reading popularly now . .

Time Travel Wish can't get no satisfaction! No money to promote discovery, bummed.

Time Travel Wish can't get no satisfaction! No money to promote discovery, bummed.
4.28.16 request for communication answered. Undeniable circumstance and physical evidence.

VERY IMPORTANT: The "J Symbol" of Christmas 2020

VERY IMPORTANT: The "J Symbol" of Christmas 2020
Also from me: Welcome to the 21st Century and the Greatest Discovery Since Fire.

NASA and the metallic looking glove with their insignia

NASA and the metallic looking glove with their insignia
NASA had a hand in this. They must have met the Being, Satan, and struck a deal for ...

World Radiation Report

World Radiation Report
They are warning us by using this TIME TRAVELED IMAGE. I'm certain now, that's a global radiation report. The end will happen.

2 undeniably related communications.

2 undeniably related communications.
2 undeniably related communications

Now IT IS VISIBLE for the WORLD to SEE and have HOPE!

Now IT IS VISIBLE for the WORLD to SEE and have HOPE!
Now IT IS VISIBLE for the WORLD to SEE and have HOPE!

an amateur can spell amatuer either way he likes at Time Travel Wish and Paradox One, the discovery

an amateur can spell amatuer either way he likes at Time Travel Wish and Paradox One, the discovery
True: Successful before it was created, Time Travel Wish and Paradox One, the discovery


Monday, July 31, 2006

Fredrick and Johnny were Earners

In progressive taxation the further away (or up the ladder) an earner is from living desperately or from hunger or homeless, determines what greater percentage of his whole, or fraction of his whole, of total annual earnings, The progressive system, in an ideological pure form, increases the revenue burden on the wealthy because their own welfare is not at stake.
As the illustration above shows, that drop in the bucket experienced by Bill Gates (on the right) does not effect his lifestyle, as his pie is still huge (numerically). Interestingly Bill Gates, a.k.a. Fredrick, perhaps one of the richest persons in the world, supports progressive taxation. Johnny on the left would have but a sliver of his pie left if his contribution to the general fund (federal taxes), were equivalent in percentage to Fredrick’s percentage. Funny thing about money is, the less of it you have, the more valuable it is to you. Conversely, the more of it you have the more of it can be disposable without threatening your lifestyle, opposed to Johnny – less valuable.
But loudly the vast majority of the wealthy complain. Lavishly they lobby our politicians, and aggressively they hire tax accountants and tax lawyers and stash their earnings in offshore accounts to keep more and more at amounts approximating seven hundred billion dollars annually. Having more money comes with a brain condition called greed. An irony is that pirates also suffered this condition in the eighteenth century, and they buried their treasure, also offshore.
When issues of taxation are discussed, its not just philosophy that separates the Economic Conservative (EC) from the Economic Social Liberal (ESL). Because the differences are so brightly polarized, I have to conclude its got to be a brain hemispheric difference. The humorous adage ‘ . . when you were a baby your mother must have dropped you on your head.” May apply in this area.
The ECs do not seem to understand the value of the mathematical fraction as expressed as a percentage. A percentage, or a fraction relative to the whole, has nothing to do with a specific amount of money dealt with, generally income earned. It is relative value that defeats the ECs case against Progressive Taxation. This is why so many simple economics instructions begin with nice round and small amounts for easier understanding.
Johnny works in the plastic factory. Johnny earns a dollar.
Fredrick works at Morgan-Chase-Stanley investment brokers. Fredrick earns a dollar in commission.
Johnny cashes his dollar at the payroll cashing store and pays the owner twenty-five cents of that dollar for the “service.” Johnny would like to use a bank but he needs two-hundred dollars and good credit to open an account.
Fredrick never saw his dollar, he has an arrangement, it automatically compounded into a mutual fund account that earned almost twenty percent last year. For this financial service Fredrick is charged only point six seven percent for the transaction on that dollar, or six tenths of one cent.
The next day an IRS agent pays a visit to Johnny at the plastic factory and informs him he owed taxes on yesterday’s earnings. Johnny contributed his share of eleven cents (or eleven percent) Johnny paid at the lowest income earning taxation level, because based on his previous year’s earnings, he will earn far less than most people working full time jobs. Johnny will file taxes on a one page form at the beginning of next year, the form’s formula will determine that he gets all of his federal income tax back, less of course his Social Security and Medicare payments to those federal government insurance programs.
Fredrick was in shock when he looked up from his plasma computer screen to see an IRS agent standing over him with serious look of business. He requested Fredrick’s contribution to the General Fund, and Fredrick handed him thirty-eight cents (or thirty-eight percent). The agent left and Fredrick was pissed. “That’s a lot of money dammit!” He slammed his fist onto his deck. Later that night at home in front of his eight foot fireplace, Fredrick drank a glass of Sherry, his ass on leather, his feet on mahogany, he thought about taxes:
“Its not right. I paid almost a hundred and fifty thousand last year, and what do I get? An IRS agent barging into my office for more? I get not food stamps, no free lunch, no special training, no help with colle . . well Ok I did get a lot of help with college. But nothing else! Shit on soap! That’s what I get!”
Johnny left the factory a seven p.m., it was already dark out and he appreciated the street lights that show the way and keep him safer, subsidized by the eleven cents he gave today, if the city had to pay for those alone, they would be off for sure. A police car sped by him, lights and siren on, it was speeding to someone’s aid. Again his city’s funds alone could never fund the entire police force of twelve cars. An ambulance followed within a minute, a service belonging to the fire department, another case of an expensive service that federal dollars subsidized, costly when they sit doing nothing, invaluable when they show-up within three minutes to save your life. Johnny crossed over the bridge, made of cement and steel, it spans the wide river in his city. To build it today would cost millions of dollars, to maintain it costs thousands per month. Again if the city had to pay in full, the bridge would be closed due to safety concerns. Johnny approached a big campaign billboard on the other side of the bridge, it showed the face of a man he knew, he had played darts with him at the pub a couple of times:
Joe M. Blow for Congress - You Dollars Should Be Accounted For!
Johnny remembered Joe’s vehemence about the money in Washington. He knows he was pissed off and determined to do something about it. Fortunately, and even Joe M. Blow knows, most money is accounted for pretty well, but there’s always those stories that anger the public, of those so called rip-offs. Joe is an average guy, when he gets past the local primary, he’ll get matching funds from the Federal Elections Commission, money well spent for representation of the type he promises.
Late that night Fredrick was still in his living room and the fire was dying down, he listened to a talk radio program and the host was matching his feelings and anger about taxes. He thought to himself “I should call in, boy I’m mad!”
“I paid almost a quarter of a million dollars I taxes last year! Why should I have to pay so much when I make so much to be taxed! I should get major tax breaks, I deserve them, I should get a rebate and we don’t need to give the middle class and the poor anything back because they don’t contribute like I do!”
Here is where it becomes convenient for Fredrick to speak of his tax contribution in terms of amounts (notice that when publicly stating his taxes paid he increased the true amount more than one third to emphasize his point more dramatically) but his taxation rate is not on his mind. Its convenient because in this example on the radio call in show, he is complaining for his own defense, for his own benefit To Fredrick its all about the money in real terms. It is that money in dollar amounts that leads Fredrick to feel his contribution is stronger, worth more, more valuable to society as a whole.
Fredrick’s income class, those making $200,000 or more annually supply slightly more than %87 of federal revenues from income tax. But so what. Its all relative. The group buys %100 of all caviar, fine wines, Bermuda beach houses, Mercedes Benzs. These victims of government oppression manage, even with their high tax rate, which is between %28 and %39.6, of reported income, after all deductions (which this income class is very good at using) to have the best that a material world could offer.
But Johnny’s dollar is worth more to Johnny than Fredrick’s dollar is worth to him. Fredrick will earn tens of thousands of dollars before the summer is over, he can use his spare dollars for toilet paper without guilt. Johnny has to think very carefully about every dime of every dollar spent. Johnny has to buy the generic can of beans instead of the B&M Boston Baked Beans which cost twenty cents more. Back at Johnny’s apartment he finds that the cable television is out, he was late with the payment, so Johnny sets up the antenna with foil wrapped around them. Johnny sets a cold beer down on his coffee table, one of three left in his refrigerator. His table, a electrical cable spool turned on its side. Johnny watches the game with snowy interference, he downs a hearty swallow of cold beer, and he thinks to himself: “I’ll never fucking get ahead! How would I? Its impossible.”
Come tax time Johnny will pay no federal income tax, after all allowable deductions and exemptions for his personal low income. He will be one of 43.3 million filers in this category. But he’ll not escape his State income taxes, or his State sales taxes, or a city tax he may pay, and his landlord will pay, using Johnny’s rent money, the property taxes on his building. He won’t escape a tax attached to his phone bill, his electric bill, his natural gas bill. Essentially everything single thing Johnny does is taxed, his groceries, his rent, his clothes, his car, his driver’s license and etc.. Are these things less valuable to Johnny than to Fredrick? No. They are more valuable to Johnny, they represent his livelihood.
From all of our lawmakers who we citizens and our parents elected, to the lawmakers long before them who have assembled a complex book of tax law, to the millions who sought more fairness to create those laws, its about the fraction of your earnings, a.k.a. the percentage from earnings. The large fraction that Fredrick pays is not just because he makes more, it is because he can do a lot more and have a lot more than Johnny, whether is Fredrick is taxed slightly or taxed more heavily. Fredrick has also benefited from society greatly: like his college loans which allowed him to get a BA, and the Securities and Exchanging Commission that has enforced and protected his stocks from corporate trust violations, and the government services in his neighborhood that increase the realty values increasing his own capital. His father went to college on the G.I. Bill, later his father bought his first home through a Veterans Administration housing loan, where would Fredrick be without the opportunities of his father? When his mother was dying her Medicare was her only payment method to receive care, her doctors knew their payment was guaranteed, the hospice knew their payment was guaranteed, and so her care was unquestionably reliable, without the Medicare Fredrick would have had to drop out of college to help his father meet expenses, they may have had to sell the house they occupied since the 1950s. Fredrick didn’t “pull himself up by the bootstraps.” Fredrick pulled himself up by the collective boot straps of others, of a society that realized the economy of opportunity is the best investment.
But now Fredrick sits in luxury and wants those poorer than he is to take a larger tax burden that he does or a more equal burden, so that hopefully in the balancing of federal revenues to expenditures, he can keep more of his own money. Fredrick has become an EC, he has lost his way while traveling in a sea of green. If being empathetic is what it takes to consider the plight of those without opportunity, Fredrick has successfully quashed that attribute in order to enable his pro rich-people stand. Denial is a river in Fredrick’s mind, that flows with green treasury paper and Fredrick is a man standing in that river. Under the wallet temperature bills that flow with vigor past Fredrick’s wading body are the decomposing bodies of the World War II generation, those who created the many programs used to help Fredrick – those who had confidence in the Great Society concept. He steps on them and wobbles a bit, but that’s not enough to tip him over.
Taking thirty-eight percent from Johnny would essentially wipe-him out. Johnny would indeed be pressed to meet basic human needs since he is already living on the edge between poverty and despair. While Fredrick’s earnings place him far above any need to begin to worry about eating, housing, child care, transportation, health care. So, taxing Fredrick still hurts him very little, this is why have a progressive tax system. As you “progress” up the ladder of economic success you can contribute a higher percentage of your income without being hurt in any of the manners that those below you may be hurt.
Liberals tend to understand Progressive Taxation, while the Economic Conservatives seem to selectively choose to deny that it is fair based upon their feelings of being unfairly burdened. The Conservatives may realize that the system is fair in concept, but they won’t admit it, because that would violate the very essence of their conscience of selfishness. Coinciding, the rich are more likely to vote for a conservative candidate to represent them, while the middle class and the poor (and those with advanced college degrees) tend to vote for the more Liberal candidates.
Simplification is now the call of the wild in the forest of reformers. National Sales Taxes are proposed, Flat Taxes proposed. Some dream of one little postcard we could all file our taxes with. Each of these tax hypotheses would eventually lead us back to a Progressive Taxation system similar to what we have today. How man years will that take? Twenty, forty years? It is just natural that we would divide into those who need certain deductions and exemptions and those not yet realizing they do, and it would start all over again. We would campaign to elect representatives who would get us our special deductions and exemptions, refunds, and allocations of special need. Because we are not the same. We are not uniform in our needs. We don’t stand on the same rung of the economic ladder. Thus we must contribute to the revenue stream progressively, based upon need. Based upon the distance on the ladder from the ground.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Canyon of Economic Difference

This fantasy canyon is too wide for Evil Kenieval to attempt to jump over in a one man rocket. Getting quite a bit of media attention lately, on the floor of the canyon are more than ten thousand people, living in makeshift homes, lean-too, or just holes in the ground. The congregate here to avoid arrest. Tired of seeing their numbers incarcerated for every legal violation from public urination, to loitering, panhandling, truancy, theft of food, public nuisance, they wanted to be where they could not possibly face this oppression. Oblivious to their parent’s desperation their children scurry around playing hide and seek, while all too aware their parents sit on boulders staring at each other solemnly with their eyes drawn close together, they look downward and examine the dirt in a state of acute depression.
High above the desperate scene, on the Canyon’s top side, mulling around on the western edge are the Economic Conservatives (the EC), they range in level of extremity from the far right Lazaifare Economics of the Ayn Rand variety, to the right of center anti government regulation of all business Robber Barrons their exploitation would know no boundries and be excused as justice in the free-market.. Behind them are the social Conservatives, they want to reduce government spending to tiny fractions of their former levels, but they fear harming the poor too much because the poor vote (for now), they also want government out of the regulatory realm. The three groups of economic conservatives pace back and forth at the canyon’s edge protesting, stirring up a constant rising cloud of dust which marks their location for miles around. They march around not in an organized fashion, but bumping into each other and always uttering “excuse me, pardon me.” The three groups carry signs to get the attention of the present media towards their ideologies.:
Self Regulation Now!
Big Government Must End!
Unabated Competition!
Global Warming is Normal!
Privatize Our Schools – for the Children!
Sell Our Parks Lands!
Ban Unions Now!
Eliminate the Minimum Wage!
End all Welfare – Stop Cycle of Dependency!
More Tax Breaks for Wealthy!
- We Pay Bigger Amounts!
Let Them Eat Cake!!
Barely visible to the relatively refrained mob of EC and due east more than three miles across the canyon, another mob mulls around at the edge of the canyon. They are the Economic Solutions Liberals (the ESL). There are not easily defined groups of the ESL. Some are centrist and would allocate plenty of money for war planning and readiness, continue with a death penalty and the war on drugs. Some would choke off funding for warring almost completely and stop the war on drugs. Some embrace Capitalism wholeheartedly, some find it to be almost evil, but all agree that Capitalism needs government checks to protect the people from exploitation and promote the general welfare. They bump into each other also, but far less than the group on the west side of the canyon, because their strong individualistic personalities reflect the passion of their individual ideology, making getting along with the other ESL difficult – no followers in this group. They too carry signs, but these signs are well designed, built with tension wire, white board, they have banners twenty feet long on silky white material. It would appear they are experienced at this type of activity. Their signs read:
Health Care for All Now!
Enforce Union Protections!!
Fund Schools as if YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT!
A LIVING WAGE – is the ETHICAL thing to do!!
End Oil Dependency – Fund Mass Transit / Alt Fuels!
Protect OUR PARKS!
Break UP Media Monopolies!!
Free Tibet!
Fight Theocracy!
Animals FEEL!
Death With Dignity!
The Liberals on the east side of the canyon were all told that this day’s protest would be an economic protest, but many just couldn’t help expressing their fringe issues at the same time, their passions would not constrain. So signs of all manner of issues overwhelmed the economic crisis represented by the hordes of homeless in the canyon below. News helicopters flying above took a lot of video of both sides, for an economic report on a news show, but on the east side where the ESLs where, video footage captured a muddled mix of issues and barely revealed one economic sign. Many Americans watching the news footage that evening muttered similar words “ . .those crazy ESLs, Free Tibet? Jeez!”
If the ESL would learn that their fringe issues could be faster addressed if the populace was happy economically, that in a capitalist system such as ours, money is everything whether you like it or not, they could address their fringe issues because there are strong economic factors behind each of them.
The Economic Conservatives on the western edge of the canyon also have fringe issues, but like the vast canyon between philosophies on economics, they are vastly different from the Liberals on the eastern ridge. They didn’t bring those signs today, just the money issue signs, but if they did, they would read like so:
Abortion is MURDER!
GAY is a SINFUL Lifestyle!
Condoms Cause SEX!
Guns are GOOD!
What is the economic measure of success for any nation? Liberals look at rises or declines in poverty, including homelessness, they look at health care affordability, and they look at productivity in education so children get the best of society’s ability. But they look at documents, long range statistical studies, economic and social studies with peer reviewed critiques, and historic trend as they relate to present time. Like an Economic Conservative a Liberal approaches economics with his or her stance already engrained. For instance the ESL might say: “ . . we the people should always do everything we can to help those with less than us – in fact if there a purpose to life it is likely this.” The EC might say “. . we the rich and those of us who just know in our hearts that we’ll be rich one day, are the caretakers of the economy, its all due to us, we are owed! Poor who? Didn’t he leave the Beatles?
What is the EC measure of success for any nation? It is that everyone they know is getting rich. It is the well paved suburban landscape where they live staying clean and shiny, and the cars they drive staying fast and luxurious. It is their children, white and bouncing, getting all the best stuff. They tend to take a narrow local view when examining indicators, they’ll look a their neighbors or the people at the grocery store and then make up their minds about conditions nationally. They’ll see the five teenagers and young adults working the Starbucks counter and assume that because they smile a lot and seem clean and healthy, that is the way is for everyone in that category “living wage my ass! They’re doing great, good kids.” It is a rather unenlightened behavior. Imagine life in a bubble universe. “I see it therefore it is ALL this way.” The EC will also conduct specious thinking and conclude with specious determinations, like a man finds a hammer on his front lawn and concludes his lawn is growing hammers.
Economic Conservative:
“I see we have millions of mothers with children on welfare. I see we keep giving them money to eat and house themselves, and they keep taking the money! It makes sense to me that if we take away the money, they’ll be off the welfare and then we’ll save money!”
Not questioned by the Economic Conservative is the state of poverty. The effect on the children of those “welfare mothers.” Whether or not the mother will be able to get a job which provides enough income to pay rent, feed the children, but a used car to get to work, train herself for a job, who will provide daycare for the children or will they have to be alone, what about their health care?
In fact the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was sent by a Conservative Congress, to President Clinton’s desk for signing, four times, containing no provisions to assist for mothers on welfare with job training, day care, transportation, food assistance and etcetera. In essence leaving welfare mother, newly denied her family funding with little choices, except perhaps prostitution. When the President got the provisions which would actually enable the welfare mother meet the requirements of life, placed into the bill, he agreed to sign the act into law.
The above example was not only of specious thinking but also of the seemingly heartless and ruthless thought process (or lack of thought) needed to propose and pass that kind of legislation. “Let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps! Like I did!” Problem is, most of “them,” did not use their boot straps, they used daddy’s gold plated ladder. 1 in 5 delegates to the last GOP convention were millionaires. Many of the same legislators are still in office today.
Another trait of the EC (and domestic issue Conservatives) is to accept the ideology of someone else, with little evidence of that ideology having worked, anywhere, anytime in the past. It is as if they pay someone else to do their book-reports, having learned nothing, having researched nothing for themselves. Perhaps the best example is that modern history has proven that in this post industrial age the economics often called "trickle down," just doesn't work. It does not work because it leaves the poor and lower middle class stagnating and being exploited. Sure they get some, but its more like “tinkle down,” and that does nothing to improve their conditions, usually only results in rising inflation rates, i.e. living poor costing more.
Remember: They'll continue to try and convince those who don't remember the 80's that more tax cuts for the wealthy are needed. Just not true, it's the poor and middle class who need a break if anyone, major payroll tax cuts if need be. Since the poorer of us spend every dime we make every paycheck, then consumerism powers the economy not hot tubs and trips to Bermuda.
When the end of the protest day arrived and the news crews and helicopters were preparing to leave, each side of the canyon had planned an end of day celebration in their own way. Each of the Economic Liberals had agreed to adopt a family from the floor of the canyon. A large truck backed up to the edge and the Liberal protestors removed and unraveled thick ropes that were hundreds of feet in length. They lowered the ropes with wooden platforms on their ends. The families slowly climbed aboard, tying themselves to the boards, grasping their filthy and hungry children in their arms, they clung to the trustworthy thick ropes as the ESLs above pulled them up to new lives. Up top, veggie burgers with tofu topping greeted them, with iced green tea with chamomile to wash it down.
On the western side of the canyon one of the EC had a brilliant idea, he arranged for a group of illegal immigrants to drive two truck loads of nearly rotten Artichokes to the protest grounds. The ten workers got twenty bucks. They backed up the trucks to the edge of the cliff and dumped the approximately ten thousand vegetables down the cliff sides, tumbling, bruising, flying out towards the center of the canyon. The Artichokes landed their prickly bristle coated shells onto the heads of the remaining poor and homeless, some of the green grenades broke open upon impacting the tops of the heads of the greatly startled and gaspingly dismayed, eyes wide with incredulous reaction, homeless campers. The Economic Conservatives all had their binoculars to their eyes and they grinned with glee, some laughing heartily, they watched as the green squashy mayhem ensued below them. “That’ll teach em!” One of them said.
The news people never came back and on several cable networks the “canyon people” as they were cutely dubbed, got preempted by a presidential announcement on the new Abortion Police Squad. Every day for months the ESL came back to the canyon’s edge, but their numbers dwindled to only a couple as a new war broke out in Venezuela.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

How to Best Secure Our Ports

If a weapon of mass destruction of a size larger than a suitcase or a trunk, is introduced into the United States by those who would harm us, it will be through our shipping ports. Consider, if a terrorist gets his nuclear bomb or bio chemical weapon, shipped in a crate, and that crate tucked into the rear corner of a container the size of a tractor’s trailer, and that container sitting in a parking lot waiting to be inspected or passed over. That is the optimal time of detonation, at the port, as soon as it arrives at the port. Since all American shipping ports are within sight of major cities, just getting to the port, is adequate for the terrorists. Our current, loose and barely accountable, and barely efficient inspection arrangement at all of our ports will not save us. “Foolish” is what we’ll be called after the detonation, and it will be ourselves doing the name-calling, as well as our enemies. The problem is not how to protect our ports so the ports won’t be a route for harming us, the problem is where we locate the ports for inspection purposes. We locate inspection ports at sea.
Three wet-docks each the size of a sports complex manned by the United States Coast Guard can inspect, by order and force, all shipping that crosses oceans with intent to dock in the United States. Ships routing themselves around the inspection docks will be chased and apprehended. One inspection dock should be located in the Gulf of Mexico. One each in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, centrally located and their distances between ports divided by traffic use at those ports. Each inspection dock should be at least one hundred miles from coasts.
No private contractors should get their sticky fingers on this. The U.S. Coast Guard and only them, are the best personnel for this job. Unquestionable training and professionalism, combined with mission ideology and discipline make them the best. Well armed and well equipped with inspection technology, nothing harmful should get by them. The Coast Guard will be equipped to quickly sink a vessel should it be needed.
An appropriately measured tariff increase to imports sent by sea to the U.S. would compensate the entire program. For the shipping industry, the cost of this inconvenience will be negligible and easily retrieved via clients. This is not a gargantuan task like our building the Panama Canal, or the Interstate Highway System, or rebuilding San Francisco, or winning World Wars I and II. Its just a technological challenge, of reasonably large endeavourer.
For the American citizen, a level of trust in one large aspect of our security, not seen since decades past.
This project could employ tens of thousands, and revitalize the Coast Guard. Many builders of the project will have only temporary work, but the pay will be worth while. There could be as many as one thousand Coast Guard assigned to each inspection dock at any given time. With determination of America’s politicians , this project could be finished in five years. Much like the oil industry’s off shore rigs, the Coast Guard will function in much the same way while at sea, taking eight weeks off-on time to come and go stateside. The wet docks would be at least five times the size of an off shore oil rig. But their function and capacity to house, entertain, and feed a thousand personnel while performing the task of U.S. safety at its front line, will be an invaluable function.

Saturday, July 8, 2006

"Government Is . . To Accomplish What We Could Not as Individuals."

“The problems are many today!" Is this predicament new to our century? Of course not. Because for those who are aware, the problems will always be many, and life for all could always be better. Those who point out our social and global ills are persons predisposed to empathy and compassion, big picture and long range thinking, all combined with creativity and the ability to imagine more clearly than many others. These are “those nuisance complainers," and are persons of a critical nature, they can pick-apart the issues, the complexities unconsidered by others. They can be a real bummer if someone approaches them with an idea. Their critiques can be mistaken as skepticism and pessimism.
But take heed, these complainers are actually very optimistic, if they were not, why would they care, why speak out, why be involved at all? Every outburst of an idea made by them is because of their optimism. What can be is what drives their lives. Confidence in their fellow human, based upon history’s evidence of overcoming adversity, allows them to feel a quell of hope in their bellies.
They don’t subscribe to biblical Armageddon ideology, or nuke-em-all foreign policy, or even “God gave us the planet to rape it for its goods!" They don’t give up on “others," to get on with whatever benefits them. They don’t take now because someone else will later anyway. They don’t litter out their car window because they realize their single chewing gum wrapper will make a difference, as a negative contribution to the landscape and an imposition to the view of others.
The “smarty-pants" syndrome engulfs the lives of these people who some label as “complainers." Integral to their character is an intense knowledge of what is going on. Full absorption of media, of news radio, television news, and newspapers to their personal point of saturation. Unfortunately for friends and lovers this means there is not much new you can tell them, and what is told to them will be corrected if it is wrong. They have to repeat two words a lot: “I know, I know."
“They," are Liberals. The founders of the United States were Liberals. The United States of America was an idea rooted in the optimism of Liberalism, of what we could be, of what the imaginations of a bunch of “complainers," could foresee. They were optimistic of what a society could be.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
–George Washington
I used to be a Conservative. Until I was approximately twenty-eight, I was intense, angry a lot, blaming my plight on culture and society, government and yes . . “Liberals and the ACLU!" I knew nothing of what caused problems. I sought simplistic answers that could be seen in white and black, no grays and no complexity, just simple things that everyone else was screwing up. I was a victim. I saw the abortion issue as baby killing and cared not for choices made by a woman. I voted for Reagan at age eighteen. I knew little of the Bill of Rights, or civil rights, or protection for minorities.
Then I put down my plumber’s pipe wrench and entered college. Prior to that my only education had been a high school GED and a few years of Plumbing Code and Theory classes. It was September, 1992, an election year and the country had been under Conservative leadership for 12 years. One teacher opened my mind. His tangential ranting had nothing to do with his class subject, human anatomy. Often he would fill three quarters of a class on a topic of politics and the welfare of the human condition, medicine and the health care delivery system, funding for education and especially for the sciences. My brain swelled with new thoughts. Suddenly causes and complexities were in the forefront. Nothing was simple, but nothing was unsolvable, and because of that awakening I discovered I was a Liberal. I voted for Bill Clinton.
If you are a conservative you may not hear the many ideas from Liberals, or party affiliated Democratic members. Or you may quickly decide those ideas are “socialist," and dismiss them as something evil. You may not hear them because you don’t recognize them when they zoom past you’re ears. Currently you won’t hear these ideas on cable news networks because Republicans run all three branches of government allowing them to gain camera time, radio time, news conference times, even Capital Rotunda announcement time with the on scene press corps. Democratic congress persons do not have this advantage . Thus offering up brand new ideas, or pulling out the old ones are almost impossible. But they are asked constantly what they think of the Republican’s ideas and activities, which in turn they have to respond. This puts them on the defensive, at least so it appears. It places them in the complainers corner. It causes the public to see the minority party as the complainers, the whiners, or the “no-ideas" party.
Abraham Lincoln, a Liberal when the Republican Party was largely Liberal, once stated succinctly the role of government in a social structure, when he said:
“Government is the coming together of individuals or groups of individuals to accomplish as one, or as a whole, what they could not as individuals or as groups."
-Abraham Lincoln
When it comes to ideas, enacted in the past, or still in the fighting stage, every program ever touted by a Liberal sprung from this ideal, that individuals, or groups of individuals i.e. the States, were not handling the problem where they lived or nationwide. Civil rights are mostly commonly effected by this condition when State to State inequities are not settled.
If you listen to Liberal talk radio, or watch documentaries on the social conditions, war, poverty and etcetera, you’ll hear these ideas:
  • Health care delivery.
    Billions wasted in commercialized bureaucracy and tens of millions still without health insurance, inadequate coverage, coverage refusals, theft and fraud, insured driven into poverty and more:
  • Solution.
    Single Payer Health Care. As in Medicare, as in the Veterans Administration Health Care system, as in the efficient and life saving nationalized programs in seventeen other industrialized nations. Health insurance companies making billions in profits, gone. Let them sell car insurance, home owner’s, liability, life insurance. Socialist? Damn right it is. After all, we are a “society."

  • Economic struggle.
    Wages so meager a vast segment of the population experiences a constant decrease in living standard exponential over the past decades. Households tripling adults under one roof, families working multiple jobs, children unattended, stress multiplied, substance abuse predominantly the only escape. The middle class is rapidly disappearing. Outsourcing and industry relocation is killing the livelihood of communities across the country.
  • Solution.
    Labor Import Tariffs and a National Living Wage. No industrial or natural product should be able to enter the U.S. with a massively reduced cost to the importer (or re-importer) due to international labor inequity. A producer or importer, must pay a labor differential in the form of import tariff. No ship, no plane unloads without this tariff paid prior. This will remove advantage for outsourcing and the relocation of labor from the U.S. A nationalized, cross-state, Living Wage should become the law of the land as a Civil Right to promote the General Welfare. This wage should increase with the Cost of Living every year there after. No one state or type of business should be exempt, no U.S. territory should be exempt. This can be introduced incrementally over five years.

  • Dwindling Quality of Education.
    Public schools are suffering with too large class sizes in some districts and too expensive school districts in other areas. Hours are limited to reflect a time when a parent was always at home. Teachers are paid less than most blue collar craftsmen, and most leave the profession after just five years. Drop-out rates are unacceptable. Creative classes can not be taught. History, Civics, Driving, and extra curricular activities are eliminated or cut to below minimums. Expenditures vary from county to county, per child, by as much as $6000. Yet the cost of needs, and the demand for an educated populace remains unchanged across the country where a BA is a BA in Alaska or Georgia. If adults are too provide for themselves and their families there must be a drastic change. Children must no longer be seen and treated as civil liabilities, rather as civil investments what’s rate of return is unquestionably favorable.

  • Solution.
    School districts, cities, and counties across the country, base their taxation rate and consequent revenue devoted to schools, on their own local property tax income. This amount is the largest share of funding per district. This amount can vary greatly based on the wealth of a community, no matter how small that community may be. A poor farming town two counties away from a burgeoning suburban community with several late-model housing developments, will have far worse schools, far less experienced and trained teachers, more children sharing computers and or books, a barely functioning sports program, unsafe buses, older buildings that are more likely to have contaminants, and etcetera. Federal allotments are based per pupil, but are lowered if a school district continues to survive with less children. State allotments follow suit and tend to be more harsh in times of tight budgets.

    Remove the school district funding and revenue apparatus. In no way should local control and decisions, parental involvement be altered. Shift financing collection responsibilities to the State level. Quarterly the States will bank their revenues for education with the Federal government. No one community’s revenue in property value based taxes will determine school funding. Each child’s head is counted as being worthy of the same funding from State line to State line, from vastly poor neighborhoods to the pristine garden developments. No child’s education is to be ever held hostage to a State’s ability to manage it’s budget, as Federal dollars will be disbursed in the full amount required in each state.

    Create teacher’s colleges regionally. Colleges that actually use children as real students on campus. Classrooms supervised by teaching instructors. Four year colleges that produce impeccably credentialed teachers, with real world experience, whose entire college experience featured teaching. Require each State establish a teacher’s union. Establish a state-wide professional wage for every working teacher. Salary should reflect an honored profession and should attract a resurgence of aspiring professional teachers.

Back to Lincoln.

Each of the three problems and their corresponding solutions reflect an inability of individuals, or groups of individuals, to accomplish an end to these conditions. They did not just fail to solve these problems as if they were new, they failed consistently for decades and decades. It is clear that these three problems fit the requirements for government intervention.
When a Conservative proposes destroying a government program, he or she will use vitriolic language, and hyperbole to stir emotion toward the negative. “Its just another big government program! The people have become dependant on this. The private sector could do a better job!" Really? The Liberal should ask. "Did the people who needed this program initially solve their problem, are the conditions gone which had caused the people to request this program? Where is your evidence that the private sector could do this better? Where were they before the program? Would not the private sector also cause dependency? If the people are dependant on this program does that mean they prefer to be on the program?"
Skeptic and critical inquiry. Deep within the issue there lies a cause, solved or not, to be brought to the surface and exposed to light. Deep within the motives of a government program’s detractors there lies themselves.