Where Half of Obama’s National Debt Came From

There was a  Presidential debate between Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama on October 3rd, 2012. This was the first Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Now what is interesting about this was not so much the debate itself, but some commentary on the debate. For example, PBS discussed and commented on some of the statements that the candidates made, and did some “fact checking”. Mark Shields happened to bring up one of the most interesting points of them all. The point they made was that half of the national debt incurred under Obama’s 1st term was based on pulling out of Iraq.

Now I want you to realize this, around 3 trillion dollars of around 6 trillions of national debt incurred under Obama’s first term. Under 2 terms of George W. Bush, around 4 trillion dollars were incurred on to the national debt. Now Bush lead the US into an undeclared war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Congress approved to continue to fund this undeclared war. And when this undeclared war was said to be officially over, US troops occupied those nations. These nations continued to be occupied up to the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama said that he would bring the occupation troops in Iraq back home within 16 months of his election as President. By 2011 the last troops were pulled out, but don’t mind the huge embassy. But he did flip-flop on promises of when pull out would be done of occupation troops in Iraq. (They are literally military troops occupying land in a foreign nation.)

One of the big points made against Bush was that he used the national “credit card” to pay for the “Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used the credit cards to get us into these occupations of foreign nations, and the debt rose by 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush doing this, or 7 years at least. But Obama would use the national credit cards to pull out of Iraq alone, which costs nearly half of the debt incurred by using the credit card under Obama’s watch. Just think about that when you realize that the troops are back from occupying foreign lands, instead of being stationed at home with their families and community and defending the continental boarders and US owned land.

Point blank: Promised to get out by a certain date and does not pull out by that certain date, but also being ambiguous on when it will happen until it happens after it contradicts some earlier states. Raised the national debt more than his predecessor, while at the same time obtaining half of it pulling out of Iraq.

But let us be fare to Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama. They can only order where the troops go and when they come back. But Congress controls the revenue and distribution of the revenue. So the people using the national credit card where Congress. Just ignore that last important part and enjoy the hypocrisy of 21st politics.

Advertisements

Repeal of the 5th Amendment

“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 5th Amendment

I want to tell you all a story. There once was a country which was a country which fought two wars, and declared those wars over and went on to occupy those foreign nations with military personal. These occupying military force was constantly being attacked, and the media showed images, and told stories of, what was going on in those foreign nations. Many people came to dislike this situation and wanted to bring the troops back home.

These wars were going on with Commander-In-Chief’s permission. This CIC was known for violating people’s civil liberties, i.e. activities that citizens are protected from the governments interference, and torturing people. This CIC would use the Patriot Act, which repealed the 4th amendment. People did not like the occupations of other nations and with the violation of people’s civil liberties.

So someone ran to be CIC, and they promised to change the way things were done. They promised to bring all of our military personal occupying those foreign nations back home. They even promised to repeal the Patriot Act by letting it expire, they promised to repeal the repeal of the 4th amendment. But, sadly, this person who ran on Hope and Change, eventually succumbed to doing the same things, but taking it one step further.

This person who talked like a Dove ended up being a Hawk. This person continues the repeal of the 4th amendment and takes it further than his predecessor. Than, once he has taken away that civil liberty and exercises violation of people’s civil liberties with the seizing your property and body without judicial oversight, they can now kill you without judicial oversight. This is what has happened as of late with the CIC exercising this power, and it being front page news a major news outlet.

It is surprising how people do not talk about this much. Probably not talking about it much because this CIC will continue his predecessors tactics of having reporters arrested who report on events they don’t like. What makes it interesting is that we now have someone with the power to seize your body without judicial oversight and they can kill you without judicial oversight. It has gotten so bad that the CIC has a list of people on which either one of these things would happen to. This appears to be some of those powers in which the founders warned against.

Interesting how someone runs to restore your protected civil liberties, but instead takes another one of your civil liberties and intensifies the degree of violation of your civil liberties. This is the person that many people personally look upon favorably.

Question 6 Isn’t About Marriage Equality For Homosexuals

In the state of Maryland, on Nov. 6th, 2012, there will be 7 questions up for Maryland voters to vote on and pass into law. One of these is Question 6.

Question 6, on the State Maryland ballot, says: “Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.”

There have even been some ads on the issue. Here are two of those adds.

Now there is one key thing mentioned in this ballot question, which is that the ballot “Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying”. (Italics my own emphasis)

Here is the bill that got the ball rolling on “Gay Marriage”, which was Maryland House Bill 438. Now that we have that set up, lets get started in taking a look on a couple of things.

This law states that “Only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in this state.”

Now the law lists which  two individuals who want to be married are prohibited from marrying. An individual may not marry another individual who happens to be (1)grandfather’s wife; (2) wife’s grandmother; (3) father’s sister; (4) mother’s sister; (5) stepmother; (6) wife’s mother; (7) wife’s daughter; (8) son’s wife; (9) grandmother’s husband; (10) husband’s grandfather; (11) father’s brother; (12) mother’s brother; (13) stepfather; (14) husband’s father; (15) husband’s son; (16) daughter’s husband; (17) husband’s grandson; (18) brother’s son; (19) sister’s son; (20) daughter’s husband; (21) GRANDPARENT’S SPOUSE; (22) SPOUSE’S GRANDPARENT; (23) PARENT’S SIBLING; (24) STEPPARENT; (25) SPOUSE’S PARENT; (26)SPOUSE’S CHILD.

Example: I would not be allowed to marry (1) my grandfather’s wife, (2) my wife’s grandmother, (3) my father’s sister, (4) my mother’s sister (5) my stepmother, (6) my wife’s mother, (7) my wife’s daughter, (8) my son’s wife, (9) my grandmother’s husband, (10) my husband’s grandfather, (11) my father’s brother, (12) my mother’s brother, (13) my stepfather, (14) my husband’s father, (15) my husband’s son, (16) my daughter’s husband, (17) my husband’s grandson, (18) my brother’s son, (19) my sister’s son, (20) my daughter’s husband, (21) my grandparent’s spouse, (22) my spouse’s grandparents, (23) my parent’s sibling, (24) my step-parent, (25) my spouse’s parent, or (26) my spouse’s child.

I will assume that (1) people cannot marry people who share the same blood-line. This means that an individual cannot marry their mother, father, grandparents, son, daughter, grand-kids, or cousins if they share the same blood-line. From this assumption it means that a person can marry people who do not hare the same blood-line. So let us exclude those people who share the same blood-line from the 26 that people are prohibited from marrying.  This point comes down to that your mother, father, grandparents, son, daughter, grand-kids, or cousins could all be those things because you were either were adopted into that family or married into that family. So If you were adopted or married into that family, then you do not share the same blood-line.

I will assume that (2) people who are adopted into a family are not of the same blood-line. For example, you sometimes hear of a child’s parents both dying for some reason, and one of the child’s blood-relatives, like an uncle, will adopt the child and raise them as their own. This means my assumption excludes people who are adopted into a family and the family adopted into still has the same blood-line. So me being adopted by my uncle after both my parents die.

So these assumptions make the distinction between being biologically related and legally related. These sometimes overlap and sometimes do not overlap. It is possible for my biological father to be my legal father, but it is also possible that my biological father is not my legal father, but in both cases I cannot marry my biological father. Both of my assumptions, basically, states that all biologically related people are excluded/prohibited from legally marrying or its logical equivalent would be that of  all non-excluded people from legally marrying are non-biologically related people.

So here is one of the basic points that will be assumed throughout this post: For all individuals, if  individuals are biologically related, then individuals are prohibited from legally marrying in Maryland.

The first video has Rev. Delman Coates saying that “The government should treat everyone equally”, “It’s about fairness”, “This…is about protecting all Marylander’s equally”.

The second video has Julian Bond saying that “I know something about fighting for what’s right and just”, “They should share in the right to marry”, “Its about protecting the civil right to make a lifeline commitment to the one that you love.”, “It’s the right thing to do”.

Let us grant these statements to Rev. Delman Coates and Julian Bond. Does this law do what they state? No, this law does not lead to what we granted these two people. One of the most basic points they bring up is that of “equality” or “fairness”, but this law does not grant fairness or equality in marriage, let alone for gay people who want to get married. This law still treats people unfairly, especially still treating gay people unfairly and unequally.

The key point about the law is that it is between TWO individuals. This means that a man may marry a woman, a man may marry a man, a woman may marry a woman. These are allowed because it is between two individuals. This is basically saying that only those who want to have a monogamous marriage are allowed to marry. But this doesn’t treat, or protect, “all Marylander’s equally” and doesn’t treat those who don’t want a monogamous marriage to “share the right to marry”. So this is a “civil right” that only a few people have, not all people. Where is the equality when not all people, but only some, are allowed this “civil right”? Is this “equality” when you still discriminate against people who want to get married as well, but are prohibited because it would involve more than two individuals?

We will get back to this point, but let us take a look at something else with sticking with the notion of only allowing two individuals to get married, but remember the assumption that I am working on. John would not be allowed to to marry his (1) grandfather’s wife, if they both consented to get married. John would not be allowed to marry his grandfather’s wife, who is not biologically related to him. These two people would be prohibited from getting married. John would not be allowed to marry his grandmother’s husband, either, even if they both consented to get married. These two individuals would still be prohibited from marrying, and in both scenarios these people are heterosexual or homosexual marriages. So “equality” and “fairness” would not be exercised with this “civil right”. Makes you even wonder if it is a “civil right” as Julian Bond says it is.

Let us get back to the idea of more than two individuals. Let us assume that we have three people who want to get married and see how many scenarios we can obtain, whether heterosexual marriages or homosexuals marriages. Heterosexual: (1) male, male, female or (2) female, female, male. Homosexual: (3) male, male, male or (4) female, female, female. We notice with each of these scenarios, these people cannot be married since they are prohibited from marriage in the state of Maryland. The state of Maryland prohibits both heterosexual and homosexual people, who love each other and make a commitment to one another, while also consenting to marriage arrangement, are prevented from being treated equally and fairly and being denied their civil right.

Julian Bond plays his hand in his ad, though. This is because he brings up that the homosexuals share the same “values”. So basically he is implying that since they share the same values, they should have same rights. But think of this, those who do not share the same values, i.e. marriage is more than two individuals, should not have the same rights apply to them. This is ridiculous that because they share the same values they should have the same rights. Point blank, even if they don’t share the same values they should have the same rights. But those who support Question 6 appear to not care about heterosexuals, let alone homosexuals, who do not share the same values.

Think of it like this: There are some who propound that question 6 is about marriage equality for homosexuals. But this potential law still discriminate against some homosexuals from getting married, AND discriminates against some heterosexuals from getting married. So this law is not about equality, because it does not grant equality at all. It continues discrimination, it continues to deny equality, it continues to deny fairness, it continues to deny people who consent to marriage from getting married. It prevents people from making a life-long commitment to one another.

A homosexual male would be prevented from marrying their grandmother’s spouse, and prevents a heterosexual male from marrying his grandfather’s spouse (remember my key assumption). Same holds with heterosexual, or homosexual, females. Take all 26 prohibitions of marriage that were listed, and keep in mind that I am excluding marriages between biologically related people. This means that people who want to marry one of these people of the 26 listed, they are not allowed the civil right of marriage. They are not allowed marriage equality. They are not allowed marriage fairness. They are not allowed to form a life-long commitment with one another because the state will not recognize their civil rights.

It is hypocritical to say that Question 6 is about marriage equality for homosexuals when it discriminates against homosexuals at the same time (i.e. those who consent to marry 2 other homosexuals as well). This law is not about marriage equality for all homosexuals, it is only about marriage equality for some homosexuals. How is their fairness or equality when every homosexual in Maryland is not allowed to get married but only some homosexuals in Maryland are allowed to get married? Those who speak of Question 6 as Marriage Equality speak with forked tongues.

Question 6 is not about equality, civil right, or fairness for all homosexuals in Maryland who want to make a life-long commitment by getting married. It is only for some homosexuals.

A Wasted Vote

Let’s talk about voting, since we have Federal elections coming up, especially for President of the United States of America. You always hear people saying that voting for a 3rd party candidate is “Wasting your Vote”. In some sense, your “wasted vote” is no better than not voting at all.

But there is now a common theme popping up by some talking heads on American politics. One of them has to deal with the Electoral College, and more specifically with the Electoral Vote. Let us take a look at this with one test case, which is the state of Maryland. I bet you will find that people wast their vote, like with a 3rd party candidate, either in the popular vote or the electoral college, i.e. wasted vote in electoral college translate into wasted vote in popular election and vice versa.

One of the necessary conditions to become, or be, President of the United States, is that you win the majority of the electoral college. The electoral college currently, as of 2012, has a total of 538 votes. A candidate needs the majority in order to win, which is sometimes stated to be 270 electoral votes.

In the American political system, you have the popular vote for POTUS and have the electoral vote for POTUS. The majority of the popular vote does not necessarily imply the winner of the Presidential election (as previous historical examples provide). However, The majority of the electoral vote does necessarily imply the winner of the Presidential election.

Before I continue I need to make one thing clear: States decide the processes of how electoral voters are decided, as long as it is consistent with the US Constitution, Federal Law, the State Constitution, or State law.

Now 48 states, like Maryland, out of 50 states have a “Winner Take All” system. The winner take all system is basically that the candidate that obtains the majority of popular vote within the state will obtain all of the electoral votes that the state has. In Maryland, each party has their own primary or caucus to decide who the registered party affiliates vote for that they believe represents the view of the majority of registered party members in that state. Once this is done, that political party in that state that had their candidate win the majority of popular votes in the state, will have 10 selected party members, because Maryland has 10 electoral votes, i.e. 2 Senators and 8 Representatives, who cast their votes for President of the United States of America.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on the state of Maryland ballot, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties, and (3) also assume that there are a total of 100 popular voters in Maryland and 10 electoral voters in Maryland. (4) Let us also assume that the political party that wins the popular election always votes for the political party candidate on the ballot.

John gets 51 votes from the popular vote, and Jane gets 49 votes from the popular vote. So John won the popular vote and his political party in that state will decide who the 10 electoral voters will be for the state of Maryland in the election for President of the United States. This also means that Jane’s political party will not be able to decide who the 10 electoral voters will be for the state of Maryland. So candidate John wins the state of Maryland and obtains all 10 electoral votes by winning 51% of the popular vote in the state of Maryland and losing 49% of the popular vote in the state of Maryland. Jane loses out on 10 electoral votes because she lost the popular election in the state of Maryland.

Now here is where something interesting happens. John wins the election regardless of what the rest of the voters in Maryland thought. At the end of the day John only needed 51 people to vote for him and it didn’t matter whether the other 49 people did vote or didn’t vote. In other words, those other 49 people do not matter when it comes to electing President of the United States in their state. The 49 people’s  popular vote does not translate into 10 electoral votes. The 51 people’s popular vote, however, did translate into those 10 electoral votes. Those 49 people might as well have not voted at all, since their vote did not count for anything, let alone count for who becomes POTUS. Those electoral votes go the way that 51% of the population voted. Those 49 people that voted in the 2 party system, i.e. the loser in the race, wasted their vote just as much as the person who votes for the 3rd party candidate.

Now some people do not like how the Electoral Vote allows for those 49% to have their vote not counted. This is because once one of the two candidates hits 51% of the popular vote, there is no need to keep counting the popular vote. Image, for instance, that we bring in two boxes. Each of the boxes have 100 ballots. We open the first box and find that all 50 of the votes are for John. We now know that we only need to open the box and find one other person voting for John, and than we can stop counting votes. We open the second box and first ballot we open is a vote for John. We now can stop counting the rest of the ballots in the second box. We now know who won the state’s popular vote, and thus now know who won the states 10 electoral votes. We can dump the rest of the popular votes, i.e. those 49 popular votes. Those 49 votes do not count towards their candidate, i.e. Jane, or even towards who the states electoral votes go to.

Some people do not like how this type of winner take all system in the electoral college makes it so that almost half of the people who vote do not have their vote counted. But the problem is that the same problem shows back up if we only do the popular vote and get rid of the electoral vote.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on ever person Presidential ballot, no matter what state you live in, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties. (3) Let us assume that one only needs 51% of popular vote to win POTUS. (4) Let us assume that we have 100 people voting.

Out of 100 popular votes cast, 51 of those votes went to John and 49 of those votes went to Jane. This means that John won POTUS. We still find ourselves in a strange situation. We would be going through the same processes with the example of going through the two boxes full of the popular vote ballots. We would still stop counting once we reached the second boxy and found the first vote to be pulled out was for John. Immediately we find that we can ignore the rest of the ballots since they have nothing to do with who becomes POTUS. With the electoral college having a winner take all system, or a popular vote system with a winner take all, 49% of people waste their vote when they vote for POTUS. Those people are no better than someone who wastes their vote on a 3rd party candidate.

The problem becomes it is not the electoral college that is at fault, or even the popular vote that is at fault. What is at vault is the very idea of a “Democracy” where it is based on majority opinion, i.e. 51%. Half of people’s opinions or votes will not matter to the bottom line who becomes POTUS. They might as well have never voted.

But let us explore this idea of the popular vote a little more, and see how it has its own problems as the electoral college, which was set up to give states with small populations to have equal say as states with a big population, i.e. equal say with states with a big population and small population.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on every person Presidential ballot, no matter what state you live in, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties. (3) Let us assume that we have total of 100 popular voters. (4) Let us assume that we have only 2 states where the 100 popular voters live. (5) Let us assume that state X has 51 people and state Y has 49 people.

John wins the popular vote by obtaining 51% of the popular vote. But John did not win the state of Y but won the State of X, i.e. everyone in the state of X voted for John in the popular election in that state.. John won POTUS because he won the state of X, which had the largest population. Jane lost the election and only obtained the popular vote in the state of Y. Basically, the people who live in the state of Y should not have voted, since their vote did not count for anything. It was only the people in the state of X who’s vote counted for anything. State of Y might as well voted for a 3rd party candidate, because they would have obtained the same result. In other words, the state with the most people decided the election of POTUS by popular election, while the state with the least people did not decide the election of POTUS. So the people who lived in the state of Y might as well as not vote, since the state with the smallest population had no affect on the outcome of POTUS.

As should have been noticed by now, when we have the idea of “Winner take all”, or “the candidate with the majority of votes is the winner”, leads to almost half of peoples vote being as good as those who do not vote at all. It makes no difference whether this “Winner take all” idea is implemented in the popular vote or the electoral vote. But this “Winner take all” idea is the basis of “Democracy”, which is that the majority of people decided for things to be this way or that way.

Almost half of those who partake in voting for either of the two major candidates end up, whether electoral vote or popular vote, end up doing as well as those who vote for a non-major candidate, i.e. third party. They both end up voting for the loser in the election, whether done by electoral vote alone, popular vote alone, or a mix of electoral vote and popular vote. In each scenario we find out that people wasted their vote, or cast a vote in which it had no affect on the outcome of the election or who becomes POTUS.

This is a fundamental thing in the American voting system. It pops up no matter whether electoral, popular, or a mix of both. Think of this the next time someone talks about wanting to get rid of the electoral vote and make it strictly the popular vote. The same problem shows up no matter how it is done. You don’t like one, then you would have to dislike the other. In the end, with either form of voting, almost half of people end up doing as well if they did not vote. 49% of voters, whether vote for 2 party or 3 party system, end up doing as well as people who don’t vote. 51% of people, or states, votes count and 49% of peoples, or states, votes don’t count. During an election year and hearing about how the voting system works out and all the problems, see if you notice someone bring up this fundamental issue in the American voter system. What are their alternatives to this system? I bet they end up having the same consequences as mentioned about.

 

I Haven’t Raised Taxes

Here is an interesting article based on President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes.

“On CBS News’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night, President Obama said, “Taxes are lower on families than they’ve been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven’t raised taxes.”

As of Monday morning, neither the Washington Post’s Pinocchio-awarding Fact-Checker, nor the Annenberg Public Policy Center’sFactCheck.org, nor the Tampa Bay Times’ Pulitzer-Prize-winning Politifact.com had risen to this opportunity, so let us take a stab.

There are a variety of possible ways to measure the tax burden on American “families” over the past 50 years. Fortunately, Mr. Obama’s own White House Office of Management and Budget provides a spreadsheet that summarizes federal tax receipts from 1940 through the present. Fifty years ago, in 1962, federal tax receipts were $99.7 billion. In 2011, they were $2.3 trillion. Far from being at a 50 year low, the taxes extracted from American families last year were about 23 times what they were fifty years ago.

Okay, but aren’t there more families in America now than there were 50 years ago? Sure. The 1960 Census counted about 179 million Americans, while the 2010 Census counted about 309 million. The population hasn’t even doubled, but the federal government’s tax receipts have increased 23 times.

Okay, but what about inflation? President Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget tries to deal with that question by using something called “constant (FY 2005) dollars.” It’s not as trustworthy a measure as, say, the price of gold, but since the White House uses it, it’s worth at least a look. By this measure, federal taxes climbed to nearly $2 trillion in 2011 from about $660 billion in 1962. In other words, the taxes trebled, even as the population didn’t even double.

Remember, too, that 1962 wasn’t some kind of blissful Jeffersonian small-government era to which we can never possibly return. It was the height of the Cold War. President Eisenhower had only shortly before warned of the military-industrial complex. President Kennedy was going around giving speeches about how the tax burden was too high.

Okay, what about tax rates? By that measure, taxes aren’t at a 50-year-low, either. Don’t take my word for it: look at the chart from the Tax Policy Center operated by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two center-left think tanks whose work President Obama likes to cite when he claims that a President Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Sure enough, in 1988 and 1989 the top marginal income tax rate was 28%. In 1990, 1991, and 1992 it was 31%. Today it is 35%.

Okay, that’s the federal income tax rate. But what about the payroll tax rate? Here, too the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center has a useful chart. In 1962 the Social Security payroll tax was 6.25%, applied to the first $4,800 in wages. There was no Medicare tax, because Medicare did not yet exist. In 2011 — even after the two percentage point temporary payroll tax “holiday” — the tax was 10.4% applied to the first $106,800 in income, plus a 2.9% Medicare tax that applies to all wage income, with no cap. The tax, in other words, has more than doubled since 1962.

How about the federal gas tax? Fifty years ago, in 1962, it was four cents a gallon, according to the Tax Foundation. It’s now 18.4 cents a gallon. Far from being at a 50-year low, it has more than quadrupled.

There is one measure — federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP — by which taxes under President Obama have been at a 50-year low, at least according to the Office of Management and Budget. But if that’s Mr. Obama’s yardstick, then it also shows government spending and budget deficits have been at 50-year highs under Mr. Obama.

The second sentence of Mr. Obama’s “60 Minutes” claim — “I haven’t raised taxes” — is similarly slippery. Before Mr. Obama had been in office for a month he signed a law increasing the tobacco tax by $71 billion over 10 years. A 10% tax on tanning salons went into effect on July 1, 2010, a tax increase of $2.7 billion over 10 years. If Mr. Obama hasn’t raised more taxes, it hasn’t been for lack of trying; the only thing stopping him has been the Republican House of Representatives.

It would be a shame if voters fall for Mr. Obama’s misleading claim that their taxes are at a 50-year low. But who can blame the voters, or, for that matter, the fact-checkers, if even Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, buys into the idea. In the same “60 Minutes” program, Mr. Romney said taxes would remain essentially unchanged if he won. “I don’t want a reduction in revenue coming into the government,” Mr. Romney said.

It’s enough to make one nostalgic for George W. Bush, or at least to prompt one to wish for a politician who can articulate the tax issue not in terms of what it means for the government’s revenues but in the language of what it means for the individual.”

 

Dreamer, University of Maryland, & DREAM Act

Imagine for a moment a Muslim girl from Kosovo named Gordana, who just turned 18 years old, graduated from high school in a new nation after coming from a poor, war torn, nation where she viewed most of her family being killed in a genocidal war. Gordana’s parents brought her over to this country to escape the hardship of their nation of birth, and give their daughter better opportunity in America, where everyone plays by the same rules and are treated as equals to one another. They wanted to escape the genocide, inequality, poor education, and constant fear they experienced. They wanted to be free from fear and give Gordana the chance at quality education and quality life. They wanted to give her the opportunity, just one opportunity, to get a quality college education.

Gordana’s cousin also came over to America with their parents to escape the same trials and tribulations, but they came to America illegally.  Gordana and her cousin Vojin, do not live far from each other. One lives in Alexandria Virginia and the other lives in College Park Maryland. Gordana and Vojin both went to high school at the same time, but in different states. Gordana’s parents choose to live in Virginia and Gordana had no choice in where she went to live in America, or where she went to school in Virginia. She had no choice in the issue. The same with Vojin. Both of them were able to get a 4 year high school education because it was their right to get a public education. Gordana excelled more at academics than Vojin, and was an eager student. She wanted to better her life and develop those skills to be tools to live a good life in America.

Gordana’s parents did not make much in America, or provide much else but the basics for survival. They put a roof over their daughters head, gave her three meals a day, a warm bed to sleep in, clothes to wear, and the tools she needed for school. They broke their backs in this new nation, as new American citizens, to better the life of their daughter. But now Gordana has finished with high school and seeks higher education and going to college. Her cousin Vojin was accepted into the University of Maryland because the DREAM Act was passed, which allows for illegal immigrants to get a public college education in Maryland at resident fees while being listed as non-residents. Vojin goes to a public college that is ranked as one of the top 20 public colleges in the US.

Vojin has to pay around $4,454.46 a semester at resident tuition fees, while the tax paying residents of Maryland would have to pay the  $9,189.50 difference that is occurred by Vojin being recognized non-resident. Gordana, as being labeled as a non-resident, would have to pay $13,643.96 a semester if she went to the University of Maryland. The only problem is that Gordana’s parents do not make much money, and cannot afford the resident tuition fees for the public colleges in Virginia. Nor can they pay the tuition fees at private colleges or other public universities around the US. Gordana’s parents, though, can afford the resident tuition fees at the University of Maryland. She just wants to get the education to better her life, and to be better off than she was when she was living and growing up in Kosovo. She wants to be treated equal like other Americans. Gordana does not feel it is fair that Vojin gets to pay less in tuition fees than Gordana would have to pay, even though both of them are classified as non-residents.

Gordana was taught by her parents to treat all people equally, and to give to those in need. But now Gordana is not being treated equally and not being helped when in a time of need. She also wonders why her cousin has a right to public college education and that same right is denied to Gordana. She left a country from which she was not treated equally in society or in school. Now it is happening to her again when all she wants to do is exercise her right to a public college education. She is being prevented from doing it when the University is already doing it for other people, like her cousin. She worked hard in school, followed the laws, and so did her parents. They followed all the rules, and went through all the legal channels in order to become law abiding citizens of the US.
Gordana has the right to a public college education and the University of Maryland would be denying her the exercise of her right when they make her pay more than other non-residents. Her cousin gets preferential treatment by paying less than she does, even though they are both non-residents and taking the same classes. She notices that the right of a public college education is preferred that some get it more than others, or the rules are being applied differently to the same group of people. It goes against everything that she was told about America and the American Dream. She use to be a Dreamer, she use to dream of the great life she would live in the United States, the way she would be treated just as equally as anyone else, and have the same rights applied to her as others. All she wanted was equality and fairness, she would do the rest and be productive member of the US. But her cousin is still a Dreamer, because he gets to live the Dream while being in the country illegally and not being  citizen or have permanent residency because he only has a temporary visa because he is a Dreamer. It could expire at any time and he would have to worry about being deported for breaking the law.

Gordana does not have the worries of her cousin. She is in the country legally and productive member of society, helping out with local charities and goes to the mosque daily. She helps her parents out any way she can, and studying full time and wants to become a doctor and help those out in life who incur troubled times. She wants to give back to the country that was a save harbor for her and her family, and gave her a free public education in high school. Her cousin, though, wants to become a doctor as well but wants to take that education back home. He wants to use the education that tax payers of Maryland payed for and take it out of the US and back to country that he is a citizen of. He will be able to make more money because his skill set is worth a lot back home. The people of that foreign nation would be able to benefit for the education. Gordana just wants to help herself, so she can help out other Americans with her skill set learned at College, and also help her future children.

If a college education is a right, then the moral thing is to allow both residents of Maryland, Vojin, and non-Residents of Maryland, Godana, to both pay the same in tuition fee to attend the University. Give every person, whether the individual person is a Maryland resident or non-Maryland resident, the same shot and have the same rules apply to both individuals equally. The way things are, it does not give every individual person the same shot at a college education that is their right, or have the same rules apply to them, as Gordana found out.

She is being denied the right to public education, which is open to every person, only because she does not live in Maryland. But she had no choice in that, but she finally exercised her choice for the first time to get a college education. She could not help it that her parents choose to live in Virginia, or that she had to attend a Virginia high school, or that her parents payed income tax in Virginia. Because of her parents choices, she is being denied the one source of a public college education, while her cousin’s parents broke the law and yet her cousin gets to get the public college education and cheaper than what Gordana would have to pay. Her cousin is allowed to have a piece of a pie that is everyone’s right, but she is denied a piece of that cake. She is being denied a piece of the American Dream, of being a Dreamer, while her cousin is allowed to have a piece of that Dream and be a Dreamer.

Vote No on Question 4 on November 6th, 2012. It denies people their right to a public education, prevents them from living the American Dream, prevents the same rules being applied to every person, prevents everyone from having an equal shot. Remember Gordana when you vote, and how she was treated when she just Dreamed of living the American Dream. She was just a Dreamer denied accesses to her Dream because of things she could not control and had no choice in.

47% of Americans are the 99%

Since the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement has started, the old term of 99% and 1% have shown back up. Similar lines of thinking where used by Karl Marx when he mentioned the 9 out of 10. This would turn out to be the 90%, and the 90% would be the 99% that OWS talks about all the time. The 10% would be the 1% that OWS talks about a lot.

Now Mitt Romney brought up some point about the 47% and the 53%. The 47% pay no federal income tax, the 53% pay federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47%, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But Mitt Romney is also accused of being part of the 1%, as well. Assuming that all of the 1% are the 53%, but not all of the 53% are the 1%, then some of the 99% make up the 53% as well. All of the 53% are the 1% and some of the 99%. So it follows that all of the 47% are the 99%, though.

So this means that a some of the 99% pay no federal income tax while all of the 1% by the federal income tax. This means that the 1% pay for most of the benefits that the 99% obtain. This means that the 1% have their money taken from them and redistributed to people that do not pay into the system, and those people that do not pay into the system complain about the 1% not paying more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. It is like a starving person complaining that a certain individual did not give them more food than they did were given.

But, of course, the 47% and the 53% both pay other taxes than the federal income tax. They both either pay for the gas tax, the cigarette tax, the sales tax, toll tax, or etc. But yet the 53% have to pay more in taxes than the 47%, and the 47% complain that the 53% do not pay more in income taxes. The 53% have more of a burden to bear in losing personal income than the 47%. This means that the 53% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 47%. This would mean that the 1% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 99%.

Think of it this way. There are 100 people, and 53 of these people unwillingly supplement the income of 47 people. The 47 people pay no federal income tax, and 53 people pay federal income tax. But both the 47 people and the 53 people pay other taxes besides the federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47 people, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But remember that all of the 1% are part of the 53 people, or 53%. This means the one individual has a lot more money, and because federal income tax makes the 1% pay more than the the rest of the 99%, this means that the 1 person is going to pay more to keep the system running than the other 53% or the 99%. One individual will pay more for the entitlements that the other 99 enjoy and want.

Meet the Press: 47% of Americans & Mitt Romney

The Meet the Press episode on 9/23/2012 had some “Surrogates”, and not the type from the Bruce Willis movie, come on to the show. Some interesting points where brought up, and most of the discussion revolved around the idea of the 47% of Americans that do not pay income tax.

Now what is really strange about the 47% of Americans that do not pay federal income tax is that Harry Reid implied that Mitt Romney was part of that 47% of Americans. Of the class of 47% Americans that do not pay federal income tax, it was said that it contains Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney’s tax returns show that he has paid federal income tax. So Mitt Romney is part of the 53% of Americans that pay federal income tax.

In the line of Mitt Romney and his federal income tax returns, Governor Deal Patrick has some talking points.

Gov. Deval Patrick: I understand people’s interest and curiosity about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I think it was his dad that said that tax returns for presidential candidates should be produced way back many years. And I think he produced 20 year’s worth of tax returns and more when he was being considered for vice president. But the more I think important issue is what is it he plans to do with my taxes and yours and everybody else’s. He has a tax plan out there where he’s talking about $5 trillion in tax cuts, adding to the deficit. No way to pay for that and no idea about how — what the impact is on the middle class.

Now, I have already talked about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. So I will not deal too much with what Patrick says on the issue of tax returns. What I will bring up is how people consistently go back to Mitt Romney’s father releasing his tax returns. Mitt Romney is his father’s son, and yet somehow people think that what Mitt Romney’s father did means that Romney must do it as well. If Mitt Romney’s father killed a kitten does that mean that Mitt Romney must kill a kitten as well? Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent of releasing more than 2 years worth of federal income tax returns, likewise Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent in killing a kitten. So Mitt Romney ought to kill a kitten like he ought to release more than two years of tax returns, all because his father set the precedent by doing these things. Ridiculous type of argument by using precedent, especially when these precedents are not necessary tests to hold the office of Executive of the United States of America. This even holds in cases where people who were not Mitt Romney’s father releasing more than 2 years of federal income tax returns or releasing federal income tax returns at all. Precedent of no gay black woman being President, or candidate for President, means that a gay black woman should not be elected because they do not meet precedent set by previous candidates.

Deval Patrick does make a good point about what does the Candidate for Executive of the United States of America plan to do with your tax dollars, or all American’s tax dollars. But Deval Patrick is wrong that taking in less taxes, i.e. taking less money from individual Americans, does not mean that they you will have a deficit. There will only be a deficit if the government spends more than it takes in. Having 5 trillion less in revenue from income tax does not mean you will have 5 trillion in deficit. You will only have 5 trillion in deficit if you spend that money when you do not have it. You will only have 5 trillion in debt if you spend the money when you do not have it. So Romney would have to spend more money than is obtained by income tax.

Now one obvious impact on all Americans in 5 trillion less revenue taking in federal income tax is that Americans will keep more of their money to use as they desire, especially middle class Americans. They will be able to keep more of their money instead of having the federal government taking more of their money. But it would, supposedly, mean that there is less money for the federal government to use to run federal programs. This means that some federal programs would have to be scaled back in order for Americans to keep more of their money, unless one wants to increase the national debt. So Romney would have to cut back on some federal programs in proportion to the loss of federal revenue.

Now what would Romney use the federal income tax money on? He would have to use it on what the Constitution says that the President must do. If the Constitution said that there must be 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, then Romney would have to use that income tax money to make sure that there are 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, and have to make sure that those 25 aircraft carries can necessarily do what they are suppose to do.

But let us go to this 47% of Americans are “dependent on the federal government”. This main point is based on something. It is based on that 47% of Americans do not give up money in income tax, which means the tax person (or IRS person) is not coming to get your money from you by April 15th. Instead, 53% of Americans will have to give up money to the tax man while 47% do not have to give up the money. But the money that the 53% gave up to the tax man is given to the 47% Americans, while the tax man takes a cut in making that transaction of money from one party to another party. What needs to be realized 47% of Americans make money at the end of the year while 53% of Americans lose money at the end of the year.  What makes this interesting is that a large number of people are not paying into the system while another group is paying into the system, and those that are not paying into the system receive money from those who are paying into the system. You do all the work, if you are part of the 53%, while another person, if part of the 47%, gets all the reward of your work. This is equality, this is redistribution. Giving from the haves to the have nots.

How about, like Gregory David brought up in the debate between George Allen and Tim Kain in the Virgina Senatorial debate, everyone pays federal income tax? This means that the 47% who do not pay federal income tax be forced to pay federal income tax, like those 53% of American’s who payed federal income tax. This way those 47% of Americans are paying into the system like 53% of Americans, and this will make all Americans equal in how the law is executed. One group of people do not have pay federal income tax while another group of people have to pay federal income tax, and now all groups of people will have to pay federal income tax. That way if you receive some of these governments entitlements, which are usually funded by federal income tax revenue, then you are getting what you payed for.

Take this example from Ezra Kelin, the hack “journalist”.

Compare Romney to a single mother of two who works fulltime at Wal-mart who takes the earned income tax credit and whose children get health insurance through medicaid. Romney says she’s not taking personality responsibility. He says he couldn’t get her to take personal responsibility if he tried, yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore. He’s beyond all of that, and he’s carried that belief into his policy proposals, his policy platform matches his comments. He won’t raise taxes on the rich but wants to cut medicaid by over $1 trillion in the next decade.

Working at Wal-mart meets you will have a personal income that is below the taxable amount. Say that the taxable income level is 25 dollars. If you make 24 dollars then you do not have to pay the income tax, but receive money from the federal government. If you make 25 dollars or over, you have to pay the income tax. Medicade is a program that is funded for by personal income tax, so this person at Wal-mart is not paying into Medicade like the person who pays the income tax does. This person would not be taking personal responsibility if that means paying for the program that you are taking advantage for. In other words, this person would be obtaining something that they did not pay for. But we all know that nothing is free, so who payed for it? The 53% payed for that program.

I really have no clue what the line about “yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore”. But what should be noticed is that the 53% will have to pay less of their money taken by the personal income tax, and so medicaid will have 1 trillion dollars less than it had a decade ago. This means that 53% of Americans will keep more of their money, and those 47% of Americans would receive less money, within the next decade if Romney were elected.

Entitlements Are Not Rights Opinion Piece

Interesting opinion piece from a newspaper. My slight edits will be in [brackets]

“Some people fail to grasp the simplest of concepts: We have a Bill of Rights. It spells out exactly the rights you have. And guess what? You don’t have a right to a home. You don’t have a right to three meals a day. You don’t have a right to a car. You don’t have a right to a college education. You don’t have a right to credit. And you don’t have the right of cradle to grave health care paid for by somebody else.

If you are disabled, there are already [federal] programs in place, some constitutionally questionable, that will help you out. But the majority of people in this country draw the line when the [federal] government tries to mandate that you have to purchase something or face a fine so they can make sure all people, be it of their own fault or not, are taken care of.

If you want to give to charities to care of everybody in this country, you are free to do so. If you are asked by your religion to give a certain amount of your income to your church, you are free to do so. But you are also free to not be demanded to give to charity if you wish not to.

And finally, if you don’t like the way this country is set up, and would rather pay a mandatory tax to government to make sure all your neighbors are taken care of, you are free to leave at any time. That’s what makes this country great.”

The only thing in the Bill of Rights which would be contrary to this, or even leaves open the possibility, is the 9th amendment.

 

Mitt Romney’s “Tax Returns” and “Tricky Mitt”

It appears that the Obama campaign for re-election has brought up some interesting talking points, which appear to have garnered wide attention. One of them involves Mitt Romney’s “tax returns” to be released, and for how there might be a felony or criminal action being hidden in his tax returns that have not been released. Now, unless you have been living under the sea with Ariel, there has been this narrative of “class warfare”, which has been brought up of rich American citizens v. non-rich American citizens.

Mitt Romney is placed within the category of rich American citizen, because you have to be an American citizen to run for President of the United States of America. There is even a check done to make sure that you meet the necessary requirements to run for President of the United States of America, and being a US Citizen is one of them. Anyone that tries to run for the office and does not meet these necessary requirements, well be denied that office. Romney  is considered to be a rich, which came about from his work as a private citizen and using his property that where within legal requirements.

Here is an example of an add bringing up Mitt Romney’s tax returns and linking it to be criminal and Mitt Romney is a felon.

Mitt Romney’s individual income tax returns are private information and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is the branch of the federal government that receives your individual income tax returns, and they can only give out your income tax returns to authorized federal branches or authorized individuals. So, for the most part, Mitt Romney’s information is private, unless Romney wants to make it public. You could own this a really great couch in your private home, and keep it private. You could also take your couch out of your private home and put it on public display or you could invite people into your private property and take a look at your really great couch. Not even the federal government is authorized to release that private information. Scary when the IRS even has boundaries that it will not transgress.

The main point would be that it is private information and one may use that private information as they want. Romney does not fell like releasing his tax returns, and Obama has not felt like releasing his college transcripts. Romney has also not released what his first memory was, or Obama has not released what his first memory was. Are both Romney an Obama holding back these things back because they broke some law? Are they criminals that are trying to run for office and be President? Are some criminals in public office now? Maybe federally elected officials are criminals. Could even be like prison in so far as you come out changed from when you went in. You go in as a law abiding person and come out a criminal, just maybe not a convicted criminal.

I really need to know this private information, I love to be all in people’s personal information and living their life for them. I really need to know what was Mitt Romney’s first job after graduate school an what was Barack Obama’s first job after graduate school, it allows me to know their unexplicated  step by step plan to reach their explicated objectives. “I’m going to fly you to the moon, but never mind how I am going to get you there.”

Does anyone know of the IRS having a good reputation of obtaining what is federally allowable by law? Assuming that they are good at obtaining what is legally attainable for them, it would mean that someone who holds back what is legally obtainable would be sought after by the IRS to obtain what is legally theirs. Has there been any information on Mitt Romney actually having been prosecuted by the IRS or Department of Justice for withholding the legally attainable private income of Mitt Romney? All signs point no. But we the public should think that he is hiding that really great couch from us; he is not sharing that really great couch, that is his private property, with us. He chooses not share his private stuff with us, so he must be choosing to do illegal things with his private property.

Romney did, on the other hand, at least release some of his private information. It is strange that he would release some of his private information since it is not necessary in order to hold the office that Romney seeks. He, or any Presidential candidate, must be natural born Citizen,  35 years of age or older, been fourteen year resident within the United States, and receive the majority of electoral votes. So the private information does not affect being a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age, and been a 14 year resident of the United States. He passed those three tests to hold federal office. The only one he is missing is the majority of votes from the electoral college voters. All the electoral college voters have to do is look at a ballot and pick which of the people listed is who they will vote for.

Is it expected that releasing this private information to obtains votes like buying a vote? Is it expected that releasing this private property to obtain votes be similar to buying votes? Without this private property being giving to the electoral college voters, Romney will fail the necessary test of being President. He can only obtain the office if he passes the necessary requirements, and failing one, like getting the majority of electoral college votes, means he is prevented from being Executive of the United States of America. Does Romney have to meet with a majority of the individual electoral college voters, and show them his private information or give up his private property, in order for them to vote for him?

But he did give up this private property to the electoral college voters. Of that, it was found that he placed some of his private property in banks. We also like to place some of our private property into banks. Nothing really strange about this. What is different is that Romney is able to put some of his private property into banks that do not have their headquarters in the United States of America. But there is nothing illegal of where you choose to place it. If this were the case, then that would mean it would even be illegal for you to choose to place it in banks that are headquartered in the United States. Instead, we are free to choose where put our private property. And those banks that Romney chose to put his private property were within federal law of where you can place your private property. This is like other people who place their banks that are headquartered in the United States and also allowable under federal law. The difference is that only those people who can afford to put their private property in this banks are allowed to do so. Romney is one of them, but some other people cannot afford to put their private property where they choose and allowable by federal law. Has anyone heard from the IRS on this issue?

What is the real problem, since he is not breaking any federal law and there is no requirement in holding office of Executive of the United States? It is that he is a rich American trying to become Executive of the United States. He is being discriminated against because of his economic class, or being given a reason to not vote for him. His economic class is trying to be used to get people to not vote for Romney, to not hire Romney. Economic class, in this situation, would be the strict factor in not hiring someone. They are in the class of rich instead of the class of not rich. They are being discriminated against based on class, like some in previous American history were discriminated from being hired in jobs because of their race, or because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or because of physical/mental deficiencies. If those groups of people, who were not hired for the job, could have changed what they were discriminated against for, then they would have been hired.

This is part of the subtle narrative of “Class Warfare”. Trying to turn one class against another, have non-rich American citizens to discriminate against rich American citizens like male American citizens discriminated against female American citizens. One class against another, division instead of equality and unity. Moving back instead of moving forward. Moving back to inequality amongst different classes instead of moving forward to equal treatment of different classes. Precedent has been set with previous elections had majority of electoral college voters not voting another candidate because of the class they belonged to, like being black or a woman. Just continuing it with another class of people after those other groups were eliminated form discrimination for holding a federal job. Precedent had been set by previous generations allowing for the discrimination and so others still follow it with another new class.