Taxation without Representation

I've been paying social security for some time now and it just dawned on me, considering the unlikely event that either government fixes the system or there is social security money available for me when I retire, that this is nothing more then taxation without representation. Aren't I giving my own income to a government who has, essentially, lied to me in telling me that when I retire the money will be available?

Conservatives For Change

The Politics of Climate Change

The debate last night capped it for me on the ridiculous assertions about climate change. It's fine to claim that climate change is not just man-made but also a result of the cyclical nature of our environment. That's fine. More power to you. Here's the thing, folks...IT DOESN"T MATTER!!! I don't care if climate change is a result of man-made carbon emissions or polar bear farts. The fact...that's right...fact...is that there is a problem.

Sadly, no one, not even the son of Jar-El can come to our rescue to reverse the cyclical nature of our planet's climate. However, and this is an important one, if we can accept the fact that man has had a negative effect on our climate, then there is something we can do about THAT. We can reduce our carbon footprint. We can seek alternative fuel sources.

The very suggestion to drill, baby, drill is a personal affront to the intelligence of the world. The fact that other countries don't care as much as we do is divisive and irrelevant. If you can fix something, you do it. It doesn't matter that it's going to take a little while or cost a little more. It matters because if we wait, it will be too late.

Looking at all of the variables available, we know that man has had at least some effect. If the other variables are static and we cannot affect them, than we absolutely must affect the ones we can.

Why there is even a debate about cause is as annoying as businessmen on razer scooters. The cause no longer matters. The solution does. Part of the solution absolutely and unequivocally is to lower the effect that man has on the environment.

There is no argument about that. Then why are people arguing? Good question.

Are people really smart enough for irony?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8y1e-z1JA0

I saw Dana Gould at the Improv the other day

And he said something that resonated with me...Now, I don't remember the actual joke, a shame, for sure, as I'm sure it was quite funny, but the spirit of the joke is clear:

Everyone expects the government to do something about the environment or the economy or whatever it is and the truth is that it's not up to them to invent a program that makes you take the extra step to recycle the bottle instead of throwing it in the trash. It's up to you. If you want to make the world better, you have to make the world better.

An email I got today

The Birk Economic Recovery PLan
Hi Pals,

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!

Infanticide and why words matter.

Does anyone else see the absurdity of referring to someone as pro-infanticide? No one is pro-infanticide. That's absurd. Oh, except this one guy I knew in high school. But he also raped rose bushes and ate nails. The word infanticide is inflammatory and it is obscene to use it in this context.

First of all, the definition of infanticide: "infanticide" as a specific crime equivalent to manslaughter that can only be committed by the mother intentionally killing her own baby during the first twelve months of its life.

So then what we're really saying is that Obama gets hard over mothers killing babies. C'mon!

There are a number of reasons why Obama has said he voted for the bill...
1)It was a piece of backdoor legislation to overturn Roe V. Wade. Whatever your feelings on Roe V Wade are, understand this, the supreme court has decided that it is unconstitutional to restrict a woman's right to choose. Period. The End.

2)The legislation required more than one doctor to be present to assist in saving a Born Alive baby. In Obama's eyes this would put added strain on the doctors and unnecessarily. There's a doctor in the room already. It is his responsibility to do everything he can to save the baby as per his Hypocratic oath. To legislate a second doctor having to go into the OR in these cases is a little too much government in my OR for me and why a legeislator thinks they know more than a doctor about doctoring, well, that's simply, what's the word? Elitist? Right...

Regardless of whether you believe Obama or not, opposing "born alive" legislation is not the same as supporting "infanticide". It's just not. Words matter. Stop being jerks.

Tax Policy. Why it doesn't matter...

Regarding Barack Obama's tax policy that everyone is so afraid of...

Obama would actually be eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses.

McCain's tax cuts would only serve to put us into further debt to countries like China.

If you want to talk about socialism, being beholden to China puts us in a very precarious and hypocritical position. You can't preach about the negatives of socialism and communism and at the same time hold out your hand for help from the socialist/communist world.

If you make less than $200,000/year, your taxes go down in both cases. If you make more, they go up with Obama. The $200K+ people got a tax cut in 2003 because "supply siders" said it would fuel the economy. I know some people don't read the paper, but how do you think that worked out? The taxes are rising to what they were before Bush. It is not as if suddenly, if you make $200,000+ you will have to pay the government 80% of what you make. That would be redistribution of wealth and an unfair policy that no one would allow. It is reasonable to suggest, though, that our economic situation calls for a change in our tax policy and a simple 6% rise on people earning over 200,000 seems like a reasonable change. Their after taxes income would change from $144,000 to $122,000. You're right. The end is nie. Hide the womenfolk. Let the babies burn. $22,000? That's what you really believe is going to change the world.

Let's also briefly discuss the ridiculousness that we're even arguing about this. We are talking about $30,000! There is war and destruction and terrorism and nuclear concerns. But, no. We have to vote for McCain so we can save our $30,000. Daddy needs a new plasma. That's absurd.

I also think it's irresponsible to blame the current economic situation on the last two years of Democratic policy. You can just as easily blame it on Bush and his willingness to veto anything that didn't support his ideas.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a situation that started two years ago, but a problem that began many years ago. It's mostly attributed to a bill passed in 1999 championed by Phil Gramm (John McCain's economic advisor) that deregulated protections put in place since the Depression. Gramm introduced the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act in November 1999 and it is said to have led to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. So we have a self-avowed economic idiot, McCain, taking advice from historically regarded idiot Phil Gramm, who legislated us right into this mess. (source: Princeton Economics professor Paul Krugman)


ACTUAL TAX POLICY POSITIONS

Barack Obama:

Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Proposes a "making work pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. Proposes eliminating income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year and eliminating all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses. Says he would reform the child and dependent care tax credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for child care expenses. Favors tax cuts for middle-class workers and tax increases for top earners. Says he would restore the top two income tax rates to their pre-2001 levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent. (Currently, they're 33 percent and 35 percent.) Says he would maintain the estate tax but would freeze the estate tax exemption amount at $3.5 million. Proposes to create an "American opportunity tax credit," which the Obama campaign describes as "a fully refundable credit" that "will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans and would cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university."


John McCain:

Voted against 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut laws, but later voted in favor of extending tax cuts through 2010. Says he would keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains, and maintain the current income and investment tax rates. Says he opposes a proposal supporters call the "Fair Tax," which would repeal income taxes and other taxes and abolish the Internal Revenue, but has previously said he would sign it into law as president. Says he would double the child deduction from $3,500 to $7,000 and permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax. Says he would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Advocates raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent. Proposes that a three-fifths majority vote in Congress be required to raise taxes. Says he would permit corporations to immediately deduct the cost of equipment investment. Would prohibit new cellular telephone taxes and ban Internet taxes. Wants to establish a permanent tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on research and development.

Barack Obama is not a socialist and saying he is makes you unpatriotic

I think it's a little irresponsible to be spreading around things like Barack is a socialist. It's simply not true. Is he a liberal? Yes. Doesn't liberal mean "progress", though. When did progress get to be a bad word?


Definition of liberal:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal)

Wow. Barack is favorable to progress and concepts of maximum individual freedom.

That sounds terrible. (<---read sarcastically)


If you believe that Barack is a socialist then you also must believe that George Bush is a fascist imperialist.
(source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5648.htm)

Getting your news from the internet comes with significant problems, as in, internet posters are not regulated in any way, shape or form and are not limited to having to tell the truth.

In Response: Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive

Original Article

Dear Media Outlets and Journalists Worldwide,

Stop it. Research your own work. We'll wait a day for the truth. It's OK. If you're going to make remarks that may be considered inflammatory, do us the service of writing the full story.

Today is the day of my first blog posting because today is the day that I finally decided I had enough politics. I demand accountability.

The above article is the one that drove me over the edge. It seems like a harmless enough article. It seems true enough. And it is. Kind of. Here's the problem, it erroneously assumes a general understanding of the political process by its readers. The information in the following sentence is so misleading that the political impact stretches far beyond the simple assertion that Biden and Obama helped keep "Bridge to Nowhere" as the title implies.

"Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show."

Gross.

The problem is that while they voted to KILL a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair Louisiana, that does not mean they voted FOR the Bridge To Nowhere. In fact, this article does not mention anything about the other earmarks in the bill that may have caused its dismissal. All of this talk about this bill implies that on the senate floor someone said "I move to pass a bill that will give 223 million to Alaska for a bridge that goes to a city of less than 50" and everyone, unanimously, without conviction raised their hands and said "Aye"...except John McCain. The media is filling us with half truths, through no agenda of their own, but through laziness and because of word counts. Here is the full story.

The bill in question provided more than $286 billion over six years to upgrade our nation's network of roads and bridges and mass transit systems. The Transportation Act financed needed road improvements, and attempted to ease traffic congestion in communities all across this country.

Why did Barack Obama vote for this bill? Because he was supporting his constituents. One of the key projects in this same bill that included the so-called Bridge to Nowhere is what they call the "Prairie Parkway" which connect Interstate 80 and Interstate 88. The Prairie Parkway is crucial for economic progress for Kane and Kendall counties, which happen to be two of the fastest growing counties in the United States. (source: whitehouse.gov)

Not to mention the fact that whether or not it was truly a “bridge to nowhere” is debatable: Gravina Island, while it has almost no permanent population, is also home to the Ketchikan International Airport, which processes about 200,000 passengers a year. Alaskan officials hoped that the bridge would simplify airport access and allow development on Gravina, according to Alaska’s Department of Transportation. The bridge was not the only or the most expensive project attached to the transportation bill, and it may not have been the most frivolous. But it became a symbol for government pork. (source: factcheck.org)

If our political process is to work, the people reporting on it have to be held accountable. The fact that there are no equal time restrictions is an absurd problem that needs to be addressed. The candidates, their records and the American desire should be choosing our elected officials, not accidental comments and suggestive remarks by members of the press.

America is sick and tired of being lied to. We are confused by the meanderings of the press as they try to annoint their next king. On a side note, I have news for all of you conservative talk show hosts who lambast the liberal media...YOU ARE PART OF THE MEDIA!!!

I beg of you media people, report the full story or don't report it at all. It is your duty to keep America informed. It has been your mission of late to keep America misinformed. A change is coming.

This is why I started a blog. If I wasn't moved to write, believe me I would be sitting like you are, incredulous about the state of American politics. Instead, I write to correct the wrongs that no one else seems willing or able to correct and to inform the misinformed. Hell, someone has to do it.