get better. Surely not any time soon. But like all collapses, there's opportunity to start again. To rebuild. The question is: Do we rebuild like where we came from? From the late 18th century; a land ravaged by war, but with hope and courage to build and prosper. Or do we rebuild like post WWI Germany? Or post WWII China? Totalitarian states where pain and suffering became a way of life for all but the privileged.
A modern take on Bonhoeffer
First they came for privacy. But I have nothing to hide, so I complied.
Then they came for security of a person from unreasonable search. But it was for the greater good, so I complied.
Then they came for speech. But I say nothing of hate, opposition, or aggression, so I complied.
Then they came for the dissidents. But I am not a dissident, so I complied.
Then they came for the guns. But I don't own or like guns, so I complied.
I then stopped and realized that guns, dissent, speech, security, and privacy are all necessary components of a free society and I had willfully complied with and even demanded for the removal of these liberties because "It's for the greater good" and "It doesn't affect me, I've done nothing wrong."
It was too late. I now have no choice but to comply or I fear they will come for me.
Then they came for security of a person from unreasonable search. But it was for the greater good, so I complied.
Then they came for speech. But I say nothing of hate, opposition, or aggression, so I complied.
Then they came for the dissidents. But I am not a dissident, so I complied.
Then they came for the guns. But I don't own or like guns, so I complied.
I then stopped and realized that guns, dissent, speech, security, and privacy are all necessary components of a free society and I had willfully complied with and even demanded for the removal of these liberties because "It's for the greater good" and "It doesn't affect me, I've done nothing wrong."
It was too late. I now have no choice but to comply or I fear they will come for me.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A tragedy in CT, in many ways
Wow... let this blog lapse, didn't I?
I had great intentions when I created the page, but I got distracted... SQUIRREL... as well as semi-depressed, so I let it hang out there. But after this weekend, I have to express what's in my head. Some may say it's tasteless to bring this up so soon, but when is it right? Next week, next month, 6 months? The horror of it really never dies; the pain just fades and is different for each person.
GUN CONTROL, GUN, CONTROL, GUN CONTROL... From the "left", this is all you're hearing. To use a quote from someone else, "MSNBC didn't even wait for the bodies to get cold before rushing to the gun control argument." Distasteful, but true. Starting at the horror and going back through the events that have been brought to light, where would "reasonable gun control" have stopped things.
Murder is illegal, is it not? Yet he murdered people. No law helped there. He broke through the security the school has; criminal trespass, no law helped there. He brought guns onto school property, a "gun free zone". No law helped there. It appears he stole the guns from his mother, who it looks like he killed, because he could not purchase them because he wouldn't submit to a background check. 'AH HA... if his mother didn't have guns, he couldn't have killed her and stolen them!' His mother was an avid target shooter. Based on all the 'guidelines' you hear from the gun control crowd, she would have been licensed, could have passed tests for proficiency, would have and did wait to purchase them, so what would have stopped him from killing her and stealing them. 'A SAFE! Like in California!' Oh, so this psychopath wouldn't have waited for her to remove them to go target shooting? Or tortured her to give up the combination? Or, being he was such a lunatic, maybe he kills a cop. The modern 'law enforcement officer' has no only the pistol on their hip, but usually a shotgun and more often nowadays, a rifle in their car. "So, he's just gonna kill a cop, huh?!" I hear someone saying in disgust, doubting it could happen. Why not? Are cops immortal beings?
"If there were no guns, those kids would still be alive!!!!".
Oh, so he wouldn't have poured gasoline into gallon jugs, stuffed rags in the hole, broken into the school, lit them and thrown them into the classrooms? Or, using directions readily available on the internet, he wouldn't have made multiple pipebombs from household items, broke into the school, gone room to room, lighting them and throwing them in? You're blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a psychotic. It would be like blaming the alcohol for a drunk driver who plows into a family of four and kills them. Or something less violent: the pen for a failed exam. The fork and spoon for the obese person. It is the actions of the individual that caused this and no level of law or regulation could have stopped it.
"Handguns and assault rifles should be banned! Only the police should have them!"
A) See the above point and B) So only the government should have the means to execute force? Seems logical???
Since time immemorial, governments have wished to control the populace. They have the power, we are their subjects. This country was formed on the premise that the people, not the government, are the rulers and that government can only take action by the will of the people. To control that government, a constitution was implemented that dictated what that government (starting at the federal level, then each state was to establish their own) could and, more importantly, could NOT do. Now, if left to its own devices, that government, like all before it, would seek to establish greater power. However, our Founders put in a clause; an amendment. Number 2. By maintaining the right to arm itself, the people could make sure the government could not run roughshod over the public. That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.
"It was there for hunting and self-defense, you terrorist!" or the popular "It was for a militia!"
Hunting and self-defense? If, as dictated by the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given to us by our Creator, why would they need to clarify the right to provide ones self food or the means to protect themselves from harm? These are natural. If they weren't, then you would have no right to eat and I could come over to your house and beat you unconditionally.
As for the militia: What was a militia? Government schools have done their best to hide history, but in its purest form, the militia were average citizens, ready to defend themselves and their neighbors whenever the time called for it.
Defend them from whom? Oppressors.
What oppressors? What do you got?
If you can find the actual history of it, these were men who rose up against an oppressive government, THEIR OWN. A government that wished to tax them into submission. That wished to dictate how and where these people could do business. That suppressed the right to speak out against it. That demanded that the people could not maintain the means to resist it; taking away their guns. That was a militia.
"The founders couldn't have known about machine guns! It was for when they had muskets!"
The logical retort is the sections above, but to answer it on its face:
A) These were men who had known of history. Of scientific achievement. They witnessed the first manned balloon flights. They'd known the advancements of armament through time. Sure, they couldn't "foresee" the machine gun, per say, but to think they didn't know that guns would advance is ludicrous.
B) Then destroy your computer. Burn all ball point pens and modern paper. Quill and parchment for all! Destroy the modern printing press and return to engraved plates! Throw away that bullhorn and PA system! Your freedoms of speech and press only apply to the instruments of the founding, no more! See how asinine the "muskets" argument is? If the right to bear arms isn't appropriate in the modern era, none are. Submit. Obey. Be a servant and shut your mouth.
The Left stomps and cries that you can't legislate morality. And you can't. But you also can't legislate sociopaths. Restricting access to guns for those who adhere to the law would have and will do NOTHING. Look around the country and the cities with the highest gun crime rates all have the strictest gun laws. Britain, Norway, Germany; all these countries have incredibly restrictive gun laws yet gun crime still happens and is growing.
More gun control wouldn't have stopped the massacre. But a school administrator or a teacher with a 9mm pistol could have.
I had great intentions when I created the page, but I got distracted... SQUIRREL... as well as semi-depressed, so I let it hang out there. But after this weekend, I have to express what's in my head. Some may say it's tasteless to bring this up so soon, but when is it right? Next week, next month, 6 months? The horror of it really never dies; the pain just fades and is different for each person.
GUN CONTROL, GUN, CONTROL, GUN CONTROL... From the "left", this is all you're hearing. To use a quote from someone else, "MSNBC didn't even wait for the bodies to get cold before rushing to the gun control argument." Distasteful, but true. Starting at the horror and going back through the events that have been brought to light, where would "reasonable gun control" have stopped things.
Murder is illegal, is it not? Yet he murdered people. No law helped there. He broke through the security the school has; criminal trespass, no law helped there. He brought guns onto school property, a "gun free zone". No law helped there. It appears he stole the guns from his mother, who it looks like he killed, because he could not purchase them because he wouldn't submit to a background check. 'AH HA... if his mother didn't have guns, he couldn't have killed her and stolen them!' His mother was an avid target shooter. Based on all the 'guidelines' you hear from the gun control crowd, she would have been licensed, could have passed tests for proficiency, would have and did wait to purchase them, so what would have stopped him from killing her and stealing them. 'A SAFE! Like in California!' Oh, so this psychopath wouldn't have waited for her to remove them to go target shooting? Or tortured her to give up the combination? Or, being he was such a lunatic, maybe he kills a cop. The modern 'law enforcement officer' has no only the pistol on their hip, but usually a shotgun and more often nowadays, a rifle in their car. "So, he's just gonna kill a cop, huh?!" I hear someone saying in disgust, doubting it could happen. Why not? Are cops immortal beings?
"If there were no guns, those kids would still be alive!!!!".
Oh, so he wouldn't have poured gasoline into gallon jugs, stuffed rags in the hole, broken into the school, lit them and thrown them into the classrooms? Or, using directions readily available on the internet, he wouldn't have made multiple pipebombs from household items, broke into the school, gone room to room, lighting them and throwing them in? You're blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a psychotic. It would be like blaming the alcohol for a drunk driver who plows into a family of four and kills them. Or something less violent: the pen for a failed exam. The fork and spoon for the obese person. It is the actions of the individual that caused this and no level of law or regulation could have stopped it.
"Handguns and assault rifles should be banned! Only the police should have them!"
A) See the above point and B) So only the government should have the means to execute force? Seems logical???
Since time immemorial, governments have wished to control the populace. They have the power, we are their subjects. This country was formed on the premise that the people, not the government, are the rulers and that government can only take action by the will of the people. To control that government, a constitution was implemented that dictated what that government (starting at the federal level, then each state was to establish their own) could and, more importantly, could NOT do. Now, if left to its own devices, that government, like all before it, would seek to establish greater power. However, our Founders put in a clause; an amendment. Number 2. By maintaining the right to arm itself, the people could make sure the government could not run roughshod over the public. That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.
"It was there for hunting and self-defense, you terrorist!" or the popular "It was for a militia!"
Hunting and self-defense? If, as dictated by the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given to us by our Creator, why would they need to clarify the right to provide ones self food or the means to protect themselves from harm? These are natural. If they weren't, then you would have no right to eat and I could come over to your house and beat you unconditionally.
As for the militia: What was a militia? Government schools have done their best to hide history, but in its purest form, the militia were average citizens, ready to defend themselves and their neighbors whenever the time called for it.
Defend them from whom? Oppressors.
What oppressors? What do you got?
If you can find the actual history of it, these were men who rose up against an oppressive government, THEIR OWN. A government that wished to tax them into submission. That wished to dictate how and where these people could do business. That suppressed the right to speak out against it. That demanded that the people could not maintain the means to resist it; taking away their guns. That was a militia.
"The founders couldn't have known about machine guns! It was for when they had muskets!"
The logical retort is the sections above, but to answer it on its face:
A) These were men who had known of history. Of scientific achievement. They witnessed the first manned balloon flights. They'd known the advancements of armament through time. Sure, they couldn't "foresee" the machine gun, per say, but to think they didn't know that guns would advance is ludicrous.
B) Then destroy your computer. Burn all ball point pens and modern paper. Quill and parchment for all! Destroy the modern printing press and return to engraved plates! Throw away that bullhorn and PA system! Your freedoms of speech and press only apply to the instruments of the founding, no more! See how asinine the "muskets" argument is? If the right to bear arms isn't appropriate in the modern era, none are. Submit. Obey. Be a servant and shut your mouth.
The Left stomps and cries that you can't legislate morality. And you can't. But you also can't legislate sociopaths. Restricting access to guns for those who adhere to the law would have and will do NOTHING. Look around the country and the cities with the highest gun crime rates all have the strictest gun laws. Britain, Norway, Germany; all these countries have incredibly restrictive gun laws yet gun crime still happens and is growing.
More gun control wouldn't have stopped the massacre. But a school administrator or a teacher with a 9mm pistol could have.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Level Set - Part 2
Where'd I leave off... government. It's much more complicated than that small blurb, but as time goes on, you'll get a clearer picture.
Now for some "societal" positions.
Drugs - With the exception of caffeine, alcohol, a little nicotine from the occasional cigar, and the pharmaceuticals used to control a couple health problems here and there, I don't use them. Now obviously, I'm talking about what are currently positioned as "illicit drug"; pot, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc... But because I don't use them, that doesn't mean I don't want you to. If they thrill you, have at it. Just don't let your usage of them cross into my life. Theft to feed a habit, DUI, firearm possession under the influence, etc... that happens, sorry, your ass should be in jail because you took your life and placed others into it without their consent. So yes, legalize IT, whatever "it" you have. Just know that if you cross into my life with your shit, I will deal with you appropriately.
Sex - Yes, please. Next topic.
Anyways... Similar to drugs, whatever you do in your life is your business. As long as you don't pull me into it, then as George Carlin said, I don't care if you're "...consenting adults who like to dress up in leather boy scout uniforms and smash each other in the head with ballpeen hammers while they take turns blowing their cat" It doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, so whatever. This applies to both homosexuality as well as prostitution.
I grew up around gays; it didn't bother me because it wasn't "who they were". They didn't define themselves by their sexuality. So what did I care? Now the bigger discussion here, at least right now, is homosexual marriage, but I'll handle that below.
Prostitution - And again quoting Carlin "Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?!" The retort to that is often "It degrades women. It reduces them to nothing more than a product." We're all products, in a way. We all sell our services to others to provide for our lives. Some people's only skill is they have a hole. If they choose to rent it out, who are you to tell them they can't? Sexual slavery is a completely different topic and people know it, but they try to blend the two to establish a level of moral high ground. She chooses to sell it - stay out of her life. Someone forces her to sell it - find the fucker who's forcing her and put a hollow point through his head. Severe, I know, but you get the idea.
On the topic of marriage - A couple years back, on my old blog, I referred to marriage as having some level of government involvement, mainly because if you break it down based on modern positions, a marriage is simply a contract between two parties, establishing a baseline for what shape their relationship will take, how goods will be divided, and that both will be responsible for the other. Let me back track that a little.
I still think that contract is in place, but "marriage" itself isn't that. Marriage is a religious institution; formed there, prescribed there, rules for action there. As such, if the government were truly adherent to the Constitution, they would be forced to stay out of it, based on the First Amendment. If your religion allows for homosexual marriage, then so be it. If it doesn't, then you're not married. You simply have a contract with your partner defining the terms of your relationship. This also applies to the non-religious among us or those who don't practice a faith. There should be no government penalties or bonuses for marriage or other forms of co-habitation.
Rights & privileges - There's a lot of talk about this is a right, that's a right, etc... The main problem is that no one really has a clear understanding of what a right truly is. "Right to healthcare", "Right to food", "Right to decency", and so on. Our Declaration Of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed" Rights are something natural/G-d given (depending on how you swing). They are yours because you exist; nothing else is needed. This is important, because if you were to say "Right to healthcare", you're automatically involved other parties and their goods and services. I'll get into the healthcare fight at some point, but I hope your seeing what I'm saying.
Take it this way - Remove yourself from everything. No society, no government, nothing. Now, yes, other people will be involved, but if you've read this far, you're at least a semi-rational person and can figure this out. So there you are: What can you do? Can you speak your mind? Can you worship your G-d or chose not to? Can you defend yourself from the threat of those who mean to do you harm? Can you stop those who want to enter your "home"? Get the point? Now, can you have "healthcare"? No. Why? Because someone else in the collection needs to provide it to you. If they chose not to, because they think you're a dick, then you can't force them, can you? Can you offer them something of worth to treat you? Ah... yes you could. Hence, you have a right to enter the market if you can provide for it, but they could still tell you to go fry ice because you're a dick.
"Then you don't have a right to guns!" I hear someone shouting. No, by the definition laid out, I would have a right to enter the market to purchase a firearm and, because I have a natural right to defend myself from those who wish to do me harm, I could use it if needed. I plan on doing a whole post, or a dozen or so, about guns, so I'll leave that one for now.
I could go on for a while here, laying out every topic possible, but that's a taste and here's the simplified version. I believe in freedom and liberty. But with these come great responsibility. Because you have the right to speak freely doesn't mean it's advisable to go into the center of Harlem with a van that says "Nigger's must die!" across the side. For a less harsh example: You have the right to eat a triple bacon cheeseburger with mayonnaise, but when you need a triple bypass to save your fat ass, that's your problem, don't come knocking on my door.
Cheers
Now for some "societal" positions.
Drugs - With the exception of caffeine, alcohol, a little nicotine from the occasional cigar, and the pharmaceuticals used to control a couple health problems here and there, I don't use them. Now obviously, I'm talking about what are currently positioned as "illicit drug"; pot, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc... But because I don't use them, that doesn't mean I don't want you to. If they thrill you, have at it. Just don't let your usage of them cross into my life. Theft to feed a habit, DUI, firearm possession under the influence, etc... that happens, sorry, your ass should be in jail because you took your life and placed others into it without their consent. So yes, legalize IT, whatever "it" you have. Just know that if you cross into my life with your shit, I will deal with you appropriately.
Sex - Yes, please. Next topic.
Anyways... Similar to drugs, whatever you do in your life is your business. As long as you don't pull me into it, then as George Carlin said, I don't care if you're "...consenting adults who like to dress up in leather boy scout uniforms and smash each other in the head with ballpeen hammers while they take turns blowing their cat" It doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, so whatever. This applies to both homosexuality as well as prostitution.
I grew up around gays; it didn't bother me because it wasn't "who they were". They didn't define themselves by their sexuality. So what did I care? Now the bigger discussion here, at least right now, is homosexual marriage, but I'll handle that below.
Prostitution - And again quoting Carlin "Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?!" The retort to that is often "It degrades women. It reduces them to nothing more than a product." We're all products, in a way. We all sell our services to others to provide for our lives. Some people's only skill is they have a hole. If they choose to rent it out, who are you to tell them they can't? Sexual slavery is a completely different topic and people know it, but they try to blend the two to establish a level of moral high ground. She chooses to sell it - stay out of her life. Someone forces her to sell it - find the fucker who's forcing her and put a hollow point through his head. Severe, I know, but you get the idea.
On the topic of marriage - A couple years back, on my old blog, I referred to marriage as having some level of government involvement, mainly because if you break it down based on modern positions, a marriage is simply a contract between two parties, establishing a baseline for what shape their relationship will take, how goods will be divided, and that both will be responsible for the other. Let me back track that a little.
I still think that contract is in place, but "marriage" itself isn't that. Marriage is a religious institution; formed there, prescribed there, rules for action there. As such, if the government were truly adherent to the Constitution, they would be forced to stay out of it, based on the First Amendment. If your religion allows for homosexual marriage, then so be it. If it doesn't, then you're not married. You simply have a contract with your partner defining the terms of your relationship. This also applies to the non-religious among us or those who don't practice a faith. There should be no government penalties or bonuses for marriage or other forms of co-habitation.
Rights & privileges - There's a lot of talk about this is a right, that's a right, etc... The main problem is that no one really has a clear understanding of what a right truly is. "Right to healthcare", "Right to food", "Right to decency", and so on. Our Declaration Of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed" Rights are something natural/G-d given (depending on how you swing). They are yours because you exist; nothing else is needed. This is important, because if you were to say "Right to healthcare", you're automatically involved other parties and their goods and services. I'll get into the healthcare fight at some point, but I hope your seeing what I'm saying.
Take it this way - Remove yourself from everything. No society, no government, nothing. Now, yes, other people will be involved, but if you've read this far, you're at least a semi-rational person and can figure this out. So there you are: What can you do? Can you speak your mind? Can you worship your G-d or chose not to? Can you defend yourself from the threat of those who mean to do you harm? Can you stop those who want to enter your "home"? Get the point? Now, can you have "healthcare"? No. Why? Because someone else in the collection needs to provide it to you. If they chose not to, because they think you're a dick, then you can't force them, can you? Can you offer them something of worth to treat you? Ah... yes you could. Hence, you have a right to enter the market if you can provide for it, but they could still tell you to go fry ice because you're a dick.
"Then you don't have a right to guns!" I hear someone shouting. No, by the definition laid out, I would have a right to enter the market to purchase a firearm and, because I have a natural right to defend myself from those who wish to do me harm, I could use it if needed. I plan on doing a whole post, or a dozen or so, about guns, so I'll leave that one for now.
I could go on for a while here, laying out every topic possible, but that's a taste and here's the simplified version. I believe in freedom and liberty. But with these come great responsibility. Because you have the right to speak freely doesn't mean it's advisable to go into the center of Harlem with a van that says "Nigger's must die!" across the side. For a less harsh example: You have the right to eat a triple bacon cheeseburger with mayonnaise, but when you need a triple bypass to save your fat ass, that's your problem, don't come knocking on my door.
Cheers
Monday, July 2, 2012
Level Set - Part 1
On the off chance that people find me who have no idea who the hell I am, let's level set some things.
On the opening post on this new site, I defined myself through a range of political ideas, primarily because there's no label that fits. Which is true of most of us, but... Plus, when you use those terms independently, it brings to mind many things. Example, the term Libertarian often brings to mind angry Ron Paul supporters who want no war, all drugs legal, and almost no government. Of course they forget that Ron Paul is a vehement opponent of abortion. I could simply call myself a Libertarian and allow it to fall into the wide spectrum of that ideology, which tends to range from near Conservative thoughts to Anarcho-capitalists.
I am generally opposed to the idea of war, mainly because we don't have the balls to fight it in the way it needs to be done. War, combat in general, is abhorrent and should be reserved for only the most extreme of cases. If you don't engage in war with the intention of winning at all costs, you've started off at a severe disadvantage and will more than likely lose in the long run.
In WWII, one of the factors that allowed us to win is that we didn't hold back because of civilian casualties. Sure, our troops generally made sure to avoid it, but if it happened, they didn't pull back to the start, hold press conferences apologizing to the world, and let the enemy fortify their positions. They shrugged, said they were sorry, and pressed on. Now, when Hezbollah shells Israel from Lebanon and the Israelis role a tank brigade halfway through the country, we cry out about "proportional response". Fuck that noise.
My position: Be peaceful, a friend to everyone. But when someone throws a rock at you, shoot them in the head. With a rocket-propelled grenade. You can be pretty sure someone will think twice before throwing a rock.
Taxes - A low as is heavenly possible, based on how that level of government was defined. Yes children, we have multiple levels of government. Not just one national one, as we are not a nation. (More later on that)
Starting from the fed income tax: Flat. Period. One percentage rate from the guy making $1 to those making $1,000,000,000. Starting point; 18%. There are zero deductions, zero exceptions. Your income tax form is a post card. All the money wasted on lawyers and accountants goes to more fruitful endeavors. While the idea of a Fair Tax is nice (for those who have no idea or don't want to follow the link - think national sales tax, no income tax), I think it still leaves too much of a governmental structure in place to administer it. I would like to see the tax go DOWN from 18%, but I'd also like to see $1,000,000 in my checking account. A little boy can dream. But a Flat Tax treats everyone the same; no one can use their clout or their position in life as an excuse to get out of it. Yes, those who work "under the table" would be skating around it, but maybe that would push something like the Fair Tax to the surface and force that in place to catch everyone. Next.
Corporate/business tax: Eliminate. Yes, eliminate it. Look, anyone who thinks that these corporate taxes are truly taking from the profits of companies and forcing them to be "fair" is stupid. All these companies do is roll that tax burden into the cost of doing business and adjust their staff or prices accordingly. If they can't cut people or increase their prices, they go out of business. It's pretty simple, folks. So if you cut the corporate taxes, the prices would fall. "They'd just keep the money, those greedy pigs!" Please... No business can truly get away with being that scummy. Not anymore. Unless they have friends in government. More of that later.
From there going down, the taxes should be just enough to keep that level functioning based on the constitution (for states) or other articles of incorporation (counties, cities/towns, etc...).
Government - Grover Norquist had a great line "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" Cold symbolism, but that about sets it for me. Contrary to progressive belief, the Constitution of The United States of America doesn't give the federal government the power to do whatever it wants by "ruling through clauses". There are specific things, detailed in the Articles and the Amendments that define what the federal government can do. If it's not detailed, it's a power reserved to the states and the people. If the state constitution doesn't specify it, it's a power reserved to the county, then the town. And guess what? Amendment 10 is pretty clear; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's only because we've allowed the federal government to overreach their powers that we're in the state we're in. Government is to be subservient to the people. When the people are subservient to the government, you have a tyranny and we're pretty much dangling on the edge of that one.
More level setting later.
On the opening post on this new site, I defined myself through a range of political ideas, primarily because there's no label that fits. Which is true of most of us, but... Plus, when you use those terms independently, it brings to mind many things. Example, the term Libertarian often brings to mind angry Ron Paul supporters who want no war, all drugs legal, and almost no government. Of course they forget that Ron Paul is a vehement opponent of abortion. I could simply call myself a Libertarian and allow it to fall into the wide spectrum of that ideology, which tends to range from near Conservative thoughts to Anarcho-capitalists.
I am generally opposed to the idea of war, mainly because we don't have the balls to fight it in the way it needs to be done. War, combat in general, is abhorrent and should be reserved for only the most extreme of cases. If you don't engage in war with the intention of winning at all costs, you've started off at a severe disadvantage and will more than likely lose in the long run.
In WWII, one of the factors that allowed us to win is that we didn't hold back because of civilian casualties. Sure, our troops generally made sure to avoid it, but if it happened, they didn't pull back to the start, hold press conferences apologizing to the world, and let the enemy fortify their positions. They shrugged, said they were sorry, and pressed on. Now, when Hezbollah shells Israel from Lebanon and the Israelis role a tank brigade halfway through the country, we cry out about "proportional response". Fuck that noise.
My position: Be peaceful, a friend to everyone. But when someone throws a rock at you, shoot them in the head. With a rocket-propelled grenade. You can be pretty sure someone will think twice before throwing a rock.
Taxes - A low as is heavenly possible, based on how that level of government was defined. Yes children, we have multiple levels of government. Not just one national one, as we are not a nation. (More later on that)
Starting from the fed income tax: Flat. Period. One percentage rate from the guy making $1 to those making $1,000,000,000. Starting point; 18%. There are zero deductions, zero exceptions. Your income tax form is a post card. All the money wasted on lawyers and accountants goes to more fruitful endeavors. While the idea of a Fair Tax is nice (for those who have no idea or don't want to follow the link - think national sales tax, no income tax), I think it still leaves too much of a governmental structure in place to administer it. I would like to see the tax go DOWN from 18%, but I'd also like to see $1,000,000 in my checking account. A little boy can dream. But a Flat Tax treats everyone the same; no one can use their clout or their position in life as an excuse to get out of it. Yes, those who work "under the table" would be skating around it, but maybe that would push something like the Fair Tax to the surface and force that in place to catch everyone. Next.
Corporate/business tax: Eliminate. Yes, eliminate it. Look, anyone who thinks that these corporate taxes are truly taking from the profits of companies and forcing them to be "fair" is stupid. All these companies do is roll that tax burden into the cost of doing business and adjust their staff or prices accordingly. If they can't cut people or increase their prices, they go out of business. It's pretty simple, folks. So if you cut the corporate taxes, the prices would fall. "They'd just keep the money, those greedy pigs!" Please... No business can truly get away with being that scummy. Not anymore. Unless they have friends in government. More of that later.
From there going down, the taxes should be just enough to keep that level functioning based on the constitution (for states) or other articles of incorporation (counties, cities/towns, etc...).
Government - Grover Norquist had a great line "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" Cold symbolism, but that about sets it for me. Contrary to progressive belief, the Constitution of The United States of America doesn't give the federal government the power to do whatever it wants by "ruling through clauses". There are specific things, detailed in the Articles and the Amendments that define what the federal government can do. If it's not detailed, it's a power reserved to the states and the people. If the state constitution doesn't specify it, it's a power reserved to the county, then the town. And guess what? Amendment 10 is pretty clear; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's only because we've allowed the federal government to overreach their powers that we're in the state we're in. Government is to be subservient to the people. When the people are subservient to the government, you have a tyranny and we're pretty much dangling on the edge of that one.
More level setting later.
Friday, June 29, 2012
I'm baaack
I've been gone from blogging since about 2009. I had a lot of things going on at the time and dropped off the map. Well, with a lot of things happening lately, I've decided that I can't keep my ideas to myself anymore.
So what might you find here? Political and social commentary. I used to update personal parts of my life here, but that's now all in another world and if you know who I am, you know where to find me in "social media."
I like to believe myself to be a Classic Liberal/Conservative Libertarian/republican (small 'r' intentional). There will be plenty of times where my thoughts and ideas differ with the "mainstream" of these ideologies, but they're mine, so deal with it.
Speaking of: If you don't like my opinion, then why are you here? To be a contrarian? To oppose my ideas? To hear from the other side? Fine, but if you're arguing a position, bring more than just "You lie! You're a liar! I hate you! You right-wingers are all so stupid!" Not only will you show yourself to be a raving jackass, but I'll dump your comment because I don't support the positions of blathering children. My blog; my rules. Don't like it, leave and write your own.
"What does being a Jew have to do with this blog?" You may ask. Absolutely nothing. No, I take that back. It does shape some of my opinions and it obviously shapes the way I see the world, but while I may be a Reform Jew, don't expect me to be supporting the ideas of "social justice" or other such nonsense.
So we'll see how long I stay on here this time. I DO have a life in the physical world, so time is a precious commodity. Onward we go...
So what might you find here? Political and social commentary. I used to update personal parts of my life here, but that's now all in another world and if you know who I am, you know where to find me in "social media."
I like to believe myself to be a Classic Liberal/Conservative Libertarian/republican (small 'r' intentional). There will be plenty of times where my thoughts and ideas differ with the "mainstream" of these ideologies, but they're mine, so deal with it.
Speaking of: If you don't like my opinion, then why are you here? To be a contrarian? To oppose my ideas? To hear from the other side? Fine, but if you're arguing a position, bring more than just "You lie! You're a liar! I hate you! You right-wingers are all so stupid!" Not only will you show yourself to be a raving jackass, but I'll dump your comment because I don't support the positions of blathering children. My blog; my rules. Don't like it, leave and write your own.
"What does being a Jew have to do with this blog?" You may ask. Absolutely nothing. No, I take that back. It does shape some of my opinions and it obviously shapes the way I see the world, but while I may be a Reform Jew, don't expect me to be supporting the ideas of "social justice" or other such nonsense.
So we'll see how long I stay on here this time. I DO have a life in the physical world, so time is a precious commodity. Onward we go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)