Earlier in the week, allegations came out compromising the reputation and polling numbers of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Three women came forward and accused the Judge of asking them out when they were in their teens. With all of the allegations of recent misconduct among celebrities and producers, it goes without saying that all of these accusations against Moore must be very recent, and they need to call into question Roy's judgment in current affairs.
Wait, this was all 40 years ago?? AND there was no more than kissing involved?? So why are we talking about this??
The full seriousness of the situation is a bit sickening, but I'm not talking about the what Moore did. The Judge is a good man who's been in the limelight of Georgia politics. He gained fame by wanting to keep the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, and was running in polls in double digits above his Democrat Challenger. Then suddenly, this situation came up, and more voters are seriously questioning him, along with many potential Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This accusation is nothing new. With Hollywood awash in accusations of sexual harassment and assault that happened recently, it's only natural that they would start coming out of the woodwork on conservatives. The cases have ranged from minor nuisance to near life destroying, but nothing has put anyone in any sort of career jeopardy as of yet. Slate reports that liberal mega-donor Harvey Weinstein has had allegations laid against him as recently as 2015. However, the media seems to be hinting that all of his rapes and assaults were nothing but a mistake, and all will be forgiven once he goes through rehab for sex addiction. But Moore kissed a 16 year old when he was 32, and the liberal left is ready to nail him to the crooked cross over it.
Rationally, can we really look at a dating issue in the late 70s as a measure of someone's capacity to do his job today? This is not a "boys will be boys" argument that the opposition loves to paint us with whenever we try to rationalize the situation. What I am about to say stands on the assumption that all of the allegations are true, which has not been proven yet. American Citizens do enjoy the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is a conversation for another time. What's realistic is that any of these accusations happened 40 years ago. I can attest to the mixed mindset of an early 30s male, because that's where I am now. I don't know much about Moore's personal life at the time, but I do know that if he was 30 and still single, especially in the 70s when 18 year olds got married to each other every day, he was going through some weird thoughts. Before I met the wonderful woman who I've spent the last 2 years with, my stomach twisted at the thought that I wasn't in my final relationship with, and this is a time where young marriages are becoming more and more uncommon. Furthermore, this was 40 years ago. I can safely tell you that I'm nowhere close to the same man that I was 10 years ago when I moved back to Wisconsin from Massachusetts. Hell, the transformation in the two years between when I moved there and when I moved back made me almost unrecognizable to even my family. And I am not alone. Millions of people have quit drinking, settled down, raised families, gone back to school, left their retail jobs for careers, fixed their credit, bought cars, started businesses, and found religion in spans ranging from 1 year to 20. Realistically, none of the allegations have included any sort of intercourse, and while a 32 year old going on a date with a 14 year old is just wrong, the law defines the illegality at insertion. Moore may have had some lapses in judgement in his early 30s, but the stories are clear that when he was told to stop, he stopped. And he's had 40 years of experience to shape his judgment and right and wrong since then. I'd personally be more interested in policy decisions that Moore made in 2007 than dating decisions he made back in 1977.
All of this is assuming that any of this even happened in the first place.
If you think that Moore should be crucified for going out with high school girls in the 70s, or if you want to sound your voice in support of him, please comment either below or over on Twitter. That's @edsblogtw1tter. I look forward to seeing a discussion form. Remember if you like what you read, consider hitting that like button, along with that retweet button, or share the link on Facebook or other social media. That would be cool of you. Remember, never take the words of journalists, podcasters, or bloggers as gospel. Gather all the facts, and make your own decisions.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Still More Tax Reform
We have a Tax Framework. It's not a bill yet, but it's a proposal. It seems to be a major compromise with Democrats, and there is a lot in the bill that I disagree with; but you'll be hearing most of the same disagreements from all conservative pundits. One of the biggest questions I have, obviously, is how much my taxes should fall. Everyone who is in favor of tax cuts is asking themselves that same question. The other question is one that came up right after the election, but has fallen off to the wayside: Can we have a tax plan that is retroactive? These are two very important questions to the majority of the middle class, and they really go hand in hand in a weird way.
Across the beginning of the year, conservative pundits Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity both made statements on the idea of tax cuts being retroactive to the 2017 tax year. Shapiro's comments fell off after a couple episodes of his daily show, but Hannity kept the idea pumping for months upon months. I stand firmly behind the idea of making a retroactive tax cut. In fact, I think at this point, it's almost essential. It's now November and the ACA, though stripped, is still intact. That, and tax reform were supposed to be done in the first 100 days of the administration. Had the tax reform been done on it's regular schedule, there would be no question as to whether it went on the '17 tax year. But the fact that we are doing this at the last minute means that there are questions. We've been paying in almost all year already, so it would be nothing for the IRS to just say "Oh, last year's rates are still effective." However, that would guarantee that all Republican Congressmen get at least subjected to a primary, if not voted out of office. We would have the definition of a "do nothing congress", and the constituents of many of our great congressmen would be right to take action.
Now, the political advantage is not the best reason to get these tax cuts going retroactive, but it's going to be a good way to light a fire under the asses of the right people: the people who's votes on the tax reform matter. There is a lot of practicality to doing tax cuts for this fiscal year. One of the big ones came into my mind when I started doing the mental math of what I would be paying in taxes in the coming years. Sadly enough, before this year, I really had no real concept of what I pay in taxes, and the amount was mind boggling. For almost my entire adult life I fell into that bottom 50%, and for the first two years that I qualified to pay federal income tax, I was so new to it that I just paid the money and said the hell with it and just paid the bill. But with all the talk about income tax cuts, a mathematical person can't help but start doing the calculations. At present rate, I would be looking at a pretty substantial 4 figure reduction in taxes, similar to a very large amount of Flyover Country Middle America. Some of the states with higher state and local taxes may not see so much, but I want to touch on that slightly at the end. First I want to say that getting these tax cuts in on the 2017 dime would be a huge jump in the National Economy as a whole. We've all been having taxes pulled off of our income for almost the entire year in anticipation of the current rate, so that will all be hanging out there in the IRS waiting to file. I'll tell you this, if the tax cuts go through and the rest of Flyover Country gets a refund like I'm anticipating, I'm not even going to spend the money on myself. While I could do a lot toward paying off my truck, or getting some money in the bank for a down payment on a house; I plan on doing something more practical. It's something that anyone who rents, or those who still live at home with their parents should be doing as well. I plan on taking that money, and putting portions of it into stock in Lowes, Home Depot, Samsung, and Apple. I chose Lowes and Home Depot because all of the people who do own homes will be taking their refunds blowing them on DIY projects, along with contracted home improvements. I chose electronics companies because the less fiscally responsible millennials who are living at home or renting will be running out to get the newest iPhone or Samsung Flagship. I predict that these stocks will soar, and that money can work for me in a better way than if I were to just spend it.
I want to close with a small comment on the repeal of the write-off for state and local taxes. I'm not opposed to the idea in any way, as I live in Wisconsin and my state is moderately taxed. In fact, with tax reform in the federal eye, my state is working on bringing it's own taxes down to be competitive as a job haven. I don't blame them at all. Tech giant Foxconn was on the edge of going somewhere else, so who knows what the next big job producer might do unless we sweeten the pot a little bit. But there is another point that I think a lot of people overlooked. Occasionally I listen to Rush Limbaugh, in spite of the fact that I usually consider him to be too extremist-right for my tastes, and on Thursday as his show was closing one of his listeners brought up a very good point during a call-in that would have never crossed my mind in a dozen years. The Republican opposition to this particular section of the tax bill is obviously coming from states with higher state taxes like New York and California. The idea behind eliminating the write off is that states with no income tax like Texas and New Hampshire are subsidizing the Federal Tax income from the higher taxed states, and lawmakers consider it to be unfair. Under the current system, you essentially pay your local taxes first, then what's leftover as Taxable Income is Federally taxed under your bracket. Ben Shapiro estimates that in his personal tax bracket, with California Taxes, he'll be giving up over 60% of his yearly income in taxes. Sean Hannity's predictions for New York State are not much better. But Rush's caller brought up a good point. The highest taxed states and municipalities tend to have been in majority Democrat controlled and represented for generations. In today's world, any information is available with a couple of screen taps. The people who are going to have their taxes go up are going to look at Republican controlled Texas, who's taxes went down, and has a surplus with no state income tax, and possibly start to re-think their representation. The left loves to talk about fairness, and there is nothing more fair than everyone paying the same in Federal income tax no matter the situation. The listener posited that the repeal of the local tax write-off may accidentally or deliberately push more voters in these states in the direction of more right-leaning state congressmen, and executives who can campaign on and deliver on state tax reductions.
If you have a comment or a different idea on how to utilize a big tax cut, or if you think the local tax write-off repeal is right or wrong, please leave a comment here or on my Twitter. That's @edsblogtw1tter. If you hit the like button, consider hitting that retweet button as well. That would be cool of you. Remember: Don't take the words of journalists and bloggers as Gospel. Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusions.
Across the beginning of the year, conservative pundits Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity both made statements on the idea of tax cuts being retroactive to the 2017 tax year. Shapiro's comments fell off after a couple episodes of his daily show, but Hannity kept the idea pumping for months upon months. I stand firmly behind the idea of making a retroactive tax cut. In fact, I think at this point, it's almost essential. It's now November and the ACA, though stripped, is still intact. That, and tax reform were supposed to be done in the first 100 days of the administration. Had the tax reform been done on it's regular schedule, there would be no question as to whether it went on the '17 tax year. But the fact that we are doing this at the last minute means that there are questions. We've been paying in almost all year already, so it would be nothing for the IRS to just say "Oh, last year's rates are still effective." However, that would guarantee that all Republican Congressmen get at least subjected to a primary, if not voted out of office. We would have the definition of a "do nothing congress", and the constituents of many of our great congressmen would be right to take action.
Now, the political advantage is not the best reason to get these tax cuts going retroactive, but it's going to be a good way to light a fire under the asses of the right people: the people who's votes on the tax reform matter. There is a lot of practicality to doing tax cuts for this fiscal year. One of the big ones came into my mind when I started doing the mental math of what I would be paying in taxes in the coming years. Sadly enough, before this year, I really had no real concept of what I pay in taxes, and the amount was mind boggling. For almost my entire adult life I fell into that bottom 50%, and for the first two years that I qualified to pay federal income tax, I was so new to it that I just paid the money and said the hell with it and just paid the bill. But with all the talk about income tax cuts, a mathematical person can't help but start doing the calculations. At present rate, I would be looking at a pretty substantial 4 figure reduction in taxes, similar to a very large amount of Flyover Country Middle America. Some of the states with higher state and local taxes may not see so much, but I want to touch on that slightly at the end. First I want to say that getting these tax cuts in on the 2017 dime would be a huge jump in the National Economy as a whole. We've all been having taxes pulled off of our income for almost the entire year in anticipation of the current rate, so that will all be hanging out there in the IRS waiting to file. I'll tell you this, if the tax cuts go through and the rest of Flyover Country gets a refund like I'm anticipating, I'm not even going to spend the money on myself. While I could do a lot toward paying off my truck, or getting some money in the bank for a down payment on a house; I plan on doing something more practical. It's something that anyone who rents, or those who still live at home with their parents should be doing as well. I plan on taking that money, and putting portions of it into stock in Lowes, Home Depot, Samsung, and Apple. I chose Lowes and Home Depot because all of the people who do own homes will be taking their refunds blowing them on DIY projects, along with contracted home improvements. I chose electronics companies because the less fiscally responsible millennials who are living at home or renting will be running out to get the newest iPhone or Samsung Flagship. I predict that these stocks will soar, and that money can work for me in a better way than if I were to just spend it.
I want to close with a small comment on the repeal of the write-off for state and local taxes. I'm not opposed to the idea in any way, as I live in Wisconsin and my state is moderately taxed. In fact, with tax reform in the federal eye, my state is working on bringing it's own taxes down to be competitive as a job haven. I don't blame them at all. Tech giant Foxconn was on the edge of going somewhere else, so who knows what the next big job producer might do unless we sweeten the pot a little bit. But there is another point that I think a lot of people overlooked. Occasionally I listen to Rush Limbaugh, in spite of the fact that I usually consider him to be too extremist-right for my tastes, and on Thursday as his show was closing one of his listeners brought up a very good point during a call-in that would have never crossed my mind in a dozen years. The Republican opposition to this particular section of the tax bill is obviously coming from states with higher state taxes like New York and California. The idea behind eliminating the write off is that states with no income tax like Texas and New Hampshire are subsidizing the Federal Tax income from the higher taxed states, and lawmakers consider it to be unfair. Under the current system, you essentially pay your local taxes first, then what's leftover as Taxable Income is Federally taxed under your bracket. Ben Shapiro estimates that in his personal tax bracket, with California Taxes, he'll be giving up over 60% of his yearly income in taxes. Sean Hannity's predictions for New York State are not much better. But Rush's caller brought up a good point. The highest taxed states and municipalities tend to have been in majority Democrat controlled and represented for generations. In today's world, any information is available with a couple of screen taps. The people who are going to have their taxes go up are going to look at Republican controlled Texas, who's taxes went down, and has a surplus with no state income tax, and possibly start to re-think their representation. The left loves to talk about fairness, and there is nothing more fair than everyone paying the same in Federal income tax no matter the situation. The listener posited that the repeal of the local tax write-off may accidentally or deliberately push more voters in these states in the direction of more right-leaning state congressmen, and executives who can campaign on and deliver on state tax reductions.
If you have a comment or a different idea on how to utilize a big tax cut, or if you think the local tax write-off repeal is right or wrong, please leave a comment here or on my Twitter. That's @edsblogtw1tter. If you hit the like button, consider hitting that retweet button as well. That would be cool of you. Remember: Don't take the words of journalists and bloggers as Gospel. Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusions.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
The Cruz-Sanders Extravaganza
Between a 40 hour a week job, a busy news cycle, and some family obligations, I'm a little late to the party on the Tax Reform Debate. After having it brought to my attention by the wonderful people at the Daily Wire, I was aware of it the day after it happened and I actually took the time to watch it the day after that thanks to YouTube. Since I waited to write about it for two weeks, I do admit that just about everything that needs to be said about it has already been said and this should be a pretty short article. However, there are a couple of little points I haven't really heard brought up that I do think bear attention.
The first thing that I noticed with this debate, and the healthcare debate for that matter, is the personnel. On the right was Senator Ted Cruz, who would seem to be the most obvious choice. Senator Cruz is the Republican Party, in spite of who the country elected as President. He is a classic Christian Conservative who gained the majority of his national fame by running for President. His platform was End Obamacare, Flat Tax, Put God back in the Government, and Stimulate job creation by getting the government out of the way. While these ideas may be far to the right of the recent centrist Republican converts, they are definitely in line with the voters who have been Down-the-Line Conservative since Reagan was in Office. On the other hand, his opponent was Independent (Socialist) career senator Bernie Sanders. While the vast majority of Democrat Politicians follow a similar, if not the same, political ideal, the ones with a D next to their names at least make an attempt to hide it.
Bernie being the Democrat representative to the string of televised debates shows is highly representative of the leftward movement of our politics that put a lifelong Democrat in the Presidency as a Republican. I feel that the debate would have easily been better served had the Democrat in the room been Biden, or Harris. It could have possibly even been Warren or Feinstein. Even Hillary would have seemed to be a more appropriate debate opponent, in spite of the fact that she holds no office currently. Any of them would have been more representative of the Democrat Base that comprises the majority of the country outside of colleges across the Nation.
Bases bring us into the other point that may have been partially touched on. Louder With Crowder host Steven Crowder touched on a part of this, but it could be taken a step further. On his show the Following night, Crowder mentioned that people like Chenk Uygar was probably over on the Young Turks proclaiming that Senator Sanders was the be all, end all champion of the Debate. Personally, I think that Mr. Cruz won. Nearly all of Bernie's points were able to be handily refuted with facts and statistics, and he was not able to reciprocate with anything but anecdotes and emotions. However, this debate may still have been a huge gain for Sanders. While Cruz was busy rebutting him, Bernie was raising the same catchphrases and buzzwords that infuriated his base. Between Ted beating up on him, and mentions of basic universal income, the Kochs and the Waltons, and the upper 1/10 of 1%, the Vermont Senator was able to draw pity for the underdog, and simultaneously advertise his brand to another group of Democrats. He also has a new series of videos for college students to cut and past into social media and caption with demands for the rich people to pay for everything. Cruz may have won on content, but Sanders walked away with billions of dollars worth of free advertising.
If you have any further thoughts on the debates that haven't been beaten to death on either side, or if you want to take any of this further, feel free to comment here, or over on Twitter. It's @edsblogtw1tter. If you like what you've read, please like and share on social media, and get the word out. Remember: Don't take the words of bloggers, podcasters, and the media as gospel. Always find all the facts and draw your own conclusions.
The first thing that I noticed with this debate, and the healthcare debate for that matter, is the personnel. On the right was Senator Ted Cruz, who would seem to be the most obvious choice. Senator Cruz is the Republican Party, in spite of who the country elected as President. He is a classic Christian Conservative who gained the majority of his national fame by running for President. His platform was End Obamacare, Flat Tax, Put God back in the Government, and Stimulate job creation by getting the government out of the way. While these ideas may be far to the right of the recent centrist Republican converts, they are definitely in line with the voters who have been Down-the-Line Conservative since Reagan was in Office. On the other hand, his opponent was Independent (Socialist) career senator Bernie Sanders. While the vast majority of Democrat Politicians follow a similar, if not the same, political ideal, the ones with a D next to their names at least make an attempt to hide it.
Bernie being the Democrat representative to the string of televised debates shows is highly representative of the leftward movement of our politics that put a lifelong Democrat in the Presidency as a Republican. I feel that the debate would have easily been better served had the Democrat in the room been Biden, or Harris. It could have possibly even been Warren or Feinstein. Even Hillary would have seemed to be a more appropriate debate opponent, in spite of the fact that she holds no office currently. Any of them would have been more representative of the Democrat Base that comprises the majority of the country outside of colleges across the Nation.
Bases bring us into the other point that may have been partially touched on. Louder With Crowder host Steven Crowder touched on a part of this, but it could be taken a step further. On his show the Following night, Crowder mentioned that people like Chenk Uygar was probably over on the Young Turks proclaiming that Senator Sanders was the be all, end all champion of the Debate. Personally, I think that Mr. Cruz won. Nearly all of Bernie's points were able to be handily refuted with facts and statistics, and he was not able to reciprocate with anything but anecdotes and emotions. However, this debate may still have been a huge gain for Sanders. While Cruz was busy rebutting him, Bernie was raising the same catchphrases and buzzwords that infuriated his base. Between Ted beating up on him, and mentions of basic universal income, the Kochs and the Waltons, and the upper 1/10 of 1%, the Vermont Senator was able to draw pity for the underdog, and simultaneously advertise his brand to another group of Democrats. He also has a new series of videos for college students to cut and past into social media and caption with demands for the rich people to pay for everything. Cruz may have won on content, but Sanders walked away with billions of dollars worth of free advertising.
If you have any further thoughts on the debates that haven't been beaten to death on either side, or if you want to take any of this further, feel free to comment here, or over on Twitter. It's @edsblogtw1tter. If you like what you've read, please like and share on social media, and get the word out. Remember: Don't take the words of bloggers, podcasters, and the media as gospel. Always find all the facts and draw your own conclusions.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
I joined Twitter
I've actually been on Twitter for a while, but I made a twitter account just for this blog. Follow me to get comments going and help get the word out
I am@edsblogtw1tter
I am
Some more thoughts on Tax Reform
Sometimes having people who are close to you can put another perspective on things. Other times, it spawns the discussions that strengthen your own viewpoints. I had a brief conversation like that last weekend.
I've mentioned before that my parents are Union Democrats. They hold ideals that are more conservative in today's world, but they've been told since the 60s that anyone who has an R next to his name wants nothing more than to put their jobs out of the country and take all the money away from anyone. After halfheartedly listening to Meet the Press, I commented against some progressive guest expressing the proposed tax cuts are only for the rich. I commented that we really need to get these tax cuts through so we can start getting people back to work and making jobs. My father turned and said that cutting the taxes on business leaders would never get people working. The only way to employ people would be to abolish welfare. After I was done reeling about how the modern Democrat socialists would take that, I pointed out that we need to have the jobs to put people into when the welfare goes away. Both of my parents then reminded me that all of the papers and the the internet were full of McJobs waiting for people to get off of welfare and take the jobs, and I didn't respond.
Now, I would love to see welfare go away, as would most people in the conservative camp, but there is a trade-off. I want welfare to be gone because nobody needs it anymore. I'm fighting and working every day to make our economy strong enough that it's more profitable to go to work than it is to be on welfare. I understand that you can't just end welfare without having something to take its place, and McDonald's jobs are not going to cut it. I know from experience that low paying jobs don't do anything for you. I spent a year working $12 an hour, 25 hours a week, and I was refused a raise for the 2 years that followed no matter how I worked, even though I was allowed to go back to 40 hours a week. While it's much higher on the horse than fast food and restaurant jobs, I was a mechanic, and had a massive tool payment to go along with it. I can tell you from personal experience that having a low paying job and no options to further yourself over an extended period of time can actually make the situation worse for people. I agree that people on welfare taking the low paying jobs would be a good start to getting the economy moving, but it's a short term gain. At best, having welfare recipients take all of these McDonald's and other minimum wage jobs will serve as resume builders, but we, as a country, need to make the moves to create middle level jobs for these people to move into. Realistically, getting these people into $7 an hour jobs won't do anything to add to the federal budget. The only thing it will do will take away some of the deficit.
That brings up the other point. Every mainstream journalist loves to proclaim that the tax cuts are for "the Rich", and frankly...they are. But the reality of it is that this is nothing more than a play on numbers and words. Of course a series of tax cuts are only going to benefit the top 50% of earners in the country. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes currently. The only way at all that you can benefit the bottom 50% would be to use the tax money paid by the other half of the country to give a refund bigger than what they paid in across the year. With a $20 trillion debt, that would be a level beyond stupidity. Bernie Sanders has even gone so far as to say that the "Trump" tax plan will hurt the poor. After looking through the little bit of the tax plan that has been leaked, the only thing I can find to corroborate this is that a series of mid level jobs will be created, bringing many people out of the tax bracket that doesn't pay taxes and putting them into the bracket that does. Now, I spent most of my life in the bracket that didn't pay any taxes, and in the 2015 tax year, I entered the bracket that does for the first time in my life. I can say, again from experience, that getting a bill from the Federal Government for the last couple years has been a nuisance (I follow the W4 to the letter, so 2 exemptions: 1 for single, 1 for no one else can claim me as a dependent.), and I hated having to scramble around for that $300 this year. But it sure was nice bringing home a weekly check that lets me have a roof over my head in a good neighborhood, and finally buy a nice truck. Having Auto Insurance is kind of nice, too. My yearly income for 2016 compared to 2012 is over twofold, so giving a rather paltry number to the government to keep their lights on and the military funded seems like a fair trade-off to me.
The bottom line is that this economy is beginning to roll in the right direction, and I feel like there are going to be a lot of people this year that are going to be paying taxes for the first time ever, or at the very least, for the first time in a few years. As I mentioned before, I know quite well what it's like on that first year when your $1500 refund turns into a $38 liability. I know that we can't move the bar so that they continue to not pay taxes, but the decent thing would be to not completely punish these new taxpayers for their newfound success by beating them with a huge tax bill. Bring the rate for the lower middle class, and frankly, everyone down. Free up money to get invested into businesses small and large, and free up even more money to get spent on the products that come out of these investments.
If you want to discuss the point further, be sure to comment, and subscribe. I will be opening up a comment section through twitter and I hope to get more discussion going there. As always, find a lot of sources of information, look at all the facts, and draw your own conclusions. Never take a journalist or a blogger's word as gospel. That's the concept that brought you this blog
I've mentioned before that my parents are Union Democrats. They hold ideals that are more conservative in today's world, but they've been told since the 60s that anyone who has an R next to his name wants nothing more than to put their jobs out of the country and take all the money away from anyone. After halfheartedly listening to Meet the Press, I commented against some progressive guest expressing the proposed tax cuts are only for the rich. I commented that we really need to get these tax cuts through so we can start getting people back to work and making jobs. My father turned and said that cutting the taxes on business leaders would never get people working. The only way to employ people would be to abolish welfare. After I was done reeling about how the modern Democrat socialists would take that, I pointed out that we need to have the jobs to put people into when the welfare goes away. Both of my parents then reminded me that all of the papers and the the internet were full of McJobs waiting for people to get off of welfare and take the jobs, and I didn't respond.
Now, I would love to see welfare go away, as would most people in the conservative camp, but there is a trade-off. I want welfare to be gone because nobody needs it anymore. I'm fighting and working every day to make our economy strong enough that it's more profitable to go to work than it is to be on welfare. I understand that you can't just end welfare without having something to take its place, and McDonald's jobs are not going to cut it. I know from experience that low paying jobs don't do anything for you. I spent a year working $12 an hour, 25 hours a week, and I was refused a raise for the 2 years that followed no matter how I worked, even though I was allowed to go back to 40 hours a week. While it's much higher on the horse than fast food and restaurant jobs, I was a mechanic, and had a massive tool payment to go along with it. I can tell you from personal experience that having a low paying job and no options to further yourself over an extended period of time can actually make the situation worse for people. I agree that people on welfare taking the low paying jobs would be a good start to getting the economy moving, but it's a short term gain. At best, having welfare recipients take all of these McDonald's and other minimum wage jobs will serve as resume builders, but we, as a country, need to make the moves to create middle level jobs for these people to move into. Realistically, getting these people into $7 an hour jobs won't do anything to add to the federal budget. The only thing it will do will take away some of the deficit.
That brings up the other point. Every mainstream journalist loves to proclaim that the tax cuts are for "the Rich", and frankly...they are. But the reality of it is that this is nothing more than a play on numbers and words. Of course a series of tax cuts are only going to benefit the top 50% of earners in the country. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes currently. The only way at all that you can benefit the bottom 50% would be to use the tax money paid by the other half of the country to give a refund bigger than what they paid in across the year. With a $20 trillion debt, that would be a level beyond stupidity. Bernie Sanders has even gone so far as to say that the "Trump" tax plan will hurt the poor. After looking through the little bit of the tax plan that has been leaked, the only thing I can find to corroborate this is that a series of mid level jobs will be created, bringing many people out of the tax bracket that doesn't pay taxes and putting them into the bracket that does. Now, I spent most of my life in the bracket that didn't pay any taxes, and in the 2015 tax year, I entered the bracket that does for the first time in my life. I can say, again from experience, that getting a bill from the Federal Government for the last couple years has been a nuisance (I follow the W4 to the letter, so 2 exemptions: 1 for single, 1 for no one else can claim me as a dependent.), and I hated having to scramble around for that $300 this year. But it sure was nice bringing home a weekly check that lets me have a roof over my head in a good neighborhood, and finally buy a nice truck. Having Auto Insurance is kind of nice, too. My yearly income for 2016 compared to 2012 is over twofold, so giving a rather paltry number to the government to keep their lights on and the military funded seems like a fair trade-off to me.
The bottom line is that this economy is beginning to roll in the right direction, and I feel like there are going to be a lot of people this year that are going to be paying taxes for the first time ever, or at the very least, for the first time in a few years. As I mentioned before, I know quite well what it's like on that first year when your $1500 refund turns into a $38 liability. I know that we can't move the bar so that they continue to not pay taxes, but the decent thing would be to not completely punish these new taxpayers for their newfound success by beating them with a huge tax bill. Bring the rate for the lower middle class, and frankly, everyone down. Free up money to get invested into businesses small and large, and free up even more money to get spent on the products that come out of these investments.
If you want to discuss the point further, be sure to comment, and subscribe. I will be opening up a comment section through twitter and I hope to get more discussion going there. As always, find a lot of sources of information, look at all the facts, and draw your own conclusions. Never take a journalist or a blogger's word as gospel. That's the concept that brought you this blog
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Russian Collusion
It's been a little over a year now since Russia and it's interference in the 2016 election. I don't think there is anyone left in the US that doesn't have an opinion on whether or not Russia stole the election. While the evidence is starting to come out to point that the Obama administration was the colluding party, we are on the edge of forgetting what actually happened and what ghost we have been chasing for the past year, when the story gets drowned by the next made up scandal that the opposing party has on their list.
During the primary season, there was a series of emails released through a web-based organization Wikileaks that mostly involved Former Secretary of State Clinton. In the beginning, the emails were mostly missing documents surrounding events from her tenure as Secretary of State, and the Benghazi incident. As the primaries and the general election went on, the emails that were being leaked moved away from the events of 4 years prior to more current events surrounding the primary cycle and her competition with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Most, if not all of the emails that had been leaked were run through a private email server that the Clintons kept in their home, and were initially thought to have been deleted. While the actual content of the emails was condemning evidence in the events in question, the mainstream media turned its focus to how Wikileaks got their hands on the emails instead of what was in them.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been well known for quite some time as being a truth seeker and his reputation also points to him being very good at finding it. While he has been reluctant to reveal his exact sources for the emails that he leaked surrounding the Democrat National Committee, he has vehemently denied Russian involvement in the matter. To be completely honest about the whole situation, I don't remember ever hearing about the Russians until the final Presidential Lincoln Douglass Debate before Election Day. During this debate, Secretary Clinton was asked directly about the leaked emails, and she referred it away to Russian Hacking for the first time since the emails were leaked. Suddenly, the entirety of the media was rushing around to find out whether or not Russia had indeed hacked the email server and leaked the information out to the public, and the whole world conveniently forgot that only a few minutes prior, Mrs. Clinton had leaked the nuclear time frame to the world on that same stage.
It's interesting that the first notable accusation of Russian hacking was a very late game statement by the candidate who wound up losing in quite a landslide. The thing that interests me the most about it actually came around a half a year later when evidence mysteriously and suddenly surfaced saying that Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were invited to a meeting with a Russian Lawyer who had damning evidence on Mrs. Clinton. What's odd about this is that my understanding of the information exchanged during this meeting turned out to actually be a complete bust, but it did publicly put men that were the closest to President Trump in a compromised position, and no one has yet to find who hired the Russian Lawyer, or where the money train originated to get her into this meeting. In fact, most of the questions seem to stop at the son and son-in-law of the President.
I had an idea when the Russian Lawyer situation first came to light. It seemed a little farfetched at the time, so I didn't really post it or discuss it anywhere. But now that the evidence is starting to come to light about Uranium one and the Clinton Foundation, along with Mr. Mueller suddenly having a list of people to bring charges upon after a year of searching, I feel more and more confident every day that my idea could hold water. I'll never say that my theory is true until I see the hard evidence, but the plausibility of it seemed to have risen over the last week in light of the newly released facts to the public.
The only way I can wrap my head around a meeting about condemning evidence with prominent members of the Trump family and a Russian lawyer; along with the quickness in which Hillary was able to accuse the Trump Campaign of Russian hacking when we all thought it was some American guy; would be if Clinton herself, or someone in the campaign, hired the lawyer. As I mentioned earlier in the article, there was no real new information that came along with the meeting, and it did put both men in compromising position that they later had to be investigated for. Short of the President confessing to allying with the Russians to steal the election, it's the only thing that really makes sense to me.
I'm not a journalist, I'm just a writer and commentator, so do not take my word as gospel on this situation. Look over the evidence, as I have, and draw your own conclusions. Mrs. Clinton lied and cheated to get the Vermont Socialist out of her way to the top of the ticket, so such a ploy would not be at all out of character. Just keep the thought in the back of your head as this story gets buried in the news cycle like Ferguson when it is no longer convenient. We've had a lot of years that the news story of the century suddenly fades away and gets forgotten about before a logical closure can be obtained. Thanks as always for reading and I hope you will subscribe.
I will be making a Twitter account for my blog, so look for a new handle in the articles to come. I'm also going to be trying to hold myself to a minimum of an article a week as I move forward. I'm also considering turning my blog into a vlog, and hopefully a regular webshow in the months to come. I will keep you posted on that. As I get my new Twitter account finalized, I look forward to reading people's comments and getting some thoughtful discussion going. I'm excited to see what the future brings.
During the primary season, there was a series of emails released through a web-based organization Wikileaks that mostly involved Former Secretary of State Clinton. In the beginning, the emails were mostly missing documents surrounding events from her tenure as Secretary of State, and the Benghazi incident. As the primaries and the general election went on, the emails that were being leaked moved away from the events of 4 years prior to more current events surrounding the primary cycle and her competition with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Most, if not all of the emails that had been leaked were run through a private email server that the Clintons kept in their home, and were initially thought to have been deleted. While the actual content of the emails was condemning evidence in the events in question, the mainstream media turned its focus to how Wikileaks got their hands on the emails instead of what was in them.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been well known for quite some time as being a truth seeker and his reputation also points to him being very good at finding it. While he has been reluctant to reveal his exact sources for the emails that he leaked surrounding the Democrat National Committee, he has vehemently denied Russian involvement in the matter. To be completely honest about the whole situation, I don't remember ever hearing about the Russians until the final Presidential Lincoln Douglass Debate before Election Day. During this debate, Secretary Clinton was asked directly about the leaked emails, and she referred it away to Russian Hacking for the first time since the emails were leaked. Suddenly, the entirety of the media was rushing around to find out whether or not Russia had indeed hacked the email server and leaked the information out to the public, and the whole world conveniently forgot that only a few minutes prior, Mrs. Clinton had leaked the nuclear time frame to the world on that same stage.
It's interesting that the first notable accusation of Russian hacking was a very late game statement by the candidate who wound up losing in quite a landslide. The thing that interests me the most about it actually came around a half a year later when evidence mysteriously and suddenly surfaced saying that Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were invited to a meeting with a Russian Lawyer who had damning evidence on Mrs. Clinton. What's odd about this is that my understanding of the information exchanged during this meeting turned out to actually be a complete bust, but it did publicly put men that were the closest to President Trump in a compromised position, and no one has yet to find who hired the Russian Lawyer, or where the money train originated to get her into this meeting. In fact, most of the questions seem to stop at the son and son-in-law of the President.
I had an idea when the Russian Lawyer situation first came to light. It seemed a little farfetched at the time, so I didn't really post it or discuss it anywhere. But now that the evidence is starting to come to light about Uranium one and the Clinton Foundation, along with Mr. Mueller suddenly having a list of people to bring charges upon after a year of searching, I feel more and more confident every day that my idea could hold water. I'll never say that my theory is true until I see the hard evidence, but the plausibility of it seemed to have risen over the last week in light of the newly released facts to the public.
The only way I can wrap my head around a meeting about condemning evidence with prominent members of the Trump family and a Russian lawyer; along with the quickness in which Hillary was able to accuse the Trump Campaign of Russian hacking when we all thought it was some American guy; would be if Clinton herself, or someone in the campaign, hired the lawyer. As I mentioned earlier in the article, there was no real new information that came along with the meeting, and it did put both men in compromising position that they later had to be investigated for. Short of the President confessing to allying with the Russians to steal the election, it's the only thing that really makes sense to me.
I'm not a journalist, I'm just a writer and commentator, so do not take my word as gospel on this situation. Look over the evidence, as I have, and draw your own conclusions. Mrs. Clinton lied and cheated to get the Vermont Socialist out of her way to the top of the ticket, so such a ploy would not be at all out of character. Just keep the thought in the back of your head as this story gets buried in the news cycle like Ferguson when it is no longer convenient. We've had a lot of years that the news story of the century suddenly fades away and gets forgotten about before a logical closure can be obtained. Thanks as always for reading and I hope you will subscribe.
I will be making a Twitter account for my blog, so look for a new handle in the articles to come. I'm also going to be trying to hold myself to a minimum of an article a week as I move forward. I'm also considering turning my blog into a vlog, and hopefully a regular webshow in the months to come. I will keep you posted on that. As I get my new Twitter account finalized, I look forward to reading people's comments and getting some thoughtful discussion going. I'm excited to see what the future brings.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Take the Knee: My take on this NFL protests
Toward the end of the week, I intended to write an article on the solution for the DACA kids, but a quick thumb through Instagram netted a more pressing issue on hand at the moment. In a world where college kids and professional protesters are injuring people every time someone who they don't agree with speaks, and when a small Asian man threatens to launch the doomsday missile every day, there is a much bigger issue. Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, and almost every human being in the country is dissatisfied with the amount of taxes he pays, there is still a bigger issue at hand. Apparently the biggest issue in the world right now is whether or not all players in the NFL stand up for the National Anthem in the NFL games.
I'm not writing a parody right now, I'm being quite serious. Celebrities, commentators, coaches, team owners, and even the NFL itself can't help themselves from weighing in on the issue and making demands as to what is acceptable behavior by the players on the various teams, and it's all really stupid. This is not a difficult issue at all, but so many people have made it into a do or die issue that will make or break the world.
In 2016, second string Quarterback Colin Kaepernick made waves throughout the media because he took a knee and refused to stand while the National Anthem was played before his games. Kaepernick was no stranger even then to controversy on the field. During his first few seasons, Colin was very much on fire as far as statistics were concerned. The 49ers Quarterback set record after record very quickly during his first few seasons, even spending his first two NFL seasons undefeated against the Green Bay Packers (a statistic he yelled very loudly to anyone who would listen). Colin quickly gained infamy for excessive celebration at every chance he could celebrate. He coined the term "Kaepernicking", a classless and derogatory dance that he would do after every good play.
Colin's luck would eventually run out, as is with most people. After a couple seasons like this, Kaepernick's statistics started to decline quickly. After a crushing defeat by the Cardinals in 2015, the biggest story on ESPN was that the game against the Packers would be just what the young Quarterback needed. History shows us that the victory didn't come, and was a continuation on a severe slide in Colin's performance. By the end of 2015, his total quarterback rating had fallen below 50, and he was quickly falling out of favor with sports writers, fans and his coaches.
While I'm fuzzy on the details, I've read the reports that it was at about this point in history that Colin converted to Islam, possibly at the behest of his girlfriend. I know that he grew his hair, and a beard. But what I do know is that during his last season as an NFL Quarterback, he began sitting/kneeling for the National Anthem, citing a protest of the racism of the collective police force against black men. It didn't take long for a fire to grow under the other black players in the league across the country, and now we sit with a growing civil disturbance festering under our feet.
Look anywhere on social media, and you'll surely find a post telling the black people of the NFL to take a knee in the name of solidarity or in the name of racism or just to protest the United States of America, and generally the following post is some middle American telling the players that they can't or shouldn't kneel for the National Anthem. Next you'll find some post from someone telling you that if you don't support Kaepernick getting hired, you're a racist. Immediately following that will be a post saying that Kaepernick's civil unrest should get him black balled from sports. I'm here to honestly tell you....you're all wrong, at least in one way or another.
To the players who need to hide in the locker room, kneel, or anything else to protest the United States because all black people are oppressed by the American Racism: Get over yourselves. First off, if you're in the NFL, you're not oppressed. You may have experienced some form of racism early in your lives, and there may be some horrific comments made by some flyover state rednecks. But let's be honest about a few facts. Most of you out there have a multi-million dollar contract, and for every one of those contracts, there is another team waiting out there to give you another contract should you not see eye to eye with your current team. The magic of these contracts is that you make upper 1% level money, but no one in the mainstream expects you to give it all away, as they expect with a CEO or another top earner. It's socially acceptable for you to be able to keep all your money in spite of the fact that you don't directly employ anyone. And yet, you kneel to protest the treatment of blacks across the country. There is some honor in this, as you are making a statement from the platform that you're given. However, I don't agree with this being the best way to help your community. The big argument to celebrities is that if they speak out in bringing refugees, that they should give out rooms in their homes or pay for refugee shelter themselves. I'm not 100% on board with this, but it presents an idea of what you, as multi-millionaires can do for the people that you kneel for. Buying, restoring, and renting low income housing; donating food; and small business grants to help employ people in affected areas will help millions more people than taking a knee against a free enterprise country that gave you the tools to make millions. Scholarships will help many more young blacks to go to college instead of going to the streets, and give some more of them opportunities to get noticed by the NFL and other sports, and have the opportunity to make millions themselves.
To the people who say that the players of the NFL shouldn't kneel for the National Anthem: just stop talking. To those who say they should be fired or arrested for doing so: delete your social media accounts. Now, I defend your right to speak freely, so I can't actually force you to disable your social media or stop you from talking. But my statement is in defense of the players to peacefully make a protest that is protected the same way your freedom to protest their protest. Unless this branch of the movement turns to violence, just let them express themselves. You don't have to like it, but there is no law requiring anyone to stand for the flag, pledge allegiance to it, or respect the National Anthem. We are not Soviets, Nazis, or North Koreans in this country. It's also your right to not participate in their careers, and that is a path that more and more Americans are taking, rather than making idle threats and accusations against the players. I do offer the same opinion to coaches and team owners. You can't penalize your players for exercising an American Right. This is the land of the free, and the people that our great flag honors fought hard for these players to have that right. The best thing as Americans that honor the flag can do is let the protesting players come back to us on their own. Anything else would be dictatorial and fascist.
To the general public who wants to throw the racist card around because no one is hiring Colin Kaepernick: I challenge you to look at the stats, along with the current situation in the NFL. Currently, dozens of players across the country sit out from the National Anthem, and their jobs are perfectly intact. Kaepernick had a couple of really good, really lucky seasons, but the numbers speak for themselves as far as he's concerned. Colin was a lighting strike, and he doesn't have the numbers to make a starter salary a worthwhile investment to the business owners involved. If Number 7 was putting up the the numbers like he did in 2012, it wouldn't matter to any team owner what his beliefs were. Star players and big plays bring in crowds, and crowds bring money to team owners, vendors, and sponsors.
Finally, to those who think that all these players, Kaepernick included, are ungrateful and should be blackballed: Just stop. Colin Kaepernick has the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and has the right to assemble his like minded brethren peacefully as he sees fit. If he gets his spark back and can make consistent numbers again, there are enough fans that want to see him playing again that if the 49ers can't find the means to hire him, another team will come up with the money. Plain and simple. If he can't get his numbers and consistency back, he'll have to accept another lifestyle, and that's just how it is.
One final thought that I had while remembering the way things used to be before the protests began. I remember seeing the players standing during the anthem, helmets off hands over their hearts. I remember being so inspired by the black players during the anthem. Try and find some old footage of the Anthem being played. You could almost see a tear in the eyes of the black players as they gripped their shoulder pads. I've never had an opportunity to interview these players, but I'd die to know what they were thinking as those familiar bars played. It's so unnerving to see people who were seemed so inspired by our nation's anthem feel such a need to protest it now.
We all need to step back and look at our country and our lives. One small exercise of the First Amendment has become another thing that has polarized us not even two decades after we all stood united under the flag as a nation against a terrorist attack on US soil. I don't know about any of you, dear readers, but I don't want unity to come at the cost of so many lives again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)