INTERESTING TIMES

Even those too lazy to vote feel it their birthright to blast our elected representatives from every direction.  We complain bitterly when we do not get all we want as if it were possible to have more services with lower taxes, broader health care coverage with no federal involvement, a cleaner environment without regulations, security from terrorists with no infringement on privacy, and cheaper consumer goods made locally by workers with higher wages.  In short, we crave all the benefits of change without the costs.  When we are disappointed, our response is to retreat into cynicism, then start thinking about whether there might be a quicker, easier, and less democratic way to satisfy our wants.

--Madeline Albright on page 116 of Fascism, A Warning.  This quote comes on the heels of a section about globalism and about the manipulation of public opinion using the internet.  The first part of this book was the best short history of Europe I have ever read--for once it made sense.  Excellent read: recommend.

Looks like it is mostly true, the assertion that more handouts are given in republican-dominated states. This makes sense to me because in those states or areas where local social programs are limited or cut, the poor will seek out federal assistance. Big business on the other hand is likely to avoid paying taxes entirely. Churches remain tax exempt no matter how gigantic or lavish. There is a problem here.

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/35908018305

I would have voted for Mitt if:
( hell froze over )

OK, so everybody's talking about it. I'm no tax expert, but I hear the liberals saying that it's "ludicrous" and worse. The assertion is that it shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. While this might be true if all you consider is the rate that we are SUPPOSED to pay, I have my doubts about its ultimate truth. The reason for my doubts: the more people make, the more they invest in ways of avoiding taxation. Loopholes. Shelters. Dodges of every kind. Since I'm planning on starting up a new business soon, I've been studying up on such things. There are lots of ways that business can take advantage of the tax structure to pay far less than the rate that is supposedly being paid. The upside of the flat tax idea: simplicity makes it much harder to hide all the places where you get away with not paying. Exemptions. Expense accounts. Fancy accounting. The appeal of simplicity is that perhaps, just maybe, the result might be the opposite of what the liberal media is spewing right now. The proof is yet to come on either side. Certainly the system we have now is messy.

Anybody out there have something more than talking points to spew about this?

Everyone is so upset about it. The lady next to me on an airplane said "It's not fair!" and I had to ask her what wasn't fair about gas costing $4/gallon. I didn't understand her answer. And I tried. It had to do with corrupt politicians, but corrupt how? What exactly are the politicians doing that makes the price of gas unfair? How exactly is it Obama's fault? Someone said he wanted the US price of gas to go up to European levels. Please inform me if you understand this. It seems to me that we as a nation have been paying off the gas companies in the form of subsidies and lax regulation. They claim the opposite, that the burden of regulation and taxation is destroying them. But then the numbers come through, how much money Exxon makes, or Chevron, Citgo or whoever. These companies are raking in billions, and getting tax breaks to boot. It's not clear exactly how those billions get distributed to humans who can spend them. Except for the CEO, who is not going hungry. Maybe the money America gives to gas companies is why gas prices are as low as they are. Maybe if we stop subsidizing oil, the prices will go up. To the real price. That would be the only way we could stop subsidizing them, is if we'd be willing to pay the cost directly instead of through our system of government. And the only way we'll get our gas for cheaper is if we get it ourselves with less waste, extravagance and middle men. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has this in mind with his plan to expedite drilling in Alaska and the Atlantic. And I'm certain he wouldn't mind depriving the big oil companies of some profit, but he's not allowed to say or act on that. I am, though, being nobody out here on the web.

I knew he'd be hard at work. I had no idea he had such an elegant solution worked out! My favorite clear thinker Congressman Ron Paul has introduced several pieces of legislation in Congress to bring true change to health care. Imagine the impact if congress were to stop legislating as if they worked for big business, and begin legislating as if they actually had the health and best interests of private citizens at heart. The result would be something like what Ron Paul proposes.

H.R. 2629, the Coercion is Not Health Care Act
The intent of this bill is to stop government from railroading us into a scheme that requires us to buy health insurance, or makes the purchase of insurance a precondition for any government benefit or program.

H.R. 1495, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009
Allows us to pay health care bills as we choose. Provides a tax credit for all Americans for 100% of healthcare expenses (refundable against both income and payroll taxes). This bill also lets us roll over unused money in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA), gives tax credits for premiums on high deductible insurance policies connected with Health Savings Accounts (HSA), lets seniors use their HSA moneys to cover the donuthole in medicare coverage, and repeals the 7.5% threshhold for the deduction of medical expenses, making ALL medical expenses tax deductible. This would lighten the burden on regular people, allowing us to seek care when we really need care.
( Several more bills worth supporting )

Also known as HR45: Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009

You can track the bill's progress here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

If passed this amendment would require licensure for gun ownership, tax each gun and charge a fee for sales, and require fingerprints for licensure. The bill is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, which means that the Finance Committee can pass it without the Senate voting on it. Gun owners see any regulation as a step toward confiscation. I am not sure I agree with them. You can decide for yourself. I am interested in your thoughts.
( an email I got from a girlfriend who hunts )