I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it. When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it. To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me. The rest of you need to take heed. No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes. We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on. These all cost us. Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to. We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us. The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected. This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes. You can't have both. If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share. For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off. Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by. We should be living by the standards of pay equally. If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford. It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford. Then I took a closer look. I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well. And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system. I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive. I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions. In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly. I am still for paying our fair share. We need these programs. Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid. Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built. There are a ton of programs that we need to continue. Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them. We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
We all have the same problem. I call it the gimme syndrome. We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it. You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it? This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season. If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying. It just isn't possible. You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want. New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs.
This is something every American needs to understand. We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter. We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking. We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune. In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes. Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay? I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay? I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%. Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%? Fair isn't fair when we use different standards. That's my two cents.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
The problem with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act.
Seems that everyone is talking about yesterdays SCOTUS decision on the affordable health care act. Guess that means that I need to weigh in as well. Let's clear something up first. The first thing I need to tell you is that , for the most part, I agree with what is in the act. What I don't agree with is the mandate that everyone have health insurance, the misnaming, and the lack of protection from the insurance companies. These all go hand in hand so I will start with the most basic problem, the name.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Why cut the pay for those that work and not those that don't?
So I missed yesterday's post because I got sent home to deal with my Septic system. Turns out, I shouldn't have worried. Hopefully it happens today. Unfortunately, I have duty so I will not be able to be there and my wife will have to take care of it. She worries about it, but I think she will do fine.
As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians. How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.) Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous. We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
Now comes the fun part. I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem. So here goes. I say put the people on welfare to work. Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare. Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities. If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained. If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare. I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?" I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare. But they can work too. There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc. There are jobs out there for all disability levels. Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels. Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed. Fences need built. Fences need painting. Trees need planting. I could go on and on. But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market. But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well. I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare.
The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply. One other thing to throw out there. Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work. What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves. If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years. This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search. Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back. They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not. Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort. And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over. Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime. Especially if you combine programs properly. If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
As I was looking at various things, I came to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with politicians. How else do you explain the idea that in order to save money, you cut pay and wages from working people (military, federal workers, etc) in order to maintain pay to those not working (welfare, jobless benefits, etc.) Don't get me wrong, I think that these programs are necessary to a point, but to justify cutting pay from those who work and not to those that don't at the same time is ludicrous. We cut jobs for the sake of savings only to have those whose jobs we cut end up on unemployment and other costly programs as they search for jobs to replace the job we cut to save money.
Now comes the fun part. I was always taught that if you don't have a solution or aren't willing to discuss one, don't bring up the problem. So here goes. I say put the people on welfare to work. Set up day care that is open only to those on welfare and staff it with those on welfare. Next, put those who now have free time to work in jobs appropriate to their physical abilities. If they don't know how to do the job, they get trained. If they don't want to work, they don't get welfare. I can hear some of you saying, "what about those who are disabled?" I didn't say anything about those on disability, I said welfare. But they can work too. There are phones that need answered, data that needs inputted, etc. There are jobs out there for all disability levels. Just as there are jobs out there for all ability levels. Streets need cleaned, ditches need dug, parks need mowed. Fences need built. Fences need painting. Trees need planting. I could go on and on. But we continually complain about those on welfare and the job market. But no one wants to do the jobs that are available, either because the job is not at their particular "skill level" or because it doesn't pay as well. I think that if you gave people a choice of working for their welfare and unemployment checks on these needed government jobs that they would either work or get off of welfare.
The other side of this is that the work we are either not doing or contracting out at exhorbant rates would get done rather cheaply. One other thing to throw out there. Because they are working and may actually want to better themselves, you put into place a policy that gives them the freedom to job hunt while doing the work. What I mean is, you give them the flexibility of schedule that allows them to better themselves. If they want, you give them the option of going to school on the governments dime with the agreement that they will stop getting welfare in 5 years. This gives them the time to get a degree and another year for the following job search. Once they sign up and take money, there is no turning back. They are off of welfare regardless of whether they finished school or not. Of course this means we supply tutoring, but in the long run, it saves us a ton of money.
This is all my opinion and you can take it however you want, but we have a problem here in the US and it is a selfish problem. No one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone wants the government to provide for their comfort. And it does, as long as you are willing to claim that you can't do anything else and throw everything away and start over. Do that and you will find that you can live pretty well on the government dime. Especially if you combine programs properly. If you give something to someone for Free without any end in sight, you find that there is no reason for them to take a risk and get off of it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Last of the week.
Due to my schedule, this will be my last post for this week. I have to say that this has been an interesting day. I was allowed to go home early last night and thus woke up around 10am. Needless to say, tomorrow will be interesting as I will have to stay awake until the middle of the afternoon. Should be interesting.
Speaking of interesting things, we had proof today that the occupy wall street movement is filled with idiots. Today, they decided that since they were being ignored by the rich people, they would inconvenience everyone else. Makes sense, I mean, if you represent people, what better way to show your support than to cause a traffic jam and make sure the 99% that you represent are late to get home for dinner. Yup, that is exactly what they did. During the afternoon rush hour, they moved their protest to a heavily traveled bridge and blocked it for an hour, cause we all know that the 1% drives in rush hour traffic in uncomfortable vehicles while their family waits for them to bring home dinner. At some point, they will have to realize that they are hurting more people than they are helping. They certainly aren't putting any effort to find jobs. Amazing how the movement started at the 2 year point of the recession, almost to the day their unemployment benefits ran out. OK, I have ranted on that enough.
I am so looking forward to Saturday. We are going over act 2 again (my favorite act) and spending some time working on the musical numbers. I really need that. We are only 2 weeks away from opening night. I am so excited. My wife has our tickets and the boys are excited as well. Should be fun.
I am running out of things to talk about so I think I will end this one early tonight, I have been going long for the last couple days so I will just end this one tonight. Thank you for reading and have a great weekend.
Speaking of interesting things, we had proof today that the occupy wall street movement is filled with idiots. Today, they decided that since they were being ignored by the rich people, they would inconvenience everyone else. Makes sense, I mean, if you represent people, what better way to show your support than to cause a traffic jam and make sure the 99% that you represent are late to get home for dinner. Yup, that is exactly what they did. During the afternoon rush hour, they moved their protest to a heavily traveled bridge and blocked it for an hour, cause we all know that the 1% drives in rush hour traffic in uncomfortable vehicles while their family waits for them to bring home dinner. At some point, they will have to realize that they are hurting more people than they are helping. They certainly aren't putting any effort to find jobs. Amazing how the movement started at the 2 year point of the recession, almost to the day their unemployment benefits ran out. OK, I have ranted on that enough.
I am so looking forward to Saturday. We are going over act 2 again (my favorite act) and spending some time working on the musical numbers. I really need that. We are only 2 weeks away from opening night. I am so excited. My wife has our tickets and the boys are excited as well. Should be fun.
I am running out of things to talk about so I think I will end this one early tonight, I have been going long for the last couple days so I will just end this one tonight. Thank you for reading and have a great weekend.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Read the comments.
Every morning, I read the news on the Internet. Some of the stories I read because they are new and interesting. Some I read because they are continuations of what I have already read. But no matter which one I read, I always look at the comments. I probably shouldn't, because it just convinces me that there are a lot of idiots out there. Some people say things that aren't true to get rises out of people (recognized by the way they repeat whatever comment got the worst rating before theirs or by stating the exact opposite of the most liked comment). Some comments are actually thought out and coherent. These are the comments I tend to pay the most attention to as they are the ones that reveal the underlying beliefs of society. Try it sometime, you may find yourself amazed at just how much our society has declined.
Take the recent ruling by a judge here in Washington. The ruling was that the names of the people who signed the petition to put the issue of gay rights on the ballot should be released to the public. The arguments for and against were heated. Those for the release cited that you signed at your own risk and thus had no protection. That they had the right to avoid doing business with those that signed it. They also said that this didn't constitute harassment or vengeance as it was just a part of the free market. Those against the release of names cited the harassment that would result from the release of names. It amazes me that we can redefine things to meet our narrow views of the world. Granted, I have done this myself, but I also corrected myself when the truth was pointed out to me. How can you say that choosing not to do business with someone as a result of a petition they signed is not retaliation for signing the petition, is beyond me. It is a scare tactic. If you don't sign on the line for the community watch and agree to pay for it, we will ensure you don't get business. That is a felony as it is a protection racket. How is that different from saying that because you signed that petition, I will make sure that no one does business with you? It isn't and yet it is being touted as just the price of a free market. Amazing isn't it.
Looking back at what I wrote, I realized I just gave you a second installment of Manic Monday by accident. Sorry, But I had to say it. Have a great day and don't let it get to you.
Take the recent ruling by a judge here in Washington. The ruling was that the names of the people who signed the petition to put the issue of gay rights on the ballot should be released to the public. The arguments for and against were heated. Those for the release cited that you signed at your own risk and thus had no protection. That they had the right to avoid doing business with those that signed it. They also said that this didn't constitute harassment or vengeance as it was just a part of the free market. Those against the release of names cited the harassment that would result from the release of names. It amazes me that we can redefine things to meet our narrow views of the world. Granted, I have done this myself, but I also corrected myself when the truth was pointed out to me. How can you say that choosing not to do business with someone as a result of a petition they signed is not retaliation for signing the petition, is beyond me. It is a scare tactic. If you don't sign on the line for the community watch and agree to pay for it, we will ensure you don't get business. That is a felony as it is a protection racket. How is that different from saying that because you signed that petition, I will make sure that no one does business with you? It isn't and yet it is being touted as just the price of a free market. Amazing isn't it.
Looking back at what I wrote, I realized I just gave you a second installment of Manic Monday by accident. Sorry, But I had to say it. Have a great day and don't let it get to you.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Manic Monday: Occupy Wall Street: You got the wrong address.
First off, I would like to apologize for not posting last week. I was busy and decided to put the blog on the bottom of the list. After a week off, I feel as though I was missing something so I am back.
Today is Monday, which means, Manic Monday! Today, I think I will tackle this Occupy Wall Street thing. After reading what it's about and what the protesters are saying, I find myself of two minds. On the one hand I sort of agree with what they are saying, but on the other, I find it to be overridden by angst against our system. Allow me to explain.
The parts I agree with are the some of the base points. The first being that the majority of Americans have the minority voice in our government. Our Government tends to listen to the biggest donors (this is done by both Democrats and Republicans), which are not the majority. How many middle class families can afford $1,500 a plate fundraising dinners? The Democrats like to point out that the republicans are the most vocal for these businesses, but you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats really against them? They had 2 years in which to raise taxes on them and they waited for the inevitable swing to blame it on the Republicans. I agree that we should raise the taxes (or at least remove the deductions they use to not pay taxes) on the rich.
The second thing I agree with is the underlying message we are feeding our kids these days. The one that says you have to go to college to get a job. Years ago, college was what you used to make yourself stand out. You got your degree in the field you were going to work in and you worked in that field. You followed it all the way and became as close to an expert in the field you wanted to work in as you could, then you worked in it. Now, we are told to, "just get a degree." Really, what in? It doesn't matter, the employers "just want to see that you are capable of learning." I looked it up (it was quoted to me so I had to), less than 30% of college grads are working in the field in which they got their degree. Granted, Lawyers don't necessarily have to have a pre-law degree to go to law school, so they aren't technically working in the field they got their degree in, but it is still a statistic that I find disgusting. Especially when you add on the fact that the average college grad owes $30,000 in student loans. Couple that with a tight market and you start your career in debt and behind. Not a recipe for success. Let's be realistic, we don't need a degree to be work in a mail room or as a receptionist. These two positions were the starting points of many a millionaires careers. The other side of this is that these college grads are led to believe that their degrees rate a higher starting pay. The sad truth is that this is false. When you have 20 people vying for the same job, the person who will do it most economically (cheaply and good enough), gets it. The guy that tells the hirer that he will do it for whatever and has the ability, will get it over the guy with the degree that demands a higher salary. That's just econ 101.
Now for the tough part. I disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement on a couple of issues. The first being the ire directed at inequality in pay. Yes, there is inequality in pay. This happens in a society such as we have. The rich must be taxed. If you tax their income, they will keep it in the company as much as possible. If you tax the company profits, the company will put the money into expanding the company and thus create more jobs. Simple economics. Yes, this is contrary to what the republicans preach, but it is the truth. This means the problem isn't with the CEO's or the wealthy, it's with our government. The Idea that all pay should be equal, or close to it, is a communist ideal. To protest that corporations should share their wealth, is ludicrous. You have to reward innovation and business sense. Failure to do so, will lead to loss of business and thus loss of jobs. Allow the rich to amass wealth, but at the same time, tax them in such a way as to aid the nation. The difficult part is finding the balance. We have to find a balance where we tax the wealthy enough that they find it better to reinvest in society, but not so much that they leave altogether. The same with businesses.
The second thing I disagree with is where it is located. As you can tell from my comments above, this should be a Occupy Washington movement. Camp out on the capital's steps, in front of the White House, and at the congressional offices. The CEO's are laughing at you because you are ineffectual in your actions. Move to Washington, and they may start quaking in their boots. Right now, the CEO's are finding your actions laughable because, while you may inconvenience them a little bit, they are still raking in the cash. While you may draw attention to yourselves, you are not inconveniencing anyone who can be swayed by your stance. True, the media is following you, but you are railing at the CEO's to change. True, some elected officials are listening and commenting, but they aren't afraid because you haven't targeted them. Move you your protest to Washington and start naming who is donating to who. Start pointing out the money and what needs to be done, not just in Washington, but in their home states. You can affect the elected officials' jobs with your protest by pointing out how they are stopping the necessary change. You can't do that by protesting the guys who worked their way up to the top and managed a company that made money. they just aren't going to listen because you can't affect their pay.
That's all I have for today. I know some of what I said is controversial, I just ask that you be respectful in how you respond. Thank you.
Today is Monday, which means, Manic Monday! Today, I think I will tackle this Occupy Wall Street thing. After reading what it's about and what the protesters are saying, I find myself of two minds. On the one hand I sort of agree with what they are saying, but on the other, I find it to be overridden by angst against our system. Allow me to explain.
The parts I agree with are the some of the base points. The first being that the majority of Americans have the minority voice in our government. Our Government tends to listen to the biggest donors (this is done by both Democrats and Republicans), which are not the majority. How many middle class families can afford $1,500 a plate fundraising dinners? The Democrats like to point out that the republicans are the most vocal for these businesses, but you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats really against them? They had 2 years in which to raise taxes on them and they waited for the inevitable swing to blame it on the Republicans. I agree that we should raise the taxes (or at least remove the deductions they use to not pay taxes) on the rich.
The second thing I agree with is the underlying message we are feeding our kids these days. The one that says you have to go to college to get a job. Years ago, college was what you used to make yourself stand out. You got your degree in the field you were going to work in and you worked in that field. You followed it all the way and became as close to an expert in the field you wanted to work in as you could, then you worked in it. Now, we are told to, "just get a degree." Really, what in? It doesn't matter, the employers "just want to see that you are capable of learning." I looked it up (it was quoted to me so I had to), less than 30% of college grads are working in the field in which they got their degree. Granted, Lawyers don't necessarily have to have a pre-law degree to go to law school, so they aren't technically working in the field they got their degree in, but it is still a statistic that I find disgusting. Especially when you add on the fact that the average college grad owes $30,000 in student loans. Couple that with a tight market and you start your career in debt and behind. Not a recipe for success. Let's be realistic, we don't need a degree to be work in a mail room or as a receptionist. These two positions were the starting points of many a millionaires careers. The other side of this is that these college grads are led to believe that their degrees rate a higher starting pay. The sad truth is that this is false. When you have 20 people vying for the same job, the person who will do it most economically (cheaply and good enough), gets it. The guy that tells the hirer that he will do it for whatever and has the ability, will get it over the guy with the degree that demands a higher salary. That's just econ 101.
Now for the tough part. I disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement on a couple of issues. The first being the ire directed at inequality in pay. Yes, there is inequality in pay. This happens in a society such as we have. The rich must be taxed. If you tax their income, they will keep it in the company as much as possible. If you tax the company profits, the company will put the money into expanding the company and thus create more jobs. Simple economics. Yes, this is contrary to what the republicans preach, but it is the truth. This means the problem isn't with the CEO's or the wealthy, it's with our government. The Idea that all pay should be equal, or close to it, is a communist ideal. To protest that corporations should share their wealth, is ludicrous. You have to reward innovation and business sense. Failure to do so, will lead to loss of business and thus loss of jobs. Allow the rich to amass wealth, but at the same time, tax them in such a way as to aid the nation. The difficult part is finding the balance. We have to find a balance where we tax the wealthy enough that they find it better to reinvest in society, but not so much that they leave altogether. The same with businesses.
The second thing I disagree with is where it is located. As you can tell from my comments above, this should be a Occupy Washington movement. Camp out on the capital's steps, in front of the White House, and at the congressional offices. The CEO's are laughing at you because you are ineffectual in your actions. Move to Washington, and they may start quaking in their boots. Right now, the CEO's are finding your actions laughable because, while you may inconvenience them a little bit, they are still raking in the cash. While you may draw attention to yourselves, you are not inconveniencing anyone who can be swayed by your stance. True, the media is following you, but you are railing at the CEO's to change. True, some elected officials are listening and commenting, but they aren't afraid because you haven't targeted them. Move you your protest to Washington and start naming who is donating to who. Start pointing out the money and what needs to be done, not just in Washington, but in their home states. You can affect the elected officials' jobs with your protest by pointing out how they are stopping the necessary change. You can't do that by protesting the guys who worked their way up to the top and managed a company that made money. they just aren't going to listen because you can't affect their pay.
That's all I have for today. I know some of what I said is controversial, I just ask that you be respectful in how you respond. Thank you.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Manic Monday: Cut the budget somewhere else.
It is Manic Monday. Today's subject, the national budget. Recently a friend pointed out that the first thing the government seeks to cut is the defense budget. I wonder why. The fact is that the defense budget is less than a quarter of the entire national budget. This means that three quarters of the budget is considered secondary when it comes to cuts. The pentagon was instructed to cut 600 billion from its budget. If all of the rest of government were to cut the same amount, it would amount to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings. Yet, it is only the defense budget that is facing these type of cuts. Now, add in the fact that, of all the programs on the budget, only Defense is named specifically in the constitution. I know that some of the other expenditures are implied, but only defense is actually named.
So, why is defense always targeted? Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money. We would drop in millions and what did we get out? Some new weapons, maybe a new building. Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats. While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise. The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items. Why? Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress. Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents. The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can. Let's take a look at a simple valve. That part may cost $20 at Lowe's. But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why. That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage. They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business. Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned. Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran. Then another 10% because she is a minority. After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract. This is a small example. There are hundreds more like it and it adds up. As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world. Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business. They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract. This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
That being said. I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street. The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military. This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget. That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned. They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years. We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service. Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it. How is this right? We have a welfare system that is broke. A government that is dysfunctional at best. Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe. Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better.
Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Am I bit angered? Who wouldn't be? The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain. They don't see the need for it. there is a need. The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests. We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries. We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us. We do this by protecting those who would be our allies. We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there. Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg to differ. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support. Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region. Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us. For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action. Did we use a bad excuse? Maybe. We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it. It doesn't watter now though. Remember that last thing I said we did? The one about leaving a place better than we found it. This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy. This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself. Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists. If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild. By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region. This is what we do. To do any less would be un-American.
Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this. It is your turn. Tell me where I am wrong. Let me know what I have said that has upset you. I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have. I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings. But maybe I am mistaken.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
So, why is defense always targeted? Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money. We would drop in millions and what did we get out? Some new weapons, maybe a new building. Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats. While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise. The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items. Why? Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress. Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents. The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can. Let's take a look at a simple valve. That part may cost $20 at Lowe's. But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why. That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage. They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business. Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned. Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran. Then another 10% because she is a minority. After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract. This is a small example. There are hundreds more like it and it adds up. As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world. Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business. They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract. This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
That being said. I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street. The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military. This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget. That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned. They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years. We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service. Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it. How is this right? We have a welfare system that is broke. A government that is dysfunctional at best. Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe. Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better.
Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Am I bit angered? Who wouldn't be? The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain. They don't see the need for it. there is a need. The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests. We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries. We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us. We do this by protecting those who would be our allies. We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there. Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg to differ. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support. Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region. Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us. For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action. Did we use a bad excuse? Maybe. We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it. It doesn't watter now though. Remember that last thing I said we did? The one about leaving a place better than we found it. This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy. This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself. Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists. If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild. By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region. This is what we do. To do any less would be un-American.
Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this. It is your turn. Tell me where I am wrong. Let me know what I have said that has upset you. I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have. I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings. But maybe I am mistaken.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Recession or not? You decide.
On the way to work this morning I was listening to the news and heard the commentator state that we were still deep in a recession. I started to wonder exactly how this was. The latest from wall street was that the Dow Jones was up to where it was before the crash (over 12,000 now, but around 11,000 before the crash). Fuel and grocery prices are back to where they were. It seems that the only thing that isn't where it was before this all started is home sales and prices (which were artificially inflated anyway) and unemployment. First off, a recession indicates that the economy is shrinking and that we are falling back to lower levels. At a minimum, it says we are at a level lower than what we were before. This is just not the case. Spending is up, production and consumption are where they were and the Dow Jones Index (the major indicator for the crash) is higher than it was). Thus we are using incorrect indicators (unemployment and housing market) to declare a recession.
Let's look at unemployment. I know unemployment is normally an indicator, but in this case I don't think so. The fact is, that when the recession hit, the employers started firing the dead weight to save their companies. When the economy began its recovery, they realized they could operate with their current employees and thus did not rehire. The US has, for a long time, had an excess of redundant employees. We literally made up work for people to do. Think of it this way, if you were to go to the Amish community and explain your job, could you make it sound convincingly necessary? I don't think I could and I'm in the military. I am not saying that we need to fire a lot more people, nor am I saying that everyone that was laid off deserved it. What I am saying, is that we are no longer in a recession, the economy is growing again and has been for some time. The unemployment numbers, I feel, are inflated because some people refuse to take less than what they had before the recession. Now I am not saying that this is the case for everyone on unemployment, I am sure that somewhere there is someone who is truly trying to find any job and is having no luck for whatever reason. In order for the unemployment numbers to go down, we need to create new jobs. This means we need to increase our manufacturing and production. The problem is that, for some inexplicable reason, we have convinced ourselves that we are still in a recession. Production and consumption are back to where they were before the crash, thus we need to increase production to higher levels. The problem we have is that we use unemployment numbers to prove that we are still in a recession and very few employers are willing to expand during a recession. Further, banks are not willing to give business loans for expansion during a recession for obvious reasons. Thus we need to declare the recession over.
The one question I have to keep asking myself is, "who is saying that we are in a recession?" Is it the republicans because they don't want to give the democrats the credit for getting us out of it, or are the democrats perpetuating it to prove just how badly the republicans screwed up before they took office? Or maybe they both are perpetuating it because if we are scared that we may not have jobs, they can keep pushing things on us we normally wouldn't like because we are looking for ways to save ourselves? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. We can no longer reasonably sate that we are in a recession. not when we have more indicators for a growing economy than we do for one in a recession. I will let you make your own conclusions, but as for me, I can't see how we are in a recession any more. That's my two cents and that may be all it's worth (or less). I look forward to any feed back, especially if you have anything that is contrary to what I have. I am not saying my research was perfect (I didn't want to spend all morning looking things up), in fact I really do appreciate any other info you have. Thank you for reading, have a great day.
Let's look at unemployment. I know unemployment is normally an indicator, but in this case I don't think so. The fact is, that when the recession hit, the employers started firing the dead weight to save their companies. When the economy began its recovery, they realized they could operate with their current employees and thus did not rehire. The US has, for a long time, had an excess of redundant employees. We literally made up work for people to do. Think of it this way, if you were to go to the Amish community and explain your job, could you make it sound convincingly necessary? I don't think I could and I'm in the military. I am not saying that we need to fire a lot more people, nor am I saying that everyone that was laid off deserved it. What I am saying, is that we are no longer in a recession, the economy is growing again and has been for some time. The unemployment numbers, I feel, are inflated because some people refuse to take less than what they had before the recession. Now I am not saying that this is the case for everyone on unemployment, I am sure that somewhere there is someone who is truly trying to find any job and is having no luck for whatever reason. In order for the unemployment numbers to go down, we need to create new jobs. This means we need to increase our manufacturing and production. The problem is that, for some inexplicable reason, we have convinced ourselves that we are still in a recession. Production and consumption are back to where they were before the crash, thus we need to increase production to higher levels. The problem we have is that we use unemployment numbers to prove that we are still in a recession and very few employers are willing to expand during a recession. Further, banks are not willing to give business loans for expansion during a recession for obvious reasons. Thus we need to declare the recession over.
The one question I have to keep asking myself is, "who is saying that we are in a recession?" Is it the republicans because they don't want to give the democrats the credit for getting us out of it, or are the democrats perpetuating it to prove just how badly the republicans screwed up before they took office? Or maybe they both are perpetuating it because if we are scared that we may not have jobs, they can keep pushing things on us we normally wouldn't like because we are looking for ways to save ourselves? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. We can no longer reasonably sate that we are in a recession. not when we have more indicators for a growing economy than we do for one in a recession. I will let you make your own conclusions, but as for me, I can't see how we are in a recession any more. That's my two cents and that may be all it's worth (or less). I look forward to any feed back, especially if you have anything that is contrary to what I have. I am not saying my research was perfect (I didn't want to spend all morning looking things up), in fact I really do appreciate any other info you have. Thank you for reading, have a great day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)