Here we go again. I had a brief exchange on Facebook last week on this subject. Let's see if we can get some communication and thoughts on this subject - government support for poor. This would include the War on Poverty, welfare, food stamps, WIC, tax credits, private/religious organizations vs government, etc.
(an outline - I do reserve the last word, so I will not do details but here is a shorthand view from me)
Since the Great Depression the U.S. Government has offered food and monetary support for families and individuals that are in need. The problem now is the level of poverty and dependence is greater than ever yet the amount of money doled out by the various levels of government are enormous.
So, your thoughts. More government funding needed or less? More tax breaks and credits or less? More programs or less? A loosening of requirements or a tightening? All of the above or none?
Remember, your discussion is required!! (your comments will have to be approved by me - I will not allow any flaming or uncivil remarks - however I promise anything that meets polite discourse rules will be published) COME ON - LET ME HEAR FROM YOU!!
I hope this will be a forum for discussions on the subjects that divide us.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 1, 2013
My Suggestions - Part 1 (from Just Some Posts blog) looking for comments
This appears in my all-purpose blog - www.justsomeposts.blogspot.com but I want COMMENTS! So I thought I would put it here as well. Let's get some discussion going!
I have been working on this one in my head for a while. I had planned to do a post of all the suggestions I had for addressing the ills and problems I see in the world. The problem with a post like this was/is the sheer magnitude of it. I have been delaying doing it due to the time and effort involved. So, I just decided to write it as a series of posts. NOTE: I WANT feedback. I want discussion.
Before we get started let's do the lessons -
1) There is no government money. If you have questions on this point, I have many posts here where I expound upon this thought. Just suffice it to say ultimately all money comes from the public (you and me).
2) Corporations and businesses do not and cannot pay taxes. Same comment here - lots of posts explaining this. Bottom line - only people pay taxes. Businesses just get the taxes by raising prices on their customers (you and me again).
3) Term limits are critical to any meaningful changes to be made in our government. This includes the bureaucracy that exists today in Washington that holds a lot of the real power.
Now to the suggestions -
A) raise the voting age to 21. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now. Oh no, disenfranchising voters! Woe is me, woe is me. I was the among the first group of American young to be able to vote after reaching 18. I understand the allure of including all those that are subject to the laws in electing those that make the laws. I have one point - why do we feel it takes more maturity and life experience to decide whether to buy alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco products than to decide on the people that will govern us and make our laws? I know there are movements throughout the world to allow people as young as 16 to vote. Several countries have done so. There are various municipalities, counties, and even states that have lowered the age requirements for certain voting or registering to vote in this country. FYI, I would actually prefer a lowering of the age to purchase alcohol to 18 and raising the age of voting to 21. I feel that voting takes much more maturity and knowledge than the purchase of alcohol. If someone can convince me that I am wrong, have at it.
Further thought on the voting age - One thing I have seen that most people agree on is that most elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. (we may not agree on who or what the evil is, but that choice nevertheless. I feel our choices have become more limited as younger voters have become more engaged. The young are more likely to be sucked into the "feel good" political-speak that surrounds campaigning. We get politicians that play to that feeling rather than truly addressing our problems and/or issues. You have to admit - regardless of the political affiliations, if the politicians that have been elected over the past 20 years had carried out their campaign promises we would be in a totally different country today. (note - I did not put "better", just good. Out of respect for the fact that we all see good and bad government differently) An 18 year old typically does not have the experience nor maturity to decide who should run the country. If municipalities and/or counties want to give a 16 year old the right to vote in local elections, I could possibly see that. (although I would venture to say the results might be disastrous depending on the number of these underage voters there are), but not for national or state level elections.
B) Eliminate and/or consolidate a large number of the departments of government. When the country was founded we had the departments of War (now defense); Treasury (now same, as well as other departments that have taken some of what was administered here, like Commerce); and State (originally Foreign Affairs, but essentially the same). The office of Attorney General was established with the Constitution in 1789 (yes 1789, not 1776 - look it up) , but the Justice department did not come about until after the Civil War.
There have been seven department/cabinet level divisions set up since WWII (8 if you include Defense which came from the consolidation of the departments of War and the Navy in 1947. FYI, the Post Office was a governmental department until 1971 when it was made a quasi-independent agency) In my opinion all seven could and should be rolled back into the department that they were spun off from. There also have been numerous lower-level departments with Cabinet level appointees set up like the department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency that I would include in this consolidation.
So, the Health & Human Services would return to its original name of Health, Education, & Welfare and absorb the functions of the Departments of Education, and Housing & Urban Development. This department would also take the food stamp program from the Department of Agriculture (yep - that's who does that - more later)
The Department of Commerce would return to it's earlier name of Commerce and Labor and absorb the Labor Department as well as the remaining Department of Agriculture (without food stamps). This would hopefully simplify the farm bills that keep being held hostage or pushed through because of the food stamp program. This would also include the Labor Department and the Transportation Department as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior.
I would then take the Department of Defense and include - Homeland Security, CIA and NSA, along with Veterans Affairs.
Then I would cut the management of the departments accordingly. You might still need a department level head, but they would not be cabinet level. You would not need as many people doing payroll, support, etc. So, lots of cuts could be made. I would challenge the remaining departments to audit and suggests cuts that could be made in other departments. This would be mandated by law to insure it was done and the manner in which it would be done. Any savings would go half to the treasury (true savings), one fourth to the department that suggested it as bonuses to be paid out to the employees, and the final one fourth to be paid out to the employees of the department being cut in the same manner. This would be done annually.
More to come. Thoughts?
I have been working on this one in my head for a while. I had planned to do a post of all the suggestions I had for addressing the ills and problems I see in the world. The problem with a post like this was/is the sheer magnitude of it. I have been delaying doing it due to the time and effort involved. So, I just decided to write it as a series of posts. NOTE: I WANT feedback. I want discussion.
Before we get started let's do the lessons -
1) There is no government money. If you have questions on this point, I have many posts here where I expound upon this thought. Just suffice it to say ultimately all money comes from the public (you and me).
2) Corporations and businesses do not and cannot pay taxes. Same comment here - lots of posts explaining this. Bottom line - only people pay taxes. Businesses just get the taxes by raising prices on their customers (you and me again).
3) Term limits are critical to any meaningful changes to be made in our government. This includes the bureaucracy that exists today in Washington that holds a lot of the real power.
Now to the suggestions -
A) raise the voting age to 21. I can hear the gnashing of teeth now. Oh no, disenfranchising voters! Woe is me, woe is me. I was the among the first group of American young to be able to vote after reaching 18. I understand the allure of including all those that are subject to the laws in electing those that make the laws. I have one point - why do we feel it takes more maturity and life experience to decide whether to buy alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco products than to decide on the people that will govern us and make our laws? I know there are movements throughout the world to allow people as young as 16 to vote. Several countries have done so. There are various municipalities, counties, and even states that have lowered the age requirements for certain voting or registering to vote in this country. FYI, I would actually prefer a lowering of the age to purchase alcohol to 18 and raising the age of voting to 21. I feel that voting takes much more maturity and knowledge than the purchase of alcohol. If someone can convince me that I am wrong, have at it.
Further thought on the voting age - One thing I have seen that most people agree on is that most elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils. (we may not agree on who or what the evil is, but that choice nevertheless. I feel our choices have become more limited as younger voters have become more engaged. The young are more likely to be sucked into the "feel good" political-speak that surrounds campaigning. We get politicians that play to that feeling rather than truly addressing our problems and/or issues. You have to admit - regardless of the political affiliations, if the politicians that have been elected over the past 20 years had carried out their campaign promises we would be in a totally different country today. (note - I did not put "better", just good. Out of respect for the fact that we all see good and bad government differently) An 18 year old typically does not have the experience nor maturity to decide who should run the country. If municipalities and/or counties want to give a 16 year old the right to vote in local elections, I could possibly see that. (although I would venture to say the results might be disastrous depending on the number of these underage voters there are), but not for national or state level elections.
B) Eliminate and/or consolidate a large number of the departments of government. When the country was founded we had the departments of War (now defense); Treasury (now same, as well as other departments that have taken some of what was administered here, like Commerce); and State (originally Foreign Affairs, but essentially the same). The office of Attorney General was established with the Constitution in 1789 (yes 1789, not 1776 - look it up) , but the Justice department did not come about until after the Civil War.
There have been seven department/cabinet level divisions set up since WWII (8 if you include Defense which came from the consolidation of the departments of War and the Navy in 1947. FYI, the Post Office was a governmental department until 1971 when it was made a quasi-independent agency) In my opinion all seven could and should be rolled back into the department that they were spun off from. There also have been numerous lower-level departments with Cabinet level appointees set up like the department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency that I would include in this consolidation.
So, the Health & Human Services would return to its original name of Health, Education, & Welfare and absorb the functions of the Departments of Education, and Housing & Urban Development. This department would also take the food stamp program from the Department of Agriculture (yep - that's who does that - more later)
The Department of Commerce would return to it's earlier name of Commerce and Labor and absorb the Labor Department as well as the remaining Department of Agriculture (without food stamps). This would hopefully simplify the farm bills that keep being held hostage or pushed through because of the food stamp program. This would also include the Labor Department and the Transportation Department as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior.
I would then take the Department of Defense and include - Homeland Security, CIA and NSA, along with Veterans Affairs.
Then I would cut the management of the departments accordingly. You might still need a department level head, but they would not be cabinet level. You would not need as many people doing payroll, support, etc. So, lots of cuts could be made. I would challenge the remaining departments to audit and suggests cuts that could be made in other departments. This would be mandated by law to insure it was done and the manner in which it would be done. Any savings would go half to the treasury (true savings), one fourth to the department that suggested it as bonuses to be paid out to the employees, and the final one fourth to be paid out to the employees of the department being cut in the same manner. This would be done annually.
More to come. Thoughts?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Discussion Point #2 - Guantanamo
Let's get us another one out there. How about the prison/detention center at Guantanamo? That was a serious campaign point for Obama in 2008. Here we are five years later and it is still going. There have been some "human rights" organizations that have sued on various points over the years. How do you feel about Guantanamo? (the place and the "idea" - it could be other places) Necessary evil? Human rights violation? Somewhere in-between or a hybrid of both? Let's go people.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
First Discussion - and I didn't even have to do it myself!
The first discussion point is in! (Thanks Brian) It is:
I am in favor of raising taxes both for personal income as well as corporate side. I'd like to see that money used to pay down debt and reinvigorate our infrastructure. Why? Because we need to do so. And although I am not in the 1%, I'm in the top 2 and want to do my share.
Regards,
Brian Keller
Comments?
Remember, to keep out the internet trolls and flamers, all posts will be moderated by me first. This will slow down the communication but I refuse to become a forum for people that just want to call names and blast others for their ideas. I want everyone to feel like they can comment and post their ideas.
Scott
I am in favor of raising taxes both for personal income as well as corporate side. I'd like to see that money used to pay down debt and reinvigorate our infrastructure. Why? Because we need to do so. And although I am not in the 1%, I'm in the top 2 and want to do my share.
Regards,
Brian Keller
Comments?
Remember, to keep out the internet trolls and flamers, all posts will be moderated by me first. This will slow down the communication but I refuse to become a forum for people that just want to call names and blast others for their ideas. I want everyone to feel like they can comment and post their ideas.
Scott
Sunday, November 17, 2013
A Beginning
I have been thinking about doing this for a while now. One of the benefits of a "connected" world and existence is the ability to hear differing opinions. I have noticed, on Facebook posts especially, some people that I know fairly well (or used to, at least) have diametrically opposed opinions from mine. That is not a bad thing, in fact it could be a good thing; but I was surprised.
In most of our lives we associate with people that are like-minded on most major subjects. (or they are intimidated or confrontational-averse enough to avoid mentioning they feel differently) The problem with this is we go through life thinking that everyone agrees with us on those subjects. We may not "work" as hard as needed to find support or substantiation for our position. One thing the internet has done is give a voice to those people that have differing opinions. The problem is, it also allows people to sit back and "snipe" at people with nasty and offensive blasts of name calling.
I have noticed that there are numerous issues that the country is very divided over. These issues are tough to cover in any forum, so we will have to tread carefully on these. The ones I am specifically referring to involve morals and/or faith. I do not want to tread on faith (although if the argument is presented in an adult, intellectual fashion, I am not ruling it out totally) as it is the only position that can get down to "just because" citing the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc as "proof". The subjects I am looking at discussing and hearing from differing opinions on are: increased taxes and/or taxation policies in general, government spending, unions - especially public sector, government regulations - especially as they relate to the "nanny state" (I know I have to even watch my labels as they can be contentious, and any other similar societal or economic subject.
My desire for this blog is to open a dialog between those with differing opinions. I certainly have my opinions on things, but I would like to think I could be persuaded by a good argument to change. I know over the years I have changed my opinion on certain subjects as I learned more about them or just as I matured. The reason I did this as a blog versus a Facebook page is I can easier keep out the idiotic blasts I refer to above. You will have to trust me, but I pledge and promise not to censor or block any dissenting argument as long as it is presented in a civil manner. I would ask people to be respectful and to have backup and documentation for any statements made. Name calling and degrading, disrespectful comments will not be posted.
If someone wants to post the opening argument/position - have at it. If not, in a few days I will post one myself. Please talk this up and participate. If no one responds this will be no different than my other blogs, just a forum for me. I want to hear other opinions as well as other people that may have a reason to support the original statement.
In most of our lives we associate with people that are like-minded on most major subjects. (or they are intimidated or confrontational-averse enough to avoid mentioning they feel differently) The problem with this is we go through life thinking that everyone agrees with us on those subjects. We may not "work" as hard as needed to find support or substantiation for our position. One thing the internet has done is give a voice to those people that have differing opinions. The problem is, it also allows people to sit back and "snipe" at people with nasty and offensive blasts of name calling.
I have noticed that there are numerous issues that the country is very divided over. These issues are tough to cover in any forum, so we will have to tread carefully on these. The ones I am specifically referring to involve morals and/or faith. I do not want to tread on faith (although if the argument is presented in an adult, intellectual fashion, I am not ruling it out totally) as it is the only position that can get down to "just because" citing the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc as "proof". The subjects I am looking at discussing and hearing from differing opinions on are: increased taxes and/or taxation policies in general, government spending, unions - especially public sector, government regulations - especially as they relate to the "nanny state" (I know I have to even watch my labels as they can be contentious, and any other similar societal or economic subject.
My desire for this blog is to open a dialog between those with differing opinions. I certainly have my opinions on things, but I would like to think I could be persuaded by a good argument to change. I know over the years I have changed my opinion on certain subjects as I learned more about them or just as I matured. The reason I did this as a blog versus a Facebook page is I can easier keep out the idiotic blasts I refer to above. You will have to trust me, but I pledge and promise not to censor or block any dissenting argument as long as it is presented in a civil manner. I would ask people to be respectful and to have backup and documentation for any statements made. Name calling and degrading, disrespectful comments will not be posted.
If someone wants to post the opening argument/position - have at it. If not, in a few days I will post one myself. Please talk this up and participate. If no one responds this will be no different than my other blogs, just a forum for me. I want to hear other opinions as well as other people that may have a reason to support the original statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)