Please visit my other blog
It is also available as a book with added comments and thoughts. It is a fundraiser for Multiple System Atrophy research - the disease that killed my wife and the catalyst for the blog. Please consider buying either a Kindle version from the Kindle store or a paperback version from Amazon. The title is "Living With A Snowman" by Scott Poole. It is available for purchase HERE.

Friday, December 22, 2017

A Christmas Poem

Just Days Before Christmas

Twas a few days before Christmas
and all through the land,
People were losing their minds
over a new tax plan.
Their concern is too much money
Might remain with the rich.
Not even sure who gets what,
they decide just to bitch.
Of course, when people are asked who the rich might be
Basically, they say, “anyone that has more money than me”.

Our worries of government and taxes and such,
really don’t help advance mankind much.
To concern ourselves with where capitals might be
In some faraway land that we’ll probably never see.
Is a waste of our efforts,
And can cost us our minds.
We should just try to be
more understanding and kind.
We can help one another
not elected people on a hill.
No matter the rhetoric or passage of a bill.

Tis the season to be jolly,
And to love one another.
To treat all we meet
like a sister or brother.
Kindness is not made by legislatures afar.
But comes from our hearts
And how open we are.
So regardless of your beliefs, color, race, or creed.
More understanding and kindness is really what we need.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Peaceful Saturnalia or whatever you and yours might celebrate. Try to be accepting and understanding of all regardless of their political affiliation, sexual orientation, the color of their skin, or any other differences they may have. We are all in this together.

                                                                                                                                   “THE” 12/22/17

Friday, November 24, 2017

Measure Twice, Cut (taxes) Once

I have written a few posts throughout the history of this blog about taxes. With all the talk (and hyperbole) about the "Republican tax plan" working its way through Congress now, I felt compelled to do another. I do recommend and ask that if you care about this subject that you go back a few posts and read a series of three posts where I investigated and reported on tax cuts and their effect on tax revenues. There are three posts. The first is:  Then the next two follow consecutively.

Since I know most of you probably will not - the quick and dirty bottom-line is every time that tax cuts have been instituted they have paid for themselves. I even included a spreadsheet with the data if you care to review it yourself.

If you have read many of these posts you know I have some "lessons" and truths that I am trying to get across to the readers. The idiotic games being played in Washington (and State capitals for as well) and the irresponsible reporting on fiscal issues has made people ignorant of the actual financials of our government. Those truths include these that are relevant to this post:

1) There is NO GOVERNMENT MONEY. All money comes from taxpayers or through inflation-inducing policies where the government prints money and injects it into the economy. Saying that Federal money or State money is going to pay for something is saying - the taxpayers are paying for it.

2) Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES! People pay taxes. If you buy Campbell's soup you are helping the Campbell's company pay their taxes. The price of the soup includes a portion for taxes. This is a gross simplification, but basically true. 

If the average person just understood these two things a lot of the idiotic fiscal shenanigans in Washington would be shut down. It is not a Republican/Democrat thing! It is a class warfare, give (or get) your money to (or from) an all-knowing, benevolent government that can cure all ills. Here is one question to ask yourself about our government and their ability to fix things. If you are old enough to remember more than one (the more the better) election cycle, how about recalling the problems that the candidate/incumbent was going to solve for us? They have been the same since I started voting many, many elections ago. Government is NOT THE ANSWER - GOVERNMENT IS (a LOT of) THE PROBLEM! There is almost nothing government can do more efficiently than the private sector when the private sector is allowed free enterprise.

Now, to taxes, tax plans, tax cuts and more: Any time tax cuts are mentioned the argument is that they are "tax cuts for the rich". This is more of the class warfare I was mentioning above. Through disingenuous reporting (lies for those of you that like things simpler) and decades of bringing up the rare exception or tax cheats - people have the misconception that the rich do not pay taxes; or at least they do not pay "their fair share." I have traded emails and communications with many folks when I publish posts about taxes that use that as essentially their entire argument. SMH!

Here are some facts (remember, we are talking FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - another tactic used to confuse this discussion is to add into the figures/discussion. State taxes, sales taxes or more commonly Withholding "taxes" - however, the tax bill offered up now or normally is not addressing these issues*) : The people in the top 20% of wage earners paid 86.8% of ALL INCOME TAXES in 2015 (the last year I could find exact figures for that I could document from two independent sources - from the Tax Policy Center and confirmed by IRS.GOV)
Even more demonstrable is: THE TOP 1% OF WAGE EARNERS PAID 43.6% of ALL INCOME TAXES in 2015.

Another figure: In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Fair? Enough?

I am not sure what reasonable people would say is fair for the top 1% (or 10% or even the top 0.1%) but it seems that almost 87% of ALL INCOME TAXES PAID would be pretty "fair". Tax cuts are by necessity going to benefit the wealthy over the poor as they wealthy pay the taxes! It is common sense that cutting income taxes will not benefit those that do not pay any. The bottom 40% of income earners PAY NO INCOME TAXES NOW! For the most part, they get money in excess of what was withheld for them in the form of tax credits! You cannot "cut" what is not there! Please remind someone of this the next time they comment about the "rich not paying their fair share".

For the record, I am nowhere near the top 1% or even the top 10% so this is NOT a cry from personal gain. I just am fed up with the misconceptions and class warfare that is the argument every time tax cuts is rolled out.

* as a note: the top 20% paid @69% OF ALL TAXES including withholding and others - so that argument is moot as well.

Friday, November 10, 2017

I Did Taxes, Now For Some Death

I wanted to comment on one of the most controversial and widely discussed topics today - gun control/gun violence. Especially with two heinous acts within a span of about a month, this is top of mind and discussions.

I just wanted to put some perspective on these events, as well as bring up some points and questions. I am not trying to dismiss the tragedy or horror of these killings; just trying to have a rational discussion (which is always difficult when concerning an inherently irrational subject).

First let's get into the perspective part:
As horrific and seemingly common these "mass shootings" are - in reality they are still quite uncommon. For example, the church killing of the past week of 27 people was widely reported. But, there were many more deaths that day from auto accidents of people going to and from church than were killed in the church. (I am using averages - not actual deaths that day, where over 3,200 PER DAY are killed in auto accidents) Now, again, calm down - I am not saying what happened at the church was not tragic and horrible. I am just making a point.

There are more people killed each year from acetaminophen (Tylenol®) overdoses than in mass shootings, for another.

Or, if you truly are worried about human life, how about this one: it is estimated (and it HAS to be estimated because it is not widely reported due to lawsuit fears) that over 250,000 people die each year from hospital medical errors - ERRORS - FROM A PLACE WE GO TO GET WELL!

Also, bathtub falls kill more people than the church shooter did!

Again, don't hate the messenger. I am just making a point. The horror shown on the news of innocent people being gunned down triggers a response in us. When have any of you seen a report with news footage of an acetaminophen overdose death?

Now, to the response. Rational, empathetic and sympathetic people cry out - "We must do something!" The cry of "Guns are the problem..." ALWAYS is brought up, Well, B.S.! Guns don't kill people any more than hammers build houses. Guns are a tool, just like hammers, shovels, pencils, fishing rods, etc. None of these inanimate objects do anything except occupy space without being put to use (or misuse) by a human being.

In my opinion, our issues are with:
1) a blatant societal disregard for human life;
2) a concentration on the "ME, ME, ME" aspect of life, and the fixation with news coverage. The last one is two-fold - some people literally live for the "likes", "hits", "re-posts", "re-tweets", etc. of modern life. Others just want what used to be called their "15 minutes of fame/infamy" - even if (or maybe ESPECIALLY if) it is after their dramatic shoot-out death.

As for the cry for gun control - I have a question for anyone that thinks that is the answer...HOW??
We have a drug problem in this world. There are drugs that are universally illegal that any person with a cellphone and/or a friend network of over two people can buy within a day in any spot in the country! And again, these are ILLEGAL! Now, guns are legal. There are estimated by some to be more guns than people in the US. Guns are protected by a specific Constitutional amendment. Meth is not only illegal, the main ingredient is now purchase controlled! Yet, meth is prevalent everywhere! There is NO law or group of laws that could ever be passed that will or would stop mass shootings like Las Vegas or Columbine, or anywhere else. Sorry, but that is a fact. Even if the Second Amendment is repealed and guns are made illegal - there will still be guns. In fact at that point, by definition, ONLY PEOPLE WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW WILL HAVE GUNS!

Now, I am not a pessimist - I am a realist. Are there things we can do that might mitigate these acts? YES! I have no problem with universal background checks. However, the shooter in the recent Texas church shooting PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK! There was human error involved, but he passed. I also have no problem with a waiting period for obtaining a gun after purchase. This can stop some "crimes of passion" I suppose. However, the Las Vegas shooter had obtained his guns WELL IN ADVANCE of his rampage from the hotel window. Can we ban things like "bump stocks" that make it easier to rapid fire and kill more people - YES. Let's do it. Are there other measures that may help? Probably. But NO LAW IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE THAT IS ABOUT TO BREAK A LAW ANYWAY! It is a violation of law to shoot someone in most circumstances. So, if someone has decided to shoot out of a hotel window at a crowd, they already have shown a disregard for the law. How would one, two, or a hundred more laws make them more compliant?

We need more mental health care and counseling. We need more personal interaction and communication between all people. By definition, these shooters are mentally deranged. We the people need to be on the lookout for people that need help or need to be watched. Now, I am not talking about a "police state" or a visit to the old Soviet Union, where your neighbor could get ahead by reporting you for talking about the government and all comments were kept hidden. I am talking about a true interaction and reaction with and to our surroundings and neighbors.

Just remember that driving to the concert, school, church, or wherever is still MUCH more dangerous than once you are there - in almost every circumstance. We need to watch out for one another. Also, warn people about acetaminophen/Tylenol®!

As always - civil discourse and cogent responses are welcomed and will be published.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Because We Said So!

I was going to start with my "lessons", but I will end with them instead. As I realize some (if not most) people do not want to learn or feel "preached at" and will tune out, I will start with the "meat" of what I wanted to say.

I have written about a plethora of subjects here. I can tell you that yes, my opinions are represented, (hey, my blog, my forum, my opinions) however I do try to clearly distinguish pure opinion from facts whenever possible. I can also tell you that I try very, very hard to base my opinions on fact. One of the benefits of our modern, connected age is the access to almost unlimited data. From when I was a child (not of ancient times, but years ago) where a trip to the library was needed for extensive study on a subject, or using an encyclopedia that was outdated on contemporary subjects once it was printed; we have at our fingertips data to rival the greatest libraries and museums in the world. I do a LOT of research in coming up with my opinions. So, the internet and it's connections to this almost limitless base of data has been a great blessing to me. The ability to link to, read and study data and others opinions on almost any subject has been phenomenal. But, here is where the nexus of this post comes from...

I am finding it more and more difficult to find relevant unbiased raw data on any subject of  sociologically contentious debate. And, without trying to sound biased myself; data that is not biased to the politically correct norm is becoming especially difficult to find. I much prefer raw unfiltered data when I am researching a subject. However, in the past ten years or so (and especially in the past two or three) it is becoming more and more difficult to find this. Almost all the "facts" out there on any subject of societal concern is just opinion - or select facts presented to support that opinion.

I am old enough, and I hope wise enough to realize that not all of my fellow humans share my desire to research and learn truth. Many are too lazy, unconcerned, or distracted to care. Talking heads, think tanks, spin doctors, and others mired in the business of presenting opinion as fact have a vested interest in keeping this lack of dialogue going. I find it both appalling and very disheartening. A society of lemmings is not a free society at all. Dissenting opinions are both healthy and necessary for growth and the advancement of society and knowledge. If you don't believe that, think if humans had accepted the "facts" that diseases were caused by evil spirits, that the earth is the center of the universe, that the smallest unit of matter was the molecule (or even the atom). Dissension causes growth when properly directed.

My point - watch your sources of "facts". If you get your news from one (or even two) sources - shame on you. If you use social media at one of those sources without any fact checking - double shame on you. A majority of what is out there today as fact is nothing more than an agenda.

Now, for the "lessons". Please note these and do some fact checking if you like! I am not going to do explanations of these. If you care to get additional data on any - they are listed in multiple posts on this site.

1) There is no government money.
2) Corporations do not pay taxes - people do.
3) Corporations do not exist to create jobs or provide benefits.
4) Minimum wage jobs are not and were never meant to support a family or even be a permanent occupation.
5) Term limits are critical to getting things done in government. We must get Congress and the bureaucrats rolled over to truly give the power back to the people.

Be kind and learn something REAL every day.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The Taxman Cometh, and We Ain't Dead Yet! (part 3 of a series)

This is part three of a series. If you truly want to know all the facts and opinion on this, it would serve you well to read the prior two posts. FYI, I have spent more time on this than any paper I ever did at any level of schooling. I have done my best to research the facts here. I am reporting my opinion, but am also trying to provide the facts and figures that led me to this conclusion so you can make your own. One last comment prior to getting to the meat of the matter: it amazes me with all the technology and information at our fingertips how difficult it is to find unbiased raw financial data concerning most aspects of taxes.

In the previous post I inserted a spreadsheet I put together to help me get all my research numbers in one place. (which is another aspect of this I have found amazing - there is no repository of comprehensive data on tax revenue, policy, rates, etc. anywhere! But, I digress). As I have been evaluating these numbers I came up with a few more that I thought would be relevant.

There are grave differences in what the tax rates are set at and what the actual effective rates (what is actually paid) are. This is especially true of the households at the very low end of incomes and those at the extreme upper end of incomes. This is due to tax credits and such at the low end and tax credits and what are called "tax breaks" on the upper end. These adjustments mean those at the low end usually end up getting money from the government when filing, which are usually even above what they paid in. At the upper end, it means the rates are adjusted down based on investments, donations, etc. This means that the effective rates are less than zero at the lower end and can be halved at the upper end. (this varies based on the year and the tax code, but is always lower from 25% to 50%) 
What this means is, sometimes tax increases or cuts are actually neither. (to give you an example, let's say I give you a dollar but then tell you there is a fee for you getting that dollar of fifty cents. Now, you give me the fifty cents. Does that mean I gave you a dollar, or fifty cents? That is how the tax code changes work. There are all sorts of "stuff" written into any tax bill that GREATLY changes what people actually pay in taxes.

All that being said, from looking at the figures - ultimately tax cuts do NOT cut tax revenues when allowing two to three years for those with money to adjust their investment strategies. Here are some facts on the tax revenues received the year following the largest tax changes since 1960:

As you can see, the tax changes did not make much difference to the revenue brought in. (these figures come from the site, FYI)

If you look at my large spreadsheet from the previous post you will see there are no negative affects on income levels either or any other measure that I could find. I will stand by my evaluation - if I had to chose between the government getting more money and spending it and it staying with those that earned it - leave it in the hands of the taxpayers. Remember, even if you are not a libertarian as I am looking for smaller government; if the tax cuts do not cut revenue or negatively impact negatively any financial aspects I can find - why give it to Washington? They are proven to be the least efficient spenders of our money.

Now comes the argument that the rich do not save taxes and the tax cuts only benefit them. Well, obviously the @50% of people that do not pay Federal income taxes cannot pay less, so from that standpoint - YES tax cuts benefit the "rich". However I will end with on last chart. This shows the percentage of Federal income taxes paid by the top 1%, top 5%, and top 10% the year after the largest tax cut years since 2001 (could not find earlier years! I also included 2012 as a reference). 

As you can see, the "rich" pay well above their income percentage even after tax cuts. FYI, the top 1% in 2014 paid just over 40% of the Federal income taxes collected. So, the rich don't pay taxes?

I welcome any cogent and civil comment. I do not publish advertisements nor crude comments. You are welcomed to disagree (preferably with proof) and it will be published immediately. I also welcome questions.

I hope someone takes the time to study all this. Like I said, I spent more time on this than any paper I have ever done and probably more time than any sane person would that was not being paid or forced to do it! 

Sunday, June 18, 2017

More on Taxes, Still No Death...

This is part 2 of the taxes and economy. If you have not read Part one (the post immediately prior to this one) you may want to. It can be read either before or after reading this one)

To quickly catch you up in case you have not read the other, I was commenting on the issue of people posting so vehemently and positively about cutting taxes and the effect that has on the tax revenues. What amazed me is that the belief runs BOTH ways! It would seem to me that this is nothing more than a math problem. Now, although I hated math in school, I have always loved it for research and problem solving. Because, Open Core and Modern Math be damned, 2 + 2 should ALWAYS = 4! The same is true for complex problems. If you can distill it down to math, the answer is indisputable.

In the spirit of disclosure I did go into this with the hypothesis that cutting federal income taxes would increase tax revenues when given enough time for those with increased after-tax incomes to do something with it - spend it, invest it in a new business, add growth to an existing business, or just put it in a bank - then let them do the above. However, I did go into this needing to find proof of my hypothesis or to disprove it.

The first thing I found is that is is VERY difficult to find historical economic figures WITHOUT commentary or "adjustments". I was looking for raw data as well as different opinions. I found a lot of the latter and after research, enough of the former. With more disclosure I also found this issue, like a lot of complex issues with strong held opinions on both sides, is very hard to pin down. As I looked at tax rates, tax receipts, and the economic figures for the same period I realized just how complex this issue is! I also found that nowhere on the internet (at least that I can find and I am somewhat legendary for my ability to find things on the internet!) is a compilation of all or even most of the economic data over history. So, I made my own. Below is a spreadsheet I made to help me see the "big picture". (most entered by hand or cut and pasted by me when I could find data that allowed that!)

I hope you will be able to click on this and see it larger. If not, and you have an interest in the file - email me and I will send it to you.
The columns are: Tax rates at certain income levels by year for every year from 1960 through 2014. The income levels and the start and stop dates were arbitrarily picked by me early on when I realized I had to limit my data somewhat. Income taxes started in earnest in 1913, but to include that much data and to find corresponding data was too large a task. The "modern" tax cut did not start until JFK (implemented by Johnson after his death) in the mid-60s, so that is why 1960. These are at the rates with incomes NOT indexed by inflation. I struggled with that as well and have figures that are indexed but it did not make much difference in my evaluation.
Then we have Total Government Revenue for the same years, followed by Spending. These are indexed to either 2009 or 2012 dollars (sorry I lost my notes  - there is not a lot of difference between those two luckily) The main takeaway I got from these figures is WE SPEND TOO DAMN MUCH! Our revenues have grown tremendously. But, our spending has grown even more!
That is followed by the Income Tax Revenue for the period. The first revenue number included all government revenue. This is just that portion that is collected from individual income taxes. Since that is the point of my study, it was critical that I find these figures.
Then we have GDP with the percentage increase/decrease year to year.
Next is the Median Household Income for each year. To refresh your memory, a median of a group of numbers is that number which has half the numbers above it and half below it. This and the other household income numbers start in 1967 as I cannot find these figures from years before.
Then is the Mean (average) Household Income for each quintile of population (fifth).
Again, for explanation for those of you that do not use math often, it is important to look at Medan and Mean when comparing a large group of data. Take a group of seven incomes - 10K, 12K, 16K, 25K, 28K, 30K, & 50K. The median = 25K. The mean is 28.5K. That is a close approximation of the same. Then use the same numbers but let's say the top wage earner makes 500K instead of 50. There are still six of the numbers exactly the same but the mean goes to 103.5K. That is not at all reflective of the 25K which is still the median. Both have relevance, so I found and posted both.
Lastly I found the Unemployment Rate for each of the years.

I have just decided to do this in three installments. You can study the figures above if you like and see what you see. I have already put my thoughts in the first post at a high level. I will do some more detailed analysis in the next post.

FYI, I have tried to be as thorough as possible. I have tried to look at this with an open mind and from as many "angles" as possible. Also, these figures were gathered from many, many sources. I did use .gov sources wherever possible. Every figure was found on in at least two places before I used it. Other than rounding errors, they all did so. There could be errors here, if so they are mine and totally unintentional. As I said above I did have to manually enter most of these numbers. They have been checked and rechecked but errors are possible. You are welcomed and invited to try to find conflicting numbers. Just remember I used numbers that were adjusted for inflation to 2009/2012 figures with the exception of the incomes on the tax tables.

More to come...

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Death and Taxes - OK, Just Taxes

I have been working on this one for a LONG time. I have studied and analyzed for hours. It is time to get something in print! I know my detractors think I just spout off figures and find facts to support my thoughts and ideas. Wrong lizard breath! I actually do research on every post I do here (or in my life) that involves facts and figures to be found. I come to my opinions AFTER research. Sure, I go in with ideas and sometimes even hopes of what I will find. However, I have sometimes found that my ideas are not supported. Rather than scream and cry or stick my head in the sand I change my opinion or ideas. Such is life.

This post is one concerning one of those "facts" that gets thrown out every so often - that cutting taxes raises (or lowers) government revenues. It amazes me that people have such steadfast and positive thoughts and opinions on this one. Most either believe it is a definite raising of revenue or a definite cutting of revenue. I can tell you after hours, and hours, and hours of studying numbers I have a good idea that my original thought that tax cuts bring more money into the federal coffers is marginally correct - more to come. I can say with almost absolute certainty that it does not lower revenues, except sometimes in the first year the cuts (or increases) go into effect. That makes sense as the people that have the money have to adapt and change their investment and spending strategies based on the tax codes. That takes some time to compute and execute. See next:

To me that is the issue with trying to determine what the effect of a tax change will be.The major tax collected by the federal government is the INCOME tax. (a LARGE portion of the money comes from payroll taxes like social security and medicare/aid - but that is another subject) Income and wealth are two entirely different things. A very wealthy person may have an income lower than yours. They can be worth millions upon millions and show a rather middle class income. That is because they do not necessarily work a job with a salary or draw a definite income. They own things - like companies, land, buildings, ideas, etc. We do tax those at certain rates and certain times, but not at the level of income and not consistently. So, a wealthy person can choose to only take the minimum amount of income that they need to exist at the lifestyle they desire. The rest of their assets are not taxed as income because it is not used to produce income. This is especially true when taxes are very, very high on the highest levels of income. That is also the reason the tax revenues do not go down, and have historically gone up within two years of a tax cut. They rich use their wealth to create income - then pay income taxes.

There is an old standard that says "I never got a job from a poor person" or variations of that. It is argued where it came from and who said it first. It has caused much argument, but there is definite truth there. To offer employment to someone, a business must have wealth, cash flow, and ultimately income. Now, one can work for themselves and not take a salary or at least much of one. One can work for a company and not take an income. Instead, you might take stock or stock options/ownership in the hopes that someday that will pay off. However, wealth provides income. So, the standard is true, at least at the base level. That is why lower taxes on those with higher incomes (and higher wealth) is good for the economy.

That brings up another part of this discussion. There are many that say that the "trickle down" economic theory does not work.There are just as many that say it does. What amazes me about those statements is that both will use Ronald Reagan's presidency as the proof. "Reagan found that out" is the defense for both sides of that argument. Amazing, to me at least. So, one of the reasons this took me so long to do was I included the following in my studies:

     1) income tax rates for the years of 1960 through 2013
     2) average household incomes for the years of 1967 through 2014
     3) the mean household incomes for each quintile for the years 1967 through 2015
     4) the mean income of the top 5% for the years 1967 through 2015
     5) the unemployment rate for the years 1960 through 2016

The dates vary because the sources varied. I used no figures that I could not find matching from at least two independent sources. I used the and the US Census figures where available.
I got this additional information due to a comment a friend of mine made about a post I did on Facebook critical of people saying tax cuts are bad. He expressed a valid point that the economy is extremely complex. Just looking a one part of it (or changing one part) is not a good measure of what is going on. We all know the story of the group of blind men that come upon an elephant. Depending on what part they are at, they all have a totally different "vision" of what it is they have come upon.

This is going on way too long. I will say this:
     1) I found that it can be said that tax cuts do NOT cut tax revenues. There is no case where the tax rates have been cut that two years later the revenue was not equal to before the cuts.
     2) In most instances there was growth in revenue within 2-3 years after every tax cut.
     3) Unemployment tends to go down three to four years after a tax cut in almost all cases.
     4) I am still evaluating incomes. That is a tough one. It appears that tax cuts have little to no effect on very low incomes. It does seem to help the middle and upper classes.
     5) Recessions, wars, etc are VERY hard to factor in or factor out. The complexity is crazy. The first three statements are ones that I think I can back up with figures. You can be the judge.
I will have more actual facts and figures in the following post. I will do my best to get it done in the next few days - a week at most.

Here is a two sentence take-away - if the tax cuts do not reduce revenue, do not hurt employment, and do not hurt household incomes; why would we not do them? Keeping money out of Washington and in the hands of those that earn it would seem to me to be THE superior goal.

More to come. If you stuck with me through this treatise - kudos!

Monday, May 29, 2017

Memorial Day Tribute Video

I have a bit of a hard time with Memorial Day due to the fact my wife was in the hospital and died over Memorial Day weekend.

I produced this today in honor of Memorial Day and all those that died for this country. (my first video slideshow).

Monday, May 15, 2017

Meet a Trump voter

I have commented in various forums and in person to many that I am amazed at the vitriol and close-mindedness that is involved with all things Trump. I understand people being against his policies, but to truly hate and denigrate someone that voted for him is beyond me. For those of you that will take the time to read this, I wanted to introduce you to someone that did vote for Trump - ME! (I will do my best to keep this succinct, but...)

First, a small bit about me: I think and hope people that know me would vouch that I am not racist, homophobic, or misogynistic in any degree. Have I used the "N-word" - yes. (of which I have posted on before - I find it amazing that the one word that is totally off limits now in any discussion is the "N-word". There are MANY words that not so long ago would NEVER be used in polite company, that are widely accepted; but I digress). That word was thrown around like leaves blowing in a storm when I was growing up and well into my adulthood. It was used at, for, by, and directed to; whites, blacks, native Americans, etc. In addition, I have told jokes where blacks, browns, blonds, Polish people, Asian people, homosexuals, rednecks, farmer's daughters, and almost any other group you can name or think of were the punch line. I have been told jokes about those above named groups and many others BY those above named groups and many others. I have never watched Fox News, but neither have I watched MSNBC or CNN in 20 years. The only exception to this is Election Night. It is a fascinating sociological and psychological experiment to compare coverage of the election from the perspective of these comparatively - which I did the night of the last two national elections, but I digress again. I do not watch TV news of any type with the exception of the occasional BBC World Report or RT (Russia Television) when big events are happening. I get my news from news feeds, RSS feeds, and the websites of many, many, many sites. I do not get news from Facebook (I see it, but do not take it at face value, I research it) or any TV show (see previous). I consider myself an educated person that is trying every day to broaden my horizons and knowledge more. I typically vote Republican, although I would rather vote Libertarian; and have voted Democrat, especially when I know or know of the candidate personally. I am a staunch Libertarian Constitutionalist in belief, something that most people do not understand at all. I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution and a very, very marginalized and small Federal Government. I do not think the Federal (or State in most cases) government should be involved in Education, Student Loans, Healthcare with the exception of Veterans and government employees, most R&D when not in the National interest for defense or such, support for the Arts, or most of the other things most have come to expect from the government. There are other posts here where I wax poetic on the Constitution and the Federal role in our lives, look around if you wish to know more.
Which sets up my Trump vote.

We are broke as a nation. We are paying in interest now at a rate of over $350 Billion a year to service our debt. That is more than we spend on Medicaid! What amazes me is every time ANY program is to be trimmed or even kept at the same level as the previous year - people SCREAM - "YOU CAN'T CUT THAT PROGRAM!" It does not matter what it is. That is insane. To give you an idea - the TOTAL spent by the Federal government as recently as 2000 was a little under $2.2 Billion. By 2010 we were spending $3.4 Billion! Last year we spent $3.5 Billion. There is no way we cannot absorb a 10% CUT in all Federal spending. Hey, if we went back to 2007 numbers it would be a 20% cut, So, we have my first reason for voting Trump. He understands budgets and cutting spending to reflect revenue.

We have WAY too many elected officials - of BOTH parties - that have made lifelong career choice of Washington. That is totally contrary to the Founding Fathers thoughts. The reason the House of Representatives term is set at 2 years is because it was to be a service to the public. It was envisioned that gentlemen (and later gentlewomen) would leave their estates and jobs and do the "work of the people" for two years AND THEN GO HOME!! Then a new batch would come in. The advantage to this is the Representatives could really represent their constituents as they were among them recently and were going back to them shortly. Trump and his bringing in (at least to the Executive branch where he can) of business people that have money and fame enough, is what we need. Although I think for the most part the career politicians on both sides are terrible, this is one area that I still see a small difference in Democrats and Republican. The elected are very similar, but their appointees are different. The Trump appointees are especially different, and better in my eyes; here is why: If you look at the appointees that Obama had and the appointees and such that Clinton had around her they were looking to "make it" through government service. The Trump appointees already have made it. They all took a pay cut to be there. In most cases they took a prestige cut. Rex Tillerson as the C.E.O of Exxon probably had more access to world leaders than as he does as Secretary of State. He definitely had more freedom to actually get things done! I voted for Trump to help break up the career politicians lock on Washington.

The appropriation of land and land use under the previous administration in the interest of "conservation" or "ecological reasons" is another reason that I voted for Trump. The grab of land from States is a travesty. Again, as a Libertarian I am for private ownership and usage of land and assets. If a person wants to put an oil well, a wildlife preserve, or an house on a land they own; they should be able to - without asking permission! I am for ecological preservation. However, I do not feel the Federal government has any ability to do this, at least not in any degree better than most individuals or State/Local governments. Trump gets this. Land ownership was one of the foundations of this country becoming the richest country on Earth.

Carrying on with the ecological and such issues, I am grateful that we have a President that is willing to say the "Emperor has no clothes" and call the "environmentalist" idiots with the global warming scare tactics out. I have said it before - this is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world. Every doomsday prediction made by these demigods has not only not come true, in a lot of cases it has not even been close. I have done many posts on this topic as well where I lay out fact and figures, so I will keep this brief. I voted for Trump because he is not to be bullied by the idiotic pseudo-science of global warming. (I know, 97% of scientists, blah, blah - bullshit! - that is a made up figure.) Screaming "because we said so" is NOT science! Read my other posts if you want more facts. I do know we have to live here. I do believe in caring for our home - Earth. However, not at the expense of our wealth and lifestyle.

I have personally met a woman that work(s)(ed) (not sure which, she worked for him 20 years ago) for Trump. She ran his NY real estate empire. I was on a flight with her in 1995 or 96. I asked her about him and working for him. She said he was wonderful to work for. She expressed the opportunity she had been given as a woman in a business dominated (especially at that time) by men. I asked if he was hard to work for. She said he had a set of requirements and goals but you were free to set your own work process and schedule to meet them. She said she only saw him twice a year at general review meetings unless he just dropped by to say hello. Trump employed women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. in positions of power well before it was "good business" to do so. I voted for Trump because I think he can help women, blacks, and other minorities while returning some sanity to the rules, regulations, and B.S. that surrounds hiring and employment practices now.

Lastly, I voted for Trump because he understands that a country is nothing without its borders! To allow unfetter entrance to any and all that can walk over the border is insane. We live in a dangerous world. Access to our country must be controlled. FYI, the USA takes in more LEGAL immigrants every year than any other country in the world. I (and most people I know that want the Wall) have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT! I know this country would not exist had it not been for immigration and immigrants. However, I do have a real problem with illegal immigrants. We have laws. We have borders. If you are here illegally, I have no problem what-so-ever in sending you back - now. I have no problem putting a wall around our country. I welcome any of you that do not like walls to leave your door unlocked at night. If you have a fence or wall around your property - tear it down. Then we can talk. Trump understands that people here ILLEGALLY are not immigrants, they are criminals. Sanctuary cities are idiotic as well. How about sanctuary cities for bank thieves, for murderers? If you break the laws, you should pay the price.

The choices in the last election were far from optimal. We have set up a system where the best qualified for the job will never run. The gauntlet that we have established is to daunting for any "normal" or even near normal person. We had a choice between the most corrupt career politician to ever run for President and Trump. Yes, I voted for a ego-maniacal, pompous, narcissist that tweets his thoughts unfiltered at 3 am. I voted for change.  

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Beginnings, Middles, and Ends; Oh My!

This is the second of the two I promised a couple of days ago. I actually had this one pop into my head first but the other "forced" its way out first. So with no further ado...

I was thinking how we spend our lives going from beginnings to ends. There is the BIG beginning - BIRTH, and the BIG ending - DEATH. Then LIFE is what happens in the middle. But, life is really a continuum of beginning - middle - end; over and over.

We humans, for the most part, LOVE beginnings. Think about one of our most celebrated personal days - the anniversary of our beginning - our birthday! We document, record, and celebrate other beginnings - baby's first words, first steps, first day of school, first date, first kiss, first car, first job, etc. We have such a love of beginnings that we keep seeking them all through our lives - just substitute NEW for FIRST. We have new jobs, new cars, new clothes, new loves, and so on. We move to new houses and neighborhoods. New is a good substitute for a beginning (and IS one in a way, I have to concede)

It can get somewhat complicated when we get to endings. Think of a graduation. It is called a commencement. To commence is to "begin, to start". We have taken an ending - of school, or at least that portion of school, and made it a beginning - a commencement of another chapter of life. We keep looking for beginnings after the endings. As stated above - we lose a job...YAAAAA we get a NEW JOB! We get a divorce...OH YEAH we get a NEW LOVE (or even NEW LIFE)! We even have a beginning attached to the BIG ending of death - metaphysics and/or religion offer up Heaven or reincarnation.

What I really find amazing is that most of our life is in the middle. Yes, almost every day has the small beginnings of new, but for the most part we are just existing and getting by. (I do not mean to imply that good and evil are not being committed and that people are not accomplishing things, but in a big picture kind of way - the middle is just getting through the days)

It seems to me however, that for all the beginnings and endings - even with the "news" in there - for the most part we live the majority of our lives in between. Every book has a cover and a back - a beginning and end as it were - but if you do not read the middle all books are basically the same.

                                                                                                                            "THE" 4/2017

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Slow Down And Listen!

I actually have had two ideas for a post in the last 12 hours. Here is one, stay tuned for another very shortly. I was going to combine them, but I think not...

We live in a FAST & NOISY world! All of us (at least in the U.S. and other "1st World" countries - a 3rd post just popped into my head) have a LOT of stimulation and demands on our attention and efforts almost 24 hours a day. Even television, which has been decried as a mind-rotting exercise in time wasting is now watched in binges and/or without commercials. We have our phones and data plans to never be out of touch. We are able to send photos and comments on where we are, what we are doing, and who we are doing it with (or to!?) Like they say - "it ain't real unless I post a photo"!
 I profess that a lot of our problems (again, 1st World problems) are due to this. We are constantly irritated, aggravated, stimulated, or otherwise motivated to look, listen, compare, contrast, become outraged, become forgiving, become sentimental, become hyper-aware, or in some other way engaged with this or that post, tweet, snap, snippet, etc.; again, all 24 hours a day!


We are surrounded by so much clutter that we don't listen to our own hearts.

Be still, seek silence, listen to your heart and let it guide you.

                                                                                                                                "THE" 4/15/17

Peace! I shall now try to partake of my own advice!

Saturday, April 8, 2017

A Poem

Getting Old

There are things I can’t remember,
That I’m not sure I ever knew.
There are places that I can’t recall,
I’m not sure I’ve ever been to.
There are people I can’t picture,
I'm not positive I ever met.
It can be hard to say if I ever knew,
Or did I just forget.