Monday, February 13, 2012

United Nation of Morons

I am shocked, dumbfounded, amazed, taken aback, astonished, flabbergasted, of the united nations inaction. How is it the united nations can not at least unitedly condemned what Al Asad is doing? Even the media  are just starting to say maybe a civil war is brewing? Really the brutality, the deaths and copses in the street aren't enough? What would be enough? What what kind of people work in the united nations? Blind well I think blind and stupid. That Russia and China are vetoing any measures, why because they want the freedom to do the same to their people or the money generated by selling them weapons is that much? Really absurd, seen genocide and standing by, lets take a minute stand and applaud for the amazing weakness, cowardliness, and a demonstration of how useful is the united nations. At least the Arab league has come out and ask for help from the united nations, sadly likely many hundreds if no thousands will die before something is done. In the united nations at least they should have a recourse to overcome the weakness or monetary interest of few countries and if a majority of countries 90-95% of them agree to a measure it should be taken.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Fairness by the Taxman or "Class Warfare"

Nowadays we have a constant debate about how fair tax rates are. Many say everyone should pay the same, but this is not realistic. Today someone making $9500.00 pays $1004 (11%), someone making $9,5000.00 pays $20,224.00 (21%), someone making $950,000.00 pays $332,500.00 (35%). The person at lower income will pay only 1K, the higher income 332K. Is this fair? Well some will say, higher income individuals pay more (obviously they would be correct), and lower income individuals pay less and therefore is unfair, and trying to make changes are "Class Warfare" Now then, the current tax scheme must have a justification. I think most agree you pay a share of your income and not the same amount to be fair and therefore the actual percent and progressive nature of our tax code. Most would understand that increasing the tax rate or amount of absolute money a lower income individual would pay could cause them to suffer and possibly to fall into poverty. But then why would we make the higher income earners pay more? Should they pay less and then make government to function with less? Why would they be willing to pay more? Would services provided to them be worthwhile paying more? What services are provided for them, that would be worthwhile. Well I think these are some of them:

6) Communications and transport. Well, this one is easy and likely won't cause much controversy. Highways, telecommunications, satellites, internet. This infrastructure regulated constructed and in many occasions subsidized or initially developed by the government, provide a great benefit for higher income earners that lower income earners do not get.

5) Safety and protection. What goes into this? well, Military, police, firefighters. The government develops, maintains and regulates these services. These services are of even more significance to high income earners as the security, stability, and safety in this country is key for conducting a business. No stability means no business, again look at other countries that lack any of these protections.

4) Legal and Judicial system. Although low and high income people would use the system, the burden and hours taken by high income earners is higher. How? well, cases involving complex financial instruments or contractual obligations require more time and resources and knowledge by the judicial system (judges, state attorneys). Also, the benefit of having a fair judicial system which provides stability to the country is very important. If you don't believe me, look at the amount of investment in countries with judicial instability and corruption, low or none. No corporation or individual would put money on an unstable country.

3) Education programs. Although this could be easily rebut with the argument that government provides schools to go, and although true, the benefit for high income earners is not a direct but an indirect one. Population being educated and trained to take jobs that will require significant education and training is a cost the government subsidize. These persons then would be available for companies who are obviously controlled by high income earners.

2)Welfare programs... Again I expect a gasp when I say this. How are high income individuals going to get welfare? No, that would be silly, the benefit to them comes when people who are poor and could pose a danger as desperation could cause them to cause crimes, but this is avoided by having welfare benefits. See other countries, the unrest caused by poverty would harm the country stability and therefore investment, companies ability to conduct business etc.

1) Financial regulation.... WHAT! are you insane? how is that a benefit? Well high income earners have complex financial instruments, for these to be profitable and have financial stability regulation and oversight needs to be created to which a low income earner have no use for and will never have access to this system. The instability that the lack or dysfunction of such a system would cause, was recently seen with the mortgage blunder, and losses by those with a lot of money were massive. Not only direct losses occurred, but due to losses to families living day to day that can't absorbed, caused such families to close their wallets and companies to saw their sales drop. So at the end protecting financial structure by regulation is essential for high income individuals. Despite many proposing capitalism equals no regulation, capitalism requires stability therefore regulation is needed to provide stability, actually very simple right?
Therefore if you take all these into account, the expenditures that are done towards higher income individuals is much higher. I do not have a number or source for this and getting all this information would require significant research. But I would point to some facts that would be much simpler: look at countries with weak or lacking of any of these infrastructures, and their ability to generate money and high income individuals is much less. I would argue that that is why companies want to do business in the USA.

Which brings me to companies... Why if according to the supreme court corporations are individuals, they do not pay taxes like other individuals? If they have free speech like Us, why they don't pay the same TAX RATE like Us. If you are an American and you earn income in another country you pay first the tax applied in that country and if it is lower rate than what you would pay in the USA, you pay the difference to the US government. No taxation without representation right? They get representation WITHOUT the same taxation! This therefore disenfranchises the low and middle income population, who would make the state of affairs unfair and expect instability which at the end will harm them. But for now they are getting away with it. As any of Us they conduct business here, they should pay taxes like Us. If they do not like it, go make business in other countries. Oh no..... they would leave the USA, Oh no we will suffer.... pious baloney, the income this companies get from the USA is most of their income and they would have major losses if they leave. To have the benefits they get in this country, that enable them to make large profits they should help cover the above expenses the government incurs for THEM, they should pay for them! What do you think?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The legalization of religious discrimination

In our daily lives I do not go around asking are you Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Mormon, Evangelist or other. Before I continue full disclosure I am Catholiquish? My blogging itch today is because in politics religion in my opinion appears to be given too much importance. When someone doesn't demonstrated their affiliation to a religion they are though as bad people. While actually religion has been the excuse for many atrocities, whichever you like inquisition, annihilation of culture for religious reason, discrimination on basis of religious beliefs.

Today the church is crying injustice because they have to provide the contraception as part of healthcare for women and seem not to understand why. They can not have go into business an who requires employees for it to function an not provide the same benefits to their employees that other companies do. That is the cost of business, and the employees rights; you do not like the implications get out of it. Also not even the bible states they need to put a school, or a hospital and charge money, and be exempt of the rules others abide to. If they were so good souls, and not in for the money providing services for free, no one would tell them they need to abide by those rules, as that would not be commerce. Also they can not elect to put a business and hire only people that have an antiabortion view, is illegal to discriminate in this country based on beliefs! They are doing business with the public they need to abide by the rules the public abide to.

I am not sure, why they believe they have the moral superiority to make every one submit to their will. When Muslims do this (trying to get away with sharia law) they are call terrorist, and they can not impose sharia law and no one would let them impose it to others. When a Muslim based on his beliefs (sharia law) kills a woman for adultery, or they are punished for even being alone with one, our country with religious freedom won't allow it why wouldn't they have religious freedom, NO that is crazy. Religious freedom means you are free to believe what you want, not that you are able to make others believe what you want, or prosecute or harm them based on your religious delusions! Why would the church be different. What moral superiority do they have when their institution has participated in covering the abuse of children? Which is their more recent misdeed, but there are tons of things they've done wrong (and tons they done right let's be fair). But any other organization would be banned from being able to care for children once they done that (abuse them). Nobody says they should be banned from taking care for them and they certainly won't point that out themselves. Why when they get away with things they do not cry about it. Like what you might ask, well.... what about in god we trust in the money, what about god reference when being sworn into office, again what about being allowed to continue to take care for children when they have molested them, what about not paying taxes which should be illegal using those contributions to alter political discourse tax free, Muslims donating to a mosque and they turn around and give it to fanatics to commit terrible acts with the pretense that they are following their religious beliefs is that fair? They could argue "I believe you being and adulterous cheater deserves the death penalty". Is not right and the Catholic, Mormon and other get away with it. Every Christian would be up in arms if Buddha, Mohammed, or other deity would be inserted in money the constitution or given privileges the church gets. Also they would say they are being prosecuted if they were to be stripped of their privileges, yes privilege is not a right otherwise other religions should have the same right.

Get off your mighty horse you are not unique, recognize as Jesus told you, You are humans just like the rest, stop being judgmental, and discriminatory and play by the rules like the rest. Do not feel unique, no one is prosecuting the church or Christians. Do not turn it around, people are not that stupid; they are just being nice and civil and not cry babies like you and know if they speak up you will go after them like a MAD person, just like the church has done in the past over and over and over, with crazy prosecutions and name calling, telling them they'll go to hell and etc. Grow UP! I wonder do they ever stop and look in the mirror?

Tuesday, February 7, 2012! I need to get me one of those

  Well just saw the news, Obama is going to accept the help of SuperPACs. Although do not like it, I suppose it was inevitable. I started looking up SuperPACs and found some interesting information about them and here it is:

   Do you know there are 160+ Republican SuperPACs and 70+ Democratic SuperPACs, and from putting the funds that the 4 top democratic SuperPACs have is less money than the second SuperPAC and less than half of what the top republican SuperPAC has? Amazing the top Republican SuperPAC ( Restore Our Future) has 30,179,652!!!!!!!!

  The top second (American Crossroads) has 18,368,102 and had a contribution by Harold Simmons of 5,000,000! Just think of this, a person making 60K a year would have to work 83 years to earn 5 million dollars, and that is before taxes. Just the insanity of Plutocrats and politics.

  Well I hope all that money leaves the conscience of the politicians unbiased, untouched, untarnished, so that they help who truly elects them THE PEOPLE, remember still their salary is paid  by OUR TAXES, yes the measly 99%, the little people. Well I suppose I am a hopeless optimist.

Elect your favorite crazy person

To start with I am a tiny tiny bit of a sarcastic person, with that said, the above links talk about the "job creators" or as the Citigroup reports named them plutocrats, and how concerned they are with the rest of Us, that we all live comfortable, healthy and happy everafter. I am not sure when does a person says WOW I have a lot... but a lot of money? Not like oh I can buy 10 cars kind of money but I can buy 10 countries kind of money. When would a person say I have nothing more I could own I'll start giving things away helping people. Certainly there are such individuals, Buffet, Gates, Bono, Oprah? But is the minority who would do such a thing. What I do not understand is not the lack of action from the affected but the actions of the affected that worsen their situation. Let me illustrate my point with the following example: "Joe the plumber"; Joe turned out to be low income and has never made more than a five figure salary (40K per links below), not only that but he also owed back taxes! Yet he complained of taxes being raised to any person that would earn more than 250K, WHY? He will never earn such amount! does he believe he would become at one point of his life a high income individual? when? when he won the lottery? when he is discovered by the media and becomes a star? No I give you one better BECOME A POLITICIAN! he now is running for office, raising funds for his campaign and pays himself from those funds! (apparently legal). How much you would ask, well 5K a MONTH! Now he earns (5K x 12) 60K a year hooray! and he doesn't need to work, only spew non-sense to get elected (look it up well documented; well the non-sense bit I leave for you to decide). Well done... do not help others just abuse them, do onto others what is done to you? Well at the end I think I do understand; sad but understandable? Cannot beat the loosers join them. Still he is not making 250K, so there you go.... his concern about taxing high income earners still not gonna affect him, he'll never be a plutocrat (likely still has delusions of grandeur). Only thing I hope he paid his back taxes! the funniest and ironic thing is that people donating for his campaign, that share his concerns about taxes will have their money used to pay someone else taxes! they in essence will be paying double the taxes on their own free will. Again cannot believe how people shot themselves in the foot that way, but I digress.

My point; money brings unintelligent abusive people that can be manipulated by rich people out to govern the rest of Us, and there is no deterrent only incentives. Others with the mentality of becoming a plutocrat try to get in the game, and at the end just cause harm to others. Is amazing how in times of crisis, humans come together. Such events gives Us all hope, but most of the times is Darwinism.... welcome to the JUNGLE (the survival of the fittest). In essence we have not learned from history, if you elect crazy abusive people you will be oppressed and abused very simple but yet not learned by all of Us. I think you would agree that however these individuals come to power (supported by their party or elected) allowing crazies (Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier, Assad) to govern is a bad idea.

Well what to do? Although for presidency we have televised presidential debates, which allows the general public to learn a bit of how CRAZY candidates are, by the ideas they pitch to the public (e.g. like a moon base that will become an American state, or going back to gold to be used as a currency, or a bunch of paperwork in an office drawer being a person deserving all the considerations of a human being), we do not have any way to tell when a person is running for office. I am sure you are faced with the same feeling that I have...... WOW how can I pick only one!? please can I have ALL OF THEM. So what if for local office, governor, mayor, sheriff and well, why not... also for presidential candidates we should have a means of finding before hand how mentally unstable they are. Maybe they should have an IQ test prior to becoming a candidate or go onto a spelling bee contest (at least we would know ahead of time that they don't know how to pronounce nuclear -what a shame and he represent Us?-). But I think the best solution should be, that they MUST have a thorough psychological profile test done. Then results MUST be posted outside of the voting poll. That way you could elect your favorite crazy person. What do you think?

If you would like any documentation of what I spew please check Wikipedia, Google, history books, news reports etc...